Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 5

Deleted inappropriate insertion
Out of place; if pertains to The Room, see that article. Not well sourced, and not prevailing citation format of this article. See the link in Selected bibliography sec. for format and see above re: style sheet for this article. --NYScholar (talk) 07:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Date audit
These changes, though not perhaps necessary given WP:MOS on dates, are okay with me because they are consistent with MLA style format. This article uses American English and will continue to use American English; the MLA is the Modern Language Association of America, which is a national and international professional organization that sets style and usage standards in the fields of languages and literatures (including mostly postsecondary academic scholars and teachers, but also high school/secondary school level research and teaching style standards). Harold Pinter was made an Honorary Fellow of the MLA in 1970; his official website describes him as an "international playwright." --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. --John (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a shame it's no longer possible to get Pinter's thoughts on American hegemony  almost - instinct 18:24, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Later editors changed the variety of English to British English, after deciding that they had the "consensus" to do so; I updated the style sheet in the template at the top of this page to indicate the change from American English (which it had since spring of 2006, as there had been no major editor of the article noticeable and still working on the article then) to British English, as the current consensus seems to desire that change. I have also thanked the editors who changed the necessary spellings (see bottom of this page for that sec.). The proviso re: any varieties of English used still remains to try to avoid words or archaic usage that other English language users will not understand or will find "foreign" to them; synonyms that do not manifest spelling differences are preferable to location-specific English. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Death
The Guardian informed the public today, that Harold Pinter died on Christmas Eve 2008. Can anyone confirm that? I have no Idea how to update a wiki-page. Would anyone of you please be so kind to include the new developments.

guardian article: [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/gallery/2008/oct/09/pinter.theatre?picture=338403345]

Thank you very much! -Marcel

(13:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC))

(Marceau (talk) 13:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC))


 * It's been confirmed by the BBC 132.185.240.121 (talk) 14:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Which cancer?
This article merely states cancer, but the category deaths from liver cancer is present. Some media sources state cancer and others liver cancer. German Wikipedia's article on Pinter states he died of cancer of the larynx. Metastases in the liver are a great deal more common than primary liver cancer. In the case of metastatic cancer, it is the organ of origin that determines what the cause of death is correctly stated as. F W Nietzsche (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, the sole source which still claims "liver cancer" is the BBC. While I agree the BBC is generally beyond reliable, I think the category should not be added while there is such widespread disagreement between sources (the NYT, the Guardian, and NPR all say esophageal cancer). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that identifying the exact cause of death should perhaps be left until the inquest? Jezhotwells (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Aren't inquests reserved for violent or otherwise sudden/unexpected deaths? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:45, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for one if his GP has seen him in the last 14 (may be 28 now) days, which I would almost guarantee to be the case. -- Rodhull andemu  22:47, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Following someone's edit summary request, I substituted category "Deaths from cancer", which is at least accurately following the main news sources cited in the lede. No speculation please (WP:NOR); we will currently just use information that is supported by the majority of the sources quoting Lady Antonia Fraser; she reportedly said "cancer."  The general term suffices for the moment, I think. --NYScholar (talk) 23:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Many cancers typically metastasise to the liver. I don't know if this makes what would otherwise be another cancer become a liver cancer, but it may explain confusion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongreilf (talk • contribs) 23:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Some sources already cited (see the "Obituaries" sec. in the Bibliography now) refer to "cancer" and/or observe that he was being "treated for liver cancer" most recently, or that he died of either "cancer" or of "liver cancer"; when there is more time, one can update the source reference to one of these. From the many sources that I've consulted today, which reproduce other sources, so there is some circularity, including an audio report by NPR that I heard broadcast in real time (see edit. summ. hist. earlier), it appears that the generic cause of his death was cancer and that it appears also to have been more specifically liver cancer.  There is not yet unanimity or even uniformity in the most reliable and verifiable sources about this point.  It is correct still to say "cancer" and may be correct to say "liver cancer"; I leave this matter up to documentation with the most reliable and verifiable sources (not less reliable ones that may only be repeating what they have read in one or two places).  BBC News, however, in one source in the multimedia resources sec. of the Bibliography, refers to "liver cancer", as someone has already pointed out, and subsequently-published sources follow that.  It is clear from sources cited in this Wikipedia article that Pinter suffered initially from esophageal cancer (since approx. late 2001 or early 2002), which he himself had thought to be eradicated through successful surgery in 2002 and follow up procedures (including chemotherapy), but that he was being "treated" very recently for liver cancer, which is known to be an even more-extremely virulent form of cancer that people do not tend to survive.  That he survived after being diagnosed with esophageal cancer for over five years was thought to be a miracle to begin with and is attributed by Billington to Pinter's will to endure and strong spirit (in Billington's comments cited in sources given).  But Pinter developed other health problems after 2002, as documented by Billington (as cited), and, ultimately, it appears from NPR, BBC, and other reliable news outlets, liver cancer.  Sources in the past have confused esophageal cancer with throat cancer or, in the German source mentioned above, cancer of the larynx; it appears that those references are mistaken.  We need to be accurate and sure in the statements, categories, and attributions, due to WP:BLP restrictions.  --NYScholar (talk) 07:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is only correctly categorised as liver cancer if that was the organ of origin; metastastic cancers are correctly categorised by the parent organ - the abnormal cells in secondaries are cells from the primary. An English death certificate of a person who died of metastatic cancer will name the parent organ only (except in the small proportion of cases where that is unknown, in which case no organ will be named). In the UK, primary cancers of the liver are unusual, and the large majority of such cases are in people who are heavy drinkers, have hepatitis, or both - I'm not aware of either of those risk factors ever applying to Pinter. Fatal metastases in the liver are common, especially in cases of cancers originating in the digestive system. If the primary organ is the oesophagus, then, for Wikipedia, that counts as throat cancer, despite the fact that only the upper part of the oesophagus is actually in the throat. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * That was not the organ of origin of Pinter's cancer, but the editing policy is WP:CITE and WP:V, not discussions of cancer. Please see the top direction in talkpage header.  The sources need to document the cause of death and the categories included.  Pinter did not have "throat cancer" according to the sources cited in this article; he had cancer of the esophagus, esophageal cancer (Wikipedia article), as already linked.  This talk page is not about cancer; it is about Harold Pinter.  Please do not lose focus on the subject and the necessity for reliable and verifiable sources in articles about recently-deceased persons (WP:BLP).  The category "cancer" is correct; the category "liver cancer" may or may not be, but is not yet entirely "well-sourced" (in Wikipedia terms). --NYScholar (talk) 07:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh I was ignoring all rules as I believe cancer discussions on talk pages improve the project, and nothing you can do will ever make me think differently--Mongreilf (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There seem to be a lot of sources now stating liver cancer so perhaps that could be re-inserted. {http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=harold+pinter+liver+cancer&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a} Jezhotwells (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Google searches (as linked above) are not permissible as source citations in Wikipedia. I have also seen a reliable source stating (or misstating) "colon cancer"; "cancer" suffices still. --NYScholar (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Among all those in Google, most are just picking up a reference in one or two early news sites and passing them along by copying them into blogs and websites and Wikis. Those are not reliable and verifiable sources that can be used in this Wikipedia article.  There is no source given by the BBC and, as was Sky News when it accidentally announced that Pinter died instead of that he won the Nobel Prize, news readers and news sites can make mistakes.  So far the most verifiable cause of death is still "cancer".

(cont.) This article already states that Pinter was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in early 2001, and Billington's 2007 updated, rev., enl. ed. of his biography of HP, Harold Pinter, is the source of that fact and of the facts about his later health problems. Billington's articles in the Guardian.co.uk since Pinter's death and account of the funeral update his book further; these sources are listed in the "In Memoriam" section of the HPS Website and accessible via Guardian.co.uk. --NYScholar (talk) 07:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Online sources now show that the organ of origin was oesophagus. There will always be a small number of sources that disagree, and the 'liver cancer' claims are almost certainly metastasis. Oesophageal cancer which spreads to the liver is oesophageal cancer rather than liver cancer. Now the organ of origin is clear, there is no reason for such a long article to not have the organ of origin specified. Regarding NYScholar's claim about the format being wrong, he seems to be the only person who wants the current format, which (as you can see from this talk page) many other editors disagree with. F W Nietzsche (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In Wikipedia, esophageal cancer (Brit. sp. = oesophageal cancer) is categorized as a type of gastrointestinal cancer, not as a type of throat cancer (Throat Cancer redirects to that article). [I've subsequently noticed a disambiguation page, Throat cancer; Esophageal cancer was the initial diagnosis, though news sources would sometimes give the broader "throat cancer"; this article documents the initial cancer diagnosis as a diagnosis of "esophageal cancer" (or oesophageal cancer). --NYScholar (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)] (cont.) Please consult those articles and their categories. The sources cited in the section Harold Pinter state that Antonia Fraser, Pinter's second wife and widow, notified the press that her husband had died of "cancer"; some accounts specify one or another kind of cancer, but the majority of reports cited in the section of articles state simply "cancer". The cause of death currently given in this article is "cancer" and the sources support that statement. The article must be well sourced (documented), as per the template above for recently-deceased persons. Please do not edit war over this. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:MOS regarding following the current prevailing format of an article for citation style and the need for consistency. This article has a long history of stability with this citation style, and the Style Sheet makes clear that consistency is required.  Your insistence on doing whatever you want to do is creating inconsistencies in the article.  As editors, we have a responsibility to maintain the consistency of the format of the article unless and until there is a clear consensus to change it to some other format and that consensus results in other editors doing the work that would need to be done to make it fully consistent in a different format.  In my experience editing this article since spring 2006, that would take a lot of work and really not result in improving the article.  (Discussed fully below.)--NYScholar (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I already added the original type of cancer diagnosed earlier in the lead of this article to accommodate the other editors' repeated changes (all of which were reverted by other editors as well). The sources bear out the current lead.  Various sources state that Mr. Pinter was being "treated" for "liver cancer", one that I've seen says that he died of "colon cancer", and so on; there is no consensus in the bulk of articles taken together of anything more specific than "cancer" as the cause of his death.  Tossing in one external link to a Chicago newspaper account (which would not have originated in Chicago, but would have been based on previously published sources already cited) is  not helpful and weakens the article's consistency of citations.  Sources were and are provided for esophageal (oesophageal) cancer already.  It is fine the way it is.  Most editors agreed with that and the article was stable until the change by this other editor today.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The inserted EL of Chicago Tribute article was actually a reprint from the Newsday article published on 25 Dec. 2008, which was an early obituary; later obituaries either state something like "after a long struggle with esophageal cancer" (variously spelled if Am. or Brit. sources) or the cause was "cancer", etc. I've added a source entry for the Newsday article by Winer, not the Chicago Tribune rpt.  The original source is preferable.  It is similar to many of the other sources already cited and listed (note 1).  (Working now on adding to "Works cited" list in Bibliography for Harold Pinter as well (for consistency).  I do thank the editor for providing a link so that one could check and verify the source and convert it to consistent citation format.  --NYScholar (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also added the source entry for Walker et al., of Guardian.co.uk, which states that Pinter died "from cancer" (consistent with information from Pinter's wife, cited elsewhere). One goes with what sources supply as "certain", not "virtually certain"--[i.e., based on newspaper staff writers' turns of phrase and/or Wikipedia editors' own speculations]  (response to F W Nietzsche).  See the template at the top of this page re: removal of controversial material from an article relating to living persons/recently-deceased persons if it is not properly sourced ("well sourced").  In Wikipedia such material can be removed without discussion "on sight"; as this is "controversial", I have removed it and given the editor who added it the courtesy of discussion (which was not necessary).  --NYScholar (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * N.B.: "While Biographies of living persons policies do not apply directly to the subject of this article, this article may have content that directly relates to other living persons, such as friends and family. Controversial material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see the biographies of living persons noticeboard."
 * This is editing "policy" in Wikipedia, not simply a "guideline": WP:LOP. If one is an editor relatively new to Wikipedia, one may not be aware of the distinction between a "policy" and a "guideline".  I've added the LOP link for convenience of other editor(s).  --NYScholar (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Duration of cancer
'After battling cancer for a long time' is too vague. When was he first diagnosed? Many Wikipedia biographies of people who died of cancer state the month and year of diagnosis (as well as the organ of origin). F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Articles already cited in Harold Pinter state clearly that he was diagnosed with esophageal cancer in late 2001 (after the Lincoln Center Festival) and had surgery and subsequent treatment for esophageal cancer during 2002. Please read the sources. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Location of death
Merely stating 'London' is insufficient - it is a very large city. Which part? At his house, or in hospital? Many Wikipedia biographies of dead people give such details. F W Nietzsche (talk) 02:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That detail hasn't, apparently, been released by the family - but it will in due course, I am sure. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Published facts about the circumstances or location of Pinter's death are in the sources used for facts about his private funeral/burial. Some of the material I provided has been removed by other ed(s). There is no need to go into any such details in this article. The fact that he died and was buried in a particular cemetery in London seems to suffice at this stage. There is no section on "Funeral and memorial tributes" as it was removed by ed(s). after I had begun it. The articles cited as sources give the details; anyone is free to read them. --NYScholar (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see the template at top referring to the need to exert caution and delicacy in writing articles about recently-deceased persons so as not to cause injury to their surviving spouse, family, and friends. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I did update some of the facts that are verifiable with reliable sources in new dev. in the article. I added the info. about the hospital from the source. The hospital is in West London, according to the source. --NYScholar (talk) 11:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copy-editing
Hmm, the lead is overly long. Currently it's really 5 paragraphs long (that first one is huge). While I support long leads, they should be no longer than 4 paragraphs long. Joining paragraphs together—possibly to circumvent this writing guideline—is discouraged. — Realist  2  16:37, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed that, but I think once the dust has settled (and people actually agree when he died!), this can be tackled. -- Rodhull andemu  16:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the inline Harvard references are begging to be converted to citations using the harv template, but now might be a hard time to implement it given the number of editors eyeballing the article at the moment. The EL section also looks linkfarm-y. Someone with a bit of time on their hands could remove the ones that have already been cited (or cite it then remove it). --Adoniscik(t, c) 16:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See the good article review as archived. The lede was 4 paragraphs last time I checked; I'll see later. Today is not the best day to deal with these things. The format is MLA, with use of some Wikipedia formatted news citations for convenience due to current news. This article does not use "Harvard references"; it uses MLA style, as appropriate for a literary subject--see the style sheet in top template. --NYScholar (talk) 18:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

It's back to 4 [coherent] paragraphs in length, which is acceptable according to WP:MOS. The EL section has already been edited for length, and they are carefully selected. --NYScholar (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

The Collection, play
Provided that it does not amount to a copyright infringement, it may be a good idea to make an external link to the above-mentioned play (adapted for television, 1976) that is now available (in six parts) on YouTube. Here are the pertinent links: P1, P2, P3, P4, P5, P6. Noteworthy about this excellent production is that the roles of Harry, Stella, James and Bill are played by, respectively, Laurence Olivier, Helen Mirren, Alan Bates and Malcolm McDowell. --BF 17:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Very much still in copyright, by the look of it, and I see no assertion of permission on the page. -- Rodhull andemu  18:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * NYScholar: You have no right, whatever, to move, not to mention remove, texts by others from one talk page to whatever other place! Such action amounts to falsification! Signed statements on talk pages are properties of their writers! If desired, you could have added a remark below my statement, referring the interested to the page that you had in mind. I consider your action as utterly impertinent and disrespectful. You may consider to apologize. --BF 20:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I do have that "right"; I moved it to the proper talk page--the one on the play. --NYScholar (talk) 20:25, 25 December 2008 (UTC) Also had to remove the potential copyright violations in the links, when I did so, and did so again, following WP. --NYScholar (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

See below, link to Talk:The Collection (play). Thanks. Started that talk page w/ previous commenter's comments. --NYScholar (talk) 20:34, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, you did not ask my permission for doing what you did. You could have placed a message on my talk page, asking me to consider to move my comment to the location that to your opinion is the more appropriate place. Singed statements are signed statements and as such cannot be altered, in any form (including alteration in their locations), by others. Nothing could have prevented you to place a comment similar to mine on your desired talk page, but I decide what happens to my signed statements, and similarly you decide what happens to your signed statements. You should just try to imagine the chaos that would ensue if we took liberty with other people's signed texts on talk pages. --BF 20:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * For heaven's sake! Issues related to copyrights have bearing on the main pages. Talk pages are talk pages! What is wrong with you? Why can't you take your hands off my singed texts? Please restore my original text!!! --BF 20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I did the restoring myself! The links that I have given refer to a legal site (namely YouTube); of course the copyright statuses of the videos being undeclared, we cannot use these links in the main page, but using these links on this talk page does not constitute violation of any rules (they might have violated some rules, if the site were an illegal site). Please stop altering my signed texts!!! --BF 20:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please scroll way up to top of this page: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harold Pinter article." The talk page for discussing improvements to the article on his play The Collection, is attached to the article The Collection. I intended no disrespect to the poster of the material and explained that I had simply moved it intact (removing the potential copyright violations in the links later) to the proper article talk page. I do apologize if doing so upset BF as per above. Please accept the apology. Thanks. I am logging off after this, as this is no way to spend Christmas (mine or anyone else's!). --NYScholar (talk) 20:54, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you NYScholar. Your apology is gladly accepted. Wish you a merry Christmas (its remaining second day) and a happy New Year. --BF 23:11, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Moving commentary on The Collection
Doesn't belong here. Moving it to talk page of that article. --NYScholar (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
[Moved the following unsigned comment from my talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 20:03, 25 December 2008 (UTC)] Hi,

I refer you to the Manual of style from which I quote:

National varieties of English

Shortcut: WP:ENGVAR

See also: Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling)

The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others are. Users are asked to take into account that the differences between the varieties are superficial. Cultural clashes over spelling and grammar are avoided by using the following four simple guidelines. The accepted style of punctuation is covered in the punctuation section.

Consistency within articles

See also Internal consistency

Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; insofar and in so far; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are:

quotations (the original variety is retained; though the precise styling of punctuation marks such as dashes, ellipses, apostrophes, and quotation marks should be made consistent with the surrounding article); proper names (the original spelling is used, for example United States Department of Defense and Australian Defence Force); book titles (again, use the original spelling—if there are multiple editions which spell a given title differently, use the one consulted); and explicit comparisons of varieties of English.

Strong national ties to a topic

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation. For example:

Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (British English) American Civil War (American English) European Union institutions (British or Irish English) Australian Defence Force (Australian English) Vancouver, B.C. (Canadian English)

Harold Pinter was a British, wrote in British English, often used British regional dialiects and thus the strong national ties to a topic applies. I have read the discussion to which you refer, which consists of assertations that cannot be sustained. Hence I have reverted your changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Jezhotwells (talk • contribs) Jezhotwells 16:00, 25 December 2008


 * Please consult the archives of Talk:Harold Pinter, this has already been dealt with before. I really won't deal with this further today.  --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It is a style guideline, although ArbCom has in the past deprecated edit-warring over different versions. The appropriate part of the MOS is here, and it follows that if we are to change to British English, this would require consensus to be renegotiated. Personally, I am not attracted by the argument that Pinter was an "international playwright"; The Beatles were an "international pop/rock" band, but their article is, and remains, in British English. Having said that, we would need strong consensus to change at this late stage. Pinter himself would have appreciated the irony. -- Rodhull andemu  20:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Then don't continue to edit war over this. It's been discussed prior to the good article review and was settled during it.  The American English is part of the style guideline and consistent until these changes being introduced today.  This is no time to engage in edit warring over something that MOS clearly says not to engage in.  I'm working on updating source citations.  --NYScholar (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You imply, incorrectly, that I am edit-warring. I am not. "You carry on God's work, Master Will". -- Rodhull andemu  20:20, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's another editor (scroll up and see history) who has been reverting longstanding spelling of this article. Please don't take these matters personally; it's not personal. It's a matter of changes in the spelling creating inconsistencies of style format throughout the article. American English is acceptable in this article. --NYScholar (talk) 20:23, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The editor had not signed the comments; I added the unsigned template w/ sig. for that editor. Please see top instructions in talkpage template about signing comments. Thanks very much. --NYScholar (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]
 * The problem as I see it is that British editors will now come to this article, and even if they are experienced, and even be aware of WP:ENGVAR, they may not understand that the article is currently in American English, and that there is consensus for this. They will then "amend" perceived errors. This is a recipe for conflict if ever I saw one. No offence taken. -- Rodhull andemu  20:41, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I made a change to a UKEng spelling before I read this. I don't think local consensus should over-ride a project-wide recommendation like ENGVAR; I certainly won't edit-war on this but I believe British spelling is better for a British playwright. --John (talk) 20:58, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies for forgetting to sign the original post. User:NYScholar asserts that there is consensus on retaining American English for this.  Consulting the archives at Archive1, Archive 2 I see no consensus just two other editors objecting to the American spelling.  The guidelines referred to by  Rodhull   here actually state "If an article has evolved using predominantly one variety, the whole article should conform to that variety, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic."  As  Rodhull  states he is not convinced by the international argument.  Can NYScholar produce any evidence of consensus? So far I count 3 opposed to American English and 1 ambivalent plus NYScholar for.  That is not consensus, my friend. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Compare and contrast—keeping "an article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation" in mind—the two following two quotes:

(a) in talk page of decidedly British playright: "this has already been dealt with before. I really won't deal with this further today"

(b) in a recent article: "the prize for literature has been awarded to a dramatist who invoked in a recent speech 'the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence'."

Have a nice day, 92.3.196.171 (talk) 21:08, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not sure what this adds, but "consensus" refers to "prevailing consensus", however weak you may believe it to be. It's always open for renegotiation to establish a more grounded set of opinions; I resile for the moment from suggesting a poll to decide this, because at present few editors are participating, for obvious reasons, and it would take a reasonable time for cogent consensus to emerge. Unless anyone has string views, or even strong views, this could wait while we deal with the flood of updates over the next few days. -- Rodhull andemu  21:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Please scroll up to my previous comments. I have to log off and just do not feel like dealing with these matters of spelling further today. It is no way to spend Christmas (mine or anyone else's). There is no need for edit warring (espec. over varieties of spelling--see WP:MOS re: admonitions against that) and anyone's engaging in personal (or nationalistic) attacks--however they are being couched. See WP:NPA. Please also scroll up to the talkpage header re: what the topic of this talk page is supposed to be. The editors of the article are not its subject. I understand that Jezhotwells and Rodhullandemu are posting in good faith. But please see the style sheet in the template and see the previous discussions and the good article review discussions. Let us try to let the sad news of the death of this subject sink in and settle and try not to do format changes that affect the consistency of the whole article and its interwoven sections linking to other Wikipedia articles right now. Perhaps in time these matters will be dealt with when cooler and happier heads are engaged. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * [Note (concerns some edit summaries in history by others): the dates are MLA format, which is the same as international format, which happens to jive with British format. But MLA format is the consistent format for dates in references, text, and notes, and in the separate Bibliography keyed to this section.  For information about MLA format, please see MLA Style, as per the template at top of talk page.  Thanks.  Must log out. --NYScholar (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)]
 * Note that the only edit-warring I see here is from NYScholar. Let me restate a little more strongly; as an article on a subject with strong links to the UK, this article should use International rather than US spelling. --John (talk) 21:46, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't edit-warring, because the venue for that is the article itself. This is robust presentation of opinions. Having said that, I repeat, this is better dealt with at some leisure when heads are cooler, the article isn't being updated by editors who don't understand the guideline and to be honest, the article isn't going to vanish in a puff of smoke because it's in the "wrong" version of English. To quote a famous decision in copyright law "the parties are advised to chill." -- Rodhull andemu  21:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I've only just now encountered this issue, and I'm amazed that there should be any dispute on the matter. I concur with those who point out that WP guidelines - quite apart from common sense, and indeed common courtesy - would require the article to be in British English. To suggest otherwise is, frankly, ludicrous. It's about as logical as editors in Britain insisting that the article on Saul Bellow should be in British English.


 * Whatever the motive, so far as I can make out (forgive me if I'm wrong) one lone US editor is persisting in behaviour that can only have the effect of lowering Wikipedia in the eyes of readers in the UK, where still, sadly, it is held in low regard by legions of intelligent well-educated folk (particularly those in the mass media) who really should know better. The editor referred to, if allowed too get away with it, would make matters worse. In other words, foster - by extension - the cause of ignorance. (On both of which topics, also see below.) Wingspeed (talk) 02:56, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Consistency is the only "motive" (reason) that I am urging one not to make partial changes to some spellings of words in this article at this time; see WP:MOS on the importance of "consistency" and of the "stability of articles".


 * (cont.) Moreover,consensus in Wikipedia operates over time (not in one day), and this article has been in this English version consistently for a long period of time.  For Wikipedia's policy and definition of consensus, please see the whole of WP:Consensus and for the "style guidelines" (guidelines not policies) re: varieties of English, please see the whole of both WP:MOS and WP:ENGVAR.
 * (cont.) The style guidelines (not content guidelines or editing policies) relating to varieties of English also stresses not changing a consistent version of English to an inconsistent one (the "general principle" of "internal consistency" prevails).
 * (cont.) My current concern is that errors of spelling (inconsistencies) are being introduced into this article and into interlinked (Wikilinked) sections of the article, which also are (or were) previously in a consistent version of English.
 * (cont.) By longstanding "consensus" (it stayed so over a long period of time), this and some of the related articles have been in American English; when changes were made from time to time, the editors making the changes would not always be consistent in the changes, introducing inconsistencies of spelling, dating, etc. It will be a big job to check every spelling in this and related (interlinked) articles for consistent use of spellings of words that just happen to differ in English or UK versions of English.  (Dating is currently consistent with both Wikipedia MOS dating guidelines and with MLA Style guidelines; it is international and not Wikified/linked [since August revision of MOS on that].)
 * (cont.)Speaking for myself, I have no personal preference for American English in this particular article in general, except that among all of those commenting today, I have spent the most time working on this article and creating the content and source citations for it (over three years), and at the time chose American English for it due to Pinter's commonly--accepted "international" status and stature and his own official website Forum description of him as an "international" playwright and the fact that the Harold Pinter Society was founded in 1986 by American (U.S.) scholars and that he had been rather disowned by the UK for many years prior to his winning the Nobel Prize. His arguments against America are with the U.S. American administrations that he cites, not with American scholars or individual Americans--as the sources in this article reveal.
 * (cont.)The Pinter Review is published in Tampa, Florida, following MLA Style guidelines, and its coeditors and bibliographical editor use American English, while its UK-based editors use UK/British English. Pinter has enabled some of his work to be published in The Pinter Review over the years; UK/English authors use their own variety of English; American authors use American English, and so on; but the required style format for publication in it is MLA Style for citations, "Works Cited" lists, and so on.
 * (cont.) There is no "international" version of English per se. But, according to Wikipedia's own statistics in various articles about varieties of English, American English is used more widely (by more English-speaking people) than UK/British English or, say, Australian English (which differs from both varieties at times).
 * (cont.) If this article were to be rewritten in UK English eventually, the editing needs to be consistent. Also, the MOS recommendation is to avoid (whenever possible) words that are different in various versions of English (to lessen the possibilities of disagreements about versions of English like this one).  The Harold Pinter Society was founded in the United States by American scholars, not in the UK by English scholars.  Pinter used to complain that he was more popular and appreciated everywhere else but in the UK/England/his country of birth.  He labeled his own official Website that of "international playwright Harold Pinter"; but he decided to leave his papers to the British Library and not to an American library.  So the issue is more complex than it seems to residents of the UK or those who were born there. Since the spelling in the article was consistently American English before today, it can remain that way until an editor is able to take the time to be totally consistent in altering it to UK/British English if that becomes a consensus view.  But, again, consensus in Wikipedia occurs over time.
 * (cont.) As I have been saying, I would like not to have to deal with this matter further today, or even in the next few days (I will be away). I am not, moreover, "ignorant" of Wikipedia guidelines concerning varieties of English (having read them many times in relation to both this and other articles).  I am not willing to engage in edit warring over using one or the other; the guidelines also emphasize not to do so if doing so sacrifices or lessens consistency of the article.
 * (cont.) As an American scholar, I do not use UK or English spelling in my own comments in talk pages, in my user space, etc.; of course, I respect those in or from other English-speaking parts of the world who use their own kind of spelling in their comments.  This issue at this point is not a very pressing one.  Consistency and accuracy throughout the article are, however, pressing.
 * (cont.) As one who is not in the UK or from the UK, I will not be changing this article to the UK/British version of English. If such a change does garner consensus (over time), some other editor/s who are more familiar with the language differences, will need to make those changes, consistently.
 * (cont.)Wikipedia requires editors quoting sources to follow the language of the sources--do not change American spelling to UK or vice versa in source quotations, titles of sources, punctuation, and so on.
 * (cont.) Unfortunately, in the past, some Wikipedia users have done that. I caution against introducing such errors in this article, therefore.  Titles are uniformly capitalized, following MLA format.  (UK newspapers and other newspapers often lose proper capitalization of titles.  This affects the way sources are presented.  Before today, I attempted consistent punctuation of the text, the sources, following MLA format, though in Wikipedia titles are within quotations with periods outside, and I have followed that preferred Wikipedia guideline for titles, though it does differ from MLA format (which requires periods to be within the final double quotation mark).   The punctuation of quotations in this article is (or was) currently the way MLA Style and American punctuate quotations; one is trying also to avoid confusions between what Wikipedia refers to as "scare quotes" and actual sources' quoted phrases.
 * (cont.) Some history: As this article has gone through a "good article" review, some of these matters have been discussed before (as archived) and the good article reviewer allowed the spelling to remain as the American variety of English, due to its consistency throughout, with clear reference to WP:ENGVAR prior to today.

--NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should change the entire article, consistently, to be in UK English, according to the MoS recommendation, and according to the current consensus here on the talk page. --John (talk) 06:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

"Current consensus" (among more than 2 editors) is to wait. --NYScholar (talk) 07:08, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please reread the consistency and stability section, all of it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From Stability sec.:

"The Arbitration Committee has ruled that the Manual of Style is not binding, that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable." "Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor." --NYScholar (talk) 07:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From 23 September 2002 until 1 July 2006 this page used the English spellings theatre, travelling, honour consistently. Then one US editor decided to change the spelling to American English, even ignoring the common use in USA of theatre for stage productions, etc.  I see a growing consensus here for reverting to the original spelling.  This is not a personal attack on that editor who has provided more edits than anyone else, but WP:OWN does not mean that that editor's opinion holds more weight than others. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and common sense mean that this article should be written in British English. The only arguments for it to be in American English are because 'consensus to do that was previously reached', but: a) it wasn't really, and b) if it was, that just means that the wrong decision was reached, as he was British by birth, upbringing, residence and citizenship, along with being best known in his own country. The other 'reason' given is 'to keep the article stable'. However, the article isn't stable now anyway, and won't be for several days, due to the large number of edits caused by the huge amount of traffic to the article as Pinter was a famous person whose death was announced yesterday. It is better to change the article to British English throughout as soon as possible. This article will be consisitent if British English is used throughout. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * @NYScholar. Quick question: this whole article is badly in need of copyediting, what we in Britain call sub-editing. Will you permit any? Wingspeed (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (As per your edit summ. here): No editor "owns" this or any other Wikipedia article. One does not need to ask me or any other editor for permission to edit it according to Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines.  Please see WP:OWN. I am simply concerned that changes actually improve the article and not weaken it by making it inconsistent (or more inconsistent than it may currently be).  Thanks for asking, nonetheless.   As an editor myself, however, I have never heard of "sub-editing" and have no idea what you mean by it.  Wikipedia is not a newspaper; it is an online encyclopedia, and its editing policies and guidelines are what we editors attempt to follow.  (They are often arcane and contradictory, but neverthess need to be followed when possible, without introducing inconsistencies.)  Changes need to be made in accordance with them and not according to personal preferences of editors.  I also want to point out that this article has a style guide (in the template).  Please see it.  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) I incorporated Wikipedia citation templates in the article to accommodate news sources that I had not included in the "Works cited" list ("Bibliography" now), which used to be called a "Selected bibliography" but was changed by another ed. very recently. If I have time in the future, I could convert those to the MLA format used in the Bibliography and use parenthetical refs. to them, but many of them are simply entitled "Harold Pinter", and I thought that would not be particularly useful.  So I formatted them as citation templates.  Due to the extensive nature of the "Works cited" in this article and sections of it, use of citation templates throughout would be far too numerous and greatly lengthen the article.  I will be away and not able to edit for at least about a week.  I can see what happens to it after I return.  In the meantime, I expect others will have a hand in altering it, but whether or not that results in improving it remains to be seen.  I understand that others are also editing in good faith, and I do follow WP:AGF, pointing out the policies and guidelines when I think others may have missed them or something in them.  It may be less difficult than I think to change the variety of English, but if one does that, such a change would also affect all use of punctuation of quotations, including some aspects of source citations, and that too is highly problematic, with respect to ongoing consistency and stability of the article.  (Again, see the "good review" record in archive.)  Thanks again.  I have to log out and go offline. --NYScholar (talk) 11:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * (cont.) One also needs to keep in mind that English Wikipedia is for all speakers and readers of English and not only for those who live in or are from the UK or the U.S. Consistency is important.  We are not writing this article for Americans or for people from the UK but for all those who read Wikipedia.  We do not want to confuse them.  Most of us who know the differences among varieties of English also know how to read articles that are in one or another such variety and attempt to follow the prevailing style of the article.  Pinter's fame and influence extend far beyond one country or one region of the world.  I did not want to limit the article to his identification as a person who was born and lived in England, because he saw himself and others saw him as a citizen of the world.  There is no intention to offend anyone from the UK in continuing the variety of English that this article has had for a long time. It is actually a compliment to those in the UK that England produced a man of such international scope.  --NYScholar (talk) 11:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As the article is about a prominent British writer then in my opinion it is no-brainer that the spelling should be in English not American English. There is no problem with the dates as NYScholar has admitted.  Actually making the changes will take very little time in fact.  With regards to copy editing or subbing there is much to be done to make this article accessible and not read like a paper in a journal.  This has been commented on by reviewers when the article was undergoing GA review.  The question is, will one us editor oppose the work of others to make this into an excellent article. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So we have Jezhotwells, Rodhullandemu, John, Wingspeed, F W Nietzsche in favor of using British English per WP:ENGVAR ("Strong national ties to a topic: An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation.", and we have NYScholar (who was the editor responsible for unilaterally changing the long-standing appropriate spelling on 1 July 2006) in favor of using American English. Sounds like consensus to me. It's a pity this anomaly was allowed to stand for so long, but really, it is a very clear cut case. NYScholar, thanks for all your good work on this article but you are wrong on the spelling issue. --John (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * My tuppenceworth - it seems absolutely ridiculous that this page is not in British English. And yes, I have read the MoS and the previous arguments put forward to defend it staying in American English. Jasper33 (talk) 23:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited the article to reflect this consensus. If there are any remaining American spellings (other than quotes of course), please remove them too. --John (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me be the first to thank you. Excellent. Well done. And thanks also to USScholar for all his efforts. It takes heat to get up steam. Wingspeed (talk) 03:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Lede
I logged back in to point out that recent changes to the lede introduced factual errors and were not in keeping with WP:MOS guideline of 4 paragraphs length for the lede. They are not improvements but weaken the article. Format of citations was also not correctly done. Please read the whole article and consult the talk page archives when making controversial changes. This is a controversial article as per the template heading and also needs to follow the templated message for recently-deceased persons, referring to WP:BLP. Thanks. If some legitimate edits got lost, please fix that matter for the discreet changes. Thanks again. Sorry if anything important got lost, but it is recoverable in the editing history. Note that Harold Pinter won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005, not 2006; that information is already in the infobox, and the Nobel Laureate link in the lede is proper. Logging back out. --NYScholar (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for spotting my typing error. How embarrassing; please forgive me, and thank you for correcting it. That was, might I suggest, insufficient justification for applying a wholesale revert to what was an otherwise painstakingly careful attempt - as the edit summary indicated - to eliminate redundancy from the lead*, and to increase clarity. *(lede, for what it's worth, has its origin at the estimable NY Times and is usage quite foreign to Pinterland.)


 * If the format for citations was not correct, again, please forgive me. I would have been - and would be still - grateful for a less drastic remedy. I'm not accustomed to have recourse to alphabet spaghetti to strengthen my case, but if WP:MOS advises 4-para max in a lead/lede, I take your word for it. Common sense would require that this should not be at the expense of comprehension and readability. These last two were and are my chief concern.


 * In its existing form the opening section is an embarrassment. I'm just looking at it again. It does indeed comply astonishingly well with the 4-paragraph guideline. There are indeed four of them; and what paragraphs. They constitute a syntactical and informational jungle next to impenetrateable to all but the most determined. I merely attempted to prune the first thicket. The most conspicuous sequoia first confronting the explorer is the mighty post of President, Central School of Speech & Drama. It dominates the first sentence and requires not just one but two citations to convince us that its presence is no mere trick of the light. The identical growth re-imposes itself at the end of the second paragraph and, yet again, despite those pressing constraints on real estate, as the penultimate sentence of the doughty fourth paragraph (phew!) itself. Not to mention another whole paragraph on the topic at the end of the article. I could go on, but I'm getting dangerously near to my own fourth paragraph.


 * I should be grateful if you could identify the other factual errors to which you refer. I will eagerly correct them. I have written one or two obituaries in my time, both as a print journalist and in over a decade at the BBC. This one is badly in need of the knife; and, after the autopsy, the best of the embalmer’s art. Meantime, to decrease embarrassment this side of the Atlantic, and in the cause of comprehension, I reinstate the consequences of elementary triage. I would request the scholar in question to apply, if he can, a Pinteresque pause to his no-doubt good faith efforts at maintaining the present execrable state of what is a toe-crackingly leaden lead.
 * Wingspeed (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I've already done that. The obituaries are in the Bibliography article (linked to the section), Pinter won the Nobel Prize in 2005 not 2006 (it did not appear to be a typographical error, as it was reintroduced a few times), external links are not to be embedded in the text but one is to follow the previously-established citation format, and so on. The lede passed a good article review. There is nothing embarrassing about it. --NYScholar (talk) 07:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) The idea is to improve the article, not to make it worse. The spelling is not an embarrassment to Wikipedia, because it is consistent, and, if consensus over time desires so, it can be changed later. Edit warring over it is explicitly against WP:MOS; Harold Pinter himself never objected to the use of American spelling in The Pinter Review (where his work and discussions about his work are published; it is published in America, where most of the scholarship on Pinter has also been published, using American English), and Pinter himself often dated his manuscripts and letters with American-style dating, not international or UK style. This need not become a major issue of contention. It takes a very detail-conscious editor to go through all of the articles relating to Harold Pinter and his works to make changes in spelling for consistency if such a change in national varieties of English is to be made (it's a big job involving many articles). This is not the time to do that, as the article needs to be stable in content first, and it is not. In the past long period of time, there was very little if any objection to this article's variety of English; it was stable. As others have also urged, one can wait. There is a difference between the use of "national varieties of English" and "nationalism". Please consult all of WP:MOS. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: According to WP:Consensus, silence over time about a version of an article indicates ongoing consensus; because Harold Pinter recently died, there are many new editors looking at this article, many of whom apparently come from the UK. But one needs to consider also, the long period of time when this article was mostly stable in its content, from the perspective of WP:Consensus.  Consensus does not mean what several people think about a matter on one day, but over time.  Because a lot of work is involved in changing all of the spellings that might be American to another national variety of English, it is a bigger job than some may realize.  As one who worked on developing the content and sources for this article for over three years, I may be more aware of this situation than some others just coming to this article for the first time in the past day or so.  Many other articles link to this one that also would require consistent changes in the variety of English and if they too are not changed from American English to UK/British English consistently, there will be further inconsistencies in the articles about Harold Pinter and his work and life.  I myself do not have the time to make the conversions throughout any or all of these articles.  I will be away.  --NYScholar (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) Both the Guardian.co.uk and the British Library have provided links to this Wikipedia article Harold Pinter in the past year, with its use of American English, without any apparent embarrassment and actually with a sign of appreciation. I do not think that the argument about this article's lede being "execrable" etc. holds any water. It has been stable over a long period of time until the complaining editor began complaining about it. It does not seem to be a consensus that the lede is "execrable" etc. That was not the view of the good article review process. The opposite occurred then. The complaint appears to still be a minority pov and merely an opinion of that editor's. I suggest that one consult the creation of the article from the start to the current point for its history, via editing history. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 07:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

(cont.) For the record: This is a biographical encyclopedia article; it is not an "obituary" or other kind of "news story". Please consult WP:BLP as well and the other editing policies and guidelines linked at the top of this page in the talkheader template and other templates to understand the differences and the importance of proper formatting of source citations, among other policies and guidelines, as well as Wikipedia's other core editing policies. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 07:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

This is a biography, but of a dead person, not a living one; BLP guidelines do not apply to this article. F W Nietzsche (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

You are incorrect; parts of WP:BLP are explicitly related to biographies of recently-deceased persons because articles about recently-deceased persons relate to and mention still-living persons in them; see the template warning right at the top of the article itself: Harold Pinter for the need for cautious editing relating to quickly changing events as well (due to recent death). Many persons related to Harold Pinter are still living and editing the article requires strict adherence to all of Wikipedia's editing policies; guidelines are guidelines, not policies in Wikipedia. If one is a relatively new editor of Wikipedia, one may not be aware of some of these distinctions. Please consult the templates at top of both this talk page and the article for the related Wikipedia links to editing policies and guidelines and to the differences among them. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 08:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [Updated below ....]
 * For comparison to another recently-deceased person's article featuring WP:BLP on its talk page, see Talk:Heath Ledger, and he died almost a year ago. The template provides the links to the policy due to the need for cautious and respectful editing of such articles, for reasons given throughout the blp project page.  WP:V, WP:NOR, and Neutral point of view are other core policies, linked in the talkheader template for consultation, especially by new editors in Wikipedia, who may not be familiar with all its policies. --NYScholar (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Added subst. blpo template. --NYScholar (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Obituaries
All were reformatted and moved to correct location in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. See previous editing summary relating to it and more recent one w/ same explanations. The section did not follow WP:MOS. --NYScholar (talk) 09:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

[moved material below from my talk page; belongs here. --NYScholar (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC)]


 * It is disconcerting to realise that you seem to have an incorrect understanding of the term bibliography. Bibliography commonly means "A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme." (OED). According to this definition, the rightful place of obituaries is not in the bibliography section. To be sure, according to OED, obituary means "A record or announcement of a death or deaths, esp. in a newspaper; usually comprising a brief biographical sketch of the deceased". Could I therefore hereby ask you to restore the Obituaries section of Pinter's biography? Incidentally, it would be most welcome if you decided to settle matters in talk pages before taking action, removing time and time again additions by others; I feel deeply frustrated by my repeated encounters with you on the most trivial of subject matters &mdash; please remember, you have no right of ownership on this particular biography (yet it would seem, by looking at the history of the biography, as though you owned it). Thank you. --BF 11:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * You are not correct. Bibliography in Wikipedia has a more generic meaning.  Look at WP:MOS for where the section (variously called "References" (if no "Notes" section), "Bibliography", "Further reading", "Works cited", etc.) is placed (at the end before the section called "External links".  Wikipedia, not the OED, defines its own usages of common terms.  Sources cited in the notes ("Works cited") belong in the Bibliography (a separate section split off some time ago) for this particular article.  Following the "prevailing format" that exists in the article before you came along.  I will not restore your incorrectly-formatted section.  It has no precedent in articles of this kind (Biographies of recently-deceased persons).  It is a section of the sources used in the article; you need to create proper source citations for the two that you added that are not cited in the article (the ones from the Times and from the BBC News).  The way you did it is not correct.  The Bibliography section preexisted your editing of this article, and you need to adapt your "Obituaries" sources to it [follow "prevailing format" of the article]. (See my earlier editing summaries, which explained the move of the material. --NYScholar (talk) 11:32, 26 December 2008 (UTC) [clarified in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2008 (UTC)]


 * I understand WP:OWN. Your separate "Obituaries" section contained multiple errors of bibliographical formatting of sources and did not follow the prevailing format of the source citations.  --NYScholar (talk) 11:33, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * There is quite a bit of leeway and latitude in what kinds of bibliographies or lists of sources (including lists of "works" by a subject and works about a subject) one creates for an article in Wikipedia; see Manual of Style (lists of works). --NYScholar (talk) 11:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See also: Layout (a "style guideline", not an "editing policy"). When an article is complex (with regard to sources), one sometimes finds a separate article for the "Bibliography" that includes separate sections within it. I placed your "Obituaries" in the pre-existing formatted "Bibliography", using your own heading "Obituaries".  2 items still need to be incorporated as source citations in the article on Harold Pinter, or they will be removed.  --NYScholar (talk) 11:42, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I incorporated them; the web-based sources/resources are in Wikipedia source citation templates. --NYScholar (talk) 12:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Best mock obituary ever (and not an intelligent contribution to this discussion, but it's the right place to share), from NYT homepage: "Harold Pinter has died. (Pause)" He would have loved that. Trigaranus (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I repeat, Obituaries must be included in the main body of the biography. (Obituaries are important because they are written by the most qualified persons in the field. Moreover, being reflections on the lives of the departed, they often contain elements that may not have been in the open.) Neither I nor any person known to me looks after obituaries in the section Bibliography. That bibliography had somehow a different meaning within Wikipedia, is plainly tosh (I am sorry to say so, but I rather choose to be impolite than to lie). Be it as it may, I just give up, as you, NYScholar, seem to be running the show here. --BF 16:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Tried to resolve this difficulty, by repeating the section of "Obituaries" and directing to it via a link w/in the parenthetical source citation format. Again, to BF & others, sorry to have caused frustrations; did not intend to do so, and I hope that you can live with this resolution. (I'll be traveling and not back until January.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Have updated the section heading to account for fact that the articles listed are not only obituaries but also deal with Pinter's private funeral (thus far); the section appears in this article Harold Pinter and also in Bibliography for Harold Pinter, to which I corrected the categories by adding one. It is a list of "Works cited", a bibliography of and relating to Pinter's works as these items are cited in this Wikipedia article on Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 00:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Repetition
This article contains unnecessary repetition and duplication and needs a serious clean up. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware that the lede (lead paragraph) of Wikipedia articles is supposed to be a summary of material that is developed further (restated often with more detail) in the text of the article? For WP:MOS re: lead (or lede) paragraphs (introductory paragraphs), please see Lead sections and how they relate to texts of article according to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see particularly Lead section. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * From that section: "When an article subject dies, the lead does not need to be radically reworked. Unless the cause of death is itself a reason for notability, a single sentence describing it is usually sufficient." --NYScholar (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am well aware of the style guidelines about ledes. That is not what I referred to.
 * In the lede from paragraph 1: "and president of the Central School of Speech and Drama" and from paragraph 2 of the lede: "....he accepted the presidency of the Central School of Speech and Drama in October 2008"
 * further down:"Public announcement of 'retirement' from playwriting (February 2005). On 28 February 2005, in an interview with Mark Lawson on the BBC Radio 4 program Front Row, Pinter announced publicly that he would stop writing plays...." and then "After 2005. After announcing in February 2005 that he would stop writing plays (Lawson)...."
 * and also:"Public announcement of 'retirement' from playwriting (February 2005) ....to dedicate himself to his political activism and writing poetry..." and "'Let's Keep Fighting'. As he had announced that he planned to do, Pinter remains committed to writing and publishing poetry"
 * These are just a few examples. The article is repetitive, and also contains too many parenthetical and repetitious citations, some cited to footnotes, some not.  As you have been reminded you do not own this article.  Many improvements can be made by others and undoubtedly will be.  Might I suggest that you drop your aggressive attitude to helpful suggestions by other editors and perhaps remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:19, 26 December 2008 (UTC)


 * @ Jezhotwells. Just before the indefatigable scholar manages to log in yet again: Here, here! . . . and here . . . and here . . . and here, here! Oh, dear. The disease seems to be catching. I'm sure there's some set of initials to explain it away: (WP:HHH, perhaps? Or WP:RRR ?). Whatever. Anything, rather than address the specifics :) Happy Holiday.
 * Wingspeed (talk) 17:37, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The cited "repetitions" are intentional repetitions to build coherence; they contain transitions to earlier content or establish chronology. They are not accidental. --NYScholar (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC) (cont.) Having noted that, I do not object to the changes made to some of them in current version of article. Those aspects seem okay to me. --NYScholar (talk) 00:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

and when Obama won?
Does anyone know what Pinter thought of Obama's nomination and election? The "blood-thirsty, out-of-control, monstrous" Bush administration handing over power peacefully to the opposition? A pretty milk-and-water sort of fascism, no?

Miguel j 72.207.65.218 (talk) 21:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights
created for discussion on revisions by User:Slarre Jezhotwells (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

The text introduced by Slarre is unsourced and an inappropriate addition to the lede. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a reliable source, it's original research and therefore not permitted here, and is why I've reverted it again. -- Rodhull andemu  22:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User:Slarre has now removed "and, in later years, a campaigner against human rights abuses" from the lede. I do not neccessarily disagree with this, have replaced with "and political activist". Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It's dishonest and misleading to call Pinter a "campaigner against human rights abuses". He was just a typical left-wing radical political activist, who likened the United States with a nazi state, while at the same time actively supporting Castro's brutal dictatorship on Cuba, as well as campaigning for the release of Slobodan Milosevic - one of the worst abusers of human rights in Europe since the fascists and communists (see the text in the main article for sources). /Slarre (talk) 01:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Subjective and opinionated editing WP:OPINION. Different POVs should be properly sourced.  I have substituted political activist. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Krapps' Last Tape
Hey, User:Wingspeed Krapp is the 'only role in KLT, (it's a one man show) so I am not sure your edit is useful!!! Jezhotwells (talk) 02:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent point. Do you think we should take it out? I'm sure most readers wouldn't know there's only one part. That's the whole point: wanted to make clear, given that he was in a wheelchair at the time, that it wasn't just some supporting part. In the context, One-man show doesn't sound right. What about "the title, and only, role"? Not sure. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * How about eponymous, or is that too abstruse? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I corrected it. The play is a one-act monologue, by definition spoken by one character. See the article on the play, which is (and was) linked. --NYScholar (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Respect - The Unity Coalition
The article should mention his support of this far-left, pro-Islamic, pro-Palestinian party. He must have been one of only a tiny number of Jews to support the party; it (or at least part of it) used anti-semitism against Jewish Oona King, in order to elect George Galloway to the seat she held. F W Nietzsche (talk) 04:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If you can reference that, then fine. The issue of the Galloway / King election is separate, unless sources on Pinter's opinions on that particular contest can be provided. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Funeral
He was buried in London today. I believe that fact should be added to the article. Does anyone know which cemetery? F W Nietzsche (talk) 19:02, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Updated; see all the articles provided in the "In Memoriam: Harold Pinter" section of "Links" at the Harold Pinter Society Webpages in source citation added. Many accounts of the private funeral held on New Year's Eve afternoon published on New Year's Day around the world. --NYScholar (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead (Lede)
The lead (introductory section) encountered earlier today did not appear to me to be an improvement upon that section existing prior to the subject's death. That version contained erroneous format for source citations, unnecessary ref. to a reprint of the NYT obituary already cited last week in the article, other problems [see editing summaries]. I kept some of what I find to be improvements, but I also restored what I still consider to be essential content. In terms of Wikipedia's MOS, such an introduction ("lead" or "lede") aims to summarize what is included in the main sections of the article. This version (updated) is mostly the version that passed the "good article" review. It went through extensive negotiation reached by consensus with the good article reviewer. In order for the "good article" status to remain, the opening section needs to be consistent with what passed the review or it will need to go through another good article review. It is too much in flux right now for that to occur. Perhaps some weeks hence will be a time for that if it changes substantially from what it was before the subject's death. The style format sheet could read "British English" but I cannot find the proper code that works in that template. The citations format remains MLA format (The MLA Style Manual) though for current convenience, I have been using citation templates. I have added the sources to "Bibliography for Harold Pinter", which contains the "Works cited" in this article. If I have time (questionable at this point), I will update it from time to time. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No one editor owns this article. I urge its most energetic by far to read carefully the WP page on the distressing phenomenon of editors who behave as though they own a given (or, rather, taken) article, and treat their fellow editors accordingly. This is by no means the first time, I note from Talk history, that this has been drawn to the attention of the editor in question. So it clearly needs to be read again. I shall read it again myself. Here it is: WP:OWN Wingspeed (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know the policies. I consult them frequently.  The changes made contained errors, were not improvements, and altered the "good article review" consensus.  Neither you nor I nor anyone else "owns" this or any other Wikipedia article.  We are all trying to "improve" it (as per directions in talk header, this page is for discussing improvements).  As an editor strongly committed to improving this article, I have worked hard on it.  When other editors delete sources documenting statements which I have worked hard to supply, I restore the source citations, properly.  Please consult the list of "Works cited".  Due to rapidly-changing events after the death of a person, WP:MOS recommends not altering the lead paragraph.  One that made it through a "good article review" particularly did not need to be changed so much due to the subject's death.  The only difference is the fact of the death, not the rest of the lead.  I have incorporated a lot of the changes that others made between Dec. 27 and Dec. 31.  I have also corrected mistakes introduced into the article.  I suggest that those who do not know much about Harold Pinter not attempt to correct content unless they are familiar with the sources being cited.  Those who insert statements without any sources should not be doing that.  Whether or not the subject is still living, WP:LOP is still in force.  I'm doing my best (as I have done all along) for this article.  I don't think it wise to make this a personal matter.  It is not a personal matter.  It is a matter of good editing in keeping with Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines.  Again, down the road, if I have time, I will review the state of the source citations and make them consistent with the Style Sheet linked above in the template, if they are no longer consistent.  --NYScholar (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

For Wikipedia's guidelines re: "consensus", I suggest reviewing Consensus; my understanding is that consensus occurs over extended periods of time. It took a very long time for the article to go through the "good article" review and what was accomplished then should not be reversed preemptorily on the basis of personal preferences. Please cite specific policies and guidelines when making controversial changes. Please do not change what does not need to be changed for trivial reasons. If an important change needs to be made, please discuss it here. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 05:46, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see no indication whatever that the editor in question has, as requested, read carefully the WP page on ownership. I've no doubt he's confident he "know[s] the policies. I consult them frequently." (Apparent lack of doubt seems to be a salient characteristic.) That is not at all my point. I repeat: please read this page: WP:OWN Wingspeed (talk) 06:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The second citation in the first footnote now connects, bizarrely, to the WP article on Google.com. I won't touch it myself for fear of causing offence. Wingspeed (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but, having made a lot of format changes, I do not currently see what you are talking about regarding the "first footnote" at this time.


 * (cont). By way of explanation: I have spent a few hours attempting to clean up the format of citations so that they are all now consistently in MLA Style format (parenthetical references keyed to "Works cited", as listed in the "Bibliography" section (cross-linked to "Works cited" in Bibliography for Harold Pinter).  The repetition of the (now-entitled) "Obituaries and related articles" section (in "Works cited" of Harold Pinter is due to my attempt to accommodate another editor, who wanted to keep that section.  All the parenthetical references to obituaries and related articles (articles related to Pinter's death) are found in it.  Either authors' last names and/or short titles if no author or an author has more than one article cited are used in parenthetical references.  They are keyed to the "Works cited".  That is proper MLA format.  Please see the note at the top of the Bibliography for Harold Pinter in preview mode; it points out that the MLA Style format used is the 2nd ed. of The MLA Style Manual.  The 3rd ed. is very new and not yet even used for MLA publications; there is time to adjust it.  Only minor adjustments are necessary, such as the insertion of "Web" for format in entries of online sources.  The fact that they are Web sources or resources is already clear, because I've used live links in addition to URLs for the convenience of Wikipedia readers and editors.  I hope that you understand that due to the insertion of ELs by earlier editors, I formulated a temporary use of citation templates, which I have now changed consistently to MLA Style format.  The sources are checked and verified and verifiable, as listed in the notes and parenthetical references keyed to the "Works cited" list.  Done the best I could.  I leave it up to others to read the article, follow the parenthetical citations to references.  If someone could find the proper code for "British English" (Brit-eng in some places in Wikipedia, but that didn't work in the template), please add it, since other editors initially changed the spellings to British English and since I accepted that and did so also in "Honours and Awards to Harold Pinter" before I left editing on Dec. 27th.  I've attempted to make the citations consistent as per the request in the template.  MLA Style format is an appropriate format for articles about literature and literary figures.  If one is not familiar with it, that does not mean that it is wrong.  It was accepted as appropriate when consistent in the good article review.  I have attempted to restore the consistency of the format used then. --NYScholar (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The response to my query about the bizarre second citation in the first footnote, which inexplicably linked to the WP article about Google.com is disingenuous. I see now that the whole footnote has been removed, and replaced with the, to most readers, opaque words, complete with brackets: (Dodds; Gussow and Brantley). This at the end of the article's very first sentence! The opening paragraph, I notice, has acquired further excrescences since I last saw it. It now possesses an elegance comparable to that of the Elephant Man's head.


 * Again: I see no evidence that the editor in question has read as requested the page on the distressing phenomenon of editors who behave as though they own an article and seem impervious to feedback from fellow editors. For the third time, here it is: WP:OWN. I'd be grateful if the editor in question could read it - before I start quoting from it. Wingspeed (talk) 01:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that we have ample evidence that the editor in question just does not get it. I suggest that the article is copy-edited ASAP. That references are made consitent with the 21st century as Wikipedia is an online project.  User:NYScholar appears to have a major hangup with print formatting, when it is obvious that no-one, except perhaps a plagiarising student, will ever print this out. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On 27 December I did copyedit the lead into digestible form, without - as I expressed the hope at the time in the edit summary - "any data loss." It remained in the cleaned-up form, during the primary editor's absence, until January 2. On his return it was reverted pretty much wholesale. I attempted to put back at least a cleaner opening paragraph, and this too was pretty instantly reverted. So, you see, I fear "copy-edit ASAP" will not suffice.


 * I don't know what it entails and I'd rather not be involved in the process, but I fear that, such are the obstacles in this instance, that so-called arbitration is called for. I don't doubt at all the indefatigability of the editor in question; he just seems quite alien to the notion of his copy being edited by others where necessary for comprehension and readability. He also (as a perusal of talk-page history back to the point of his first involvement indicates) seems to find what in practice collaborative editing requires - on top of no doubt constant exertion - a highly irritating and therefore undue strain. Wingspeed (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Presidency of Central School of Speech and Drama
I think undo prominence is being given to the position of Presidency of Central School of Speech and Drama. It certainly does not fit under Occupation in the infobox, I have removed it from there,and I do not think it belongs in the first sentence. It is an unpaid honorary position and should obviously be listed under honours but it was not a defining part of his life. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

To my knowledge it was not an "honorary" position. Whether it was paid or not is both not known and irrelevant; these days, many university and college presidents and presidents of corporations are foregoing salaries. The source citations give the information and it was his last professional role in life prior to his death. The news sources says that he was offered and that he accepted the position of president of CSSD. The information above is not based on the source, and, if he had lived, it might have become a "defining part of his life"; that statement is also speculation and not based on anything in the source citation(s). I will correct this problem later as seems consistent with the objection and with the sources, if I have time. --NYScholar (talk) 01:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Just looked at edits made by Jezhotwells; have not got a problem w/ change to the infobox. I still think it's okay as presently in sent. one. See my previous comment. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * See Chancellor (education) for an overview of the titular role. Practice is quite different in the US, I believe. Basically the President of CSSD would preside over major functions, e.g. some graduation ceremonies, big fund-raisers, building openings, etc.  They are expected to speak out on behalf of the institution.  But I assure you that it is an honorary, non-executive, unpaid (except for expenses) role. CSSD is run by the Principal and Board of Governors. The Vice Presidents currently are: Carrie Fisher, Stephen Fry, Michael Grandage, Mel Smith, Zoë Wanamaker. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will look at the material you link to a bit later; in the meantime, it does not make any diff. in sent. one whether or not the position was "honorary" or an "honor" ("honour"); it's just stated as a fact that he had the position, no value judgment implied, as per Neutral point of view, and it is entirely clearly sourced (documented).  (I had a sentence stating when he accepted the position later, but it was considered a redundancy by another ed. and removed.  It seems okay to me in sent. one and okay not in the infobox if nec. (where it really did no harm, but I can see taking it out as per your viewpoint).  --NYScholar (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is that it is nowhere as significant as his having been: playwright, screenwriter, actor, director, poet, political activist. It is fine in the honours section, but does not need prominence  in the lede. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you work on the change that you would like; I'll take a look at it later. Please check additional sources in updated Central School of Speech and Drama, already added to this article too.  Thanks again.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I started the change as per your reasoning and am in process of updating the sources, as already done in the CSSD article. --NYScholar (talk) 03:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Cont.) Forgot to emphasize: Feel free to alter that change if I missed what you are getting at. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you:) Wingspeed (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing summaries
I suggest that those composing editing summaries consult Etiquette and WP:NPA for guidance. I was not the editor who originally moved those templates from the top position; some earlier editor did that and I restored them to that position in the course of editing today. My editing summaries explain that the edits were in progress. I don't care where you put them. But I do not agree with them. The citations are easy to follow if one uses the cross-linked "Works cited" in Bibliography for Harold Pinter; the citation templates are temporary, for the benefit of newcomers to the article; I'll convert everything to MLA Style format after the article is more stable. As a revision of The MLA Style Manual was recently published, if one consults that article one will see that the MLA is not requiring its revised format in even its own publications until later in 2009, so there is time to make any changes. The new format, however, uses "Web" in every use of an online source, and, given Wikipedia's use of external links for source citations, that is redundant. It's clear when something is a web citation, though in the citation templates I've been supplying "format" with an eye to future changes. I've both linked web-based citations when useful for readers and I've listed by now most of them in the "Works cited" as well. But such work takes time, and I've been away. I may or may not have time to do it in the future. --NYScholar (talk) 04:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If readers and editors are not familiar with MLA Style format for citations and bibliographies ("Works cited"), I suggest you take a look at the Wikipedia Style guide template and The MLA Style Manual as listed in it (at top right of each guide's article). As indicated by his winning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005, Harold Pinter is a major literary figure, and it is appropriate to use MLA Style format in an encyclopedia article about him. He was also an Honorary Fellow of the MLA (1970). See the "Style sheet" linked in the template at the top of this talk page. Concerning any inconsistencies of format: I will try to correct them after the article stabilizes in content.

(cont.) Editors who have come along since his death have at times just tossed in external links, creating inconsistencies in the previous prevailing format--which they are supposed to follow, according to the WP:MOS and the above templated style sheet--and I have adjusted by supplying the full citations for them (see "controversial" template above, which requires full citations--author, title, work, publisher, date of publication, accessdate, URLs--all that information (along w/ pertinent ELs) is supplied in entries in the "Works cited". For the time being, I'm providing readers with direct access to the external links (as in the "Obituary and related articles" section) for their ease of reference and convenience. All the links to sources are already in the "Works cited" (or they will be as time permits), along with the URLs in nowiki format (as per MLA style format, in angle brackets). No one will have difficulty checking and verifying these sources. I myself have checked and verified every single one, including all the print sources, which non-Pinter experts may not be familiar with. Print-only sources (books, articles) are not subject to links (obviously). --NYScholar (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Please also stop removing the actually-correct parenthetical source citations keyed to the "Works cited" in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. Those were and still are in correct MLA Style format as per style sheet template at the top of this article. By doing so, you are introducing further inconsistencies into this article. You need to look for the entries given in parenthetical source citations in the "Works cited" list. They are there. --NYScholar (talk) 04:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * See, e.g., Bibliography for Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 04:54, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Again: For the time being, I have been using Wikipedia's own citation templates for Web sources, because it is convenient for new readers and especially if they include the "quote" field; they enable one to incorporate subtitles, leads, or brief quotations of use to readers. In the future, it is probably not necessary to have the quotations; they are there primarily for verification purposes now (and for illustration). In the future, all the citations templates can be converted from templates to entries in the "Works cited" list (if they are not such already--most are), and short parenthetical references to last names of authors or short title of works can be used instead, following the prevailing citation format of the style sheet. That will take time. As I said, I'm allowing the content to stabilize before attempting to finish doing that. --NYScholar (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have almost finished the conversions of the citation templates to the MLA Style format as per the style sheet in the template. --NYScholar (talk) 08:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Biobibliographical Notes
There are three references in MLA format to the 'Biobibliographical' notes produced by the Swedish Academy for the Nobel Prize 2005. But two of these when checked appear to be incorrect references.

I cite:
 * - Stylistically, they are marked by theatrical pauses and silences, comedic timing, irony and menace ("Biobibliographical Notes"). (paragraph 2) No where does that appear in http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/bio-bibl.html
 * - Pinter, his work, and his politics have been the subject of voluminous critical commentary ("Biobibliographical Notes"......) There is no statement like that in in the Swedish Academy citation.


 * Wow--have you missed the entire section of secondary sources and the citation to Pinter in Play? You conveniently cut off the source citation [It lists other sources too] and apparently you did not read the bibliography in the Bio-Bibliography section of the Nobel site with the "Biobibliographical Notes"; as I helped to provide information for the Bibliography for the Nobel Foundation's "Biobibliographical Notes" bibliographical list, I am very familiar with how it demonstrates "voluminous critical commentary", much of which I have worked with in the past. --NYScholar (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't miss it. What I saw was that there should not be a reference to Biobibliographiocal sources because one of the sources mentioned in there sourced that.  You need to adopt a consistent and understandable citation style.  This is a web publication, not a printed article.  Web publications customarily have direct links to source material.  Your use of the deprecated MLA ed2 actually introduces confusion for the reader.  Have a hard think about what you are doing here.  Are you using this article as the basis for your own thesis?  Or are you interested in providing a useful source to the general reader.  I refer you to
 * It follows the style guidelines, including the provision of:
 * (a) a lead—a concise lead section that summarizes the topic and prepares the reader for the detail in the subsequent sections;
 * b) appropriate structure—a system of hierarchical section headings and a substantial but not overwhelming table of contents; and
 * c) consistent citations—where required by Criterion 1c, consistently formatted inline citations using either footnotes[1] or Harvard referencing (Smith 2007, p. 1) (see citing sources for suggestions on formatting references; for articles with footnotes, the meta:cite format is recommended).


 * Images. It has images and other media where appropriate, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must satisfy the criteria for inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly.
 * Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

from Featured article criteria. Read that and have a hard think about it.Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You conveniently ignore the references to The MLA Style Manual in "Further reading" sec. of the WP:MOS and in Style sheet. Encyclopedia articles on literature use MLA Style format; see some of those that were listed in the EL section (if they still are) for e.g.; apparently, your specialty is not literature; my specialty is literature and particularly Harold Pinter; as a university teacher and scholar, I know the difference between a student's "term paper" and an "article"; this is an article.  "Consistency" is the hallmark of bibliography and citation formats; if you keep changing consistent references to inconsistent ones, you are violating Wikipedia's editing policies and guidelines, such as that noted already in the prevailing citation style for this article in the style sheet above.  See the reference to "consistency" there and elsewhere in Style guide and WP:MOS discussions. --NYScholar (talk) 16:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please learn the difference between so-called "Harvard referencing" and MLA parenthetical source citations and content notes; MLA format allows short parenthetical references in the text and longer citation references in endnotes (these are not "footnotes" but "notes" and when printed out they become endnotes). Wikipedia offers a "printable version" feature precisely so that readers can print out the articles and read them offline, not just online.  "Works cited" is a feature of MLA Style format in creating bibliographies when using parenthetical citations in body and endnotes of an article. --NYScholar (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that you understand that the sentence is a summary of the discussion, which is backed up in such passages as:

"Harold Pinter is generally seen as the foremost representative of British drama in the second half of the 20th century. That he occupies a position as a modern classic is illustrated by his name entering the language as an adjective used to describe a particular atmosphere and environment in drama: 'Pinteresque'." "Pinter restored theatre to its basic elements: an enclosed space and unpredictable dialogue, where people are at the mercy of each other and pretence crumbles. With a minimum of plot, drama emerges from the power struggle and hide-and-seek of interlocution. Pinter's drama was first perceived as a variation of absurd theatre, but has later more aptly been characterised as 'comedy of menace', a genre where the writer allows us to eavesdrop on the play of domination and submission hidden in the most mundane of conversations. In a typical Pinter play, we meet people defending themselves against intrusion or their own impulses by entrenching themselves in a reduced and controlled existence. Another principal theme is the volatility and elusiveness of the past. (Links & italics added.)" It is said of Harold Pinter that following an initial period of psychological realism he proceeded to a second, more lyrical phase with plays such as Landscape (1967) and Silence (1968) and finally to a third, political phase with One for the Road (1984), Mountain Language (1988), The New World Order (1991) and other plays. But this division into periods seems oversimplified and ignores some of his strongest writing, such as No Man's Land (1974) and Ashes to Ashes (1996). In fact, the continuity in his work is remarkable, and his political themes can be seen as a development of the early Pinter's analysing of threat and injustice. --NYScholar (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really do not think that you understand plain English. This is a Wikipedia article not a term paper. It needs pruning or copy editing not endless elaboration. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) Moreover, the Wikified link to Pinteresque gives the traits of Harold Pinter's writing, such as use of pauses and menace (see Comedy of menace linked article as well), that are both commonly referred to in any use of that word; the "theme" of the "volatility and elusiveness of the past" is another part of the passage being summarized in the statement prior to the parenthetical source citation. --NYScholar (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I quite agree with Jezhotwells' last point. Well put. The increasingly jungle-like opacity of this talk page, with one editor repeatedly commenting upon comments about his own comments is yet further evidence of the disease. An apparent inability to act on well-intended feedback is capped, should all else fail, with the repeated but final adjudicatory words: "I disagree." This is not the stuff of collaborative editing. Wingspeed (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * When two editors make erroneous comments and false observations like claiming that the sources cited in the parenthetical references do not support the statements and then ignore the explanation of how they do; or claiming that the Harold Pinter Society Webpages have not been updated for three years, when they were updated as recently as Jan. 1, 2009; or claiming that being an "Allied Organization" of the MLA is not a prestigious achievement, when it is the result of a rigorously competitive application process and not the same as the other kinds of organizations one has lumped together with them; or lacking the knowledge about Harold Pinter studies to know when statements like his being a consultant to Boston Legal is a fallacious invention (totally unsupported by any kind of source citation at all--just inserted in the article); or arguing that I am the one who is "disagree[ing]" with new editors when they are actually in disagreement with the previous "good article" review results (conducted by a good article reviewer)--then, all I can suggest is that it is not I who is failing to work collaboratively. I have actually beeing trying my best to address and to respond to your many requests for changes, accepting several of them in the lead (if you would only realize and recognize that by examining the material); however, I do know the sources being cited firsthand (I provided almost all of them), and I am restoring them as needed for statements that depend on them for material, when several other editors have wily-nily deleted the source citations over a period of the past week.

If you make claims and are shown evidence of having no basis for them, then you do need to accept that fact. The claim that the Harold Pinter Society is not important enough to include in the EL section is absolutely absurd and has no basis in reality.

As far as introducing the 3rd ed. of the MLA Style Manual, the bibliographical entries now all conform to it, even though even the MLA itself is not yet requiring its use in its own publications, and the 2nd ed. is still in standard practice, since many publications have gone to press in 2008 prior to the release of the 3rd ed. and many publishers are not yet using it. I have a copy and am consulting it in the making of changes. I altered punctuation in the entries to match the 3rd ed. precisely. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since my comment above is in danger of burial in the latest blizzard before other interested editors manage to get to it, and since it's still not really been addressed, I take the liberty of repeating it here: I quite agree with Jezhotwells' last point. The increasingly jungle-like opacity of this talk page, with one editor repeatedly commenting upon comments about his own comments is yet further evidence of the disease. An apparent inability to act on well-intended feedback is capped, should all else fail, with the repeated but final adjudicatory words: "I disagree." This is not the stuff of collaborative editing. Wingspeed (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Must say I find all these references in brackets which litter the article from start to (phew!) finish very ugly and, what is worse, a serious impediment to readability. In all my travels through Wikipedia (about 600 articles on my watchlist) I've come across nothing remotely like it. Wingspeed (talk) 04:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break--talking about EL sec. now
Perhaps the confusing citation style in this article has led to this. I also note that in the External links section of this article and in the Bibliography for Harold Pinter page there are some very minor items. Someone else noted that they seem a bit link-farmy and I agree.

I cite:
 * The first link to the Guardian does not mention Pinter, the article is about the 2008 laureate - Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio - so I have removed this link.
 * "Listmania: Harold Pinter: Winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize for Literature" at Amazon.com. I have removed this as there are plenty of book lists in the other links.
 * The Harold Pinter Society. [An Allied Organization of the Modern Language Association (MLA) and an Associated Organization of the Midwest Modern Language Association (M/MLA).] This link conatins no notable information, there is a broken link to past editions of the Pinter Review and the current edition was apparently published in 2005!!! I hav removed this link.
 * "The Life and Work of Harold Pinter (Magill Book Reviews)", Salem on Literature: Magill Book Reviews, hosted on eNotes.com. (Online book review of the 1996 ed. of the official authorized literary-critical biography by Michael Billington; rev. & enl. ed., Harold Pinter [2007].) This is a review of a book about Pinter which is already referenced many times in this article. Such a review is unneccessary here, perhaps in an article about Billington.
 * "Harold Pinter" in "Books: The Authors" at Guardian.co.uk. (Hyperlinked account. For updated version, see "Harold Pinter", as listed below.) redundant duplication
 * Harold Pinter: The Man and His Plays at Guardian.co.uk. (Gallery of photographs relating to Pinter's career; updated on 25 Dec. 2008.) duplicated in "Harold Pinter: The Best of the Guardian's Coverage, including Tributes, Reviews and Articles from the Archive" in "Culture" at Guardian.co.uk. (Hyperlinked content; last updated 1 Jan. 2009.)
 * "Harold Pinter" in "Books" in "Culture" at Guardian.co.uk. (Hyperlinked account; last updated 12 June 2008.) duplicated in "Harold Pinter: The Best of the Guardian's Coverage, including Tributes, Reviews and Articles from the Archive" in "Culture" at Guardian.co.uk. (Hyperlinked content; last updated 1 Jan. 2009.)

Jezhotwells (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)\\

Those links that you cite have been updated and altered by the Guardian from time to time; they are there for the convenience of the reader, because it is hard to find past versions that contain the same content as current versions. There is no desire to create a so-called link farm here. There is just a desire to make it easy for the reader to find useful information. I really think that Jezhotwells is being highly hypercritical and not keeping the convenience of the reader in mind. There is also no desire to advertise anything; the links are there so that readers can find them without having to hunt for them or search for them themselves. They have actually been weeded through before, and, except for a few recent additions due to revisions by the Guardian, e.g., they passed the "good article" review. I don't see why this one editor is taking it upon himself/herself to remove material that is in keeping with WP:EL. --NYScholar (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Guardian has consistently been changing the hyperlinked material and the reason to provide the separate links is because they may disappear again in the future. For the guidelines for external links sections, please see WP:EL. I won't mind consolidating Guardian links for the moment, by perhaps including the best of site URL, but I suggest that whoever might be deleting any of them, copying and move such entries verbatim into the talk page, so that they can be restored if needed in the future. It is not fair to make so much additional work for me and other editors by simply removing and deleting material that has been useful to past readers and that may be useful in the future to new readers. --NYScholar (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed repetitious links. The Guardian link left actually links to all of your other ones.  The Guardian Nobel prize link actually linked to the 2008 winner so had no place.  An Amazon list had no place, the Pinter Society site appeared not to have been updated for 3 years. This list is not a place for reviews of books about Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) All my comments have been lost due to an editing conflict and I do not have time to reconstruct them. The Harold Pinter Society link must be restored; it is the main professional organization devoted to the study of Harold Pinter, and being an "allied organization" of the MLA is highly prestigious.
 * Can you source that assertation. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can consult MLA.org for information about "Allied Organizations" of the MLA, including the application process, and November PMLA issues for past programs in which The Harold Pinter Society has featured sessions and events as part of its allied organization status. (One may have to be an MLA member to access some parts of its Website, however; it is restricted to members.)  Harold Pinter lists the organization on his official website in the section on "Libraries and Academia", along with the British Library, the Lilly Library, and the Bibliographical Editor of The Pinter Review, a peer-reviewed academic journal/collection of essays published by the U of Tampa Press for the Harold Pinter Society.  Do take a look at the hyperlinks to information about it on the HPS website (updated Jan. 1, 2009).  It has been published since 1987 and is the major academic journal/collection of essays on and about Pinter and his work.  It is subscribed to by academic libraries and individuals (who get it as part of membership in the Society)WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You can start investigating at Allied and Affiliated Organizations of the MLA--HPS is an Allied Organization, which is harder to become than an Affiliated Organization in terms of status/application process/requirements. You can explore the MLA site for its rules and regulations and application procedures (if not restricted).  I really can't do more than point you to what you need to find out about on your own. It is not necessary for me to "source" my statement any further (or really at all); it is common knowledge for anyone who is an experienced member of the MLA and familiar with the organization and its publications and processes.  If you are not, I suggest that you browse its website and do a Google search on your own.  --NYScholar (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For your perusal and edification, here is a direct link to the MLA's Policies and Procedures including those for Allied Organizations, with reference to application process and requirements for achieving such status and what it means in terms of the MLA itself (Item #3). --NYScholar (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The MLA is a scholarly organisation with hundreds of allied, associated and affiliated societies covering many writers and fields of writing. That doesn't make the Pinter Society particularly notable and the society's website does not add any new information about Pinter.  The links to the obituaries, etc are no more than a lisdt of links provided by Google, the book list is not comprehensive and there is no useful information about the Pinter Review as Ihave already pointed out.  I think that the inclusion of this link does not help, it lessens the impact because it is a weak link. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Pinter Society site has been updated as recently as Jan. 1, 2009.

(cont.) I don't think you read to the bottom of the page. Nor does it appear that you read the page at all, as it fully takes account of Pinter's death on Dec. 24, 2008 and provides a link to "in memoriam", which is listed in the "Obituaries and related articles" section above EL sec. Many of the sections of the site have been updated periodically and frequently.


 * But there is no information on that site that cannot be found elsewhere. Apart from an invitation to coffee and biscuits on December 28 Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand what you're talking about; The entire main page and links added "In Memoriam" in the lefthand menu are new, posted after Dec. 24, 2008. It is a crucial site to include in any EL sec. on Harold Pinter, in my view and that of many other academics, both in the U.S. and in the UK and elsewhere throughout Europe, Asia, India, and so on.  The Pinter Review is published for the HPS by the U of Tampa P. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But there is still no information on that site that cannot be found elsewhere. Apart from the coffee and biscuits that is. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a false statement. --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * In what way? Front page, links to youtube and a quote from the funeral, link to googlwe list of obituaries. Membership page. links to membership form, not updated since late 2004, early 2005. Publications - 2 book lists and a link to an Amazon booklist. Events, reference to a meeting on December 28, year unknown. Pinter Events, list of productions already available elesewhere. Links, various, all already listed. The Pinter Review.  as noted previously last published issue 2005, broken link to past issues. if I had paid $20 to belong I would be embarrased to link to that site from this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since writing responses below, I did download the Word version of the membership form that J. is referring to above (& in the copied part of J.'s comments in next sec. too), and I now see what the problem is w/ it; Taylor-Batty does need to substitute a new membership form so that the new Treasurer's mailing address and new years of membership are on it; the address is that of the previous Treasurer. There is now a downloadable version of the Newsletter sent in fall 2008, however, which has the current membership information and contains a printable current membership form--it's downloadable from the home page.  T-B needs to substitute the current file for the old one and also correct the PDF version (which doesn't function at all).  If J. notices such things, it would be helpful to contact T-B, who is the Website administrator/compiler, and ask him to make the necessary updates and corrections. There is contact info. on the site.  Several of the links have become outdated, but there is a note about that occurrence pertaining to news and events items particularly, as those sites frequently go dead or change links w/o any notice.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The book review was required by previous consensus of earlier discussions (now archived) by earlier editors, who wanted a perspective on Billington's biography of Pinter being cited in this article. The article is about Harold Pinter (as is the book), not Billington, and it is in the proper place for those who want to refer to it. --NYScholar (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say it was half and half about Pinter and Billington. It is a very short review of no real notable value. I have re-instated it. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Some time ago now, after considering J.'s observation, I moved the review to the Michael Billington article's EL sec., where I agree it is more directly of use. Anyone can find it there if looking at B's works.  It's not a very substantial review anyway, and, as I said, it was not my original idea to have to have it in this article, it was another ed. who wanted it, and, for all anyone knows, that ed. may not have kept interest in the editing of this article or in its subject.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) You have lost all the URLs in your moving the material to this talk page; part of moving material should be to move it intact, without losing the URLs. The Guardian Nobel featured page for 2008 does provide a link to the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature to "Harold Pinter" in the righthand menu.


 * Actually the link is on the left and it is merely a link to the Guardian Culture page already listed. What do you think the reaction of a reader of this article would be when they click on the first external link and find an article about French novelist Jean-Marie Gustave Le Clézio???  Think about it.  link is: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/nobel-prize-literature Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link is to the right of the sec. on Le Clézio (as I meant it), but in the middle of the page too; naturally, you and I don't even distinguish right and left the same way! (There is a far right menu too.) :-) It contains the following hyperlinked material (to which I was referring by "righthand menu":

<>.

It is the material hyperlinked to "Harold Pinter" (after "2005:" above) that I find the Guardian keeps shifting the location and content of.... --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is precisely why linking to the main Culture artcicle is best. Do you think posting a link to an article about the 2008 recipient, an article which does tangentially link to Pinter as it does to every other laureate is useful.  I think not.  Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You need to restore the link to this talk page so that we can examine it. Your view about what "this list" is "for" is your point of view perhaps; but what part of WP:EL are you using for guidance? Such lists are not just for one or two readers, they are for many readers. Personal preferences are not what we need here; we need references to what editing policies or guidelines you are basing these changes on, especially if they are controversial changes, as some of these are. Please point to the parts of WP:EL that you want us to consult; that would be helpful. --NYScholar (talk) 15:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not about personal preferences (certainly not mine). It is about accuracy, removing weak and redundant links, improving the article and making it seem less leaden and scholarly, more appealing to the general reader. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do understand that. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The EL section that I had been compiling was compiled with the "general reader" in mind, as has been the whole article! --NYScholar (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I repeat and echo the comments of User:Wingspeed, the article as it stands is leaden, dull, repetive, unclearly cited and not of great appeal to the general reader. It might be useful on Scholarpedia but will never achieve featured article status on Wikipedia, if User:NYScholar continues to maintain ownership of it. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way Scholarpedia doesn't have anything on Pinter, maybe you should have a go? Jezhotwells (talk) 19:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No thanks. I've done quite enough work for now.  I suggest that you try to work with me rather than against me.  WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I have not been impressed by the arguments against the article by Wingspeed or Jezhotwells. I suggest that they review the "good article" reviewer's comments in the archive. We worked hard on getting it to this "good article" status. I don't think it deserves any of those adjectives. This is not a newspaper article. If you prefer that kind of style, perhaps read the sources in newspapers (which abound). If you want it to have "featured status" that's one thing, but there are plenty of articles on far more arcane topics than Harold Pinter no better (at least) than this one that have achieved "featured status". There is great range in Wikipedia. And, by the way, right now, the source citations that I corrected are consistent, so please remove your unnecessary templates. They are the opinion of about 1 or 2 people, perhaps not everyone reading this article, which may be many, judging from the Google search pages. I think you could be far more appreciative of all the work that's been done on this article since it was created--when it abounded in misinformation, errors, and undocumented statements, violating Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. It's taken a lot of work to get it to the "good article" stage. Please try to keep in mind that "literature" is a specialized academic field, not just a general subject, that Pinter was a literary master, and that there are guidelines that students (who are general readers) around the world need to follow that this article currently exemplifies in its development and its (current) documentation (as opposed to rampant plagiarism that one frequently finds in Wikipedia articles). I've tried to work with you, but personally-tinged comments and newspaper-style "lowest common denominator" preferences make it at times quite difficult. Please aim higher, as befits the subject. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Recently, I've just been trying to update what was before the subject's death already deemed a "good article". --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Harold Pinter Society
(ec) The inclusion of the link to the Harold Pinter Society is hardly a "weak link"; it is included among only several links in "Libraries and academia" in Harold Pinter's own official Website, included in the Guardian.co.uk's suggested links from time to time and in those of other major national newspapers, included in the recent links provided in the "Tribute" to Harold Pinter published by Granta, and it is the major international academic organization devoted to study and appreciation of Harold Pinter and his work; it lists upcoming conference events as they occur pertaining to the subject (during his lifetime and will continue to do so in the future), and it is a major source of information for students and scholars who study Pinter's work, as it is the organization for which the University of Tampa Press publishes The Pinter Review: Collected Essays, at first a journal and now a hard cover collection of essays on and about Pinter, including the venue for publishing some of his work (sometimes for the first time), and facsimiles of his unpublished manuscripts from the British Library's Harold Pinter Archive. It changes its featured material over time; some is at previously relocated (archived) links that previous users of the site are familiar with and have saved. I do not find those comments at all informed or informative. And I have read them and considered them. They appear to me to be careless and without basis in fact or any corroborating reliable and verifiable source citation. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Website is compiled and updated by Mark Taylor-Batty, a Pinter scholar who is a Senior Lecturer in English and a director of Theatre Workshop at the University of Leeds, who was the conference organizer for Artist and Citizen: 50 Years of Performing Harold Pinter (see the links in the article). Some of his publications are listed among the source citations for this and other Pinter-related articles, and he is also one of the people enlisted by Harold Pinter to develop parts of his official Website, as indicated in this Wikipedia article's "Notes".  --NYScholar (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * None of that is apparent from the Pinter Soc web site. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mark Taylor-Batty lists himself as the "compiler" of the Website at the foot of the Website and as the compiler of the "In Memoriam" section specifically; look him up at his university Website, and you will find his credentials at the University of Leeds. The University Website is a reliable source citation, as well.  Wiki-linking to the university (as just above) provides a link to its official Website--you can do that kind of research on your own.  What is "apparent" to some readers is apparently not "apparent" to others.  --NYScholar (talk) 03:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I've moved the stuff below because the question remains unanswered. What new information about Pinter is on that site? None of the points you raise about the editor or other who links there answers that question.  Leave the site in the external links, but it does Harold Pinter a great dis-service as it stands.Jezhotwells (talk) 02:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is no information on that site that cannot be found elsewhere. Apart from an invitation to coffee and biscuits on December 28 Jezhotwells (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

'I really don't understand what you're talking about; The entire main page and links added "In Memoriam" in the lefthand menu are new, posted after Dec. 24, 2008. It is a crucial site to include in any EL sec. on Harold Pinter, in my view and that of many other academics, both in the U.S. and in the UK and elsewhere throughout Europe, Asia, India, and so on. The Pinter Review is published for the HPS by the U of Tampa P. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)' [Please don't move my comments; they were written earlier. (They've been now stuck in w/ yours and mixed up w/ them. --NYScholar (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)]


 * The Pinter Review may have been published up until 2005, but where is it now? Your assertations are not suported by the web-site. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But there is still no information on that site that cannot be found elsewhere. Apart from the coffee and biscuits that is. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:34, 2 January 2009 (UTC) 'That is a false statement'. --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC) In what way? Front page, links to youtube and a quote from the funeral, link to googlwe list of obituaries. Membership page. links to membership form, not updated since late 2004, early 2005. Publications - 2 book lists and a link to an Amazon booklist. Events, reference to a meeting on December 28, year unknown. Pinter Events, list of productions already available elesewhere. Links, various, all already listed. The Pinter Review. as noted previously last published issue 2005, broken link to past issues. if I had paid $20 to belong I would be embarrassed to link to that site from this article. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:33, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * [It was really not necessary to copy/repeat all that above; I respond and responded to the first time the thing is posted. --NYScholar (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)]


 * As cited in Harold Pinter source citations, the current volume of The Pinter Review: Collected Essays 2005 and 2006 (2008) is in press and forthcoming early in 2009. The implication above that it is not a publication still in existence is incorrect.  It is a biennial volume of collected essays published both in paper and cloth; libraries purchase the cloth editions; individuals can purchase either; paper editions are mailed to members of the HPS as part of their membership; it is purchased directly from the University of Tampa P (as linked in the HPS Webpage about it and elsewhere in the Bibliography for this article), and it is also available from online booksellers like Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk, and Barnes and Noble, etc.  Please focus on editing this article and not on making these unfounded claims and speculations.  If you want to know more about the sources, you need to look at them.  Any WorldCat search via ISBN nos. will show you the libraries around the world that own The Pinter Review in their collections, including the British Library.  See the library catalogues.  It is not my task to do such research for other editors.  Thanks.  --NYScholar (talk) 06:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
I'm afraid that it is useless to discuss this any further with this editor above. I've done my best to indicate that the organization is highly regarded by Pinter scholars, students, theatre critics, Pinter himself, and the MLA. What is your authority to make the claims you do? You apparently do not see the difference between a full list compiled from the piecemeal sources you cite and the piecemeal parts strewn across the internet; Dec. 28 refers to this past Dec. 28, 2008 (a meeting I myself attended last Sunday in San Francisco), and any Pinter scholar would know that. All you have to do is consult the program of the MLA, which is published in PMLA (Nov. 2008) and accessible to members on its website now in full. The Pinter Review is a biennial volume and currently in press, about to be mailed in the next few weeks; it is the major scholarly publication on Harold Pinter (actually the only academic journal/collection of essays devoted wholly to his work). There is no reason to update a membership form if it is the same as it was previously. These comments that J. is making are far beyond the realm of this talk page at this point. I have provided all the source citations that I need to provide to verify the validity of the link to the organization; all J. has provided is personal opinion and ludicrous innuendoes that I find no value at all in, as they are misinformed. The organization is highly regarded by those who have cited it, which include the subject of the article and post-doctoral scholars of his work. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * But you have not answered the question of why is the website of interest. None of the information that you communicate above is on there. How was the coffee by the way? I hope it wasn't Starbucks Best coffee on high street? Not Starbucks :-) Jezhotwells (talk) 02:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There was no coffee per se ("coffee" was just a tentative generic ref. to whatever the actual plan turned out to be by December 2008; those kinds of tentative references are made prior to knowing what the meeting plan (which is rather informal) is going to be when the time actually comes; ultimately, after that was first composed, the president of the Society, who presided over the MLA session, decided to make it a lunch meeting not just "coffee"--and we met in the main hotel restaurant. For academics, a ref. to "coffee" is rather metaphorical and close enough. (You're taking it too literally.)  So there was a business meeting of the organization held during lunch, and many members were still reeling from the news of Harold Pinter's death just a few days earlier.  These questions that you are asking are not within the purview of this talk page; see the top header re: what is.  Thanks. (Out of sheer courtesy, I responded. But you're getting way off topic--improvement of the article.) There is no doubt in my mind that the link to the HPS is worth including, and I am including it.  --NYScholar (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Fine include it, but it is still a weak and flawed link. You may know that it is useful but to the casual viewer of the web site it is just something that has been neglected for a while. You cannot expect people to all have some anal attanetion to following all possible links on a website that is referred to.  The information should be there, right in front of you.Jezhotwells (talk) 03:17, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the compiler of the HPS Website will see your comments and take them into consideration. Not everyone is as critical as you are of an organization's Website and feels as you seem to do that a Website devalues the organization itself.  Having consulted it for several years now, I find myself far more tolerant of it than you appear to be.  But all Websites can be improved. That doesn't make them currently worthless.  [If you feel strongly, contact the administrator/compiler of the site and make your suggestions to him.]  --NYScholar (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (cont) One needs to keep in mind that with a subject like Harold Pinter most of the most valuable sources and resources are published in print, not on the World Wide Web and that published books, articles, and texts available in research libraries, theater museums, media libraries, theatre archives, and especially library archives are the most valued by specialists in the field. Having "information ... right in front of you" is not what happens in literary research--one has to work harder to find it, and experienced scholars and critics are familiar with doing hands-on research in libraries, not only via browsing the internet.  If you check out the published (in print) bibliographies dealing with Pinter and his work and that of his contemporaries, you will find far more printed resources than any one person could investigate and manage in one lifetime.


 * (cont.) Research on Harold Pinter is currently a collaborative enterprise, undertaken by those belonging to a scholarly community such as the Harold Pinter Society and those with whom it and its members have ongoing professional relationships, which included, among them, Harold Pinter himself, who attended in person the last few conferences organized on his work as recently as this autumn (see the published sources and the forthcoming volume of The Pinter Review, expected to be released and mailed early in 2009); so their publications commenting on some of those encounters with the subject of this article are important resources for all readers, including general readers, who may be interested in such material (program links are accessible via source citations and ELs in related articles, such as Harold Pinter and academia), cross-linked via a section of this article on Pinter. The lists of publications by and publications about Harold Pinter are accessible via his own official Website (See menu of links on home index page), in the Webpages of the Harold Pinter Society (which are periodically updated), in the 'Biobibliographical Notes" for Harold Pinter at nobelprize.org, and in the Websites of various scholars throughout the world. As I've said before, the most reliable and important sources for this subject are still published in print, not on the Web. --NYScholar (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry but I find the above a long winded rambing mish mash of contradictory and unsupported statements. If you put a link in a Wikipedia article make sure that the information you want to refer to is at the other end of the link.  None of what you have said is evident from the Pinter Society website.

This is not an article on research about Harold Pinter. This is an article for people who want to establish the facts of his life and his work. If you want to write a thesis go to Scholarpedia, BTW when I referred to that earlier, I thought I was making the word up. Blow me down if it hasn't actually been invented. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that I know what the subject and aims of this article are, as I have been working on it for three years and ushered it through its "good article" review. (I first encountered Jezhotwells's postings on this talk page only after the death of Pinter on New Year's Eve 2008.) [This talk page] archive contains previous discussions relating to the "good article" review, which Harold Pinter passed (as per the above templates re: its GA-class status in Wikipedia).

(cont.)For information about Scholarpedia and the use of Wikipedia as a resource for students, scholars, and "general readers", including cited commentaries by the founder of Wikipedia, Jimmy Wales, please see the sources located on my own user page, Issues and concerns relating to usage of Wikipedia as a source. As for my statements about the Pinter Society and "the facts of [Pinter's] life and work", they are established in the published sources already cited in this article and listed in its Bibliography section. I suggest reading the sources listed in "Bibliography for Harold Pinter" (this article's "Works cited") if one wants to learn more. --NYScholar (talk) 18:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please desist from sending me (or any other editor) off to write for Scholarpedia; according to that project's article in Wikipedia, linked above, "Scholarpedia is at this time not a general encyclopedia; it currently focuses on the fields of computational neuroscience, dynamical systems, computational intelligence, and astrophysics." Nothing even remotely related to Harold Pinter's life and work. :-)  --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is considered poor Wikiquette to send long-standing experienced editors (or even new ones) out of the project due to editing disagreements; see Etiquette and WP:NPA. Please stop putting differences of opinion about the content or style of an article in personal terms.  Please focus constructively on improving the article and not on contributors.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not making personal attacks on you. I and at least three other editors on this talk page have been working to make this article readable.  Your arrogant replies and tone about literary research, implying that you User:NYScholar are the only person who knows anything about the subject are frustrating the production of a good article, IMHO. I refer you once again to WP:OWN Jezhotwells (talk) 15:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was "readable" before Pinter's death (as it passed a "good article" review), and it was still "readable" several hours ago (the last time I worked on it). (You raised the "research" issue, and I've simply responded to your comments about it.) I've had to spend quite a bit of time restoring lost citations, updating format (due to changes to the edition of the MLA Style Manual introduced--which now still need further changes in the "Bibliography" section--will do that over time and would appreciate aid w/ doing that) and fixing various changes that created incoherence, and just normal updating of verb tenses, which is customary.  I have also taken some time to respond to your comments about links, etc.  There is nothing "arrogant" about taking comments that you and others make seriously and responding to them.  It is a courtesy to you that I have done so.  I would appreciate similar courtesy in return.  Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Still no evidence whatsoever, despite repeated requests, that the editor in question has taken the trouble to read carefully WP:OWN. Anybody blessed with an iota of self-awareness would, in the circumstances, find it toe-curlingly embarrassing. It is an immense irony that the level of cloth-eared imperiousness emanating from the United States, here repeatedly on display, is just what caused the subject of this article to get angrier than anything else in his entire life. Wingspeed (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographical resources
Some links on Harold Pinter's own official Website are broken and have to be updated, but, due to the circumstances of his very recent death, that is unlikely to occur for some time. It remains to be seen what the future of his official Website will become. The Pinter Society is listed as a link in its "Libraries and academia" section, as already stated. There are other useful links provided in Bibliography for Harold Pinter, which is a section of this article, formulated as part of the work for the "good article" review (see archived discussion). One will find more information about The Pinter Review via those resources as well. --NYScholar (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Style sheet
Updated the style sheet (in template at top of page) to indicate that this article is currently using British English (as discussed earlier and reached by current consensus above). Thank you to other editors who helped recently with converting the variety of English to British English. --NYScholar (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: the 4 guidelines relating to variety of English usage, my comments above relate to: WP:ENGVAR. The aim is to make the article easily comprehended by all readers of English, not just some. I do understand that aim. --NYScholar (talk) 03:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyrighted material
I am concerned about User:NYScholar's adding the full text of the No Man's Land speech. This may exceed the fair use criteria. The text if permitted should directly attribute the source which is not done here with (69-70). I accept that No Man's Land, Harold Pinter, 1974 is the implied source, but it does not appear to follow the guidelines. More here Non-free content, Copyright violations. I have asked the question at Editor assistance/Requests. Just beacuse the full text is quoted in The Telegraph and The Harold Pinter Society does not neccessarily permit its use in Wikipedia. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It is quoted in full elsewhere and with permission of the playwright. There is no breach of copyright at all. All members of the Harold Pinter Society received this passage, and it was sent to newspapers and elsewhere with the permission of Pinter and his family. The source for the quotation is given in the "Works cited" properly and it is obviously within fair use in the U.S. and internationally in any article discussing Harold Pinter and his work. There is no "implied source"; the actual source is listed in Bibliography for Harold Pinter with full publication information; it is from the text cited. --NYScholar (talk) 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Please use the "Works cited" list as per MLA Style format to find the sources. The parenthetical source citation is keyed to Four Plays as cited there in the section called Works. That is proper MLA Style format. --NYScholar (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There is my editorial interpolation (visible in preview mode) in that entry too, pointing out that, while the ISBN nos. are not listed in WorldCat, they are checked and verified; you can find them via Google Book Search (if you click on the ISBN nos.) and in many online book seller catalogues. I own the box set, have used it as any critic or scholar would to document the pages on which this passage appears; it is within fair use to quote the passage and to include it in this discussion, properly documented (sourced) as such, and as a critical writer I have done so appropriately.  It is not a copyright violation to quote a passage from a play to illustrate a discussion of the play and the author.  Please consult U.S. and international fair use policy.  The statutes are listed in my own user page for convenience.  Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Might I ask you to read what I actually wrote above, especially the WP guidelines about copyrighted material. Just because others have used the text does not necessarily mean Wikpedia should or can. I seek the views of other editors on whether this use is fair use. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

8 lines of text [approx. 187 words] properly cited are within fair use doctrine of copyright law in the U.S. (which is what governs fair use in Wikipedia). It is a "block quotation" format used for more than 4 lines of text, which is discussed in the WP:MOS. It is entirely absurd for you to claim that there is any breach of "fair use" here; any critical discussion of a work can quote from a published text and give the proper source citation in doing so. I really think you are hanging out on a limb here. I have edited articles in Wikipedia long enough to know WP guidelines concerning copyright and fair use (which I link to on my own user subpage--please consult it: Wikipedia Copyright-related Issues); there is no breach here of those guidelines. I am extremely strict about copyright, as that user subpage will demonstrate. The passage is being quoted as it was also read before stage audiences of the play (more than once), during the funeral, and throughout articles in the press. Without any so-called copyright violation, it is reproduced in full on the home Webpage of The Harold Pinter Society, to which Pinter's own official Website links. I'll link to that page too, in another source citation, as an illustration. --NYScholar (talk) 21:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My quotation is from the volume of the play that I own, not from the newspapers or HPS website. I opened my book to pages 69–70, found the passage, and quoted it, as proper, cited it, and added the source to the "Works cited" (Works).  That is how a writer documents the source of the quotation, whether it is in a printed article or an article that is published online.  No publisher of a book or article would require "permission" for this quotation from Pinter's play.  Quotations like these are standard practice. --NYScholar (talk) 21:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * [In my user subpage linked above, I provide the link to the U.S. Government Fact Page for Fair Use (revised, July 2006). I provide it here again for those who may want to consult it.  --NYScholar (talk) 00:15, 6 January 2009 (UTC)]

MLA Style Citations
As a means of accommodating some of the comments made by (an)other editor(s) earlier, I have consolidated some of the in-text parenthetical source citations into less obtrusive source citations in the notes, while still following MLA Style format as per the Style Sheet. I have also added a new section for the convenience of readers called Bio-bibliography before the section called Obituaries and related articles, which I think is helpful. In my view, the parenthetical referencing citations format of this article follows MLA Style format. Please see Talk:Bibliography for Harold Pinter, which explains that after another editor changed some of the sources listed to (part of) the format of the 3rd ed. of the MLA Style Manual, I have worked on converting the remaining parts that were rendered inconsistent by those changes to the 3rd ed. format. That will take some time, as the section of "Other secondary sources" holding those cited in this article is long. I'm working on that offline and will import the changes to the section when I'm done. The time that I've taken to respond to comments in this talk page has slowed me down considerably in that task. Please keep in mind that such changes required and still require careful editing and do take time. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 5 January 2009 (UTC) [I returned to add a Wikified link here. After this I hope to be offline and taking a break. I've done what I can to address and deal with comments above. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)]

Archive 5
Archived content of current talk page at the request/suggestion of Mediator Delaque. --NYScholar (talk) 08:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)