This is an archive of past discussions about Hamlet. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Someone said the photo of the Boothe actor is to remain until the general consensus has decided the issue.
To find the general consensus with regard to which photo to use, type "Hamlet" into a search engine, click on images, and see which actor or image appears the most, up to a maximum of 10 or 20 pages. That way, nobody can be accused of any bias, plus its an image chosen by random. I think this is the best and most unbiased way to decide.
However, because the image of Boothe is still being used on the Wikipedia page, it gives him an unfair advantage (whoever would appear there would come first in search results on a search engine).
When I did a search, Benedict Cumberbatch appeared 27 times, Richard Booth twice (both times linked to the Wikipedia article). Kate Butch (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kate Butch: Please read our policy on consensus. The relevant consensus for deciding content issues on Wikipedia is among Wikipedia editors. We do that through discussions on the article's talk page—as is the case in the section above—in which participating editors present policy-based arguments for their position. I've previously requested that you provide credible alternatives to the Booth image for discussion (here on the talk page; please do not keep channging the actual article). An image of Cumberbatch as Prince Hamlet might indeed be worth discussing, depending on its merits, but it is unlikely we will be able to find one free of copyright restrictions that prevent us from legally using it. The Booth photo is from 1870 so it has the distinct advantage of being in the public domain through expiration of copyright. --Xover (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Xover is right. Of the provided images in the above discussion, Booth seems the most tolerated by editors (the "problem" is that many editors don't see a problem with that image, it's free, nice, and looks like Hamlet). And there are so many public domain Hamlet that WP:s rules will not allow a non-free version here. You can of course suggest a free image of BC, there are several at Commons, but I don't see that being popular. Benedict Cumberbatch gets several WP:GOOGLEHITS if one googles "Hamlet"Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
At a glance and on examinatio the Benedict Cumberbatch image looked like a friend of mine, a Franciscan monk (with the usual backpack when on 'mission') reading from a copy of the New Testament to folks in a square. Not only is it not readily identifiably as 'Hamletic' it points in other directions.Nishidani (talk) 09:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
A user (Xover) above on this page says: “Please read our policy on consensus”, and then claims that consensus is achieved by a discussion on the talk page. According to the article Wikipedia:Consensus there are other ways. One way, as the article Wikipedia:Consensus states, is “through editing”; then the edit can be explained by a discussion on the talk page. Those two steps are what editor Kate Butch did, and by doing so was following the Wikipedia policy described on Wikipedia:Consensus. Xover is wrong to imply that the only way to a consensus is through a talk-page discussion.
Xover follows that with another incorrect statement when he claims that consensus is achieved when “editors present policy-based arguments” regarding their position. That is not only not true, but it is also not “policy based”. Editors don’t always present such arguments, and they are not restricted to policy-based arguments. Here’s one example: In this discussion it’s been stated that “the lede image has multiple purposes, and one of them is to be eye-catching.” Multiple purposes? Eye-catching? Those are not policy. Those are criteria that an editor invented, though he seems to want to imply that they’re “policy”. The problem with inventing criteria is that it tends to muddy the water, and pretending that something is policy when it’s not can lead to confusion about what the truth is; both can impede discussions.
I’m afraid if an editor on this page were restricted to saying only things that are “policy based”, he might whittle his own verbiage down to a nub. Hate to see that happen. The problem with the Booth photo is that it carries way too much baggage, not just his brother’s assassination, as Swper mentions, but that is in fact what comes to mind. But also issues of primitive practices in photo studios of the time, and the question of costume design of the era, etc. Did Booth really use this costume in performance? I doubt if Hamlet would be in such a festive mood to decorate his legs with ribbons. The photo is clearly a photo intended to promote Booth, a kind of promotion or advertising. The article is about Hamlet. And the idea that we need to keep a photo in the lead just because we have to have something seems foolish, and it is not policy. Not at all. The Booth photo belongs down where Booth is mentioned.CuthbertBurble (talk) 14:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
The first photo you see
The current lede image, depicting the American actor Edwin Booth as Hamlet, ca. 1870A proposed alternate lede image, depicting the first page of the First Folio printing of Hamlet, 1623
I don't think it appropriate to use that photo, since so many people have played Hamlet, choosing one could be seen to be insensitive, not just to other actors, but also to people who have their own Hamlet in mind. If a photo were to be used however, surely one that had more to do with the author of the play, or the character in a famous scene, rather than an American stage actor posing on a chair, which looks a bit meaningless. Hamlet is not known for sitting on chairs, plus a British actor might be more appropriate, since they have given the greater performances, and Britain was where the character (and play) were developed and created. A Shakespearian trained actor would be most appropriate, whereas as I say, the current photo is a bit meaningless to the page subject and confusing, looking like someone trying to grab attention with a link to their page, based on the flimsiest association. Kate Butch (talk) 02:26, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Kate, I disagree. Edwin Booth is one of the most famous (and perhaps the greatest) of all American Shakespearean actors. His run of 100 nights playing Hamlet was a record, and he may well have been the most noteworthy Shakespearean actor of the 1800s. The association is anything but flimsy. I would say the seated pose—far from being meaningless—is illustrative of Hamlet's pensiveness and hesitation. Since we can't have a photograph of Richard Burbage, I'd say Booth is a pretty good substitute. That Booth is American just goes to show the global renown of the story (and the character). Swper (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
Kate Butch I definitely agree with your basic idea. I think that the first photo could be improved with a different image. The photo of Booth looks wrong to me — too antiquated and moth-bally. Following the way other Wikipedia articles on the plays handle first photos, (by using text), I have changed the image to that of the text in the First Folio of 1623, and moved Booth down to where Booth seems to belong — where he is mentioned.CuthbertBurble (talk) 05:23, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I disagree with almost every argument so far presented in favor of changing the image. I do agree with those in favor of the status quo by Swper. I'll also add that the lede image has multiple purposes, and one of them is to be eye-catching and to capture the reader's interest. The image of Booth is an iconic one, justly famous, and is dramatic and aestethically pleasing. The title page from the Folio is pretty much just dry and boring: it is apt for illustrating the sections on the textual history of the play, but inappropriate for the lede which summarises all aspects of the play. And Shakespeare's plays' afterlife are one of performance and adaptation; textual history is a very narrow, specialized, and obscure field.I'll also add that this is a featured article, and the article went through featured article review (the most intensive and comprehensive peer review process on the project) with this lede image, which creates a rather strong presumption in favor of the status quo. All articles can be improved, of course, including its lede image, but please do establish a strong consensus for any such changes first. IIn particular, I strongly urge that those in favour of a different image post those images here first, so they can be properly contrasted and discussed. --Xover (talk) 09:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
I quote this here from above:
"Edwin Booth is one of the most famous (and perhaps the greatest) of all American Shakespearean actors. His run of 100 nights playing Hamlet was a record, and he may well have been the most noteworthy Shakespearean actor of the 1800s. The association is anything but flimsy... That Booth is American just goes to show the global renown of the story."
It absolutely proves my point, that contributors are confusing the play and the character with the actor in the photo! The article is about the character and the play Hamlet, NOT the actor in the photograph. That the actor in the photograph was a celebrated for his performance - so what? Henry Irving was probably the most noteworthy Shakespearian actor of the 19th century, but that can be talked about on the actors Wikipedia page. Also, being famous in english speaking white America isn't really being "globally renowned" , if you come from english speaking white UK. They're bound to share and extend in certain things that deal with the literacy and the language, such as Shakespeare. A famous actor from Botswana, or Thailand, or Wales, or Tibet, etc, performing Hamlet would genuinely demonstrate the global renown of Shakespeare, who IS performed in those countries in the 21st century. I don't believe the Actor Boothe is known outside of America. (whereas Richard Burton for instance, in the 1964 film version, directed by Sir John Gielgud, would tick all the boxes as a top performance, but the article isn't about the performers).
I also quote from above:
"The image of Booth is an iconic one, justly famous, and is dramatic and aestethically pleasing. The title page from the Folio is pretty much just dry and boring"
The title page is no more boring and dry to look at than the image of the actor, since both have stylistic similarities from an earlier age of photography. Using terms like "aesthetically pleasing" is a bit irrelevant in relation to the play and character, as is the use of terms like "iconic" and "justly famous" in relation to the photograph. Booth, in his 19th century costume, looks theatrical rather than dramatic, looks dated and alienates the viewer.
As a photograph of a world famous character, from a world famous play, the photo of the actor is a total dud. The image of Boothe is NEITHER iconic nor "justly famous", whatever that means, in relation to Hamlet. "Iconic" gets thrown about for everything these days, from bridges to teapots, and has no rigour or validity to it when used as a defence for using something. Iconic means something that, visually, defines all that is good, all that is best, about a thing. It's the absolute visual definition of a thing. That photograph of that actor Boothe, doesn't pass that test. It ISN'T an absolute visual definition of Hamlet.
Whoever suggested the photograph as an epitome of the character of Hamlet, is confusing the actors acting ability with the image of the actor: his acting might have been amazing, the best ever performance in america, etc, yet the image in no way can capture that aspect. It looks like the image is being used only because of American bias, that an American actor MUST be used, regardless of the character, the iconography, the historicity and history, the play, or whether it confuses.
The article is about the play and character, both of which could be called iconic and justly famous as a play and as a character. The photo lacks any of the visible objects or visual clues it needs to tell who it is supposed to be. Skull? Dagger? Castle backdrop? White sheet for a ghost? Etc
The first folio photograph, I think, is ten times better than that image of the forgotten actor, for the simple reason that it avoids the pitfalls and baggage the actor brings with him, plus the play is famous the world over, not just in America, and therefore has a better impact on the viewer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate Butch (talk • contribs) 1 May 2019 04:16 (UTC)
@Kate Butch: The article about the character is at Prince Hamlet. This article is an overview article about the play and must cover all aspects of it, roughly in proportion to the weight the reliable secondary sources accord each aspect. The physical manifestation of the play on paper in 1623 is just one such aspect. The vast majority of the attention of scholars is on performance and adaptation. The image in the lead is also somewhat special in that it doesn't illustrate a topic-specific section of the article: it serves the dual purpose of illustrating the topic as a whole and to grab the attention of the reader and draw them in. Thus a more visually striking image is generally preferable to one that is less so.There is no particular reason the image must be of Edwin Booth, or of an American actor, and I don't believe anyone has argued such. The arguments so far has focussed on why this image is preferable to the single alternative that has been offered. In your message you propose an image of Richard Burton from the 1964 adaptation. This illustrates a different limitation: the image chosen must be one that is actually available for us to use. All the images of that performance are covered by copyright and cannot be used in this article. If that were not a restriction I might have proposed this image of Innokenty Smoktunovsky as Hamlet in Boris Pasternak's 1964 movie adaptation (a personal favorite of mine).This is why I strongly encourage any alternate proposal to 1) focus on what speciific image they would like to use instead, rather than why they dislike the current image, and 2) include the actual image (from Commons) in the proposal so we can both see what is being proposed and know that the image is actually available for use. --Xover (talk) 09:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
I very much agree with Kate Butch. I don’t agree with another user’s claim that the photo needs to be in some way “eye-catching”, which would make more sense of we were selling product or working on an issue of People Magazine. The off-topic claim (by Swper) that Edwin Booth is “one of the most famous of all American Shakespearean actors” is not accurate. He’s not as famous as his brother, or Ethan Hawke, Mark Rylance, Al Pacino or Anne Hathaway — and the list goes on and on. Xover’s off-topic lack of appreciation for and denigration of Shakespeare’s First Folio and the field of Hamlet’s textual history is not appropriate for an encyclopedia — which should have wide open arms to welcome these important subjects. Kate Butch is correct to suggest that the photo of Edwin Booth comes with baggage, not only his brother’s assassination of Lincoln, but also old-fashioned photo techniques, (Booth looks stiff perhaps because he had to sit very still), old-fashioned costume ideas. All of which are historically interesting but distract from the topic at hand, and give the article a musty old smell like your great-grandmother’s attic. Xover’s pontificating manner of telling other editors what to do, where to go, and what’s-what, (based only on his opinions) is really very charming, and he ‘splains in a way that few can carry off without sounding pompous and condescending. The photo from Boris Pasternak's movie is a nice photo, but it is so specific to the Soviet Union, and not to the text of Hamlet, but specifically to an adaptation and a particular translation — it has the some of the same “baggage problems” as the Booth photo. I agree with the suggestion made above that the First Folio image is “ten times better” than the photo of Booth. I suggest that the Booth photo be moved down to where it is needed — where Booth is mentioned — and in the lead (or lede) section the article use the photo of the First Folio, at least for now – the image is already in the article, and that would follow the style of other WP articles on the plays. CuthbertBurble (talk) 12:29, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@CuthbertBurble: If you're motivated to avoid a "musty old smell" and "old-fashioned photo techniques," I'd think you would favor any picture other than the First Folio, which suffers at least as much under these criteria as the Booth photo (as Kate has said). I happen to be more interested in the textual history than most, but Xover's point remains: Hamlet is first and foremost what happens on stage (and only secondarily an object of textual study). Since we cannot have a copyrighted photo from a modern performance, Booth still seems to me to be the best option that has been proposed in this discussion. Of course, I'm open to other suggestions. I will note, however, that the claim that the First Folio image would "follow the style of other WP articles on the plays" doesn't seem to be quite right. The folio isn't the first image on Othello, Macbeth, King Lear, A Midsummer Night's Dream, Romeo and Juliet, or Julius Caesar. Perhaps a painting or engraving could be found that we could all agree on--that seems to be the most popular first image on similar articles. --Swper (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kate Butch: You're right that we might be getting off topic when we debate the fame of Booth as an actor, although I think Henry Irving, at least, had heard of Booth when he played Iago to Booth's Othello.[1] So, more to the point, could you (or perhaps Cuthbert) clarify what "baggage" you think disqualifies the Booth image? Is it his brother's notoriety, the fact that his costume is dated, the fact that the image is gray scale, some combination of these, or something else entirely? None of these seem to be disqualifying to me, but I'd like to understand the argument better. I think we can all agree that the Hamlet article should have a picture of Hamlet first. What image of Hamlet that should be is the question for discussion. --Swper (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Swper, excuse me, but I have to correct one thing you said: You said that it “doesn't seem to be quite right” for me to suggest (as I did) that using the First Folio image would follow the style of other WP articles on the plays. In fact, such articles that do indeed use an image of the First or Second Folio in that manner include: The Two Gentlemen of Verona, Henry IV, Part 1, Henry IV, Part 2, Richard II, Henry VI, Part 1, Henry VI, Part 2, Henry VI, Part 3, Measure for Measure, All’s Well That Ends Well, As You Like It, Henry VIII, Much Ado About Nothing, and Titus Andronicus. Seven or eight other articles similarly use an image of a title page from a quarto.CuthbertBurble (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Swper, if you agree that your suggestion was not correct, which of course was made in very good faith, no question, you might reconsider what your thoughts are on this point. You can also consider deleting the erroneous comment (if you want to) by striking through the comment (like this) which I believe is one way things are sometimes handled on talk pages. And Swper, examples of “baggage”, that you asked for, are already offered above on this page.
So, to get back to the point — it’s accurate to say that a photo in the lead section that is an image of the title page from the First Folio is not uncommon on Wikipedia. It seems a good starting point for an article that contains a great variety of different interpretations and other views of the play. The First Folio is an important, highly regarded book, it is presentable, readable, well-printed and well-preserved. It also would improve the section regarding Booth to put his photo back where he is mentioned. And of course nothing is carved in stone here — if someone thinks they have an even better photo it can always be added anytime later.CuthbertBurble (talk) 13:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@CuthbertBurble: I'm sorry if my tone came off as more aggressive than I intended in earlier comments. I'm trying to build consensus, not rancor. You make several good points in your last comment, including that the section on notable performances would be improved by returning the Booth photo there, and that the Folio is a very important source for Shakespeare studies. I also apologize if I rushed to my conclusion about the normalcy of using the Folio as the first image on articles for Shakespeare's plays--it was an honest mistake. I had merely glanced at the pages of the most famous plays for the sake of a quick comparison. Now, having taken the time to review all 39 pages, I can report with a higher degree of nuance. The first image on 21 pages is of a source-text, of which 11 are the First Folio, 8 a quarto edition, and 2 the Second Folio. The remaining 18 pages have a first image that is visual art of some kind: 9 engravings, 5 paintings, 2 posters, and 2 performance photographs (of which Booth is one). This would seem to lend some support to your position. However, of the 12 plays listed as tragedies at Shakespeare's plays, 11 begin with an image of art rather than of text (Titus Andronicus is the outlier). In fact, the predominance of textual images in the plays' pages generally is due to the nearly exclusive use of textual images on the 11 pages for the history plays--10 to 1, with King John being the outlier. That being said, I would be happy to support a compromise moving Booth to the performance section if we can find a suitable engraving (or similar) to replace him in order to better align this page with what you've called "the style of other WP articles on the plays." I'll have a look and see if I can find something that I think we can all feel good about. --Swper (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
The articles on plays that use a folio or quarto image do so either because nobody has worked intensely on them yet, or because no actual image suitable was found when they did. The highest quality play articles on the project, which have gone through some form of community review process, are Hamlet (current version), Romeo and Juliet, and The Tempest (the two first would not have passed FAC with an image of the title page in the lede: the desireability for a visually exciting image that can represent more than mere textual history is well established on Wikipedia). If you want to compare with representative examples, these are the three that are most relevant. --Xover (talk) 04:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
This talk section is trying to do two things. Since there seems to be some agreement that the Booth photo might be best down where Booth is mentioned, I have moved it down. This simplifies the discussion. I have moved the First Folio to replace it in the lead, in part because I think there is an agreement that something needs to be there, and there seems to be a recognition that this is done in a number of other articles here.CuthbertBurble (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree only in so far that if consensus is reached to use a different image in the lede, then we should also retain the Booth image by instead using it in the body of the article. So far no credible alternative for the lede image has been even proposed, much less has consensus. --Xover (talk) 10:17, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, since the article is about the play, it wouldn't hurt if the leadimage has a little more than just Hamlet in it. The current image is clear and easily understood. The book is ok but dull. Posting a few of IMO ok alternatives. 1 is not a specific person, if that's a plus. 2 has the skull and a fairly well-known scene. 3 is by a famous artist.
HamletstratPascal Adolphe Jean Dagnan-Bouveret - Hamlet and the GravediggersWilliam Blake Hamlet and his Father's Ghost 1806 British Museum
The current image (Edwin Booth from 1870) is perfect for the lead in this article. If Commons has images for any other actors from the 1870s or earlier, please post them. Otherwise, there is no insensitivity because the image shows a classic portrayal and its age is a quick reminder of the timelessness of the work. The alternatives are not attractive and some of them would merely be a puzzle. Johnuniq (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
What about Eugène Delacroix's painting of Hamlet and Horatio in the graveyard? It's already in the Plot section of the page, so we could just move it to the top. It meets several of the requirements asked for in this discussion: it's visually exciting, as Xover wants; its age gives a sense of the timelessness of the work, as Johnuniq wants; it avoids elevating any single actor's performance, as Kate wants; it is a famous artist's depiction of a famous scene as Gråbergs Gråa Sång wants; it avoids the baggage of the Booth image, as Cuthbert wants; and it would bring the article into alignment with other pages on the tragedies and especially other pages that have undergone FAC review. Do we have a winner? --Swper (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't think so. The people here know what that painting represents but a reader would be perplexed. Anyone can instantly guess that the Booth photo is an actor playing Hamlet. Johnuniq (talk) 05:42, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not that bad. We can write a description like: "Hamlet (on the right) and Horatio being presented with the skull of Yorick (act X scene X), 19th-century painting by Eugène Delacroix" Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:37, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I'm not particularly fond of the Booth photo, but it does capture something the page requires, an actor representing a, perhaps the, seminal figure in the formation of what we understand by modern consciousness, in the Coleridgean reading, exhausted by thinking exhaustively as to how he must act in the exasperating perplexity of minute familial and large geopolitical dramas investing Elsinore. Do we have alternatives? None here so far vie persuasively as alternatives, except for that of Innokenty Smoktunovsky in the role, cited by Xover. That is the one I would prefer, - it has an inner tension superior to the slouched melancholic apathy in Booth's image (though that too is present in Hamlet, and the right hand splayed clenchingly at his temple, with the distracted gaze, has its force), but it has, as Xover points out, copyright problems. The logic of faute de mieux should obtain here. Unless some strong reproducible competitive image emerges Booth should be retained.Nishidani (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to find a compromise, Swper! However, in addition to not so far being convinced of a need to change the photo of Booth, I do not think the Delacroix is a plausible alternative. Delacroix is justly considered a master, and his symbolism well suited to this subject (in general; there's none of it on display in this painting), but his tendency toward impressionism makes most of his work there unsuitable for use to illustrate subjects outside the visual arts (it's a great painting, but not a great illustration for this article). --Xover (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I woke up this morning to discover that a fellow user from this discussion had posted a red-triangular graphic on my talk page, suggesting that I had been “edit warring”. I don’t believe that was deserved. I suspect, in good faith, and I may be wrong, but I suspect that red-triangle posting may be an attempt by the user to promote his intentions in this discussion. I consider it a part of this discussion, and as such that it is proper to mention it here, if only to show what “behind-the-scenes” or “off site” efforts are going on to affect this article or this discussion. I have only made six edits to the article, edits that include minor rewordings, and removing of over-linking. There’s hardly any room in those six edits to include any kind of edit war. The red-triangle was posted after I had edited the Hamlet article to add an image of a statue (an image suggested by user Gråbergs Gråa Sång), and to move the Booth photo down to where Booth is mentioned. I believe there is a consensus to move Booth down based on various comments made (above) by editors Swper, Xover, Gråbergs Gråa Sång, and Kate Butch (not including more recent posts). When I mentioned that consensus no one disagreed. I believe that discussions on WP often “bog down” endlessly, and when there is a consensus it’s reasonable to act on it. It’s also reasonable to edit boldly on WP (see Wikipedia:Be bold): to make a change, allow others to revert it if they want to, then discuss it. There are bullying and “strong-armed” ways to behave on WP — attempts to intimidate — which I don’t agree with. Just to be clear the red-triangle graphic, which apparently any user can use to decorate the talk page of others, looks like this: I am not going to defend myself on this page against what I consider to be a false claim, but I will (somewhat) on my talk page. I believe that if an editor has something to say that pertains to this discussion — a complaint, or whatever — it should be said on this page. CuthbertBurble (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
This is indeed not appropriate or relevant to this discussion and so I have followed up on your user talk page. The one point pertinent here is that until a new consensus is established, the status quo (the Booth image) prevails. --Xover (talk) 09:23, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
I support the Booth photo over any of the other images posted here. You have to look at it from the point of view of a reader who knows nothing about Hamlet; the pictures all require explicit commentary to explain their context, whereas the photo simply requires a brief caption. Five Antonios (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Certainly the Booth photo is more appropriate than a photo of a page of text. The idea that it could be "insensitive" to other actors or people who have their own visualization of the character is not a sensible argument IMO. I would also support an image of Hamlet contemplating a skull, since that is well-known visual synecdoche for the character and play. Tom Reedy (talk) 22:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I am strongly in favor of an image of the people or events of Hamlet, rather than a page of text. The page of text adds absolutely diddly-squat to a reader's understanding of the article or identification of the subject, and I find the argument that people may have their own Hamlet in mind laughable. It need not be Booth, but it should be an image of a recognizable aspect of Hamlet - the melancholy, the skull, the ghost scene, etc. I would also suggest that if we are to replace a prominent historic actor with a modern actor, we should replace Booth either with someone who is known for the role, or with a female actor or an actor of color - in either case, in a recognizable scene from the play. The idea of replacing Booth with a nondescript picture of Ben Cumberbatch in a hoodie is ridiculous. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I prefer the Booth photo to all proposed alternatives above. A photo of the text is not engaging, the paintings strike me as overly busy, and the statue is shot from an angle where you can't tell that he's holding a skull. Besides, isn't a photo of a theatrical actor a better representation of a theatre piece than a painting or a statue? If I were to pick any alternative it might be the photo of Bernhardt as Hamlet. WanderingWanda (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Source for Ophelia
The timing and events of the life of the handmaiden to Elizabeth I, “Elizabeth Throckmorton (Raleigh) make it impossible to not consider her a possible source for the character of Ophelia.
Throckmorton’s scandalous secret marriage to the royal favourite, Walter Raleigh, occurred right at the time Shakespeare was drafting Hamlet as it was finally produced (regardless of any prior editions)
Inclusion of this major current event would have resonated with the audience & is typical of Shakespeare & many other playwrights of the time.
Are there any objections to the addition of links to the website ShakespeareNetwork.net? It's a new site with full texts of Shakespeare plays. (It seems to be associated with an organization called Quintessence Studios and a musician/filmmaker named Maximianno Cobra.) A new editor, Robert L. Crawford, added links to the site to a few Shakespeare-related articles recently, including Hamlet. I was a bit dubious about the links so I removed them, asking Robert L. Crawford if he was connected to the site. He replied:
Please be so kind to note that I am not connected to this site. I simply use this site for my personal researches. In fact, in my view, the unique (?) full online readable text site reference you have considered for Timon of Athens on Wikipedia is particularly inappropriate; it has a poor editorial standard and is a website clearly based on monetised advertisements. http://www.maximumedge.com/shakespeare/timon.htm There are indeed several good Shakespeare sites proposing his complete works online but my personal choice goes to the advertising-free one I use. Allow me also to stress that I haven't found the the case for this specific site on a talk page with a consensus procedure. Could you please provide me with the talk page link showing the consensus of this specific case? I would like to propose the removal of this inappropriate site leaving up to Wikipedia administrators the choice of an appropriate external link. Thank you in advance.
Yes. There is no need for a new site of unknown providence. There are oodles of sites with the texts of the plays available, so each site considered should provide something unique. The two standard sites are the Folger Shakespeare Library's online texts in the Folger Digital Editions, which provides a professionally edited (by Barbara Mowat) modern-spelling text, and the facsimilies and old-spelling transcriptions at the Internet Shakespeare Editions. There is generally no pressing need for any other external links, but there are exceptions like The Enfolded Hamlet which provide something unique and can be worth considering. Based on a cursory examination I do not see that ShakespeareNetwork.net provides any such. --Xover (talk) 12:30, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
"See also" section
First, I am surprised that an article on a work as great as Hamlet has no "See also" entries. Second, I have added an entry describing the fact that Walt Disney's The Lion King is modeled after Hamlet. It is sourced. Someone (User:Hollarbohem) keeps removing it. He calls it "not pertinent", "trivial", and "not sourced". He also says "the content does not inform regarding the topic of the article". I disagree with all of his assessments. So, I am here at the Talk Page. Most people have no idea that The Lion King is based on Hamlet. Most readers of Hamlet and/or this Hamlet page don't know. So, I thought it was a worthwhile entry. Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). Thanks, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
It’s worth noting that Lion King is already mentioned in the Hamlet footer template, as well as several other films that draw inspiration from the play:
Thanks. I had not noticed that. So, that's one further point bolstering my argument. And another further point rejecting the other editor's claims that The Lion King connection is "not pertinent"; is "trivial"; is "not sourced"; and that it is "content that does not inform regarding the topic of the article". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The See Also content regarding The Lion King does not accurately represent the source in the citation when it claims that The Lion King is modeled on Hamlet. In fact, the cited source, Oprah Magazine, states that The Lion King is not based on Hamlet, it suggests that it’s based on Bambi, and it points out that it shares plot points with Bambi. The source states that The Lion King draws from the biblical stories of Moses and Joseph. And the source states that it is the "first animated feature film from Disney that told an original story, as opposed to reinterpreting a myth or folk fairytale".
The source indicates that it contains a few similarities (like a wicked uncle), but so many, many stories contain similarities to other stories, that it’s trivial and not notable to simply point them out. The content makes it sound as if The Lion King is based on Hamlet — which the citation indicates is not true. No one is making it clear how this content contributes to an article on the play by Shakespeare. I deleted the content, and I think it should continue to be discussed here before putting it back. - Hollarbohem (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, you just keep changing your "reasons" and "rationales" and "objections". One reason you cite: the claim (about The Lion King being modeled after Hamlet) is "not pertinent". Second reason: the claim is "trivial". Third reason: the claim is "not sourced". Fourth reason: the claim is "content that does not inform regarding the topic of the article". Question: if any of those were true, tell me how is it exactly that the entry of The Lion King would be placed into the Nav-Box of Hamlet. Being placed in the Nav-Box is almost a "higher honor" (for lack of a better word) than simply being listed in the "See also" list. I highly doubt that it is Wikipedia convention to place into the Nav-Box of some topic, other topics that are "not pertinent"; are "trivial"; are "not sourced"; and that "do not inform regarding the topic of the article". Now, you have come up with a new reason: that the source does not say that The Lion King is modeled after Hamlet. I can very easily go into the sourced article and grab an exact quote, and "parrot" that quote in the "See also" section. Semantics aside, the entire crux of that source is that The Lion King is based on / modeled after / inspired by -- whatever semantics you want to use -- Hamlet. And I am sure there are plenty of other sources out there, as well. That say the same. So, let's start by you narrowing down your objections. Or is it still all five objections? I am replacing the "See also" section. I was the one that brought this to Talk, after you reverted two or three times. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Also, your above reply is very misleading. You want us to believe that the cited source states that there is no "correlation" (modeling, based on, inspired by, etc.) between The Lion King and Hamlet. The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). And, really none of this matters, anyway. Because, as I stated above: Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). In other words, you don't need any source at all, to list a tangentially related item in a "See also" list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I also think this is rather trivial. If we're going to start "See also'ing" such things, there's a bunch of things that deserve higher billing--and what we have here is a very chatty article in a popular magazine, which reads like a sophomore survey essay. Joseph A. Spadaro, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't adopt ridicule as a rhetorical mode in a talk page discussion. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Trivial or not, it's the topic we are here discussing. I don't see any "ridicule" in my arguments above. If you see "ridicule", you yourself are injecting that into my words. (And then complaining that my words are ridiculing!). Take the words at face value. Don't "read into them" that they offend you; ridicule you; etc. (And then complain that my words are offensive, ridiculing, etc.) Take them at face value. In other words, "assume good faith". In other words, Drmies, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't accuse me of doing things, when I am not even doing them. You state that my arguments are "ridiculing". Half of my comments are direct quotes of another editor (and my counter-arguments to those quotes). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you aware that the more you yell at people the less likely you are to achieve whatever it is you are looking for? That you don't see the ridicule is sad; I do. Drmies (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Where exactly do you see me "yelling"? Please clarify exactly where you see that. I have to laugh. Out of whole cloth, you make up something that is not there (i.e., yelling) and then complain about the very thing that you just fabricated. Unreal. In any event, please calrify exactly where you see me "yelling". Look forward to your reply. Thanks. And, by the way, re-read Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith. It's something you tend to fully bypass with your fabrications out of whole cloth. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:57, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that this debate is more heated than it needs to be, but while we're discussing it, I thought I'd say that Hamlet's influence on the Lion King seems to be less a fact about Hamlet and more a fact about the Lion King. There's nothing wrong with a link to the cartoon, but its current spot in the navbox seems like a the best place for it. Making it the only link in a new "See also" section strikes me as giving it undue weight. The navbox serves as a "See also" section already, and in that context the relative importance of the Lion King to Hamlet is communicated more clearly—viz., that the Lion King is one of many works that bear the influence of the play. Swper (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I like your suggestion that we add more to the "See also" list. Do you have any specific suggestions? It's odd to me that such an important work (and article) has no "See also" list at all. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry if I wasn't clear above. I meant to say that the navbox as it is currently constituted already serves as a "See also" section and that I see no need to reproduce its links in a "See also section." In other words, I would support removing the "See also section" and relying solely on the link to the Lion King that is already in the navbox. Swper (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Relatedly, is there a good reason for the navboxes at the bottom to be auto-collapsed? It makes it less likely people will see the content inside. WanderingWanda (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. People have a way of "missing" the Nav-Boxes at the bottom. They tend to get "clumped together" with the "bottom clutter" (External links, categories, etc.). And people tend to miss them. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
The source that’s cited, the Oprah Magazine story says explicitly that The Lion King is not based on Hamlet. Instead it says, “The Lion King was the first animated feature film from Disney that told an original story”. Not based on? And not derived from? It may share a few themes or aspects — as do thousand of other stories. The connection with Hamlet is way too trivial. And the phrase in the “See Also” section incorrectly claims the story is “modeled on" Hamlet — nowhere does the source make that claim. The new Lion King film, by the way, just opened a few days ago. Maybe Joseph A. Spadaro has caught the excitement of that, as many have, but this connection is too weak, and the source doesn’t support it properly. - Hollarbohem (talk) 04:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I stated this above. I am cutting-and-pasting it again here. ... Also, your above reply is very misleading. You want us to believe that the cited source states that there is no "correlation" (modeling, based on, inspired by, etc.) between The Lion King and Hamlet. The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). And, really none of this matters, anyway. Because, as I stated above: Also, per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). In other words, you don't need any source at all, to list a tangentially related item in a "See also" list. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
I do think Lion King has verifiable connections to Hamlet that have been noted by the filmmakers and critics, even if it's not correct to say that it was "based on" Hamlet. Perhaps we could make a "Popular culture" section for it to go into? But then, it would probably be hard to keep such a section from ballooning to unreasonable size, since, well, what doesn't reference Hamlet? WanderingWanda (talk) 05:09, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the connection is certainly "there" and verifiable. I honestly don't care if we use the semantics "based on" or "modeled on" or "inspired by" or whatever. The specific source that is now listed says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). So, if we want to be "married to" this source, we can say "modeled on". But, again, we do not need any source at all to include an item in a "See also" list. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Joseph, now you added a "Popular culture" subsection including The Lion King as its only item. Do you really think the other editors who thought TLK shouldn't be in the "See also" subsection will agree to this solution? ---Sluzzelintalk19:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
The edit that created a new "In Popular culture" section is I believe an example of "gaming the system". See: Wikipedia:Gaming the system. The editor was not yet able to garner consensus to add a "See also" section devoted to The Lion King, so he’s now attempting to evade the spirit of community consensus, by creating a yet another new section, and by adding the same content, still without consensus. I’ll revert the edit.Hollarbohem (talk) 10:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
It is edit-warring because there is clearly consensus against both adding a "See also" section and "In popular culture" section. The latter is a construction actively discouraged on Wikipedia. The relevant aspects are already covered in Cultural references to Hamlet and Hamlet on screen—where The Lion King is already included, and sourced—and including either here would be against both current and previously established consensus (in a FA) and undue weight. The Hamlet connection is a significant issue for The Lion King, but it is barely mentioned by Shakespeare scholars working on Hamlet (I know, I've looked for sources to support that connection before). And this article already had to prune mercilessly in material of far greater historical and cultural significance than The Lion King, so it would take some pretty impressive sourcing to justify incuding it. Oprah Magazine and Entertainnment Weekly just won't cut it. --Xover (talk) 12:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Joseph, I'm not opposed to including how great works of art have inspired or influenced other works of art (though I think a lot of thought should be put in selecting which ones might be mentioned, and only listing The Lion King is not a good start, in my opinion. Plus there is a link to the article on cultural references to Hamlet, as pointed out by Xover). I do not think you were intentionally gaming the system, but the accusation you just posted here is highly unfair. Finding consensus is often limited to whoever is watching the page (and I'm guessing a lot of people are watching this one) That doesn't make those who voice their opposition self-declared "owners". ---Sluzzelintalk23:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Sluzzelin: Thanks for your opinion. And for assuming good faith on my part. But, I disagree (with your opinion). The "reasons" (for exclusion) kept "changing" at the drop of a hat. And if The Lion King reference is immaterial, not pertinent, not sourced, and trivial (reasons listed for its exclusion), how do we justify including it in that Nav Box Template? You really can't have it both ways. Correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Whether The Lion King belongs in the navbox is indeed a legitimate, if orthogonal, question. Navboxes are a pure navigation tool unlike other article content, and the standards for navboxes are different than for article content. The current navboxes are the result of one editor adding more or less everything they thought even remotely connected to all the play navboxes. I have a long-put-off todo of trying to come up with some reasonable inclusion/exclusion criteria for them so we can have a reasoned discussion about such issues. I am certain that the current state is way too inclusive (the items included have either too tenous a connection or are only one-way connections), but from there to deciding what should be pruned is a longer road. --Xover (talk) 08:32, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Fair point. However ... if anything ... inclusion in a "See also" list has a lower hurdle than inclusion in a Nav Box. As I have stated above, repeatedly: Per WP:SEEALSO, the purpose of a "See also" section is as follows: The links in the "See also" section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of "See also" links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics (emphasis added by me). That's a very low bar. Lower than inclusion in a Nav Box. And, in this case, we allow The Lion King to be included in the Nav Box, but not the "See also" list. Really, only due to "preferences" of a select group of editors. Nothing policy-based. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:42, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Joseph A. Spadaro: Actually, no, inclusion in "See also" is a higher bar: Whether a link belongs in the "See also" section is ultimately a matter of editorial judgment and common sense. The links in the "See also" section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic, and should be limited to a reasonable number. It is also not mandatory, as many high-quality and comprehensive articles do not have a "See also" section, although some featured articles … include this section.. The reason is that the "See also" section so strongly overlaps wikilinks in running text and the navbox: in a featured article, anything that might reasonably be included in "See also" has a high probability of also being something that should be covered and linked in article prose; and conversely, anything that does not merit being covered in article prose is unlikely to be appropriate for "See also".Note also that WP:SEEALSO explicitly calls out "editorial judgement". There are plenty of policy based arguments above, but even if there weren't, consensus on such matters always allows for some level of editorial judgement. To characterise all the arguments who disagree with you as "only due to 'preferences' of a select group of editors. Nothing policy-based" comes across as both dismissive and combative. I am presumably safe to assume that that is not your intent?However, if you want to remove The Lion King from the navbox I wouldn't object. I might conceivably re-add it at a later date if I came across a high-quality reliable source that discusses the connection, but it is not something I would object to based on the sources I am currently familiar with. I cannot, of course, speak for any other editor, so someone else might object though. --Xover (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@Xover:All Wikipedia entries utilize and rely on editorial discretion, judgement, etc. Whether it is a "see also" entry or a Nav Box item. The policy (WP:SEEALSO) specifically says that a "see also" entry may be "only" indirectly related and/or "only" tangentially related to the article topic. I highly doubt that we are allowed to add to Nav Boxes items that are indirect or tangential. Thus, the "lower bar" is for the "See also" inclusion, not for the "Nav Box" inclusion. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Joseph A. Spadaro has incorrectly claimed five times that his content is being unfairly said to be “not sourced”. In fact, he first added the content with no source, after this was pointed out — he then added a source. After he added a source (Oprah), he then began repeatedly to make his unwarranted claim of unfairness. I wouldn’t bother to set the record strait — but it’s been repeated so many times. This may be inadvertent on his part, but enough.Hollarbohem (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hollarbohem: First of all, a "see also" entry does notrequire a source. You can view millions of Wikipedia articles. The "see also" lists are not cluttered with sources, footnotes, etc. In this case, some editor (maybe it was you?) "demanded" a source. So, I placed one in (the Oprah source). Then, some editor (maybe it was you?) kept (wrongfully) asserting that the source did not say that The Lion King was based on Hamlet. When that is exactly what the source said. I will repeat the relevant quote here: The cited source says, quote: "Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet)." (emphasis added by me). This is in Paragraph 6; last sentence (of the Oprah Magazine source). So, they are very clearly saying in the source that the directors/producers themselves admit that they "modeled" one story after the other. Some editor (maybe it was you?) repeatedly argued that my source did not uphold the proposition that one story was based/modeled on the other. What part am I wrong about? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
We seem to be beating a dead horse. Saying the same things over-and-over, while ignoring what the others are saying suggests that we’re stuck in the mud. Joseph, your rhetorical finger-pointing (“It was you! It was you! It was you!”) indicates that you may be editing in anger, or at any rate, that you want me to know that I am being singled out as a particular target for what’s making you unhappy. Note taken. Your first point is contradicted on this page: Wikipedia:Verifiability, where it says that all content must be verifiable, and that any material… etc. The quote you keep repeating in a variety of fonts does not support what you’re trying to claim for it. You are welcome to your interpretation, but the film-makers themselves strongly contradict the idea you’re trying to promote. I wish you the best. Hollarbohem (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hollarbohem: Dude ... (1) Get over yourself. You are not that important in my life. In fact, you are not important at all. (2) I notice that you do not answer any of my valid questions. You just try to side-step them and "change the issue". A good rhetorical device ... if you are a politician. Not so much for a Wikipedia edit discussion. (3) Learn how to read. I got through reading comprehension in, I think, fifth grade or so. The director clearly said -- for the 20th time here -- Everyone responded favorably to the idea that we were doing something Shakespearean, so we continued to look for ways to model our film on that all-time classic (i.e., Hamlet).'' The producers just said -- explicitly -- that they "modeled" one story after the other. Your interpretation is the exact opposite -- that they did not. Go sell some ice to Eskimos, dude. Seriously. I know how to read. And I have reading comprehension skills. AND a "See also" entry does not require a source. Bye. For good. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Joseph, the source you quote asks, "Is The Lion King based on Hamlet?”; it then answers, "No." The filmmakers indicate that they initially thought of Lion King as "Bambi in Africa", but that they consider Lion King an "original story". The filmmakers indicate they were not aware of any similarities to Hamlet. When your source, Joseph, inaccurately states that someone at a "roundtable discussion" [sic] claimed there were some "unintended" parallels, the filmmakers responded by saying that if that’s true, it was done "unconsciously". Your source says that they went "looking for ways" to model the film on Hamlet, but if they did go looking — did they find anything? Your source doesn’t say, and you don’t. Your source, Joseph, is a less-than-accurate rehashing of an earlier article (which they link to) published by Blu-ray, in which the filmmakers are even more emphatic in denying that Lion King is modeled on Hamlet. - Hollarbohem (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@Hollarbohem: Great. Thanks. I guess that I do not know how to read, since that is the premise of your argument. Thanks for letting me know. I actually, for all these many years, thought that I did indeed know how to read. Wow. Silly me. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2019
This edit request to Hamlet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "act I" the phrase "To thine own self be true" is referred to as an "ironic maxim". I believe this is a typo and should read "iconic maxim" as I have found no readily available information arguing that that phrase is now or was at the time "ironic". Paulc8347 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Elsinore? That's the town, not the castle, right???
Elsinore is the English name of the town/subsdistrict of Copenhagen where Kronborg is located, not the name of the castle itself. In Danish it is called Helsingør. Are you sure Shakespeare calls the castle itself Elsinore in the text? --Luka1184 (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It's getting to be about time to do another bit of gnoming to clean up cruft and inconsistencies that have accumulated since the last run. But this time I am going to propose to at the same time change our established citation style by switching from abbreviated (i.e. pp. 123–4) to full (i.e. pp. 123–124) page ranges.
The abbreviated style was originally chosen partly because an early contributor had used it, partly because several of the editors involved in bringing the article to FA preferred it, and partly because it was the predominant style employed by the secondary sources in the field. At the time I supported that choice for those reasons.
In the decade since I have changed my mind on this. I now think the abbreviated page ranges are unnecessarily complicated, even for those who are used to them; that they are confusing to readers who are not used to them; that they are primarily a relic of the constraints of paper publication that do not make sense in a medium without those constraints; that they make it harder for drive-by contributors to get this right (i.e. consistent); and, annoyingly enough on its own, that we periodically get script-assisted "cleanup" runs that completely botch them, but which it is highly likely that full page ranges will not.
Since I do not really expect that anyone watching this talk page will care enough about this particular issue to formulate an opinion on it, I am simply going to state my intention to make a change to the article's established citation style—per WP:CITEVAR—from abbreviated to full page ranges. If nobody objects I will do so whenever I next have the time to do a cleanup run on the article.
If anyone actually does care about this issue and wishes to see it discussed before any change is made then do please say so. I am "stating my intent" only because I do not expect anyone cares, not because I have any desire to short-circuit discussion. As always, the more editors express their opinion the easier it will be to determine consensus, so I encourage everyone to do so, even if it is simply "Dunno" or "Don't care" or "Wait! I need to think about it a bit first!". --Xover (talk) 08:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Regarding your reversions in the Hamlet page. Terri Bourus' analysis is regarded as robust even by those who does not agree with all her conclusions. I have seen respecful references in:
Taylor, Gary, and Rory Loughnane. “The Canon and Chronology of Shakespeare’s Works.” In The New Oxford Shakespeare: Authorship Companion, edited by Gary Taylor and Gabriel Egan, 415–602, 2017.
Jackson, MacDonald P. “Vocabulary, Chronology, and the First Quarto (1603) of Hamlet.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 31 (2018): 17–42. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26800525.
The view that is reverted to is no longer current. If you revert because you agree with the old dating, you should read up on the subject, as a lot has happened the last 15 or so years.
(I put this on Xover's page first. But put it here as well on the reqeust of User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång).
Hello Wrimle, assuming this is you. Thanks for talking. New discussions goes at the bottom of a talkpage, though you could have continued the thread I started just above, and please try to stay logged in. You have now for the third time inserted stuff in this WP:FA without references, this is not good, and you keep spelling Terri wrong. Again, who says "The most thorough attempt of dating Hamlet is done by Terry Bourus" that you keep insisting should be first in the "Date" section?
Gråbergs Gråa Sång Thanks for teaching me wikipedia conventions. I am not experienced editing here. Thought I was logged in will be more careful in the future. Your comment about the mispelling Terri is erroneous, though: https://english.fsu.edu/faculty/terri-bourus I am just sharing some stuff I found when doing research for my master's thesis on Hamlet and wanted to help getting the wikipedia page up to date. Please fix my entry rather than reverting it. I have on request now given multiple references, none of which you have taken the time to check. Please help fix my contribution instead of reverting it to a broken and outdated state. Wrimle (talk) 11:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Your link says "Terri", you added "Terry" to the article 3 times. You need to get your own content in WP-shape, but hopefully more editors will weigh in on the dating issue. If you want "The most thorough attempt of dating Hamlet is done by Terry Bourus" in the article, it can't be because that's your conclusion, we call that WP:OR and kick it out. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:19, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
That said, if the scholarly mainstream has shifted on when Hamlet was written, the article should reflect that, absolutely. Personally I'm reverting you for not using refs in this WP:FA and IMO your edit didn't improve the WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk Ok. I will check that. Her book length analysis is the most thorough in length, in the number of points it discusses, how much space it gives to each point. It also seems to be the most influential at present as nobody can discuss this without mentioning and arguing with her. Dutton, who is in disagreement with her, is arguing against "Terri Bourus's robust claim". Jackson acknowledge her penetration when he in his response to to her text is saying that: "Theories that invoke 'memorial reconstruction' to account for the features of Hamlet Q1 and other dramatic texts once labeled “bad” have fallen into disfavor. Once, nearly all Shakespeare scholars believed in them. Now hardly any do." Taylor and Loughnane is not able to write of heir 1602 dating, and keeps it as best guess next to their own suggestion of 1603. My claim might be nuanced but it should not be reverted. The old analysis formerly on the page on dating question is in serious need of revision. Wrimle (talk) 12:05, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Wrimle: Please stop trying to push this into the article through brute force. Wikipedia is a collaborative and consensus-based project, which means contested edits are brought up for discussion on the relevant talk page until the best course of action is determined. Continuing to push your point of view in this way is called edit-warring and is not permitted.I have no immediate position on the actual changes you are proposing (I'll need to look into them closer first), but there are several problems with the way you have been going about it. First of all, this is a Featured Article, which means it has been through a rigorous review and represents a strong consensus in favour of the status quo. The threshold for changing a Featured Article is much higher than for other articles on the project, and requires looking at the article as a whole rather than just one minute aspect of it (the asserted latest shift in dating). We also do not insert such things in the lead of the article: the lead summarises the rest of the article, so it is the last part of it we change.In addition, when this article was written it reflected ~400 years of scholarship (seriously, we started from Rowe!). That one person is making some contrary claims in the last decade or so is a mere blip. A century from now we may be able to cite Bourus as the authority alone, but as of yet it is a mere current swing in fashion.That all being said, it is always possible that Bourus' work, and the response to it, should be reflected in the article somehow (not necessarily by taking it as canon). Make some suggestions for how we could reflect it in the article (not the lead), backed by high-quality reliablesecondary sources, without original research or novel synthesis, and taking into account the whole article. Then we discuss it, and figure out what, if anything, to do about it. Xover (talk) 13:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
@Xover As of yet it is only you and me disagreeing. I have a problem with a couple of the points you make. First, this page does on the dating question not reflect 400 years of scholarship as it just raises a couple of points and these are not handled very well. Both Bourus and Taylor/Loughnane are more complete in reviewing and balancing the points that have been raised up to now and they better reflect recent research. Second what has proven to be a fad is some of the wild and unsound conjectures of the New Bibliograpy which were influential in the previous century, and which the dating on the page in part builds on. Third you have obviously not even read the references I gave to Gråbergs Gråa Sång above, and you are creating a straw man in your descrition of Bourus. I urge you to look into it closer, as you say, and then we continue the discussion when you have taken a stance. Wrimle (talk) 07:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC) (EDIT: A couple of points added)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 March 2022
This edit request to Hamlet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the section "Texts", please change was to were in the sentence:
Scholars immediately identified apparent deficiencies in Q1, which was instrumental in the development of the concept of a Shakespearean "bad quarto".[61]
This edit request to Hamlet has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In regards to Historical context, I'd suggest this edit
Act II
Soon thereafter, Ophelia rushes to her father, telling him that Hamlet arrived at her door the prior night half-undressed and behaving erratically. Polonius blames love for Hamlet's madness and resolves to inform Claudius and Gertrude. As he enters to do so, the king and queen finish welcoming Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, two student acquaintances of Hamlet, to Elsinore. The royal couple has requested that the students investigate the cause of Hamlet's mood and behaviour. Additional news requires that Polonius wait to be heard: messengers from Norway inform Claudius that the king of Norway has rebuked Prince Fortinbras for attempting to re-fight his father's battles. The forces that Fortinbras had conscripted to march against Denmark will instead be sent against Poland, though they will pass through Danish territory to get there. MundoDeInfo (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
An Austrian historian writes that in an interlude in Hamlet, the assassination of the duke "Albertus zu Vienna" originally made the subject of the dramatic action. These Austrian references should perhaps be mentioned. (Richard von Kralik, Shakespeares Beziehungen zu Österreich, in: Die Kultur 8 (1907), p. 4-5).--Rippimo (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
I suggest adding after the sentence ending with footnote 4, the observation, “Tellingly, Hamlet is an anagram of Amleth, and one achieved by simply moving the last letter.” Atomikiwi (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
I am not going to defend myself on this page against what I consider to be a false claim, but I will (somewhat) on my talk page. I believe that if an editor has something to say that pertains to this discussion — a complaint, or whatever — it should be said on this page. CuthbertBurble (talk) 14:53, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Done SK2242 (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
Not done. No sources were mentioned. Sorry. Cool guy (talk • contribs) • he/they 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)