Talk:Ghost (Hamlet)

message: I don't think that Shakespeare ever says that the ghost is in fact the former King Hamlet. Anyone see something I missed?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacecase610 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's correct that Shakespeare left the Ghost's identity ambiguous.  The article departs greatly from the play by treating it as a fact. 68.118.52.34 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Ghost tells Hamlet: "I am thy father's spirit..." Who was Hamlet's father? He's referred to elsewhere as 'old King Hamlet'. Did Shakespeare have to spell out everything, as if he was writing for five-year-olds? O Murr (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

text: I couldn't edit my previous reply. By 'old King Hamlet' I wasn't quoting directly from the play text. There are two references in the text to "young Hamlet'", the first by Horatio, the second by the First Gravedigger. If there was a young Hamlet there must also have been an old Hamlet. Who could he have been? Horatio has been discussing the "king that's dead", the Gravedigger has been discussing "our last king, Hamlet". Go figure. O Murr (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  And perhaps more to the point here, all the reliable sources treat it as fact so it would be original research for us to say anything else. The play itself is a primary source and must be filtered through secondary sources like critical editions like The Arden Shakespeare or The Oxford Shakespeare.PS. You should be able to edit everything on the talk page just as on the article, including your previous reply (although it is sometimes preferable to make additional thoughts in a new message as you have done here).PPS. It's a good idea to put some effort into getting indentation in discussion threads right (: at the start indents a line, :: indents it further, and so forth). It's important for keeping track of who is replying to who. A bit tedious compared to some other systems, I know, but it's what we have. I've fixed the indentation of your messages above for illustration purposes. See Help:Talk for details. --Xover (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost's identity 

message: The Overview has serious factual problems.  1) The time is explicit in the dialogue, and it is 1 a.m., not "midnight."  2) The Ghost does not "strike terror" into Gertrude's heart, since she can't see him.  3) This statement, "all that is known is that it is night" is obviously wrong, since it's known to be after midnight.  4) Then, Francisco is not there when Barnardo et al see the Ghost.  5) It's explicit in the dialogue that the men have partisans, not swords.  6) It is only hinted the Ghost may be in purgatory, that is not a fact in the play.  7) Mention of the Catholic Church is wrong, since the Church of England had similar practices at the time, and other Protestant churches may have also.  8) Hamlet does not talk to Gertrude in her "bedroom," the room is her "closet," but a bedroom would have been called a "chamber."  The room is Gertrude's parlor/sitting room (despite what one might see in some movies.)  9) The "nightgown" needs footnoted, or explained, since that's only in Q1.  10) Nor is it stated in the play that Fortinbras Sr was the King of Norway, that idea is only the opinion of some interpreters.  In sum, it's a very bad overview, with lots of problems. 68.118.52.34 (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Overview, problems 

message: No one has discussed this for about a year, but it has been brought up.  King Hamlet is not a correct way to refer to the Ghost of Hamlet's Father, either with reference to the dramatis personae or the text of the play itself.  I think the article should be titled Ghost (Hamlet.)  Lo, i am real  23:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Article Name 

message: I came across the image of Irving's prompt-book, which I thought would make an interesting addition to the article. I was surprised to find there was no image of the ghost in the article when I arrived, so I added one from the commons. If memory serves, it's an illustration from a Shakespeare Collected Works, showing the actor Thomas Betterton as Hamlet, but I might be wrong about that. I went ahead and said it was, so please correct if I'm mistaken. The Irving picture suggests that it might be appropriate to expand the article at some point with a section on the various technical innovations that have been employed historically in the theatre and cinema to depict the ghost.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Having left this note, I then remembered I'd seen the image in Brockett and Hildy, so have corrected the caption. It may well be Betterton, but Brockett doesn't say so.  • DP •  {huh?} 19:42, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images and technical representation 

message: I don't see this in the article, can someone explain? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - I don't see any blurring between fact and fiction, it makes it very clear that this is a character in a play, even mentioning how he is referred to in the stage directions. I was going to remove that tag myself, but since this has gone to ANI I didn't want to get caught up in any edit warring. The article needs a bit of work on the text, but I don't see the need for the citation tag at the top of the page - specific  tags for any worrisome assertions ought to be sufficient.GirthSummit (blether) 08:48, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the ANI case is closed. That makes me feel bolder - I've removed the tags.GirthSummit (blether) 09:52, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, that was a quick one. And thanks for your edits. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:50, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article or section may fail to make a clear distinction between fact and fiction. 

message: (or anyone interested), if you know about some other sourceable hypothesis about who originally played the Ghost, that could be interesting to add. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ghost One 

message: Regarding the issue discussed above, about the "essential to the plot" quote in the article.
I've read through the cite and it boils down to arguing that Shakespeare in Hamlet exhibits familiarity with, and deliberately follows, Acquinas' thesis about ghosts and a three point list of tests to detrmine whether they are good (sent by God) or evil. It's a good discussion on its own, and incidentally gives a good overview of the Ghost's relevance to the question of whether the play exhibits Catholic, Protestant, or just supernatural perspective. The article's lens is fundamentally theological. That is, apart from the article's first sentence, we cannot really say it discusses or argues about the Ghost's significance to the plot.
I am also not familiar with Sister Miriam Joseph, which means she isn't routinely cited in the sources I've read, which in turn means I cannot justify stating this as fact based on her brief assertion.
It is, I believe, pretty universally held; but we may have trouble sourcing it because modern scholars tend to shy away from this sort of analysis, and avoid directly addressing such questions. There are a couple of obvious source that may address it, or help support it, so I'll try to have dig in those when time allows. --Xover (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go with "The Ghost is an important part of the plot." without a cite for now, per WP:BLUESKY. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

text: Added another source that generally agreed. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:28, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Essential to the plot