Talk:Hamlet/Archive 3

Themes of the play

Sureley the major theme of the play is death and all other themes are subordiate to it? The role of good and evil, love etc. in our lives are all examined in light of the "the undiscovered country" "from which no traveller returns"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.252.80.100 (talk) 09:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

• Don't know. You could say that the main theme is revenge, and all other themes are subordinate to that. The point is not so much to debate the issues here on the talk page, but to find sources for the views that go into the article. AndyJones 09:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, revenge only sets the stage for the theme of death. But at least given that the two most famous scenes in the play (3.1 -"to be or not to be"; and 5.1 "alas poor yorik") are explicitly about death, not to mention death at all in the themes of the play is outrageous 143.252.80.100 10:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

What we need is a themes section, with cited summaries of different ideas in the play. Wrad 15:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I could do a theme summary, with an example or two of each, drawn from the playtext. There are many themes / motifs/ subthemes in the play, and they interact, or intertwine. Death, revenge, madness, parent-child, love-hate, crime & justice, etc. Trying to identify the "one" theme is not going to work. The 'umbrella' theme is "Putting On A Show." That's the only theme that encompasses every single thing in the play. But of course saying the play is about Putting On A Show is not actually informative. Where would the theme section need to be placed on the page? JeffJo 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, although just doing it from the playtext is pretty much OR. We will need sources. As for where to put it, take a look at the Shakespeare project outline. Wrad 22:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, theme section after synopsis. Original research, well, just quoting the playtext isn't very original. What I had in mind, basically, was to mention a theme, and then give one or two brief quotes from the play, simply to prove the theme is there. Then maybe a sentence, possibly two sentences, indicating the significance of the theme to the play overall. For that, the play is its own source. For example - > ||| The Revenge theme: Ghost to Hamlet, "So art thou (bound) to revenge"; Laertes to Claudius, "I'll be revenged most throughly for my father." Revenge is Hamlet's motive against Claudius, and also revenge is the motive turned against Hamlet. The concept of revenge permeates the play, and compels major events. ||| < - I could do that kind of thing, and about that brief, for each of the top half dozen or so themes. Is that what's needed? JeffJo 22:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good start. Wrad 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

• It's still original research, though, isn't it. To say that revenge is a theme, it isn't good enough to just quote a line with "revenge" in it. Otherwise, someone could equally argue that "rosemary" is a theme. What you need to do is find a reliable source which says that revenge is a theme of Hamlet, and cite it. That's what the attribution policy is all about. AndyJones 12:56, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

• • No, that's obviously wrong. It obviously isn't "original research" simply to summarize themes. As far as simply quoting a line with "revenge" in it, you didn't read what I wrote carefully. That isn't what I wrote about presenting the themes. Also, a "theme" is a recurring idea. That's what the word means. Nobody who knows what a "theme" is would take "rosemary" to be a theme. Also, you cannot get the themes from secondary sources. The themes are in the play, itself. The notion of going to some secondary source to get the play themes is a very odd idea. And by the way, I've done "original research" on Hamlet, the real thing. Have you? Just curious.JeffJo 12:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Original research" in Wikipedia means, in essence, editors just adding their personal pet theories and opinions. Scholarly original research is fine, if it can be cited to a publication, or a PhD or other source. If you have published original research, or recieved a higher degree, then you can cite your own work. Of course it's pretty commonplace to say that revenge is a theme in the play, so it shouldn't be difficult to cite a soucre that says so. Paul B 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • Re "original research" = pet theories. That isn't quite what the link says. Not that what Paul wrote is wrong, but the policy encompasses more than that.JeffJo 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • • But again, I'll point out that the themes of Hamlet are not obtainable from secondary sources. The themes of Hamlet are in the play, itself. That should be easy to understand. A theme of Hamlet is going to be in Hamlet. A presentation of the themes of Hamlet is like doing a focused synopsis, or special purpose synopsis, that's all. It merely amounts to reading the play and summarizing what the play expressly says. It's not really much different from doing a character summary, for a character article. Also you wouldn't, or certainly shouldn't, do an attribution on something that's common knowledge. The reason is, that would be deceptive. It would be like, oh, citing Dr Joe Schmoe on a statement that the sky is blue. You'd misleadingly make it look like Dr Schmoe was the one who >discovered< that the sky was blue. Not good, since it's a sure bet he didn't. When something is generally known and accepted, like the revenge theme in Hamlet, so that it's common knowledge, it would be wrong to attribute it to a specific secondary source. You'd wrongfully give that secondary source more credit than it deserves. On the other hand, if a person were trying to say that something like "misogyny" is a theme of Hamlet, then that would definitely require attribution, because it isn't expressly stated in the play, and it isn't generally accepted as common knowledge. But what I'm talking about doing is merely a summary of the common knowledge on Hamlet themes, that everybody accepts because they're explicitly stated in the play. Revenge, death, etc. You don't need a source on "revenge" being in Hamlet any more than you need a source on Claudius being in Hamlet. It's something expressly stated in the play. JeffJo 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources out there covering themes in Hamlet, especially revenge. While quoting from the play is good, these sections absolutely must have some of these sources. That's why I said to go ahead and start, as these sections will definitely have quotes from the play, but to beware WP:Original Research. Be sure to look over the scholarly discussion on the subject as well. With Shakespeare, especially, people can write themes about rosemary. Why, even in Hamlet, some write entire papers about the types of flowers Ophelia gives to everyone in act 4. Others explore the theme of ears in Hamlet, as that is where the King receives his poison, etc.Wrad 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Where do you think those secondary sources got the idea that revenge, etc, are themes of Hamlet? From the play, itself, of course. The play is the source. That is a fact. And again, it is not "original research" to do a theme summary. That simply is not correct, either by the Wikipedia policy, or by any policy. Doing a theme summary is no more original than doing a character list. It is not correct that the revenge theme has to be sourced any more than you'd have to source the Laertes character. Do you think you need to cite a secondary source to prove that Laertes is in the play? Why would anybody think that? You'd have to footnote the character list. By the idea some have expressed here, the character list ought to have a "source alert" on it, since it isn't footnoted to secondary sources to prove those characters are in the play. Do you follow me? The themes of Hamlet are found by reading the play, the same as the characters are found by reading the play. It appears the communication problem here is people not knowing what the word "theme" means. A "theme" is a recurring idea within the play, and the place you're going to find that is within the play, itself, of course. Or, if people want to use a different defintion of "theme" please post the exact definition you're using. JeffJo 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Other themes which aren't mentioned in the article yet, but which are everywhere in the scholarly world, are Catholicism, Protestantism, Humanism, and Counter-Humanism. Wrad 05:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• None of those things are themes of Hamlet.JeffJo 12:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• The reason why I wrote that, humanism is about the historical progression from ancient and Medieval theocracies to modern secular democracy - the move, over time, from a god-centered view to a person-centered view of things. Very roughly speaking. (I'm not offering that as a definition.) Discussion of Hamlet from a humanist perspective concerns where Hamlet fits in that historical change. Rather than being a theme within Hamlet, humanism concerns the social context of Hamlet. It's about how modern Hamlet is, in a way. The humanist perspective is a view of Hamlet from outside, is basically what I'm trying to say. Re Catholic-Protestant, there's certainly a religious issue in the play. "Religion" can be handled as a theme, since it does affect major events, most notably Hamlet refraining from killing Claudius in the 'Prayer Scene.' Exactly how the religious theme sorts out, between Catholic and Protestant, isn't stated in the play, itself, however. The play doesn't have a particularly Catholic, or Protestant, theme.JeffJo 18:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I could name several lines which cover both. It is stated in the play, quite clearly in a few places. It seems to me though, that this discussion might do better at the Shakes. proj. page. We still haven't hammered out how play pages should be organized, though we've made a good start. We need to be able to delineate what will be discussed in themes and what in contexts, and what will be a mix of the two. It's tricky, humanism may be a historical context, but so is revenge. Scholars pour over Elizabethan history like crazy trying to find out the context of it in Hamlet. The same goes for death, and any other theme. It is impossible to separate context from anything, in today's literary world. Wrad 18:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• I don't know what you mean by naming lines. Do you mean you think you could name a "humanist line" in the play? Okay, name one. Show what you have in mind. As to revenge, it is not an historical context, it's a motivation, and theme, within the play, itself. It is obviously not correct that context can't be separated. The context of Hamlet is Elizabethan England. The larger context, beyond that, is Renaissance. Then there's a larger context, Western Culture, which includes humanism. Distinguishing the play from its context is not only possible, it's extremely easy. The word "context" by definition refers to the environment of something. It's no harder to tell the difference between Hamlet and its context, than it is to tell the difference between a frog and a pond. For Hamlet, revenge is a theme within the play; humanism is part of the larger context beyond the play, itself. About discussion, since a discussion of Hamlet themes is particular to Hamlet, of course, discussion of Hamlet themes belongs here, I'd suppose.JeffJo 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there is no meaning without context. Even if you read the play and interpret it, you are bringing your context to it. A discussion of the revenge theme would be best if it discussed the context. For Humanism, Hamlet says that man is like an angel and a God, referring to a general humanist theme of his time. For revenge, many scholars have found that Hamlet would have been justified for his revenge, but at the same time not. He would have been keeping the older laws of Chivalry, but breaking the newer laws of the land. This may contribute to his delay. Context is everywhere. In fact, it is so pervasive that we don't even notice it most of the time. I guess basically I'm just saying that the themes should include historical context and scholarly commentary to enhance them. If you take a look at some of the other Shakespeare plays, they have OR tags all over them because they don't cite their sources or involve scholarly opinion. Wrad 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• And what I'm saying is that context is not the same as theme. That is a fact. Pretending that nobody knows what different words mean is not helpful. "Context" and "theme" do, in fact, mean different things. Then, if you do think "humanism" is a theme of Hamlet, go ahead and write a little clip of that, for a theme summary, post it here, and let's take a look at it.JeffJo 04:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'd like to see what you intend as well, maybe we can meet in the middle somewhere. Wrad 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Example of a theme

Here's a part of what may later be part of a section on Catholicism in Hamlet. Refs are excluded since this is a talk page.

“ Catholic doctrines manifest themselves all over the play, including the discussion over the manner of Ophelia’s burial in Act 5. The question in this scene is of whether it is right for Ophelia to have a Christian burial, since those who commit suicide are guilty of their own murder in the doctrines of the church. As the debate continues between the two clowns, it becomes a question of whether her drowning was suicide or not. Shakespeare never fully answers this question, but presents both sides: 1) that she did not act to stop the drowning and therefore committed suicide of her own will, or 2) that she was mad and did not know the danger and thus was killed by the water, innocently.

The burial of Ophelia reveals more of the religious doctrines in question through the Priest overseeing the funeral. Scholars have carefully outlined the “maimed rites” (as Hamlet calls them) carried out by the Priest. Many things are missing in her funeral that would normally make up a Christian burial. Laertes asks, “What ceremony else?” The priest answers that since her death was questionable, they will not give her the full funeral, although they will allow her “maiden strewments,” or flowers which were thrown into her grave. In cases of suicide, sharp rocks, rather than flowers, were thrown in. The difficulties in this deeply religious moment reflect much of the religious debate of the time.

”

Those remarks about "Catholic doctrines" are, of course, ignorantly wrong. In point of fact, Christian burial of suicides was proscribed by the Church of England until the 19th century. I hope it isn't necessary for me to point out that the Church of England is PROTESTANT, not Catholic. Catholic doctrine has nothing to do with this. Since 'Hamlet' is a Top Priority article, it would be nice if those who want to discuss it would do at least a little homework, so as to make intelligent contributions, and avoid spouting obvious ignorance that is not only not helpful, but misleading. JeffJo 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you give an example of what you want to do? Again, maybe we can meet in the middle somewhere. Wrad 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Still waiting for you to post an example of what you have in mind about Themes. JeffJo 09:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remain civil. I will take this thread to AN/I if this continues. AndyJones 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. Everything I added, though, comes from a peer-reviewed, scholarly journal. This is the best any article can ask for. The Church of England is not really involved in a play dealing with the Catholic Denmark. In the play, Act 5, Scene 1, Lines 3558-3566, the priest over the funeral actually talks directly about what would have been done if it were a suicide. I don't really mind what you've said, I just want to meet in the middle somewhere on this, and would love to see an example of what you have in mind about themes so we can work this out. The above remains my example of what I'd like to do, as you asked for. Wrad 14:58, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you say Demark was Catholic, I thought it was Lutheran. But of course there is no clear "historical" moment when the action of the play is suppossed to be occuring, though most of the cultural references are modern. Also the C of E was not Roman Catholic, but was and is Catholic is the broader usage of the term. It remained theologically orthodox and episcopalian. I would sgugest that the concept of "Catholic" themes in the play is too ambiguous to be included in the way you suggest. Paul B 15:22, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this comes from an academic, peer reviewed source. The article I'm using is <<Quinlan, Maurice J. "Shakespeare and the Catholic Burial Services." Shakespeare Quarterly 5.3 (1954): 303-6.>>. There are also several other Catholic things in the play (as well as Protestant) that I could have included, but I didn't because it was just an example. I probably was a bit off saying Denmark was Catholic in my last post, as the play shows it having a mix of Catholic and Protestant themes, which should both be addressed in the article. However, I was trying to counteract the idea that the Church of England was involved in the play. I would also like to point out that the example I gave makes no such statement that Denmark is completely Catholic.

Paul, Why do you say that my statement is too ambiguous? What can I add to improve it? Perhaps I could outline exactly what the "maimed rights" were. The article I'm using goes into great detail on exactly what a Catholic funeral had in those days, and exactly what was missing from Ophelia's. I could also add information on the Catholicism of Hamlet's father, the Purgatory imagery in the play, and the Catholic source of the line where Horatio invokes angels to bring Hamlet to his rest. Again, the above was just an example. Anything I would add to the article would be more developed (and have sources). Wrad 15:47, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

To summarise what has been a rather lengthy debate: would there not be a sense, then, in which any vaguely independent theme summary is "original research"? Themes and charachters, contra JeffJo are very different animals - charachters being explictly defined by the author as existing in the text, whilst the themes ARE BROUGHT TO THE TEXT BY THE READER. To say that a text is 'about', say, revenge, is to interpret it through a certain linguistic model (which, incidently, you may have constructed yourself from existing ideas in order make sense of the text, or may have had handed down to you). This linguistic model excludes some elements of the text and priviliges others. But there is no sense in which a theme qua linguistic model could be said to exist 'objectively'(couldn't think of a better word), as a charachter could be said to. The best the Wiki summary could hope to do is to gather together the themes that we all seem to bring to play (pretty uncontroversially: revenge, death etc.)with the caveat that these are by no means universal themes and with the required referencing. Another route, and more in the spirit of Wiki (after all not everyone thinks the same...), is to highlight where it is possible to bring conflicting models to the same parts of the play. (UTC)User:Wireless99 16:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

If you rethink the story in modern terms, Hamlet is actually a hero for being hesitant to take another man's life. That's why the play Hamlet doesn't fit in the revenge genre of Shakespeare's plays. User:bardofcornish

Yes, but "in modern times" with heros two a penny, I prefer to think of him as a coward existenstially unsure of himself amidst a "sea of troubles". User:Wireless99 17:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A Conclusion

I agree with JeffJo...partially, because themes are "fundementall or universal ideas", so how do you decide if an idea is fundamentall or universal? I think we should start a theme summary as a list. We've already been discussing different themes, so people can add those and we can edit it to filter out the bias. Each item on the list needs to be able to be verified as "fundamental or universall" so themes coming from a reliable source would be optimall, not wholy originall research. bardofcornish

Whatever we do. I think somebody needs to just do something rather than just talking about it. It will become clear as things develop. I've started a page at User:Wrad/Literary Criticism of Hamlet, but I'm not sure how much of it will carry over... Wrad 22:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There...I just started a section.Very rough, though. I've looked at Wrad's page, and it definately could be used.It needs to be sourced, though. Even if the play is your source, it needs to be sourced just like any other book. We may want to include symbols and more anylitical sections as well. bardofcornish 22:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I've already pointed out, doing a theme summary of 'Hamlet' is really no different from doing a character list. The themes of 'Hamlet' are in 'Hamlet,' the same as the characters of 'Hamlet' are in 'Hamlet.' It isn't complicated, the way some people try to make it. And there is no "original research" in simply doing a theme summary, any more than there is "original research" in doing a character list. Are you going to look at some book by Harold Bloom to find out whether Polonius is in the play, because otherwise you can't tell? That would be nonsense, of course. The same is true of the themes of the play. The "source" for all the themes of 'Hamlet' is "Hamlet." That is a fact. And I have no idea where people are getting their strange and eccentric ideas of what a "theme" is. Some people who have posted here need to go to Merriam-Webster online, and look up the word "theme." A theme is a motif, a recurring idea. That is factually what a "theme" is - look it up. A final point, is it too much to ask that words should be spelled correctly in the article? Look at what's there now -- "soliloquy" is misspelled; "cemetery" is misspelled. It looks terrible, and it's embarrassing. Please, before you post something, just copy the text over to a text editor, and run a spelling check on it, since there doesn't seem to be a spell checker here. It's great that people want to contribute, but passers-by who see the article with all those misspelled words are going to sneer and say that Wikipedia is crap. Nobody wants that. JeffJo 14:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why was the original theme summary deleted? I suppose that section could be thought of as a starter to the more broader literary critisism section, but please explain why.Bardofcornish 22:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Another user deleted it, and left a comment saying it didn't have good references. Sparknotes are generally discouraged on these articles in favor of better sources. Wrad 05:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

Andy,

you removed a perfectly legitimate link I put on the Hamlet page.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklynchster (talk • contribs)

• I've moved above comment from my talk page. Looks like WP:SPAM to me. Do any other editors have a view? AndyJones 08:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Incidentally, the link in question is this one: An adaptation for schoolchildren with 3hr37min podcast. AndyJones 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that website looks pretty spammy. Too many ads and links to ads.Smatprt 04:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Plot summary

The plot summary for this article is, quite frankly, terrible. It simultaneously explains too much and not enough and assumes you're already familiar with scenes that you probably aren't familiar with if you're bothering to read the plot summary in the first place. The whole thing ought to be rendered in under 1,000 words, rather than the 1,562 it is now. Further, I see little reason why any reference ought to be made in the plot summary to "famous lines" and "such-and-such soliloquy" and other such nonsense. If these scenes/lines have their own articles, they ought to be linked to via a parenthetical link, but that's it. I mean, I'd hardly expect a plot summary of The Matrix to say something like, "And then Neo and Trinity walked into the lobby of the building and the famous Lobby Shoot-Out Scene began." It sounds bad and does nothing to enhance a reader's understanding of the plot which is, after all, exactly what the plot summary is supposed to do. RobertM525 10:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree. We could revert to the old version. It might be a good start. Wrad 22:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we might want to delete the current plot summary. But I don't get the tag because it says- " focus on discussing the work rather than simply reiterating the plot." The plot summary needs to be just that--a plot summary. I'd be willing to write one under 1,000 words. User:bardofcornish

The soliloquy analisys ect. needs to be moved to another part of the arcticle, not necissarilly to another article entirely.

The play article does not have a "plot summary" it has a SYNOPSIS. A "synopsis" is a description of what happens in a play. That is what the word means. Objecting to the synopsis because it describes what happens in the play is absolutely ridiculous. It's a complaint that the synopsis is a synopsis. Gee, no kidding. Also, the synopsis for 'Hamlet' is inevitably going to be long, because 'Hamlet' itself is a long play. It is Shakespeare's longest play, as pointed out at the top of the article, itself. People need to face reality, if the 'Hamlet' article is going to be respectable. Any respectable synopsis for 'Hamlet' is simply going to be long, that's all. Also, the mentions of famous lines and soliloquys is so that people will know where to find them in the play. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and in fact, it is very highly desirable. It's called "being a useful reference" which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be. JeffJo 15:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

JeffJo, please be respectful and watch your tone. Everyone wants this article to be good, otherwise they wouldn't bother coming here and discussing it. I also happen to be of the opinion that our synopsis is much too long, myself. Ideally, it should be around 600 words, maybe with a max of about 900. We're way over that. Surely we can make it more concise. Wrad 19:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, please be respectful and watch your tone more carefully. The Wikipedia rules do not permit you to use the discussion area to pick personal fights with other people. I would not like to have to report you for unruly behavior. Simply discuss the subject, please, (as I did.) I did not make any personal remarks, but you just did, in obvious violation of the rules. Now then, to the actual subject of discussion. It really is necessary to recognize that 'Hamlet' is Shakespeare's longest play, and a long play by any standards, and it is simply going to have to have a long synopsis, if the synopsis is going to be any good. There is no way around that. The original complaint that was made here was quite strange. It was a complaint that the synopsis provided too much information. The whole purpose of an encyclopedia - which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be - is to provide the user with factual information. It is just odd that somebody would complain about that. And it is ridiculous, as I already pointed out, to complain that the synopsis describes what happens in the play, because, in fact, that is exactly what a synopsis is supposed to do. A synopsis of a play is an overview of what happens in the play. But anybody who believes he can describe what happens in 'Hamlet' in only 600 words is certainly welcome to try, of course. I'd like to see that done, in a way that could be considered respectable in a good encyclopedia article (and I mean that sincerely - I'd like to see it.) And just by the way, for anybody who wants to know, the plot overview of 'Hamlet' in Microsoft Encarta runs to more than 800 words, and it doesn't even claim to be a proper synopsis. JeffJo 23:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Addressing a person individually to encourage politeness is totally fine on talk pages and has nothing to do with tone or personal attacks. It is when you use words that demean others, such as a sarcastic "Gee, no kidding" and "People need to face reality" that are tonally unacceptable. You can report me if you want, but you must keep a cool head when talking on this page if the article is to move forward. I have talked to you about this before. If you want to see policy on tone, take a look at WP:Etiquette. Wrad 23:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wrad, you began your comment with a personal attack against me - which you are now continuing - instead of discussing the subject, which is an obvious violation of the Wikipedia rules by you. Instead of simply giving lip service to the rules, Wrad, you, yourself, need to go and take a long, careful look at *** WP:Etiquette *** - seriously - and you need to spend some time studying those rules, so that you can conduct yourself properly in the discussion area, and obey the rules. If you do not cease engaging in behavior that violates the rules, I *WILL* report you (which I probably should already have done, the first time I caught you doing that kind of thing, which was some time ago.) In point of fact, you did not address me personally to "encourage politeness," you addressed me personally to try to impose your own point of view in the discussion, which is highly dishonest behavior. You have a devious habit of citing the rules in an attempt to intimidate others and impose your own point of view in discussion. It is not acceptable that that should continue. Stop doing it. Your own "tone" is unacceptable when you devote an entire posting to personally criticizing somebody else, instead of discussing the subject at issue, which is what you just did. Watch your tone, Wrad. ;-) Before you get yourself into trouble. Turning to the actual subject of discussion, do you have anything further to say about the synopsis? Do you understand that the synopsis is supposed to be a summary of what happens in the play? And of course, a complaint that a synopsis is a synopsis, which is all the original complaint amounted to, is utterly ridiculous. If people don't want a synopsis, the thing to do would be simply to remove it. Are you advocating that the play synopsis should be removed? Or do you no longer have any interest in the subject of discussion, so that you'd rather just fight with other people? JeffJo 10:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

JeffJo -Threatening Wrad with "reporting you" is not helpful. It would be a more wasted time and ultimately unsuccessful. Reading this talk page, apparently Wrad's biggest fault is asking people to be polite and to dial down the insults and sarcasm. While some editors have thicker skins than others, is asking for civility a bad thing? It's certainly not a personal attack. Instead of engaging in a tit for tat session, why not go back to editing the article, which you obviously care for and have considerable knowledge to contribute? However, Wrad and AndyJones and others are correct - some of what you are proposing is indeed OR. You simply must cite sources on Themes (and everythng else in WP). The comparison to a list of Characters I just don't get. There is a list of characters printed in the play. There is no list of themes and as this page has shown, themes are open to debate, whereas a list of characters is not. Oh - and there are many, many sources that cite themes, so that should not be a problem, as the themes you reference are quite common and have been expounded in numerous publications. Smatprt 16:49, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I just added a new "Critical history" section in hopes that it will begin a better outline of Hamlet criticism and analysis on this page, as I'm sure everyone wants. Wrad 17:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apoligize, JeffJo, it is a synopsis, not a plot summary. At any rate, that section is obviously getting better the direction it's going!!Bardofcornish 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the synopsis be plagiarized from here? Brandon Christopher 22:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a great site, but the synopsis looks a bit to long. I know that other editors may disagree, but if you look at the template for Shakespeare play articles (which I believe in following) it says that the synopsis should be, if I remember correctly, 600-900 words. Bardofcornish 13:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you missed my point. The point is that it is alrady plagiarized from that site.Brandon Christopher 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually it isn't. That's JeffJo's personal website. He wrote it, so he can copy it here without violating copyright. The link is actually [1] Wrad 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's that simple. I've raised the issue here in the hope that someone knowledgeable will be along, shortly. AndyJones 08:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The plot section

Consensus still has not been reached on this issue. Is the plot summary too long or does the play merit a longer synopsis? Should analysis and commentary (i.e. "this is a famous scene...") be mixed in with the plot elements, or should it be strictly a plot description with no analysis or commentary? Thoughts?

• I personally believe that the synopsis should be under 700 words, and in an extreme case have a maximum of 900 words. I believe that the plot summary as it stands forces a specific reading of the play on readers by applying commentary. I also believe that an overly long plot section violates WP:PLOT, taking up valuable space in the article which could be better used to summarize the large amount of scholarly analysis of the play. I believe the section should be confined to plot elements only, and should not interject with analysis or commentary, which can be provided in an "Analysis" section instead. Please express your opinions so that we can reach an agreement. Wrad 05:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd like to see a wholesale rewrite of the synopsis, if anyone's game. I might give it a go next week, but can't do it before then. Brandon Christopher 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Strongly agree with Wrad and Brandon. Am also busy with real-world things this week but will try to have a look. AndyJones 20:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)