Talk:Ghosts (play)

	Norway portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Norway, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Norway on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NorwayWikipedia:WikiProject NorwayTemplate:WikiProject NorwayNorway
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Theatre Mid‑importance

	Theatre portal This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Theatre Assessment

Start class - important Headings are present (though not conforming to recommended naming conventions of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Theatre/Article_Structure), though with generally stub-level information.
Low importance - a single play constitutes a "highly specific area of knowledge"

--Dereksmootz (talk) 17:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare this article to that of The Murders in the Rue Morgue, it is clear that the latter is a more extensive and better article and that it thus deserves the GA-rating. What I don't understand is why The Murders in the Rue Morgue is of 'High importance' while this is of 'Low importance.' If a single play constitutes a highly specific area of knowledge, then why can't you say the same thing about a single short story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaukator (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism/Botched Citation In the first paragraph under "Reaction," most of the language in those first three sentences is taken directly from the Krutch source cited at the end of the third sentence. Please add quotation marks in order to properly cite Krutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.192.17 (talk) 21:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed: The quotations under "Reactions" were famously compiled by William Archer in an article for the Pall Mall Gazette (4/8/1891) called "Ghosts and Gibberings." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.34.192.17 (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removed content

Here's the section that was removed -- it is a mishmash of (mostly) directly quoting the source without proper attribution, plus misrepresentings and Original Research. The source is not gone -- it's used as a source in the article elsewhere. This section was tagged a couple of years ago for poor quality:

"Objectives

There were many lines in A Doll's House which might be taken as indication of what Ibsen's new play would be. Instead of the general query, “Did Nora return to her children?”, Ibsen put the stress on the problem of what would have happened to Nora's children had she and Helmer persisted in living the life they were accustomed to — a life of lies and subterfuges. The moral rottenness of Oswald Alving, his degenerate relationship with Regina, the serving maid, who proves to be in the end his half-sister, are the direct product of the moral unsavoriness of Captain Alving, whose past life has been covered through the suffrance of his wife, acting under the advice of the conventional minister, Pastor Manders. If Dr. Rank, in A Doll's House, was suffering from the sins of his fathers, Oswald Alving is the product of the moral degeneracy of his father and the moral weakness of his mother. Thus, Ibsen's Ghosts becomes an answer to the question whether Nora had a right to leave her children when she did.

Ibsen sought to show the gradual development of Mrs. Alving to that point where she reacts against the spiritual conventionality of Manders, and refuses any longer to respect or protect the memory of her husband, whose life was to have such an evil effect upon Oswald's physical and moral character. When, finally, in a revolting scene between Oswald and Regina, suggesting in its degeneracy what must have taken place between Captain Alving and Regina's mother, we at last get the awakening of Mrs. Alving to the unsound foundation upon which her family life had been resting all these years, Mrs. Alving's regeneration, we know, has come too late. Oswald has a final attack and the play ends with him asking for 'the sun', meaning the truth."

Also removed an unsourced good faith prime example of Original Research from section "Writing": "The translated title of 'Ghosts' is actually misleading compared to the Danish and Norwegian titles. The correct translation would have been 'Revenants'."

GretDrabba (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Syphilis

A sentence that pointed out that syphilis is not an inherited disease was removed in good faith by Wikipedia editor Softlavender, with Softlavender’s comment: “Syphilis can be inherited, see Congenital syphilis. The play simply omits the fact that Mrs. Alving was a carrier)” However, the medical definition of “inherited” requires that it be passed down in the genetic code, in fact syphilis is transmitted by a bactierium. The Wikipedia page Congenital syphilis supports this. I am going to add a footnote to the article and references, that support and expand on this. I’ve also found a reference that supports a part of what Softlavender is suggesting. StBlark (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Reception section -- do we need all of those nearly identical reviews?

In the Reception section, do we need nine nearly identical and very repetitive reviews, each with its own paragraph? I think the reader gets the point after reading less than half of them. I suggest trimming the section to four or five (the four or five with the most variety, or the four or five from the most notable sources). Does anyone agree or have any other suggestions? Softlavender (talk) 03:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this section is nuts. Trimming would help. Barklerung (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK done. I took out all but one, and added a citation. George Bernard Shaw makes the case (in the citation) that those reviews were all proven ridiculously over-the-top even in the same year they were written. Softlavender (talk) 01:20, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ghosts (play). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

"The Ghosts" Genrik Ibsen BDT Director Roman Markholia-12.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Premiere language

Can someone please copy edit the article and clarify what language the first performance was given in? The current article says:

Infobox: "Original language Norwegian, Danish"

Writing section: "As with his other plays, Henrik Ibsen wrote Ghosts in Danish…" "Its world stage première was on 20 May 1882 in Norwegian by a Danish company in Chicago, Illinois, US."

Performance history – Original reception section: "Ghosts premiered in May 1882 in the United States, when a Danish touring company produced it in Chicago, at the Aurora Turner Hall. Ibsen disliked the English translator William Archer's use of the word "Ghosts"…"

These seem to be contradictory, and I can't tell if the original performance in Chicago was in Danish, Norwegian, or (more likely) English. Masato.harada (talk) 17:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess. Thanks for pointing this out. One problem is that the citations are dead and need to be retrieved from Wayback. I will correct the contradictions when I get those citations archived. BTW, the information about the English translation of the title is simply in the wrong place -- it belongs in, and used to be in, the lead. Softlavender (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, the premiere information is fixed now. The rest of the early performance history is still pretty unsatisfactory though, with missing dates and missing citations, etc. Softlavender (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Aveling

Edward Aveling was a friend of Ibsen's, was a geneticist and Darwinist and social reformer, and had associations with the Aurora Turner Hall in Chicago that premiered Ghosts. It seems very likely that he influenced the play and possibly its premiere. Mrs. Alving's surname seems to even be a nod to Aveling. Worth more research in case his name merits being in the article. There is material available concerning Aveling, Ibsen, and Ghosts, but I haven't collected it. Softlavender (talk) 05:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]