Talk:Bibliography of Harold Pinter

Split off from Harold Pinter

This is a split off section from the main article. For discussion of the main article, please go to Talk:Harold Pinter, where there is a table of contents of the talk page and an archives box listing its archived discussion. Thank you. --NYScholar 20:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the "Works cited" list for the main article Harold Pinter, as stated at top of "Selected bibliography for Harold Pinter". The Nobel Prize site's "Biobibliographical Notes" (in its "Bio-bibliography") includes many other published sources as well; please consult it too. --NYScholar (talk) 19:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it amazing that this 'bibliography' is actually for the main part a list of sources cited in Harold Pinter. This list should be properly wikified and merged back to main article.Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

The split off section was discussed and properly split off a long time ago. You may find it "amazing," but this is a common occurrence. This "Works cited" (Bibliography) serves for multiple articles in Wikipedia relating to Harold Pinter, including many of the articles on his individual works and related subtopics. Take a look at some of them, and you will see that. --NYScholar (talk) 15:53, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Please consult the already-archived discussions in the main article at Talk:Harold Pinter. That is part of the work of editing here. Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

If one clicks on the current categories, one can see all kinds of bibliographies, many of which include both primary works by a subject and secondary works about a subject. This list was already split off as the result of long-standing consensus reached through a "good article" review, and this recent editor's viewpoint that it should not be has no clear consensus and no relation to the "good article" review of Harold Pinter, which is archived via its talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 15:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

MLA format follows style sheet of Harold Pinter

Please do not remove the angle-bracketed (nowiki) links; they are requirements of MLA Style format. You are introducing errors into all the entries by doing that. This is not your or my personal preference; it is the format for specialized articles in literature, just as APA governs such articles in social sciences and ACS governs such articles in the sciences. See Style guide for the hyperlinked lists. --NYScholar (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I have news for you URLs in angled brackets has been deprecated in the latest MLA style guide:

In the past, the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing recommended including URLs of Web sources in works-cited-list entries. Inclusion of URLs has proved to have limited value, however, for they often change, can be specific to a subscriber or a session of use, and can be so long and complex that typing them into a browser is cumbersome and prone to transcription errors. Readers are now more likely to find resources on the Web by searching for titles and authors' names than by typing URLs. You should include a URL as supplementary information only when the reader probably cannot locate the source without it or when your publisher requires it. If you present a URL, give it immediately following the date of access, a period, and a space. Enclose the URL in angle brackets, and conclude with a period.... (212–13)

Name of the author, compiler, director, editor, narrator, performer, or translator of the work [....] Title of the work (italicized if the work is independent; in roman type and quotation marks if the work is part of a larger work [see 3.8.2–3]). Title of the overall Web site (italicized, if distinct from item 2). Version or edition used. Publisher or sponsor of the site; if not available, use N.p., date of publication (day, month, and year, as available); if nothing is available, use n.d. Medium of publication (Web). Date of access (day, month, and year).

Committee on Scholarly Editions. "Guidelines for Editors of Scholarly Editions." Modern Language Association. MLA, 25 Sept. 2007. Web. 20 Nov. 2007.

So I have removed them which shortened the page considerably and makes it readable on the web. In case you ahd not realised Wikipedia is a web tresources, not printed. iN fact the whole use of MLA is questionable as it it is clearely designed for printed papers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The removal of the prevailing citation and bibliographical format of Harold Pinter (and its related sections) has no basis in Wikipedia editing policy or guidelines. Such drastic and confusing changes should not be made on the basis of the changing editor's whims or desires. They need to relate to actual editing policies and guidelines pertaining to making improvements to the article. Those changes did not improve the article; they introduced all kinds of inconsistencies in its formatting of citations/bibliography, which follow a prevailing Style Sheet defined in a top template on Talk:Harold Pinter. There are strict guidelines about not changing such prevailing style without clearly-developed consensus, which the changing editor simply does not have. Consensus for this format was established in the "good article" review. --NYScholar (talk) 15:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

If you are going to change all the entries in the bibliography here and in all the other sections of Harold Pinter it is keyed to or that keys to it to 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual, then you need to do that consistently; the revised format uses "Web" for Web publications and "Print" for print publications, and adds publishers after works in which items are published, with an additional period after "Web" and before the date of access or retrieval. All entries end in a period always. I had added an editorial interpolation in the Wikipedia article on The MLA Style Manual, explaining that the MLA is not requiring use of the 3rd ed. of its own manual on MLA Style in its own publications until later in 2009, so that people have time to adjust (see the top of article in preview mode; you're not telling me anything that I haven't already commented on months ago). Again, you cannot change some parts of the citation and bibliographical format to 3rd ed. without changing all of it consistently, and without following the format precisely. The MLA Style format does not enable URLs embedded in the titles of works cited; it just uses "Web" and assumes that people will look the items up. For the convenience of Wikipedia readers and editors, for purposes of online verification of sources, and ease of reference, I included the URLs in EL format that Wikipedia uses. I explained that "Web" did not seem necessary. I have no objection to leaving off "Web", but that is an inconsistency in the format. I provided it (Web as format) when I used citation templates, as explained before (in Talk:Harold Pinter). Perhaps the changing editor and I can discuss how best to construct this version of MLA Style. (See also the "Obituaries and other articles" section at Harold Pinter#Obituaries and other articles; those bibliographical entries and these in the Bibliography for Harold Pinter need to be the same (consistent) in format. I'm tired, so I suggest you do all the work now, if that is what you want to do, and correct the errors in the MLA Style, so that it is all conforming to 3rd ed. of the MLA Style Manual (not just some of it). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) One good reason for giving the URLs within angle brackets (nowiki format) is because frequently they do change or get removed from the active Web entirely, and one must hunt them down (with whole URL addresses) in the Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine. The fact that I've currently live-linked them Wikipedia style indicates that, of course, I know that this is an online encyclopedia, and that I also wanted to enable people to find the URLs (they can be seen when highlighted). The urls in angle brackets were a "fail safe" (still in 2nd ed.) for use when URLs disappear or change (which frequently does happen, as I just said). At this point, people can hunt for them in the editing histories, if you are going to change everything to 3rd ed. of the MLA Style Manual. I just didn't think I had time to do that; if you would like to do that (consistently), fine. Will we be able to get Wikipedia consensus for the adjustments in MLA Style format (e.g., no "Web" or "Print" ref. in entry)? --NYScholar (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Format conversion to MLA Style Manual 3rd ed.

In progress: still working on secs. between "Poetry" sec. and "Multimedia Resources" sec. Prev. and last sec. already converted to The MLA Style Manual 3rd ed. format. This may take a few days. Please bear with editor(s) working on this conversion, which involves minor changes of format for the most part. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I finished the conversion up until the Secondary sources section (which is extensive) and the last sec. has been finished for over a day; but I have to log out for an extended period of time, so unless someone else finishes the conversion to 3rd ed. of the remaining sections, it will have to wait until I am able to take time to do it. What remains is very close to the correct 3rd. ed. format and just needs some tinkering to add in "Web" format and some reordering and slightly different punctuation in spots. To be continued later.... --NYScholar (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just uploaded the converted "Other secondary sources" section. It may need some further tinkering, but it is mostly conforming consistently to the 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual format now. (I'll take another look at it later, when I have more time than I do now.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

"for Harold Pinter" or "of Harold Pinter"

Every other article in the category is titled "of Person X" not "for Person X". One may or may not be grammatically better but until consensus is reached for all of them, it should stay at the same title as the rest in the series. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is appropriately named, as it is a section of another article, called Harold Pinter, and there are two categories--see the other one; there are many articles that use "for" as well. Please consult the templated message on your talk page. Thank you. There is no "series" that this bibliography aims to be part of; it was initially and still is the Bibliography section for Harold Pinter and related cross-linked articles relating to him and his works. (This article is not part of a "series" or part of a larger Wikipedia project but part of an article called Harold Pinter. Its categories are just categories that enable one to know what it is, and it relates to more than one category of "Bibliography" in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Develop consensus first then make a move. All the bibliographies in that series are named based on consensus previously developed. If you like one naming style more than another and want to change them all, then get a group to agree with you and change them all. I may not like the New York Times style guide and have issues with the Chicago Manual of Style and think their style is arbitrary, but they were created for consistency. Having the Pinter one named in a different style is not right. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

You developed no such consensus. There is no consensus for your changing the title of Bibliography for Harold Pinter. --NYScholar (talk) 22:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I see widely varying titles for Bibliographies throughout Wikipedia, only some of which are properly categorized or categorized at all, and there is no consistent naming of all of them. There is clearly variation that relates to the purposes of the particular bibliographical articles corresponding in several cases to the sections of the main articles that they are part of and cross-linked to. Bibliographies that are categorized as both "bibliographies:author" and "bibliographies:subject" have varying names. --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

There are other "Bibliography for" articles in Wikipedia as well. This one is a section of a main article, and it is so linked to it. --NYScholar (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(ec) (cont.) Bibliography of" articles in Wikipedia generally imply that they are lists of works by a subject (author's bibliography), this one is not that. It serves as the list of "Works cited" in Harold Pinter and related articles cross-linked in it. It is also a list of works about and resources relating to Pinter cited in the main article and the cross-linked articles. Works cited in Harold Pinter may be found in it; it is keyed to the parenthetical source citations in the article. I can't discuss this further because I am trying to work on the Bibliography formatting itself and this is distracting me from that work. So please allow me to get back to doing it. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

• The consensus is built into the category, it isn't made for each entry on a case by case basis. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Among other examples in Wikipedia, see Bibliography for Whittaker Chambers and Bibliography for Duwamish (tribe). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Removal of copyright-violating link(s)

Please stop inserting copyright violation link in Bibliography for Harold Pinter; the format is incorrect also, but the main problem is that the URL links to a page with clearcut notice saying not to distribute its content; it violates the NRO copyright and the copyright of the National Review, and the content also there contains self-published blog posts that are not permitted in Wikipedia; it is not a reliable source as per WP:V#Sources, and the proper link to the NRO's own site is fine; it states clearly that the material is available to subscribers, and if Wikipedia were to post that URL you added, it would be conflicting with the commercial interest of the NR and NRO, which is forbidden in Wikipedia; see WP:Copyright#:Linking to copyrighted works and WP:Copyright#Copyright violations and the templates for copyright-violating links. Search: "Template:Copy-vio" and you will find the related policies. If you keep inserting it, I will have to keep removing it, and there is no violation of WP:3RR for removing copyright violations of this kind. But if you keep adding it after this (2nd warning if one counts my editing summary), you will become subject to WP:3RR and possibly be blocked by administrators. --NYScholar (talk) 06:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I found a more-acceptable version of the full article and have added that information (with URL) to the full source citation. It is from FindArticles.com and does not contain any self-published blog posts or potential copyright violations. --NYScholar (talk) 08:38, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

[I remember reading this article before, in October 2005 when it first was published (in NRO, in advance of publication in the print version of the NR), and recall thinking then, as I do now, what a truly mean-spirited and gossipy and biased piece it is. It is not worth quoting from, in my view. But I have referred to it in the appropriate spots of the article, and it is listed in the "Works cited" / Bibliography for Harold Pinter, where anyone can now read the whole nasty piece. I also recall Pryce-Jones being taken to task for having written it, as was Hari for having written his similarly-toned vitriol. Both are listed and cited as sources for those who want to consult and read them. (Hari's invective written after Pinter's death is not cited, because it appears in a first-person self-published blog, which is not citable in Wikipedia articles like Harold Pinter (and this cross-linked section of bibliography). See tagged notices at top. --NYScholar (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)]

There’s hardly a need to get further involved, since your FindArticles page does exactly the same thing my Articles Archive page did. By the way, the AA page doesn’t have any self-published blogs. Those internal links you saw are to previously published magazine articles. As for FindArticles, here is some language from its Terms of Use page:

“You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, or in any way exploit any of the materials or content on our sites in whole or in part.”

And now let's compare that language to that found on the linked Articles Archive page that you deleted:

You may not repost, republish, reproduce, package and/or redistribute the content of this page, in whole or in part, without the written permission of the copyright holder."

But in spite of both restrictions, Wikipedia’s policy is that we may link to copyrighted material without advance permission -- the Wikipedia link you provided makes that clear, and thanks. (I know that you're busy, but you could have just read it yourself.) So there’s nothing wrong with linking to ArticleArchives.com, which is owned by AllBusiness.com, which is in turn owned by Dun and Bradstreet. They clearly have National Review’s permission to publish its articles.

I gather that by referring to the “incorrect” format of my link, you mean that it doesn’t conform to MLA style-manual. Lesson: links that refuse to conform must be deleted. I’m sure the MLA would expect nothing less.

In an earlier post you instructed me that "The focus of Wikipedia talk pages like this one is just editing the articles (not debating the subject itself or the language of other editors." Here are only two of your own Talk comments:

“But the fact remains that when he was still alive . . . Pinter was and, after his death he still is, considered one of the greatest playwrights of the 20th and 21st centuries and among the greatest of British playwrights of all time (including Shakespeare, some would say . . .)”

and

“ . . . what a truly mean-spirited and gossipy and biased piece [the Pryce-Jones article] is. It is not worth quoting from, in my view.”

Do continue taking ownership of Pinter by surrounding him with a boldly authoritative word-salad. It's appropriate and few will read it, given the subject, and Wikipedia can start charging an entry fee to watch, like tourists in Bedlam. A fit purgatory for Pinter and you both, but I’m out of here. Eye.earth (talk) 18:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I concur with all you say. It is sad that this article is being ruined by one editor who is not able to discuss with other editors. Perusal of talk pages where this editor has been active show a string of complaints about impenetrable prose, dull and leaden style and condescension and arrogance, Jezhotwells (talk) 19:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining consistency of bibliographical format (updated to The MLA Style Manual, 3rd ed.)

[Please consult Style Sheet in template at top of this page.]

I monitor the consistency of the format of Bibliography for Harold Pinter periodically. As I am working on meeting non-Wikipedia publication deadlines, I have limited time to do this. But it is on my "watch list", and I will continue to monitor it, time permitting. If I find additional errors of format, I will correct them later, when I have more time. --NYScholar (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

See main article template cross-reference

This Bibliography is properly designated as a section of Harold Pinter, resulting from a previously-approved split requested in the "good article" review done in fall 2007. It is part of Harold Pinter, which has been listed as a "good article" since early October 2007. --NYScholar (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Please see the guidelines for talk pages, linked at the top of this page, including links to Wikipedia policies WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. [The sources of this article/section are its "content"; discussing preferability of one URL that does not include blog posts by readers (self-published blog comments) to one that does include such blog posts is discussing content.] Please refrain from focusing on contributors, as per WP:NPA. WP:CIVIL also directs Wikipedia editors not to characterize the work of other editors in "derogatory" terms. Please do one's best to follow Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, including "consistency" of prevailing citation and bibliographical documentation formats. Thank you again. --NYScholar (talk) 20:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

dead and re-directed links

Running {http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/cgi-bin/webchecklinks.py?page=Bibliography_for_Harold_Pinter] finds 35 dead and re-directed links. I haven't changed anything as these may relate to other articles. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

They do relate to other articles. (Use of that tool is not necessarily going to result in accurate information; one needs to check each link.) These are sources cited in Harold Pinter and related articles. Wikipedia editing procedure is to update dead links with new live links or archived links from the Internet archive. It takes time to do that. See response to same situation in main article for which this bibliography serves as the "Works cited": Talk:Harold Pinter. Thanks. In use template added to avoid editing conflicts while process continues. (Please do not disrupt it either intentionally or inadvertently. Thank you.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't remove any links, I simply pointed out that there were many broken ones. 4 left:

• Harold Pinter Added to IFOA Lineup [readings.org] 404 Dead since January 01, 2007

I updated the archived link yesterday and it worked yesterday. I'll check it again later. (I've purposefully left the original URL there so it can be found easily. (J. removed all the angle bracket URLs that were in nowiki format; they are still permitted in 3rd ed. of MLA Style format for this very purpose. If a link goes dead the URL is clearly there to be easily copied. When J. removed the angle bracketed URLs, I intentionally left in some of the older links where I also had some archived links. That's one of the entries where I recall that I had the 2 links. But I have to check it outside of talk page disc. bec. I can't see it now while I'm writing this. BBL if nec. --NYScholar (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Travels with Harold [roundabouttheater.org] 404 Dead

Works on March 16, 2009. --NYScholar (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"Travels with Harold" works today (March 16) when I checked it. I'll check others when I have more time. One can't assume that links are "dead" when they do not work with one's browser; there can be other reasons that one is unable to access a URL when other people can do so. If a link is actually "dead", one replaces it with a functioning link to the same material, which is usually accessible either in an archived version on a site itself, or in the Internet Archive, or via a "convenience link" where it is hosted by another site (reprinted). --NYScholar (talk) 08:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Harold Pinter: Art, Truth & Politics [illuminationsmedia.co.uk] 404 Dead since March 14, 2009

Updated here. Already updated and works in Art, Truth and Politics. --NYScholar (talk) 09:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mandrake: A Pinteresque Silence [telegraph.co.uk] 404 Dead since March 14, 2009

Substituted link from HighBeam Research (added orig. URL in nowiki format in angle brackets, as per 3rd ed. MLA Style, one does when helpful; when links may change in future); added editorial interpolation (visible in preview mode). Anyone can help by updating relocated or defunct links. This particular article does not seem to be accessible in either the Internet Archive (Wayback Machine) or in the Telegraph's own archive of articles for 27 Aug. 2006. It is discussed in other sites; and parts quoted in the article Harold Pinter are accessible at HighBeam Research (beg. of article). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Also 36 301s, which means that there is a redirect which may become dead at some point. Thanks Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

(cont.) If one encounters other links that need updating, please do update them w/ at least equally reliable and verifiable links (not self-published if poss; though see Wikipedia:Convenience links. (Not the way I've been using "convenience link" generally in my edit summaries; I just meant supplying a link for convenience instead of none at all. I did revise all the note citations that way; if there is just a last name of an author, it is keyed to this Bibliography.) Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 09:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Dead links and civility

[Note added:] Due to the importance of these editing policies, I am adding a separate heading here to link to and to emphasize them for all concerned (all readers of Bibliography for Harold Pinter (the "Works cited" section of Harold Pinter) and talk page):

(cont.) From Wikipedia:Dead links: "Do not simply remove dead links; they often contain valuable information." (bold font added).

(cont.) Reminder: Regarding Wikipedia civility policy: please review it in the talkpage header at top; WP:CIVIL is linked (piped) to "Be polite." [updated after removal of violations of civility by another user and my brief response to them; in editing history. Irrelevant to this discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)]

In Wikipedia citations (as in Bibliography for Harold Pinter) access dates are clearly provided to indicate when a URL was checked and verified. If checked and verified as accurate then, if a link has become dead later, one replaces the link with a new link or an archived version of the link and then updates the access date. That is the procedure. One does not remove reliable sources used as citations for documenting material in Wikipedia and verifiable through such methods. --NYScholar (talk) 23:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

If one wants to improve Harold Pinter and its cross-referenced section of "Works cited" in Bibliography for Harold Pinter, one needs to replace broken or dead links with new links that go to the same sources or with archived versions of the old links and then update the access dates. It is not an improvement of an article to remove its sources of documentation of material in the article and doing so violates Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines and is disruptive not helpful. If one wants to be helpful, then please take the time to find the substitute links to documented material in articles and their bibligraphies. Thank you. Removing sources from articles and bibliographies without taking the time to update the links amounts to vandalism of Wikipedia (even if unintended). One assumes good faith here. WP:AGF. Please check the links in WP:LOP for more information about how to go about this kind of updating. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[I've checked, verified and updated links again as of today, up until the "Other secondary sources" section; I have to turn back to my other non-Wikipedia work due to a publishing deadline; I'll check and verify and if necessary update rest of the links again next week if not before that. Anyone is free to check, verify, and update links as needed. Use the Internet Archive if not found immediately via Google or another search engine. It is possible to do so with just about every link. I'll check back again (probably much) later. --NYScholar (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)]

[Material removed as per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA: Wikipedia policies. --NYScholar (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)]

I didn't ask for a lecture, professor - I was trying to be helpful. Perhaps a amomemnt of reflection on standards of common courtesy is called for! [[[User:Jezhotwells|Jezhotwells]] (talk) 12:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[…] [Removed again. This talk page is only for discussions of editing Bibliography for Harold Pinter: Wikipedia: Talk page guidelines. The "standards of common courtesy": in Wikipedia are clear: WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL, Wikipedia:Etiquette (see links in talk page template above): Please follow Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. This page is about improving Bibliography for Harold Pinter, not about contributors. Please stop the personal comments on other editors; they are disruptive. This is not a page for discussing other contributors. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)