Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Mediation

At request of Mediator Delaque, who has copied this section to the following location, please consult it there: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Harold Pinter. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC) [Note: You will also find it copied intact in archive page 6, as stated above. --NYScholar (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)]

Repetition and citation style templates / Navigation template

I have removed the repetition and citation style templates as I agree that the article has been massively improved in the past week. I don't think that it needs much more work now. I wonder if the green Harold Pinter navigation box at the bottom should list novels, poetry, etc. I would be happy to add them from the works of ... article. It seems odd that they are omitted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am so pleased at the first part of the above comment. Re: The editing of the navigation template: I have not worked [recently] on that template and have left it to others more familiar with its format or style to improve it. I was pleased to see some editing of it prior to the death of the subject. I leave it to others still to improve it if they think it can be improved further. Thanks again! --NYScholar (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for further consideration: I did notice what J refers to above but have some concern about the sheer size of the template if all the poems (a very large number and not that easy to find--it would require a great deal of research from published as opposed to online sources)--and the screenplays/filmscripts were to be individually listed/linked; there would also be a large number of red links. (The idea of the last editor of the template seems to be that the "Works" article contains the nec. info. and sources for further exploration). ??? --NYScholar (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: Pinter published only one novel, entitled The Dwarfs, which has no article in Wikipedia at this time. Volumes of his collected poems are already listed in a section of already-cross-listed Works of Harold Pinter, which was added to the navig. template by the editor who added that list of featured links at the foot of it. [updated comment.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

[(update) I found some formatting errors in the Nobel Prize navigation template (making it not show up) and misplacement of introd. templates in the related "Works" article linked in that navigation template and corrected them after first posting my comment a few days ago. I also added a brief introd. for it (format). --NYScholar (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC)]

Wikiquotes

My misunderstanding, I had misread the style section on that. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this. After a bit more investigation of WP:MOS and WP:Layout, I'm not sure that you did misunderstand or misread the section that you mention (not clear which one it is), as there appears to be some inconsistency in various WP:MOS pages about where to place this template. See also: WP:Layout#Links to other Wikimedia projects and WP:MOS (links)#Interwiki linking.

(cont.) See WP:Layout#Standard appendices, epec. its note 4. Here it seems to say not to place a Wikiquotes template "outside of" an EL sec. and says that the EL sec. (if there is one) should be placed last. In n. 4 it says to place it after "Works" and before "Notes" (which is where "See also" sections are placed. In the WP:MOS (links) page itself, as there is no EL section at all, the project page itself has "See also" placed last). [moved portions of prev. comment here. Relate to that n. 4.]

(cont.) Due to the above points: I've also moved the Wikiquotes template to the foot of Bibliography for Harold Pinter by adding an EL sec. as the Layout section on "Links to other Wikimedia projects" guides one to do. Apparently, it should not have been placed opposite the table of contents, where another editor added it some time ago. (A repetition of the Wikiquotes template may not be necessary there at all; it's in the new "See also" for the time being as the whole thing is a "Works" sec. of this article; I added an EL sec. there too.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC) [Updated after attempt to make format more consistent. --NYScholar (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) After reviewing those sections relating to WP:MOS further, I think that the intention of MOS & Format discussions (current versions, espec. that n. 4 mentioned) is to have the Wikiquotes template closer to foot of page and closer to the EL section if not in a "Further reading" section. This restores it as what appears to be part of EL w/o splitting up the 1st 2 entries of the EL sec. Hope this resolution is okay w/ other eds. --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Image

An earlier editor had improperly moved the non-free image from the section about Pinter's Oct. 2006 performance in Samuel Beckett's Krapp's Last Tape to the infobox. This image is a copyright-protected screen shot from the DVD of Pinter's performance.The infobox requires a free image to be used in it. I restored the image to illustrate the section on his performance in the play, where it is permissible according to its fair use rationales (which I originally provided). If one has a free image of Harold Pinter for use in this article's infobox (a frontal head shot looking into camera, preferably relatively recent), please consider uploading it to Wikipedia with a proper GFDL license and/or to Wikipedia Commons so that it can be used in this article's infobox. Thank you very much.

(cont.) Even though one may really like having this image in the infobox, it is not permissible to use it there, because it is not a free image, and its use in Wikipedia is governed by Wikipedia's image policies and fair use rationales. Such infoboxes require free images to be used in them. If there is a way to restore this particular copyright-protected image, in keeping with Wikipedia image policy, please explain how and discuss the reasons here before doing so. Non-free images in infoboxes threaten the viability of articles in Wikipedia (due to the GNU free documentation licensing of Wikipedia: See "Please note" below any editing box). This article passed its "good article" review without this image, and such a copyright-protected image would in the future be deleted in any kind of "featured article" review. --NYScholar (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) For more information, please see: Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a free image at present, perhaps you could ask his agent? I did find this on geograph and it is now at wiki commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:No_Mans_Land_Harold_Pinter_Duke_of_Yorks_Theatre_London.jpg with Creative Commons Share Alike 2.0 license. Might be good as illustration in the No Mans Land section? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am in contact with his agent, who did send me a wonderful (and very appropriate) photograph of him last week in relation to another context. She did not, however, respond to a subsequent question about whether there was a photographer to credit or a copyright to acknowledge for it (there probably are), and I just don't feel comfortable at this time bringing this Wikipedia article up to her, as she must be enormously busy due to recent events and the planning of a public memorial. Perhaps eventually she or one of her staff will notice the Wikipedia article and contact Wikipedia directly to supply a photograph. [I myself do not use e-mail with Wikipedia due to privacy concerns. So even if I were to receive permission from her via e-mail, I myself would not be able to share it with Wikipedia via its e-mail facilities/protocols.] The NML marquee image (in a thumbnail/180 or so px version?) would be nice to use I think in the article about that play. [That is, in (No Man's Land (play). It's more relevant there, I think. --NYScholar (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.)I just reviewed the unidentified photograph that his agent sent me, mentioned above; I can identify it as one taken on the occasion of his Orange Word Screenwriters Programme (held at the British Library, on 9 Feb. 2004). (I had already seen it among a series of such photographs of him some time ago in Corbis. There is another one viewable via Getty Images.) These photographs are not free; the photographer's copyrights are licensed and controlled by Corbis (or Getty, in case of the other one). Thus, one would need permission granted by the photographer (via Corbis in this case) to use it in any publication anywhere, and Corbis charges fees for acquiring such permission. (I don't think that Pinter's agent can grant permission for use of those particular photographs, as they are licensed copyrighted properties of others.) One can view them via (enlargeable) thumbnails on the Corbis and/or Getty site (where one can search for photographs of/pertaining to "Harold Pinter"). At this time there are no rights-free images of him that I have found listed in those databases. Perhaps in time she will make a photograph legally available. Or perhaps someone will license his or her own personal photographs for such use on Wikipedia via Wikipedia Commons. Until now that has not occurred, to my knowledge. --NYScholar (talk) 00:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) (The only other Wikipedia Commons image I've found thus far pertaining to Pinter is the one of Jason Isaacs that someone had added to Isaacs' article at one point; it used to be in his infobox, but was replaced by another one and subsequently removed entirely it seems; see Talk:Jason Isaacs and The Dumb Waiter for related discussions.)

(cont.) Thank you very much for your response. --NYScholar (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) Added it there--see No Man's Land (play)#Production history. Thanks again for the heads up. --NYScholar (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Placeholder image

For an example of another placeholder image stable in Wikipedia articles, please consult [[File:Replace this image male.svg]] and [[File:Replace this image female.svg]]. [They contain hundreds of links featuring these placeholders.] For a current example featuring the female placeholder in the infobox of another high-profile celebrity subject, see, e.g., Michelle Williams and click on the image itself to see all the linked articles linked to it. There have been disagreements in the past over the inclusion of the placeholder image in Wikipedia articles; it was stable in this article for some time and has been reverted at others. I do not find a clearcut consensus in Wikipedia policy not to include it. WP:MOS is optional (see the header). Image policy is at Wikipedia:Image use policy. Inclusion seems to be a matter of some editors' preferences, but not consensus in Wikipedia image policy (project page).

(cont.) Where it can be useful and/or as in this case helpful, it is included. Please cite clearcut policy on its removal. Otherwise, it seems included simply to be a matter of good-faith attempt for usefulness and, also in this case, balancing the lead and illustrating what the infobox might look like (in terms of size) if there were a legitimate free image of the subject in it.

(cont.) I do understand the good-faith attempts of the other editor who is removing it. There may be differences of opinion about image placeholders at this time in Wikipedia, but that does not constitute a "project wide consensus" on its removal in this article or the others in those links to such placeholder images. It is not harmful to include it, and it is in this case helpful, because it highlights the request for a free image. Reverting it is not justified by Wikipedia consensus. Leaving it off unbalances the article's lead (if one leaves hidden influences and influenced in the infobox. It is useful aesthetically in this particular article. Reverting the detailed editorial interpolation lost important information. --NYScholar (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the centralized discussion but if the editors of this article wish to fly in the face of collegiate guidelines, fine. Have it your own way. --Rodhullandemu 20:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) If one consults the ongoing discussion on the "svg" page, one can see ongoing debate; the image is not currently disabled and the project page for Wikipedia:Image use policy does not state a consensus against using it. To reverting editor R: If you have evidence of a "project wide consensus" on removing the male "svg" file and the female "svg" file, please link to it so we can take a look at what you're basing your reverting it on. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The linked discussion is over 8 months old. I don't see a current "project wide consensus"; it still seems to be a subject of ongoing debate and disagreement and the no free male and no free female "svg" images are still linkable in Wikipedia. Perhaps people with strong views one way or the other as it pertains to its use in this particular article can discuss it here. Thanks. (And thanks R.: I do understand where you are coming from.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

That discussion also has to do with biographies of living persons, and I don't know if the arguments apply to recently-deceased persons, or not; but the summary at top of the page does refer to living persons biographies. The use here is just to signal that we are seeking a free image and to have people come to the talk page to see the previous discussion of this need. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think age is relevant; a consensus persists until it is renegotiated. Neither am I aware of any current debate on the topic. I do, however, have better things to do than argue the toss over whether a page should be sullied by such an ugly image. --Rodhullandemu 20:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

If there is a "project wide consensus" in Wikipedia to remove these placeholder images, then why are the images still in Wikipedia (not deleted from Wikipedia) and why do they still remain in so many articles? It appears that on each of those placeholder pages (which link to the debate that you linked to) the issue is still being debated and that there are still various conflicting positions about it that have not led yet to a definitely-accepted "project wide consensus" not to include placeholder images in the infoboxes of biographical articles. In this case of this particular article, I think that the lead looks better with the placeholder image in the infobox than it does w/o it. [It was balanced with no image before the death of the subject, but changes to the lead from Dec. 25 on unbalanced it.] Some time ago an editor added the "show" and "hidden" features to the "influences" and "influenced" parameters in the infobox, which makes it show up shorter. Whether or not one sees the placeholder image as "ugly" seems to be a matter of personal preference. While the placeholder image is not as attractive as an actual free image would be, it's useful in this case, I think. If one finds it "ugly" and that it "sullies" the infobox, perhaps one will be motivated to locate a free image to replace it with. I too have other things to do, so I will be doing them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Thought of this compromise, and edited the infobox accordingly. Hope this works for the reverting editor. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I am somewhat bemused by the removal by User:Wizardman of the placeholder. I reverted the edit because no reason was given for its removal. The ugliness issue is simply a matter of personal preference. I have studied the links to the discussion last year and I hardly think there is consensus for none-use of this device and as has been stated above the actual code has not been disabled. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As I've pointed out elsewhere, one would expect an Admin and an Arbitrator to have a grasp of current consensus generally. It should be assumed that all editors are aware of such general consensus, but that is not always the case, and is why I keep a "Need to Know" section on my talk page. Perhaps an IFD for these placeholders would determine the issue for once and for all. --Rodhullandemu 00:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but I saw no consensus. There did seem to be some general agreement on coming up with an alterbnative but I see no eveidence that an alternative has been produced. Very confused now. perhasp your proposal of an IfD would sort it out. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Reply to R: I did not realize that you were an administrator until checking your talk page and user page on my own. The "need to know" link is helpful, but, as J. suggests above, and as you do as well, if an IFD is still necessary to "determine the issue for once and for all," then it would appear to most reasonable editors that it is not yet "determined ... once and for all." --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) (ec) I find that so-called "deprecation" in Wikipedia shifts back and forth with shifting consensus (as w/ dates in MOS), and it is hard for non-administrative editors to keep up with such shifts. At any rate, I tried to devise an alternative "compromise" that removes the placeholder image from the infobox but keeps the interpolated comments for those who go into editing mode and directs them to the talk page discussion.

(cont.) (ec) I myself was okay w/ there being no image and no placemarker image for a long time (before the non-free image was moved to the infobox after Dec. 25), but, when I found I had to move it out of the infobox, due to violation of Wikipedia image policy, I added the placemarker image (no free image male.svg) to signal the problem. Then when it was removed recently, I didn't like the unbalancing of the lead, so I've revised the infobox for greater balance. I hope this compromise works, and I will consult R's various links on the user page and talk page in the future when I see R's edits. Editing summaries for each edit are really helpful as we can't expect all editors to hunt for reasons on users' talk pages. Thanks for the heads up about the "need to know"; will consult it in the future. --NYScholar (talk) 00:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

EL item: "Nobel Lecture: Art, Truth & Politics"

Re: The reverting of the adding of a redundant link to the EL section--it's redundant bec. there already is an EL for the nobelprize.org version of the Nobel Lecture [5th from bottom]; people need to look for it by the actual title at the Nobel site, which differs from the source citations, which are to the Faber and Faber book publication of it; the versions of the titles differ as well. The Wikipedia article for the Nobel Lecture, Art, Truth and Politics, is now in the infobox as well, as it is one of Pinter's (most) notable works. The article has its own EL section. Bibliography for Harold Pinter contains several versions cited in these Wikipedia articles on and about Pinter; but earlier editors who kept inserting it in the HP article EL section appear to want the repetition. It does not violate WP:EL (a guideline not a policy) to have it in EL. Other views? --NYScholar (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Sleuth

It is not true to say, as the article at present does, that the two roles in Sleuth were "originally played" by Olivier and Michael Caine. Those actors appeared in the first film version of the work, but the roles were originally played by Anthony Quayle and Keith Baxter two years earlier. Could this sentence be recast to read something like: "...(in the role of Andrew Wyke, played in the 1972 film version by Laurence Olivier) and Jude Law (in the role of Milo Tindle, which Caine had played in the 1972 film)."? Tim riley (talk) 14:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Afterthought: Is there any party line on English-v-American spelling for this article? At present it is mostly but not wholly English. Happy to attend to this if it is thought desirable to be consistent. 91.104.164.27 (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC) (Sorry - wasn't logged in: should have been signed by Tim riley (talk) 15:09, 21 February 2009 (UTC))

After much wrangling following the death of Pinter UK English English was agreed upon as the subject was a British citizen, so if you spot any remaining Americanisms please change them. And I would agree about the original casting comment, please feel free to edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. Only one US spelling, I find on close scrutiny, apart from those within quotations, which I have of course left untampered with. Tim riley (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the spelling changed was "traveling" to "travelling"; in the U.S., either one is correct, though "traveling" is the preferred spelling and "travelling" is the second choice. It really is not a matter of the version of English. In the U.S. either version would be fine. Generally speaking, current English-usage dictionaries in the United States (such as The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language) choose the most modern usage as preferred and the more archaic version as second choice; in England, apparently, the double l (el) is preferred. In any case, no native speaker of English would be confused by either spelling. If I missed some intended British spelling, I do appreciate user Tim riley and/or others making the changes. When I encounter them myself in these articles related to Harold Pinter, I do try to change them too. Many have been created by Americans and may have their original American spellings. Harold Pinter has been much better received in the U.S. since the 1960s than he was in England, until after he received the Nobel Prize (when his plays began to be produced more frequently in England). There has been much more scholarship on his work produced in the U.S. than in England or other parts of the UK, so many of the secondary sources being quoted do use U.S. English, as acknowledged by Tim riley above. --NYScholar (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Quotes

Below are two quotes providing some perspective on Pinter's literary style. Bermant's is all over the Web. They should at least be considered for inclusion:

Chaim Bermant: Harold Pinter is a man of few words, most of them silly.

Mark Steyn: . . . a pause, followed by a non-sequitur.

Source: Harold Pinter's Special Triteness http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTkzMWIwZGU4YTkxYTZkMjk4NTE2NDMxMzU2YmVhN2Y=#more Eye.earth (talk) 02:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, I agrees, this article could do with with critical comments to preserve NPOV Jezhotwells (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no usefulness in including the two fragments. They are trivia. Neither Chaim Bermant nor Mark Steyn is a critical authority on Pinter. This article follows Wikipedia's policy of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view via its "good article" review accomplished well prior to Pinter's death. The sources cited (if one reads them) present positive and negative perspectives on the subject (see, e.g., note 61 [updated]). I find neither of the two examples "interesting"; the first is particularly mean spirited; the second, neither positive nor negative, but merely repeats clichés about Pinter's dialogue, already discussed in greater detail in the cross-linked article on Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work: it doesn't belong here. Pauses and non-sequiturs are common in many absurdist plays and plays contemporary with Pinter's, not just his (see the sources in that article). Any reading of critical sources provided in this article (e.g., Martin Esslin's editions of his book on Pinter listed in the Nobel Committee's Bio-bibliography) make the point far better than that out-of-context phrase by Steyn. The National Review is not a "neutral" publication. It has a definite conservative bias and generally derides progressive writers and thinkers. --NYScholar (talk) 00:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The fact that one cannot read the whole article without a subscription to the magazine makes it inaccessible to most readers; the blurb that is accessible appears to me poorly informed and has an obvious axe to grind. I would not call it an addition to "neutral point of view" (in Wikipedia's policy terms). Putting in negative perspectives just for the purpose of putting in negative perspectives on a subject without regard for the quality of the material is not the aim of neutral point of view. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinter's "literary style" is discussed in the cross-linked article linked above: Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work. This is a biographical article. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) The article linked by the first poster is about the Swedish Academy's selection of Pinter for the Nobel Prize in Literature; there is a way to [cite it in] discussion of that. [Done: see below]. But again, the fact that the whole article is not accessible by all readers and that the blurb provides phrases quoted out of the context of the whole is misleadingly problematic. I can try to develop a source citation for it, giving its full bibliographical information in the cross-linked bibliography, adding it to a note [Done; see below]. But I would not use it as development in a discussion of Pinter's literary style as its contribution to such a topic is trivial. --NYScholar (talk) 00:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [updated; see below. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) Given inability to access the full version of the National Review Online article by Pryce-Jones due to full access being limited only to online NRO subscribers, there is no way for me to see the full context and primary sources of the out-of-context quotations in it. The published sources of the quotations are not given in the linked secondary NRO source. I have added a full citation to his article to Bibliography for Harold Pinter which serves as the "Works cited" for this biographical article on Pinter, and I have added note citations citing it (and Hari) to the lead and the sec. on the Nobel Prize. Anyone who has full access to the NRO or to a library where the magazine is held can follow it up on their own. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) If one goes up to #Wikiquotes discussion above, one might consider adding the partial quotations to that; but they need to be properly sourced (documented). It would be best to have the primary [published] sources of those [out-of-context] quotations and a fuller context for them if added to Wikiquotes (which is linked in bottom of the article). --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC) [Updated: one needs the actual published sources of the quotations cited by David Pryce-Jones; his presentation of them in the blurb is not sourced; one would need to say "quoted by Pryce-Jones", but, again, I think them trivial offhand remarks and not in any way illuminating. --NYScholar (talk) 03:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)]

I have found a link to the full Pryce-Jones article and updated the link on Bibliography for Harold Pinter. Many people have heard or read the Bermant quote and it would be peculiar if it couldn't be found on Wikipedia except on a Talk page or deep in some reference. It might fit in a chapter discussing Pinter's politics, his critics, etc. I'm not familiar enough with his work to go further, but a quote that wicked would probably interest casual readers of the article. A possible qualifying source might be the blog entry by one Miriam Shaviv, who says she is Bermant's daughter-in-law. She provides the quote as belonging to Chaim Bermant. It is here: http://bloghd.blogspot.com/2005/10/man-of-few-words-most-of-them-anti.html.

The Steyn quote is the lesser of the two and probably could be skipped. But I was interested in your use of the word "progressive" ("[National Review] has a definite conservative bias and generally derides progressive writers and thinkers"). It's surely POV when uncapitalized, and historically incorrect if capitalized. You used the term "absurdist" earlier, which may be more fitting. Eye.earth (talk) 04:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec [edit conflict]) (cont.) As stated above, I already have provided a full citation and a source citation to the Pryce-Jones NRO article, beginning in a source citation in the lead (introd.)--please consult and read Harold Pinter, where you will find it.

(cont.) If you want to work on developing a discussion of Pinter's style, the more relevant article to do so in is the article Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work, where matters of style are discussed in more detail than they are in this one (which focuses more on his biography: life and career highlights, honors and awards, etc. and presents a more general perspective on his style as a writer; details are in the cross-linked articles (one just linked) and individudal works.

(cont.) Otherwise, the relevant sections of this article are the ones that discuss his political views. His stance relating to several issues pertaining to Israel and the Palestinians is complex and widely discussed in sources, several of which are already provided in the source citations in the main article.

(cont.) One could probably devote at least a whole article if not a book to the subject; if you search, you may find evidence of doctoral dissertations and published articles [some perhaps accessible online] where the matter is debated.

(cont.) See the "Harold Pinter Bibliograpy" (1987 – ) for listing of such publications. As far as I know, the one covering 2002 to 2004, featuring a Nobel Prize supplement covering May 2006 (part of the 2008 volume of The Pinter Review), is published [through the press] but not yet received. It may be received by individual subscribers and subscribing libraries any day, as my last information was that it was due from the printer in mid-Feb.

(cont.) Please see the links in the talkpage header above if you need some guidance in editing Wikipedia articles. The focus of Wikipedia talk pages like this one is just editing the articles (not debating the subject itself or the language of other editors [taken out of context]). As far as I understand NRO as a source, it has a conservative bias, as discussed in the National Review article in Wikipedia, and one reads articles that appear in it understanding that it has such a point of view (at least I do). I myself do not regard it as a "neutral" publication. Thanks again! :-)--NYScholar (talk) 04:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.)[Note: I did not intend any hidden meaning in "progressive"; I meant "politically liberal" as opposed to "politically conservative"--just ideological distinctions commonly used, like "right" and "left"; the NRO is known not to be leftist (in the common sense of the term), and Pinter has been identified over the past twenty-five years or so with the political left (as opposed to the political right); see the "See also" and categories for other examples pertaining to Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 04:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)]

Note Well: I had to remove the URL that Eye.earth added to the Bibliography for Harold Pinter (after I tried to correct its format, which had created problems. It is an obvious copyright violation; see the notice at the bottom of The Gale Group webpage. That version cannot be posted in Wikipedia; it is copyright-protected. The source also involved self-published blog posts, which are not permitted in Wikipedia; not reliable third-party published free source. It conflicts with the NRO copyright. The copyright notices both at NRO and at the Gale Group explicitly do not permit redistribution of this copyright-protected material. --NYScholar (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I have reinstated the link (http://www.articlearchives.com/humanities-social-science/literature-literature/269241-1.html Article Archives). Citing it is hardly a copyright violation, obvious or otherwise. It can be found on Google, isn't ripped from a paid-subscription site, and isn't being republished or reposted in Wikipedia or anywhere else. They want to be read and I'm sure the people posting click-ads on the page cited would agree with me. Your claim of copyright violation strikes me as absurdist as Pinter's plays are said to be.

Good for you Eye.Earth, you are correct that citing that article is not a copyright violation. If it was then we would have to remove all the other cites from this article and the rest of Wikipedia! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course National Review isn't a "neutral" publication and it makes no pretense of being one. The point is that the Bermant's quote in particular is known to enough people that they might seek background on it by going to the Pinter page. I may pursue this matter later.

I doubt that my query regarding your use of "progressive" amounts to a serious violation of Talk-page rules.

What note 61? Footnote 61 on the main Pinter page doesn't seem to refer to this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eye.earth (talk • contribs) 13:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes note 61 is about the Milosevic support group. The whole mishmash of citations and references on 2 pages is bound to lead to confusion, even on the part of the editor who made it like that! Jezhotwells (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Note numbers change when the other notes have been added; the note no. was accurate when I first gave it.

[...moving back to current talk page in case one misses this, as it's relatively new comment. --NYScholar (talk) 10:47, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

Reversion of edit of Archive Section

I note that another editor has reverted my removal of an unneccessary paragraph in the Archive section describing in full detail the contents of a blog on the British Library archive web site, a blog which is hard to find because of the inordinately complex double layer citation style imposed without consensus on this article by the aforesaid author. I am not sure how the contents of this blog advance the article whose subject died over two months ago. I hope that the aforesaid editor doesn't write a 2,000 word monologue here, but perhaps replies in a succinct and point of fact manner. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Article style

Is the style of this article acceptable? I am increasingly concerned by the imposition of a dead tree citation format (MLA) on this article by one editor. I find it makes it rather hard to actually find the reference and believe that is off-putting to the general reader of Wkikpedia. I invite comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Use of MLA citation format seems like a reasonable choice to me. Did you have a different template in mind? I can imagine other choices that would also be reasonable.IceCreamEmpress (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Further information (if needed)

Apparently, [it has seemed to me] Jethowells' specialty is related to Information Technology and computer software, not literature and relates to subjects concerning parts of the UK (e.g., Bristol, if I recall). One of my specialties is Harold Pinter and criticism of his works. For the winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature, The MLA Style Manual format (which J. changed to the most recent edition, creating inconsistencies which I resolved, by deferring to that edition) is entirely acceptable, as already discussed by administrators and in the "good article" review, conducted by an impartial reviewer, completed long before J. entered the editing of this article. MLA Style has been its prevailing citation format for a very long time prior to J's editing this article (mostly or entirely after Pinter's death on 24 Dec. 2008), and it is J's disruptive and unreasonable complaints about this citation style sheet (which preexists J's work here) that are unnecessary and "off-putting", at least to me. It is beating a dead horse. Just because J. does not like MLA Style format or is not familiar with it is no reason to change it. The work that has gone into making this article consistent in its bibliographical and citation format (found, by the way, in most if not all the major scholarship on Harold Pinter) needs to be respected, not maligned. Please show some respect for the work of others. Thank you. (The same is true of another article, where J. has been introducing inconsistencies into the prevailing format by inserting citation templates where they do not belong and ignoring the Style Sheet: Art and politics, cross-linked in the "See also" section of Art, Truth and Politics, Pinter's Nobel Lecture.)

The watchword in Wikipedia citation format is WP:MOS#Consistency. Please see the links in the style sheet template. Thanks. [For the history of this dispute, please see the archived talk page and link to J's last complaints about it, which were resolved: Talk:Harold Pinter/archive6#Mediation. This has already been dealt with, and, apparently, due to J's not liking the MLA Style Sheet in the other article, J keeps returning here to disrupt the editing of this one. I hope that J will stop doing that.] --NYScholar (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When Wikipedia citation templates appropriately prevail in other articles, I follow them if they are consistently used (and the article is not a mish mash of citation styles and it does not need correction). But here MLA Style is consistently used. Please accept that and move on. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Again: parenthetical referencing (either Harvard or MLA or APA, depending on which is most appropriate to the discipline) and MLA bibliographical format for bibliographies are used throughout Wikipedia. This has already been fully discussed and J has already been referred to the Wikipedia links concerning parenthetical referencing. Any Wikipedia general reader can understand parenthetical referencing. The Bibliography for Harold Pinter is the Wikipedia work that this article is keyed to. It has been a massive task to create and it is currently consistently referred to via the parenthetical citations and endnotes. This article uses parenthetical referencing (MLA Style as is appropriate to the discipline of literature [and theatre arts and cinema]) and endnotes, all "acceptable" choices in Wikipedia. (E.g.WP:CITE#Parenthetical referencing; author-date is APA Style [subjects in the disciplines of the social sciences] as well as Harvard; author-page number and author-short title-page no. is MLA style, more appropriate for articles about subjects in the disciplines of literature and the arts (Humanities), like Harold Pinter.) --NYScholar (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In Wikipedia articles on subjects in the (physical) Sciences and Medicine (including those themselves), ACS Style (see: Style guides template; American Chemical Society [ACS]) is often used. Wikipedia article citation formatting does follow customary citation styles in the parenthetical referencing and/or endnote and bibliography ("Works cited"--MLA) formatting of these disciplinary-specific articles (including those which are biographies). Wikipedia did not invent citation styles; the discipline (in itself) of bibliography pre-exists Wikipedia; it simply adapts to and/or adapts a whole range of possible citation formats and recommends that editors be consistent in choosing (and applying) appropriate styles for the disciplines of the articles. The links for verification of all the online sources used in this article are readily accessible in the "Works cited" (Bibliography for Harold Pinter); everything currently in this article (including all the print-only sources) has been checked and verified as of today.)--NYScholar (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• To respond to IceCreamEmpress, I am concerned that the citations as presented are confusing to non-scholarly readers, who are not neccessarily familiar with scholarly citation formats. My feeling is that Wikipedia is a source of information for all. So to give some examples:

1 In the lede, it states that Pinter directed "almost 50 stage, television, and film productions.[2" Fine. So if I click to see footnote 2, I get: ^ a b c d "Acting" and "Directing" sections of HaroldPinter.org, compiled by Mark Batty. No hyperlink, I have to copy and paste HaroldPinter.org into my browser which redirects to http://www.haroldpinter.org/. Why not hyperlink the reference?

The hyperlink to Pinter's official website is both in the infobox and in the EL section. It is intuitive, if one uses common sense. The format is not to link the item; the item is linked by virtue of both the infobox and the EL section. Everyone reading this article knows where to find the URL of the official Website of Harold Pinter: It's Wikipedia format to put it in the infobox and in the EL section (for convenience), and the menu on the site is clear. I had originally linked to the home (index) page; J. changed it to haroldpinter.org. I will change it back later if I have time and hope that J. does not revert it (again). --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC) [Updated: More recently, I did add hyperlinks for further convenience of readers. See more recent comments well below. --NYScholar (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)]

2 In the section "Early theatrical training and stage experience", is the statement "In Pinter: The Player's Playwright, David Thompson "itemises all the performances Pinter gave in the [David] Baron years," including those in English regional repertory companies, nearly twenty-five roles.[23]". OK. I click on footnote 23 and get "^ Cited in Billington, Harold Pinter 49–55." oK clear enough, but I have to figure out that I then need to go to a separate article (Bibliography_for_Harold_Pinter#Bibliographical_resources) and scroll down the page to eventually find the details of the work "Billington, Michael. Harold Pinter. London: Faber and Faber, 2007. ISBN 9780571234769 (13). Updated 2nd ed. of The Life and Work of Harold Pinter. 1996. London: Faber and Faber, 1997. ISBN 0571171036 (10). Print. (The official authorized biography.)". I don't think that that is clear to the average reader, who would surely expect to find this detail in the article Harold Pinter.

The consistency is MLA Style--which does not require the repetition of the name of the source's last name when the name is already mentioned in the previous parenthetical citation. All parenthetical citations work this way: One goes to the Works cited/Bibliography to locate the reference to which the last name of author (and if APA or Harvard or Chicago: date) refer. The fact that J. is ignorant of how parenthetical citations function in published writing is J.'s ignorance, not that of the rest of us who do understand their functions. Readers do not invent the style format; it's in the style guide cited (The MLA Style Manual, 3rd ed.) Annotations are the discretion of the editor (me here). --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I clearly understand the the bit about not repeating the sources last name. What I was querying was why is the earlier erfernce to Billington's book a footnote type and then a parenthetical one. That is confusing. And please don't call me ignorant! Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

3 Next section, "Marriage and family life", another reference is made to the Billington biography following the words, "their son, Daniel, was born in 1958" we get the parenthetical reference (Billington, Harold Pinter 54, 75), followed a couple of lines late by the bald (264–66). Consistent? I don't think so. At the bottom of this section after "I've never been able to write a happy play, but I've been able to enjoy a happy life' " we find ("Still Pinteresque" 16). What does this mean? I ask. By chance or luck I eventually find that this refers to an interview cited in the separate article "Bibliography_for_Harold_Pinter#Bibliographical_resources" under the interview section and the citation is "Lyall, Sarah. "Still Pinteresque". New York Times 7 Oct. 2007, sec. 2 ("Arts & Leisure"): 1, 16; illus. Print. New York Times, Movies. New York Times, 7 Oct. 2007. Web. 6 Jan. 2009. (Feature article which previews Sleuth; includes film trailer.)" This is not clear, this is not consistent.

Lyall is the author of more than one work cited in this article. Lyall's name is already used in the citation [in the endnote; Wikipedia citation format uses "ref name=..." and I have used that); "Still Pinteresque" is the title, used to distinguish it from other sources by Lyall also being cited; that is MLA format. If I have to reinsert Lyall's name again later, I will do it later. [Checked; I re-inserted it, and it's fine now; was a simple typographical error occasioned by all the changing of refs. previously--see archive and editing hist.-NYScholar (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)] (My original citations were changed by J. and other editors after 12/24/2008; some may not have been restored as I originally intended them. (There is no Wikipedia policy on limiting my responses to all these numbered items. I am responding due to the lack of knowledge of J. about the format. It is J.'s job to inform himself/herself by reading the MLA Style Manual, not mine. It is a courtesy for me to respond at all.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[Again. Corrected the typo. error. and re-inserted "Lyall"--as used in note citations later via (ref name=...). One adaptation to Wikipedia format is use of "ref name=..." for multiple uses of same endnote, and use of "/" for titles before final punctuation mark in titles. See editorial interpolation in the cross-linked Bibliography for Harold Pinter. Wikipedia admins./editors in the past several years have directed me to this diff. of punctuation of titles between MLA format and Wikipedia's own MOS, and I have deferred throughout to WP:MOS. --NYScholar (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)]

That is the MLA Style of the 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual, which J. started using in changing the previous format of Bibliography for Harold Pinter. It is both consistent with the MLA Style as presented in the volume (which I own). It is also correct. The citation is to both the printed version of the New York Times and the web version, to which a URL is supplied. The fact that J. does not know that is again a result of ignorance of the format (3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual). An annotation in parentheses (or brackets) is part of bibliographies when such annotations are useful. It is both perfectly clear and perfectly consistent and for the convenience of those who have access to both the printed and the web versions of the article (as I do); the source information has been both checked and verified against both print and online versions of the article. When one uses both versions, one cites both versions. [Update: I expanded the annotation; as many NYT and other major national newspaper articles do in "feature articles," there are comments from Lyall's interview with Pinter in this article as cited and as listed; that is why it is listed in that section. It is the first article by Lyall listed in Bibliography for Harold Pinter; I suggest that J. read the article to understand why it is listed as an interview. The citation is proper MLA Style format and correct. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)]

4 To compare, I examine the featured article on William Shakespeare, another notable playwright and poet. This has clearly laid out Notes, References and Bibilography sections which readily lead the reader to the source. Likewise the article on Arthur Miller, or see Samuel Beckett, George Bernard Shaw, Eugene O'Neill. Need I go on? Jezhotwells (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

So what? [Addition: Many articles use many different kinds of citations format; this one uses MLA Style citation format and has many citations that are published only in print--as I have stated elsewhere. All the URLs needed for verification of online sources are provided in the cross-linked Bibliography for Harold Pinter (which clearly serves as this article's "Works cited" [as stated]). This article passed a "good article" review using MLA Style. It is both acceptable and useful for this article due to the large number of printed publications used as sources. "Works cited" is simply a more specific name for "References" [used as an example in Wikipedia discussions of kinds of bibliographies used in Wikipedia articles] and the layout follows the (optional) WP:MOS Layout. J. is just wasting our time in my view. There is no requirement in Wikipedia that one use citation templates or any specific citation format; the citation format is an option; I chose a reasonable option for an article on literature with a lot of print sources, and I have followed this option consistently; that is all that Wikipedia requires that I do, as an editor. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) The editor is a relatively new editor to Wikipedia. The complaints are not in keeping with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines as well as not informed about the way parenthetical referencing works in multiple bibliographical systems. I've been editing Wikipedia since 2005 and have seen the kinds of problems that relatively new editors to Wikipedia raise when they do not understand that, due to its peer editing, Wikipedia guidelines and policies can be contradictory. In this case, however, Wikipedia clearly states that MLA Style is acceptable; despite J.'s inability to understand its consistencies and J.'s claim that they are "inconsistencies", the format is consistent with MLA Style. I can't devote any more time to explaining this to J. [because I have a publishing deadline to meet and need to do work outside of Wikipedia to meet it.] [Added. --01:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) I suggest that J. get a hard copy of the 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual and not just depend on Wikipedia or other online accounts of it. I have used my own published copy of this 3rd ed. in editing this article and converting the citations and Bibliographical entries to it. Later, when I have more time, I'll take another look and see if there may be some typographical errors introduced by other editors changing my original citations. The reversions of once-correct 2nd ed. format to incorrect interpretations of 3rd ed. format by J. have not helped. It took hours and hours to correct the errors introduced by J. If some remain, I will fix them later (or someone else can). --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC) [amended. --NYScholar (talk) 01:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, NYScholar's comment just about sums this up. So what? Is that how this so-called scholar / editor regards the general Wikipedia user or editor - enough said! His/her's (although undoubtedly a male if the arrogance is to be considered) attitude leaves a lot to be desired. Just read the conveniently archived discussions here to see the overweening tones of arrogance and "I know best because I am a member of the Pinter society, etc." NYScholar arbitrarily changed the spelling of the article on a British playwirght to American spelling until a combination of five other editors prevailed after a discussion lasting weeks. NYScholar imposed his confusing citation so-called style without any attempt to seek consensus. NYScholar repeatedly removes and re-writes considered contributions by other editors without discussion, substituting instead long rambling attempts at justification on this talk page. NYScholar has exhibited extreme symptoms of ownership of this article, rarely responds to corrections in style and grammar, but writes at inordinate length attempting to justify his obsession with maintaining ownership of this article driving other editors who have much to add away. His constant attempts to prove superiority by asserting his incomparable knowledge of Pinter's work and his expertise in Pinter criticism are evident to anyone who has a spare hour or two peruse the talk page, including the good article review which appears to have been inconclusive, to say the least. An examination of the edit history shows an unhealthy obsession bordering on insanity. I repeat, as has been stated by many other editors that that NYScholar's edits have made this article almost unreadable, with difficulties in discerning the validity of references, unclear and confusing citation styles, and generally unworthy of any good article status, with a heavy emphasis on worship of the subject, including the constant insertion of sickening (and certainly un-neutral) pphraseology and quotations and no attempt at a neutral point of view. Desist, I say. Cede your attempts to assert ownership.

Please let this article (and associated sub-articles) be what it (they) should be - factual descriptions of the life and works of a British playwright of the late 20th century, without any hagiography, over elaborate quotation of fan literature, detailed descriptions of his last rites, expansion into a proliferation of meaningless sub-articles such as Comedy of menace, a phrase of which Pinter himself said, "....I don't think it's worthy of much more exploration". Keep all the references and citations on the main page, remove the unnecessary elaboration and learn how to write for a wide public audience which is what Wikipedia should be all about. NYScholar's description om me above is inaccurate, un-referenced and factually inaccurate and I take exception to it. I have in fact a good knowledge of literature, I have had several historical works published, I have appeared in two of Pinter's plays as an actor, I have understudied a role in a play that Pinter directed (Twelve Angy Men, Bristol Old Vic, 1996), I have stage managed many plays, appeared in many others, and I resent NYScholar's arrogant dismissal of me (above) as an It specialist. I appeal to NYScholar to actually read what has been written, above, to place himself in the shoes of the average Wikipedia reader and to just try , for a moment or two, to attempt to understand that that his view of the world is not the only one outr there. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

J.'s tone and insinuations and personalizations of all this violate Wikipedia policy for civility. The British/U.S. battle that s/he appears to think s/he is engaged in is non-existent in my view. (The matter of version of English was resolved and s/he should stop bringing it back up. Move on. [The article passed a "good article" review with American English; at that time (Oct. 2007), it was fine w/ the reviewers. --NYScholar (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) As an American who has worked on Pinter for over forty years, I have no prejudices against Brits. [Though one might question J.'s attitude toward American scholars. --NYScholar (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) The fact remains that J. just is unwilling to make the effort to understand the function of parenthetical referencing in Wikipedia. As far as "the average Wikipedia reader" goes: there is no such entity. Wikipedia appeals to an extremely wide range of readers, from advanced specialists in Pinter studies like me to high school and students of even earlier ages and those who are not students of literature. Even Pinter's young stepgrandson (whose poem is cited in this article) mentioned having turned to the internet for knowledge of his late stepgrandfather's work; perhaps he turned to Wikipedia. He said that he was duly impressed. If he can read articles like this one on the internet about Pinter, so can other older "general readers". The article is geared to everyone in the Wikipedia community, not to me (whose other published work is at the most advanced level of Pinter studies), and not to J., who has "understudied a role in a play that Pinter (which, by the way, I saw in England, but probably without J. in it, as no understudy took over any role that night). As one who has read just about every published study of Pinter available, I know that my "view of the world" and of Pinter's work is "not the only one out ... there"; neither is J.'s, however. I suggest that s/he raise the level of discourse and maintain civility. --NYScholar (talk) 02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on! That is a very un-scholarly leap of fancy. Pinter's step-grandson apparently mentioned turning to the internet for knowledge of Pinter's work. OK. Then, perhaps he turned to Wikipedia. He said that he was duly impressed. If he can read articles like this one on the internet about Pinter, so can other older "general readers". Are you making some connection here? Are you trying to suggest that Pinter's stepgrandson has conferred some sort of approval on this article? If you aren't why are you mentioning it? Is this an example of your style of original research? I have no problem with parenthitical referencing, per se. what I do have a problem with is a style where one paragraph uses a footnote, another uses a parenthetical reference AND that I have to turn to a separate article to find some form of reference. Responses such as So What! are not debate, they are not discourse. Nowhere do you give the slightest inkling of understanding that waht is clear to you is noty neccessarily clear to others. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography for Harold Pinter is not designed as a "separate article" per se; as per the "good article" review, it is designed as a split-off section of this article. The insinuation that it is intended as a "separate article" is misleading above. The history of the "good review" will reveal that we were asked to split off sections of this article and have cross-linked them; occasionally, other editors devised the splits and I accommodated them by developing the split parts. The Bibligraphy is the "Works cited" for this article, as linked. Other editors have sometimes reverted that fact, but it remains the relationship between this article Harold Pinter (which includes its cross-linked sections developed as well) and Bibliography for Harold Pinter. I think that J. knows that, and I think the insinuation that it is not is not at all helpful and may confuse other readers trying to follow this discussion. (Please review the good article review, what I was asked to do, and what I did as a result of those requests. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

But it is a separate article now, is it not? Jezhotwells (talk)

It is still a section of this article and the lead in it clearly states that. --NYScholar (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) Pertaining to an earlier comment: Billington is identified as the "authorized" or "authorised" "official" "biographer" of Harold Pinter throughout this article; but his article is not merely a "biography", it is a critical as well as biographical study. The original title (first and rev. ed.) is The Life and Work of Harold Pinter, as cited (properly); the most recent ed. of the book is cited now, with the most recent page references to this ed. (Another new updated edition is in progress, to take account of Pinter's death and responses to it, including tributes now in the British Library.) One has to read the whole article, not just pieces of it. As his name begins with the letter B, his work appears early in the section of the Bibliography (Works cited) listing "secondary sources"--Here's the link. No other "average reader" has said he or she couldn't "find" it. It is also clearly listed in Billington's bibliography of works published in the cross-linked Wikipedia article on him Michael Billington, which I have also edited over an extended period of time. --NYScholar (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What - you expect readers to contact you to interpret the article? Please. Stop and think for a moment. Hard as it mightbe in your arrogance. Jezhotwells (talk)

[How is this kind of comment contributing to editing Wikipedia constructively? May I direct J. and other editors who engage in these kinds of comments to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, with regard to such beligerent charges of "arrogance"? Please stop the personal characterizations and follow WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. This talk page is for discussing making actual improvements to the article, not for discussing editors. In this case, I really don't even understand J. is talking about: In no way do I "expect readers to contact" me "to interpret the article"; no idea what J. is referring to? I expect readers to consult the sources (as cited) if they want more information, not to consult me. The reason for supplying reliable and verifiable sources (all of which have been checked and verified) is to provide guidance for those readers who actually do want to learn more about the subject. --NYScholar (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) (To repeat:) The curator of Modern Literary Manuscripts, the division/room which houses The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library, is quoted in this article. He published his comments in the official Harold Pinter Archive Cataloguing Blog, a third-party official British Library publication, and the cataloguer (Kate O'Brien) is the source of the process of cataloguing the Archive. Those are among the most authoritative sources on the Archive, and the citations to them are informative, relevant, pertinent, and proper in this article on Pinter, which is now an article about the life and work of a still recently-deceased public figure and major literary author. J.'s comments about the properly-documented (sourced) passage that J. removed earlier make no sense to me. It has been properly restored. Wikipedia policy is not to remove well-sourced pertinent information due to personal whims and biases. --NYScholar (talk) 01:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It is a blog and thus not a particularly notable or reliable source Jezhotwells (talk) 02:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not read the policies carefully. Official third-party published blogs of bonafide newspapers (like one you cited yourself in Art and politics (check it again) and of bonafide organizations like the British Library on the subject in question (the Harold Pinter Archive) are fully permitted in Wikipedia. The writer is the custodian of the Archive, the head of Modern Literary Manuscripts, where it is housed, and a scholar who recently gave a paper entitled "Pinter in Paris" based on the archival materials at the 2008 annual convention of the Modern Language Association. His writing is published by the British Library and copyrighted by the British Library on its site. It is fully citable and probably the most notable of any source on the Archive at this time. It's an official account of the cataloguing process and the contents, and the writer (Andrews) is a spokesperson for the British Library. --NYScholar (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC) [copied, updated, moved to current talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

Wikipedia's policy is not to produce inconsistent citations or formatting style, and it is expected of editors to engage in discussion not to dismiss objections out of hand Jezhotwells (talk) 02:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No one has "dismiss[ed] J.'s "objections" "out of hand"; I have responded civilly to most of them. They still appear trivial to me, however, and the product of what still appears to me to be a personal animus that I suggest the editor make an effort to transcend. --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that statement is not true. Your repeated response to any suggestion from other editors is to dismiss such suggestions as trivial and to repeatedly state that you have worked on this article for years and you know best. The only animus I have is against the actions of editors who exhibit extreme signs of ownership and refusal to listen to others. I have repeatedly asked for an explanation of the inconsistencies in citation as enumerated above and no coherent answer is given. Just a blanket statement that they are in MLA style and despite the inconsistency between different paragraphs it is correct, additionally insulting refernces to my inability to understand NYScholar's obtuse language, my apparent (to him) ignorance of Pinter, my lack of experience as an editor and other un-scholarly and unjustified remarks. Interested observers, if they haven't been bored away, will find evidence of this going back for some period in the archives of this talk page. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) There is nothing inconsistent about the presentation of the MLA Style citation format used here (even if J. is unable to understand that); as a professional bibliographer and critic in literary studies, I am aware of its consistency; apparently, J. is not. As far as Wikipedia policy goes; I suggest that J. re-read it. The Manual of Style presents "guidelines" not policy; consistency is the watchword in it pertaining to style of citations chosen, and I have assiduously followed it in using the currently longtime prevailing citation format for this article. WP:NOR, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:CIVIL, as listed in WP:LOP, those are Wikipedia's policies. It appears to me that it is not I but J. who is exhibiting "ownership" issues here; J.'s personal desire not to have parenthetical referencing does not trump already-consistent and already-acceptable citation style and bibliographical format (before J. changed them to inconsistencies, since corrected), as per WP:MOS (the style guidelines). --NYScholar (talk) 02:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) There is no "quotation" of "fan literature" or fansites in this article that I am aware of. Pinter's own official Website, as listed in the infobox and EL sec., is customary; none of the ELs listed are "fan literature". I really think that J. is now engaging in hyperbole and misleading rhetoric. Third-party published authoritative well-regarded scholarship is not "fan literature." The fact that J. does not like this article (apparently) but must invent reasons why it is not as "good" as the "good article" review determined it is appears to me a subjective not a neutral view of this article.

[....moved back to current page. --NYScholar (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

What I am pointing out is the inconsistent and confusing use of this parenthetical style, as you might appreciate, if you actually read what I have written. It may be clear as mud to you NYScholar, but it sure as hell isn't clear to me. Ok, maybe I'm stupid. But actually, I don't think that I am. I do see that you seem incapable of assimilating and comprehending another point of view and I ask you to stop for a moment and and try to comprehend the fallibility of mere mortals who do not share yuour scholalry view of the universe. By the way, can you provide a link to the awarding of good article status. All I can find is a list of concerns at the syle of the article? All I can find is a list of unresolved concerns at the syle of the article, Talk:Harold Pinter/archive4 Jezhotwells (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

MLA Style is to use both parenthetical citations and endnotes; please read The MLA Style Manual for more information. That is not an "inconsistency". It is part of the format. Most bibliographical formats in the Humanities and Social Sciences enable use of both parenthetical citations and endnotes in documents; see parenthetical referencing, where it discusses MLA Style format and please consult the 3rd ed. of the Manual if one needs further information. The Wikipedia articles relating to MLA Style already point out the simultaneous use of parenthetical source citations and endnotes. It was J. who complained about "interruptions" of parenthetical citations, and I streamlined them to be as brief as possible, using endnotes for "See", "Cf.", and longer refs. out of deference (may I say) to J. actually! Please examine the editing history and one will see that. --NYScholar (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I've already referred J. to this before, but to no avail: please see: Parenthetical referencing#Content notes. I use the endnotes for the longer references as one does in "content notes". Some used to be in the textual parenthetical citations but I moved them to endnotes due to J.'s earlier complaints. It would be most helpful if J. would read the Wikipedia Style guide template and follow the related links throughout Wikipedia; they are many and appear in many policies and guidelines linked at WP:LOP. There are some contradictions throughout Wikipedia that remain unresolved. Such is the nature of Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 05:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

Good article review

This is the version that passed the "good article review" in October 2007: [1] The reviewer is the editor listed at top (Willow). It took weeks to work out that version, and it uses MLA Style, which she found fine, after I made the changes she asked (it was at that time 2nd ed. of The MLA Style Manual, as the 3rd ed. was not published until around April 2008 and not being used in the MLA's own publications until 2009). Looking only at selected parts of the archive, without looking at Willow's final review comments, is misleading. All comments were taken into account in the revising of this article leading to the version that Willow passed and that existed (with some updates) on 24/25 Dec. 2008, when J. began to edit this article. The Wikipedia Style Sheet links to Wikipedia guideline for following the prevailing style. In my view, J. has presented no convincing argument to change it to any other style. --NYScholar (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I repeat, please provide a link to the good article approval. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I note also that the article version you likn to above is far clearer and more concise than that presented by yourself now. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop badgering me. The links to the good article review information are at the top of this talk page. Please look for them yourself either there and/or in the archives. I really have no time to find these for you. I've just finished expanding the article that you so unkindly have been attempting to delete. It's Comedy of menace and it is a section that was split off at the request of earlier editors, relating to Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work. Many of the now-existing articles relating to Pinter were created as split-off sections of longer versions of this article. May I remind J. that s/he is not a "good article" reviewer, and that it is not her/his task to belittle the work of earlier good-article reviewers and editors complying with their requests. --NYScholar (talk) 07:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

It's closest to the version that existed prior to your entering the editing process. --NYScholar (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC) It is also the result of my own editing in collaboration with other editors prior to that date. I would suggest that you end your barbs. I don't appreciate them and probably few others do too. They are not civil. --NYScholar (talk) 07:14, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

[....]

WillowW says that she placed the article in the "good article" "Writers" section in her now-archived talk page, where we had discussion about it (only she or JayHenry could list it there as the reviewers)--User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter; there is similar discussion in the archive of JayHenry's talk page for the same date period (roughly October 2007, with my last posts to both between 9 and 10 October 2007). I have continued the directions that I had been given via the "good article" reviews in updating the article as new developments occurred to what was then a biography of a living author between October 2007 and December 24, 2008; I have been working on this article for several years, and I am aware of its various vicissitudes and discussions about them. I really object to the apparent suggestion that this article did not pass a "good article" review when it did (in October 2007); it could not be listed in the "good articles" page under "Writers" (where Harold Pinter is listed) if it had not passed the review. It really appears to me that J. is insistent on disrupting the process that many editors (including me) have engaged in to develop this article. I'm sorry that s/he does not appreciate the hard work of other Wikipedia editors and administrators with more experience in editing Wikipedia than s/he has, but that seems to be the case. --NYScholar (talk) 07:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For the record: Re: Obituaries and related articles sec.

I still would like there not to be the redundancy of repeating that section of Bibliography for Harold Pinter in the current version of this article. A simple cross-link will go to the very same section without it having to be repeated here. It will be just as easy to find the refs. But, accommodating another editor who wanted it here, I have left it in, despite the redundancy. --NYScholar (talk) 03:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

For updated comments see proposal below and #Obituaries and related articles subsection (proposal) pertaining to Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles. --NYScholar (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive 7

Archiving this page, as it's become very long. One can use this page to begin new topics of discussion related to improving this article (see talkheader at top for focus of this talk page) or continue old ones by adding new sections here. The bickering here is getting out of hand. If one wants to read previous discussions, please consult the archived discussions, where they are preserved. The link to the archive talk page of the "good article" reviewer WillowW is also in Archive 7, in my comment posted on March 5, 2009 (The link is: User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter). --NYScholar (talk) 10:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from archiving recent and ongoing discussions, especially RfCs that have not been archived. You're welcome to make a reminder like you did at the bottom of the page if you have concerns over bickering, but that's all. The majority of your archiving has been reverted. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Article style

[Archived previous discussion of this RfC is at Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#RfC: Article style: Discussion can be continued here if one wishes. --NYScholar (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

I am not sure whether an ongoing RfC should be moved in this way. Was consensus sought on this matter? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is always ongoing in Wikipedia. There is no consensus of the kind that you are talking about: see Wikipedia:Consensus. From Oct. 2007 until Dec. 24, 2008, when you entered the editing of this article, the consensus held for the format of this article. Your objections have not got any clear support. I linked to the previous section. Archiving enables one to continue an old discussion here. The matter was already actually decided when you changed the citations to the 3rd ed. of the MLA Style Manual in January, and your acknowledgment that the article was much improved soon thereafter. Please re-read your own comments around mid January, now archived. It is time to move on. --NYScholar (talk) 14:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I re-read what J. asked about the RfC--one can just start another one--the other one is too long and archived for that reason. It was clogging up this talk page. One can just link to the archived part and start anew if one wishes. I would rather just let it be already. The citation style format is "acceptable" in Wikipedia and it is "consistent." I haven't time to provide an active URL (EL) for each of the internet sources in the notes (though that perhaps is something one could do. I used to have such links and a mix of citation templates and parenthetical citations, and I was directed by the good article reviewer and others to make it all the way it is now. (It cannot have both templates and parenthetical referencing; with MLA Style, it can have in-text parenthetical referencing and endnotes ("Notes"), and possibly even ELs (see way I did the sources in the Bibliog. so that they are verifiable); but I cannot take the time to do that. I have to do off-Wikipedia projects and can spend no more time on this. --NYScholar (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

You have no authority, or consensus, to be archiving current discussions. As such, your edits have been reverted - if you continue to archive current discussions, you may end up banned from archiving content from talk pages. My comment in the above section should provide some more detail. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:49, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

[Note to Ncmvocalist:] Thank you. I understand. If you look at the previous references to the requests for archiving and the editorial message, it is clear that archiving talk pages (one's own and talk pages of articles) does not require any kind of special kind of administrative or other "authority"; archiving of older discussions is generally done when the pages get too long. I had provided a clearcut transparent message about why it was being archived and also a direct link to the (apparently still-current) RfC (now restored above). I was simply responding to the message addressed to all editors that one gets in editing mode ("Show preview"), now still "This page is 75 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance." (As in the past, since learning how to "archive" article talk pages and my own user talk page (a couple of years ago now), I had gone to that link for "guidance" and will do so again in the future.)

(cont.)To Ncmvocalist and and other editors: Sorry for any unintended inconvenience. I'll keep Ncmvocalist's responses (above) in mind in future editing. I have no objection to the reverting of the archiving, though it has created some redundancies, as I had already moved the current discussions back to this current talk page. Thanks again for accomplishing the reverting as you did. (If something [current got] omitted inadvertently in the process of archiving and reverting of the archiving, I'll restore it from editing history later, when I have more time.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)]

I note that I don't doubt that your intentions were good, and I'm glad you understand the revert and its rationale. Best, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Convenience URLs

I re-added convenience links that I had already had in the article in 2007. Because they were inconsistent with the then 2nd ed. MLA Style Manual format and were in some cases part of citation templates, I had to remove them [as a result of the "good article" review comments made in 2007]. Such convenience links to internet-based sources are already in Bibliography for Harold Pinter and have been there since long before Pinter died on 24 Dec. 2008. As my recent editing summary(ies) indicate, I am restoring them for the convenience of some readers who would like them. But, as I state in an editing summary, and elsewhere in talk space, in order to preserve adherence to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (a core Wikipedia editing policy), I am not inserting direct links to letters of petition or partisan sites (like that relating to Milosevic [note 65], where I give the URL address in angle brackets; these are accessible via titles and names of organizations or links in the Bibliography; they have been verified via the information in the Bibliography section. Dates of access are provided there, as consistent with MLA Style format. (I have done this, as time permits, but have other work to do outside of Wikipedia; so it may take me a while to complete this task (if it's not finished). I will be mostly doing other non-Wikipedia work all week.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC) [clarified in brackets]. --NYScholar (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC) [updated note number; later number due to subsequent additions of source citations since first posted this. --NYScholar (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)]

Pryce-Jones article

The copyright-violating URL has again been removed from Bibliography for Harold Pinter; I substituted another one, which does not violate copyrights and has no notice like the one on the removed URL's page and no self-published blog posts. See Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Removal of copyright-violating link(s). (The full article is accessible via FindArticles.com.) --NYScholar (talk) 08:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) One can read the quotations (referred to in Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#Quotes) in the NRO's version, which is already linked in the full citation, or in this other full version too. The citation format is correct, so please don't change it again. --NYScholar (talk) 09:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC) [updated comment. --NYScholar (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

RE Note 61 referred to earlier in this discussion. Consulting the article history, I find that at that time (March 3 00:46) note 61 referred to the letter cited here [2], which still does not make any sense of User:NYScholar's comment: "The sources cited (if one reads them) present positive and negative perspectives on the subject (see, e.g., note 61 [updated])." Is it possible to have some clarification of what is meant? Jezhotwells (talk) 13:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I stated exactly what I intended to state: [In this article and in its attached Bibliography ("Works cited")] there are sources that present positive perspectives on Pinter and his work and political activism (etc.) and sources that present negative perspectives on Pinter and his work and political activism (etc.). Sources cited as examples of the latter, in note 6 (last time I checked--Hari and Pryce-Jones) and note 61 (at that point), which cites Hari (The controversy re: citing Hari goes back years at this point). There are many news and commentary sources presenting mixed points of view as well. The critical and scholarly sources are generally those that cite a variety of other sources, both positive and negative.

Further explanation (if needed)

(There were over 2400 pieces of Pinter criticism way back in 1978; there is an immense amount of commentary on him and his work.) I've read everything in the Bibliography and all the ELs as well; if one has not read the sources, one is not familiar with the way that multiple perspectives on Pinter are represented in them. I worked with WillowW to create a neutral presentation of these sources, as evidenced in our discussions throughout the weeks that she asked me to make revisions in 2007. I am aware of the need for neutral point of view, and in all my editing throughout Wikipedia, I strive to adhere to it. But the fact remains that when he was still alive (until December 24) Pinter was and, after his death he still is, considered one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th and 21st centuries and among the greatest of British playwrights of all time (including Shakespeare, some would say; Pinter himself probably would not say so) and on a par at least with Chekhov, Ibsen, all the greatest European and all the greatest American playwrights (including Miller, O'Neill, Williams, and Albee, just to name some). The articles that state such points are cited, as is the Nobel Committee's presentation.

The naysayers, who take on the entire Nobel Committee, like Hari and Pryce-Jones, are in the minority, and, as I read their commentaries, they seem to have their own particular axes to grind and very little beyond their own personal opinions. gossip-filled allusions, and pre-existing biases with respect to their remarks about his work. That is my perspective on their commentaries, as one who has studied Pinter and Pinter criticism since the late 60s. --NYScholar (talk) 14:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Recently, I added a ref. to a 1964 recording of Pinter at the 92nd St. Y, in which he does not rate himself on a par with Shakespeare, , Kafka, Beckett, and some of his own influences and favorite writers; but in 2008 and 2009, many critics and commentators have placed him on their level. Pinter himself did not regard himself in these kinds of "critical appraisal" terms; he was a writer and lover of literature, but not a literary critic (in his own accounts of himself). Many critics, however, have regarded his "critical acumen" as very sharp. One does not have to agree with every statement the man made as a speaker and an essayist to appreciate his value as a "literary artist" ... (or actor, director, screenwriter, etc.) or (when examining his literary manuscripts in his BL Archive) to admire and marvel at his "genius" (word used in many of the tributes). --NYScholar (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

My note did not "shift" as you say; when notes are added the numbers change. Note 61 when I referred to it as such referred to Pinter's supporting a fair trial for Milosevic. ...

The note in question, still numbered 61, citing Hari, still reads the same as it did before: "ICDSM continued its presence on the Web even after Milošević's death in 2006, still featuring the slogan "Free Slobodan Milošević!!!" on its official website <http://www.icdsm.com/>, when accessed on 29 Jan. 2009. Pinter's support of this appeal received some condemnation in the public media; e.g., see Hari."

Further explanation (if needed)

As I recall Pinter's comments at the time, he didn't feel that M. was getting a fair trial; he did not support M.'s actions in the crimes that he was accused of; it was a human rights issue from his pov. Much of what he said was twisted by others into support for what M. did or may have done in the Balkan conflict, but that was not what he was stating in the clarifications of his position that he wrote. One has to read what he actually wrote. He was opposed to NATO's bombing of Serbia, particularly, he stated, bec. he knew someone killed by those bombs [to whom he refers as an example of the many innocent civilians killed by the bombing of the marketplace at Nis], but that does not mean that he supported M.'s own actions. It was the issue of the way he was being held and tried that he disagreed w/. (So he signed the petition for M.'s getting a fair trial, and took the heat for doing so.)

Please read the primary sources. --NYScholar (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[Update: Due to more-recent development and additional note(s), it's now numbered note [65]. --NYScholar (talk) 14:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)] [updated again; again: note numbers will change continually as additional note citations added. (That is a convenient automatic feature of note numbering in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)] [Updated again after further revisions adding new note citations; please look for the text of the note as quoted above in order to find it, since the note may be updated in the future as well. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)] [Updated no. again due to revisions of various other note citations. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)] [Ditto. --NYScholar (talk) 09:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)]

British Library Harold Pinter Archive Blog: British Library Curators on Cataloguing the Pinter Archive

Official third-party published blogs of bonafide newspapers (like one Jezhotwells him/herself cites in The arts and politics [a blog by Jim DeRogatis posted in the Chicago Sun-Times--check it again][3], and like the Guardian.co.uk theatre blogs (written by newspaper drama critics like Michael Billington, Pinter's authorized official biographer) and of bonafide organizations like the British Library on the subject in question (the Harold Pinter Archive) are fully permitted in Wikipedia; they are considered reliable and verifiable sources (though the comments posted by the readers in them are not and those comments are not citable).

(cont.) The writer cited in the BL HP Archive Blog (Jamie Andrews) is the custodian of the Archive, the head of Modern Literary Manuscripts, where it is housed, and [an] [archival] scholar who recently gave a paper entitled "Pinter in Paris" based on the archival materials at the 2008 annual convention of the Modern Language Association [He mentions these credentials in earlier posts there.] His writing is published by the British Library and copyrighted by the British Library on its site. It is fully citable and probably the most notable of any source on the Archive at this time. It's an official account of the cataloguing process and the contents, and the writer (Andrews) is the chief ("head") "curator" and a spokesperson for the British Library, in which capacity he writes about the British Library's view of Harold Pinter, [his relationship to the British Library], and of his death. (Moved and updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) As already cited in this article and in the section called The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library, split off earlier, [in this BL Harold Pinter Archive Blog], the cataloguer of the Harold Pinter Archive, Kate O'Brien, gives her own first-hand account of her process of cataloguing the archive during the course of the past year or so. --NYScholar (talk) 11:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[(cont.) Note that among its links (posted since it began on 17 March 2008), the British Library Harold Pinter Archive Blog lists Pinter's official website, the website of the Harold Pinter Society, and this Wikipedia entry. (Its copyright notice by the British Library is on its about page ("[About this blog"].) --NYScholar (talk) 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

(cont.) There is nothing wrong with citing this source in Wikipedia, but, due to some other glitches in format, I have moved the passage in question to the cross-linked article The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library. There are other references both in this article and that section (split off prior to Pinter's death) to the British Library's Harold Pinter Archive Blog and its curators' and cataloguer's comments about the archive and Pinter posted in it. Those are official publications of the British Library. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

From: WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks. (bold font added)

--NYScholar (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2009 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 21:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)]

[Removed irrelevant comments re: time, as per top template: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harold Pinter article." --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 9 March 2009 (UTC)]

[Removed again; not only is the comment irrelevant to discussing editing this article, but it was inaccurate. I removed my own response to it as well. It takes the focus of the page off the subject, making improvements to the article. Please stop these disruptions of the editing process. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 10:00, 10 March 2009 (UTC)]

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harold Pinter article" (from talkpage header.) --NYScholar (talk) 10:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

For more information, please see the templated link to Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which includes details about what one can remove from article talk pages: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article (per the above subsection #How to use article talk pages)". It's really very helpful. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 10:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent totally undocumented (unsourced/plagiarized) material moved here

[Note: This material was plagiarized from Pinter's official website section compiled by Mark Batty; it is a clearcut Wikipedia:Copyright violation and thus removed. --NYScholar (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2009 (UTC)]

== Harold Pinter as a film and TV actor ==/ [All removed now due to blatant copyright violations/plagiarism from Pinter's official website section compiled by Mark Batty.)

Such material (rewritten entirely with proper documentation from multiple sources) could be part of a separate article cross-linked in See also section or otherwise. It is not acceptable material because it is totally unsourced. It appears to be taken from unidentified sources. Please see WP:V#Sources. Pinter's acting roles are already listed in his official website; these few works are extremely few examples of his acting in tv and movies. A separate article on the subject would need to be much more developed and entirely documented with reliable and verifiable sources. The insertions do not match the rest of this article as well. --NYScholar (talk) 11:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

See the link to Mark Batty's compilation of Pinter's "acting career" already given as a source citation in this article.[4] (I added the URL just a few hours ago [The source citation has been there for years.]); it is already clearly accessible via both the infobox and the EL section.) This is a biographical article mostly. A whole article on this subject "Harold Pinter's acting career" would need to draw from many more sources than a section of Pinter's own official website and document them with accurately-formatted source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 11:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (updated) --NYScholar (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC) (updated) --NYScholar (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not plagiarize from unacknowledged sources (or any sources) in editing this article. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

The section compiled by Batty on Pinter's official website includes hyperlinks to sections prefaced by "Please follow the following links for information on Harold Pinter's acting career":

• "Early acting experience"
• "The tour of Ireland"
• "The Donald Wolfit Company"
• "Other repertory work"
• "Acting for the stage"
• "Acting in Films"
• "Acting in TV drama"
• "Radio performance"

Both Pinter's official website's "Acting" section and its "Directing" section--both compiled by Batty and copyrighted by Harold Pinter (still in force)--are cited already in this biographical article. --NYScholar (talk) 12:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

[The editor adding the (now removed) section had apparently lifted material from Pinter's official website, without even acknowledging use of it. That is both plagiarism and a major copyright violation, which jeopardizes both this article and Wikipedia. Such editing is not in keeping with Wikipedia's core editing policies. --NYScholar (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)] [Updated. --NYScholar (talk) 03:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)]

Pinter as actor

Added some development to accommodate previous material, with source citations and Wikified links. It's a subsection of Harold Pinter#Career --NYScholar (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Pinter as director

I removed wiki link from The Old Masters as this was linking to a Frank Zappa album. Two questions here:

• 1 Is it necessary to wikilink so many plays that don't have articles in Wikipedia?
• 2 The sentence "As a director, Pinter helmed productions of work by Simon Gray ten times, including directing the stage premières of Butley (1971), Otherwise Engaged (1975), The Rear Column (stage 1978; TV, 1980), Close of Play (NT, 1979), Quartermaine's Terms (1981), Life Support (1997), The Late Middle Classes (1999), and The Old Masters (2004), and the film, Butley (1974), several of which starred Alan Bates (1934–2003), who originated (on stage and screen) the role of Mick in Pinter's first commercial success, The Caretaker (1960), and who also played the roles of Nicolas in One for the Road and the cab driver in Victoria Station in Pinter's own double-bill production at the Lyric Hammersmith in 1984.[2]" is extraordinarily long and cumbersome. Is it neccessary to focus on the plays of Simon Gray, Pinter did direct works by otheres. And I question the clumsy last clauses which introduce another subject (Alan Bates).

Jezhotwells (talk) 09:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

The red links are there to encourage other editors to write articles on the works. All of the linked works are notable enough for separate articles in Wikipedia. (That is why one links them.) I am quite tired, so if you want to work on syntax, be my guest. All of those plays by Gray are notable works that Pinter directed. Thanks for any help with the section that you can provide. (Simon Gray is a highly notable subject and all those works of his deserve their own articles in Wikipeida. Someday they will have blue links, I hope.) --NYScholar (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I did fix the syntactical problem that you mentioned (by breaking up the sentence into two sentences). Thanks. (It is a sentence that I did want to change, but hadn't done so yet.) --NYScholar (talk) 10:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

dead links

I have removed the following links:

• Dodds, Paisley (Associated Press). "Nobel-winning Playwright Harold Pinter Dies at 78". Associated Press. Rpt. in Google Hosted News. Google, 25 Dec. 2008. Web. 26 Dec. 2008.
• Smith, Alastair. "Pinter to be Honoured Before Final Performance of No Man's Land". The Stage, News. The Stage Newspaper Group Ltd, 2 Jan. 2009. Web. 4 Jan. 2009.
• "Harold Pinter" at The Artists Network of Refuse & Resist!. (17 pages.) (A selection of writings by and commentary about Pinter; rpt. Pinter's 2005 Nobel Lecture: "Art, Truth & Politics".)

as they are dead. Google news links have a very short life span. I can't find The Stage article anywhere. artistsnetwork.us is pending deletion according to WHOIS

I have updated several other links which have changed. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove links to sources that are cited in the article. The proper editing procedure is to replace dead links with new links to the same sources or to archived version. The outright removal of links disrupts the documentation of sources cited in the article and creates inconsistencies and incoherences in it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The Stage: [5]; will readd to article (see inuse template). --NYScholar (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Updated link and access date in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. The updated URL for the Stage article was very easy to find via a Google search. The customary procedure in Wikipedia is to provide a new link to a dead link, not to remove the source for sourced material. It is possible to use the Internet archive to find substitute links for previously live links. I do that from time to time and provide the reference to the "Internet archive" as the source of the archived link. One is not supposed to remove sources for material being cited from the sources; one provides a new way of finding the source (a new URL). In EL sections, one does not remove useful links; one finds a substitute for the old link. There is no reason to revmove the Artists' Network link; it is useful and in keeping with WP:EL guidelines (guidelines not policy) and used with discretion of editor. --NYScholar (talk) 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

But the artistsnetwiork link is dead and is not in the internet archive! Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I must have checked the stage link at z time when the site was being re-organised, I couldn't relocate the article yesterday.Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

And the google news link to AP is gone gone gone. Thanks as ever for your courtesy and understanding of efforts to improve the page. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I updated both those links [after seeing J.'s comments above].

(cont.) All one has to do is a search for the updated links. One replaces them and updates the access date for the new updated links. That is why originally I had (in 2nd ed. MLA Style Manual format) the URLs in angle brackets). Even in the 3rd ed. the recommendation is to give the URLs in angle brackets for sites that might potentially be difficult to locate, so that one can copy and paste the URLs into the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine), e.g., and locate archived versions. When that step doesn't work, one seeks an alternative URL, but one does not delete the source citation [or the EL in an EL sec.] wholesale. The Artists Network [at Refuse & Resist!, a Wikified link] has been updated (it is still online).[6] (I also updated the Wikipedia article EL for that site.)] Sites relocate their material to new URLs in revamping sometimes. It is very common to have to update links from time to time. --NYScholar (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

As the Artists Network featuring of Pinter's 2002 Turin honorary degree acceptance speech is still cited in this article and appears as one of its "Works cited" in the Bibliography for Harold Pinter, it is very important not to delete the source citation to it or the site's location as an EL: One has to scroll way down on the site to find the feature: it's entitled (there): "Harold Pinter gives Honorary Doctorate Speech at Turin University - 27th November 2002". Please don't remove these ELs and specific source citations. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason I copied the cites here was precisely so that they could be updated if a new link could be found, which I through my complete ignorance and stupidity could not do. I don't think the Google news link can be found, but there are plenty of other similar sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dead links

See also: Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter#dead and re-directed links and Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Wikipedia:Dead links and civility for Wikipedia policies regarding proper handling of dead links. One does not remove sources; one updates the links. Sources removed earlier have already been restored and the links updated. --NYScholar (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Informal requests for comments

Proposal re: Harold Pinter#Civic activities and political activism

For splitting off and moving this section and creation of a new main article called "Harold Pinter and politics" based on it (with cross-ref here) (cont. below)

For an early sense of what such a split-off article might look like, please see my sandbox: User:NYScholar/Sandbox#Harold Pinter and politics.

[Now to be found in its editing history; as I have subsequently withdrawn this proposal, I cleaned out the sandbox. --NYScholar (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)]

I don't have time to accomplish this split now, and I will not be able to take time to work on it and all the associated revisions relating to presentation of sources until next week at the earliest, but this is advance notice: [added some and rethreaded. --NYScholar (talk) 03:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)] [Updated above after creating material in my user page sandbox, with link to it. --NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)] [See later comments; updated the template to April 2009; awaiting possible further responses to this proposal from other editors who have been major contributors to this article between October 2007 and 25 December 2008. --NYScholar (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)]

Proposal

I would like to split off this section and its subsections and gather them into a separate article called "Harold Pinter and politics" perhaps, and keep a much smaller paragraph in this article section on Pinter's "civic activities and political activism" renamed "Pinter and politics" with a prefatory "see main" template cross-referencing and directing to the new article "Harold Pinter and politics." Then I would like to reorganize what currently follows this section so that appears right after "Honours" with appropriate transitions for greater coherence.

Rationale

1. Such editing would shorten this article (in keeping with the purpose of revisions made as a result of the 2007 "good article" review) and would enable moving some references into a "Works cited" (list of references) for that moved section(s)/article, with an appropriate cross reference to seek "further information" in the Bibliography for Harold Pinter, where all of these references already appear.
2. I think that would make this article more of a "biographical" article and easier to read. It would also enable continuing the method of providing links to online sources that appear in that section. (The format will still be the prevailing Style Sheet of this article, but it would have the sources repeated in an easy-to-consult list there.)
3. It will also enable me and other editors to move the External links relating specifically and only to "Harold Pinter and politics" to the new split-off created article (if the split occurs). That will also shorten and maintain the EL section as one that relates to the main sections left in the main article Harold Pinter.

Comments?

Note: Please place below and preface with a number (number sign) and indicate agreement, disagreement, or lack of position either way re: this proposal.

[Reminder: these kinds of proposals do not result in "voting" or "votes" and are not formal "polls"; they are just a means of seeking comments about an editing suggestion and developing some sense of consensus among major contributors (editors) to the article (and perhaps other users who are its readers but who do not engage [much if at all] in editing it).]

Thanks. (ec w/ prev. sec. simultaneously added by other ed.)--NYScholar (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

[Also, according to Wikipedia:Consensus, silence is interpreted as consensus (agreement); so if one has a comment supporting or not supporting this split, please make it below. Otherwise, if there is no strong opposition, when I have time and finish the work currently started in sandbox linked at top of this sec., in about a week from now, I may move forward with the split, as it is in keeping with the kinds of revisions made leading to "good article" status in October 2007. --NYScholar (talk) 16:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

1 Good idea, but a short summary paragraph should remain here. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Is anything happening about this, it has been nearly a month now. I thought that it was going to happen in a week? I also think that the obituaries should be moved out now. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Notice the use of the word "may" in my initial proposal and also the request for comments (the time when I had time to do this came and went). This is not a poll and not a vote. It is a request for comments on a suggested proposal to split off related sections of this article. In my own view (as the proposer), I am being cautious in seeking further responses. Before I take more of my own time to work on such a massive task as the material in my sandbox illustrates (a job in which recoding source citations is involved so as not to lose sources or their current format [see style sheet]]), I am waiting for further possible responses from additional editors who have worked on this article over a period of time prior to Pinter's death (between the beginning of October 2007 and December 25, 2008 or later). If and when I have time (which is not now), I may still make the suggested changes (see the sandbox that I linked above for other editors to take a look at if they wish to consider this proposal). Note that the proposal already states that there would be a brief section called "Pinter and politics" to which the cross-referenced ("See ...") would appear, as per the current format of this article. (updated signature.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, maybe you should ask those editors directly. I would like to help but can't do anything as the complications of the citations appear to make it impossible for any other editor to help make any improvements of this type. I am not happy that any changes can only be made "when I have time". That is not, in my humble opinion, collaborative working. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I responded to the earlier comments. As it got a response only from one other editor, I am withdrawing my proposal at this time. I considered various ways to do it but I am no longer proposing the split. I'm saving the material in my sandbox in my own computer word-processing files for later reference; it's just not feasible for me to do at this time. (My reference to citations was to Wikipedia coding; the time involved has nothing to do with the prevailing citation format; it's a lot of work because of the way notes are coded in Wikipedia ["ref name=..." etc.].)--NYScholar (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Update: Given the clear consensus for shortening the article and particularly comments in the "peer review" relating to shortening the section Harold Pinter#Civic activities and political activism, I've created a new article called Harold Pinter and politics (still in progress), and in also in the process of removing some of the material from this section of Harold Pinter and creating a cross-ref. in the section to the new article (as said I would be doing above). --NYScholar (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Obituaries and related articles subsection (proposal)

Re: proposed deleting of the redundant "Obituaries and related articles" section in this article (same section is: Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles): the same section already exists in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. The user who insisted in having the redundant section in this article has not returned to this talk page. If the section is deleted, the coding can be replaced with coding for the subsection in the Bibliography. When I have more time, I can do that later. There is no hurry on either of these matters. In my view, it is better to get further responses that suggest more of a current consensus than to go ahead with a time-consuming split that might encounter complaints, especially when the editing of this article has been controversial over many years and increasingly since Pinter's death. --NYScholar (talk) 20:18, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I provided the proper coding, but I have not yet deleted the redundant subsection. Further comments about desirability of doing so still requested before making such a deletion (due to earlier objections made by an editor who added the section to this article originally but who is not active now here). (See above sections in this talk page; e.g. #For the record: Re: Obituaries and related articles sec.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC) (added link.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2009 (UTC) [moved down (format). --NYScholar (talk) 21:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)] [moved here. --NYScholar (talk) 19:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)]

Wikilinks

Just fixed 2 wikilinks for ABC and Taking Sides. Two more remain problematic Next of Kin goes to a disambig page and Reunion (film) re-directs to Harold Pinter. Not sure what to do about these. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Corrected them. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)