Talk:Peter Sellers

Goodness Gracious Me (BBC) TV Show

@Graham Beards I was not given the chance of a "right to reply" on the previous talk page before you archived it. Any removal of this inclusion will be tantamount to censorship. As other editors have pointed out, certain roles may come into question on this matter and how this article is managed. I will place my proposal here and do not wish to be involved in any further edits on this article, However, I strongly support the following inclusion:

For approval/consideration in the "Legacy” section:

Sellers’s wider impact can be seen with the British TV comedy/sketch series Goodness Gracious Me (BBC). The programme originated from the stage show "Peter Sellers is Dead”. The cast of south asian/indian descent challenged mainstream media depictions of their community by creating more representative versions. Sellers was associated with those mainstream depictions, in a time when white actors had “blacked up” for ethnic roles. 12

The above draft is for consideration. Not trivial or the slightest bit POV/Balham-ish. Cheers. MrBalham2 (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting suggestion. I find the current Legacy section to be a somewhat random and eclectic collection of factoids about Sellers. Not sure why some of them are there. The above suggestion could perhaps be repackaged to highlight that out of many possible candidates he was chosen to represent a particular time in British entertainment, particularly by some who wanted to see something different in the future. It is definitely part of his legacy, and probably more important than what Lord Snowdon thought about a film about him. HiLo48 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Really poorly written, not entirely substantiated by the sources used, and utterly trivial. In what way is this part of Sellers's legacy? That a stage show used his name? I can't think of a more trivial piece of nonsense to include. – SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I explained why it is part of Sellers' legacy in my post. They used his name, and not just by accident. Do I need to elaborate? HiLo48 (talk) 22:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the sources make a terribly strong claim on the use of the name – probably not strong enough for inclusion, especially when this is a rather trivial point that struggles to come up to the level of "legacy". I take your point about the Snowden quote: that was added relatively recently when someone complained that the article finished with the negative quote by Ekland, and this was a way to balance the viewpoint. - SchroCat (talk) 22:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the posts of Hilo48 and MrBalhum. It is an interesting idea. It's not trivial and merits mention. I'd like to see more input from new editors on this. I would also like the disruption from Cassianto, Schrocat and Graham Beards to stop. Please focus on the proposed suggestion and remain civil. Thank you. Caden ^cool 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Disruption"? You think it's fine to insult others and ask people to remain civil? Can you not see how that comes across at all?

In terms of the content, an "interesting idea" just doesn't cut the mustard for featured content, especially on such slim sources. In terms of Sellers's career and its lasting impact, this really is a trivial piece of nothingness, and just looks like we've scraped the barrel to find something to throw onto the page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, disruption from you three. I'm not the one cussing up a storm, I'm not the one attacking others by calling them trolls. Yes i have defended myself when you and cass tell me to fuck off. But i have never crossed the line with filth as you two have. Furthermore I think its disgusting to see an admin like Graham calling all of us who disagree trolls on his talk page. Caden ^cool 23:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

But you are a troll. If the cap fits, wear it. Cassianto^talk 23:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Without wishing to labour the point, as I'd hope we call all move away from the incivility, you have been just as culpable in turning the previous thread into the toxic mess it was, and you really can't claim any moral high ground here. I suggest all parties try to move on, without ever-more pointy comments, and without finger-pointing and insult throwing. Can you manage that Caden? - SchroCat (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

[left] This information should not be added as it is factodial nonsense. Cassianto^talk 23:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Sellers, but I have participated in the the PR and FAC stages, and it seems to me that the proposed additions are not a good thing. A keen eye for relevance is required for all articles, and most particularly for FAs, and I think the mildly interesting statements put forward for post-FAC incorporation belong elsewhere, if at all. Tim riley talk 23:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Good editors of Wikipedia need to apply WP:editorial discretion to separate the wheat from the chaff, or fancruft. The proposed statement is trivial and does not add anything encyclopedic to Sellers' excellent biography. I agree with Schrocat. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am disturbed by the view that becoming a "good" or "featured" article should lock an article up forever. Not a healthy position to take. It's a poor argument, and when I see poor arguments against a proposal it makes me wonder what is really going on in peoples' minds. HiLo48 (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying that at all. All should—and are—open to editing, but only if it is good, valid and suitable. This addition just isn't. It's not the writing either, it's the subject: as it stands, it's trivia. What a featured article means, in my opinion, is that we have to be sure that when we alter, or add to the article, it must improve the article, and be of an equally high standard as the extant text (both in terms of the standard of prose and the relevance of the content). I'm just not sure that's the case here. – SchroCat (talk) 06:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It won't be long before Cassianto, Schrocat and Tim riley pass out more barnstars to Ssilvers again. When I asked for new editors to give some input I wasn't talking about all the buddies of Cass and Schrocat to come running to support their views. What we need here is some unbiased, neutral, fair, and honest feedback from editors who have no ties to the cass and schrocat good article club. I swear this club is beginning to smell very badly. Caden ^cool 04:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Caden, please try to retain AGF and remain civil. If you continue to comment on other editors in a depreciatory manner, this thread stands a good chance of going toxic once again, as people react to your unfounded slurs and comments. – SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat please practice what you preach instead of being such a hypocrite. Thank you. Caden ^cool 06:49, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hard to forget the behaviour of badly behaved editors that easily. Caden's comments are perfectly understandable given the recent history on this page. However, I'll acknowledge that you, at least, seem to be doing better this time round. So let's keep it that way.

Now, it's inevitable that some editors who worked hard to make a good article would like to think that it's close to perfect, but our work is never finished here. No article should ever remain frozen in time. Typically only a handful of editors work on an article at any given time. new ones will come along with different knowledge and perspectives. They should be welcomed. Not turned away with an attitude that everything is perfect now. The proposed addition here is an interesting perspective on Sellers' legacy. Perspectives change. His "blackface" work was OK for its time, but the view from later on sees it differently. His work was seen as important enough among all those who did blackface to be the name they chose, out of many possibilities, to represent that time. It IS part of HIS legacy, and not part of somebody else's legacy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes HiLo, Caden's input was one of the reasons the thread went toxic in the first place. As I've said above, I don't want to labour the point, but it would help is Caden moderated his approach, or people will react in a fitting manner.

But what you are writing here just isn't strongly enough reflected in the source. It's tenuously covered in the two sources, and there's a lot of OR involved in making the thread fit, just for the sake of it. - SchroCat (talk) 07:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And no Schrocat it was YOUR input that was one of the reasons the other thread went toxic in the first place. It would help if schrocat would stop with his vicious attacks on me. Caden ^cool 07:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

caden, there is nothing "vicious" in me asking you to remain civil. You, along with numerous others—including me—turned the previous thread toxic. It's not time to dwell on that, but to try and move in to be constructive. Can you do that please? - SchroCat (talk) 07:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I can. Just please stop singling me out. Caden ^cool 07:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's hardly tenuous. The creators of the series chose to use an obvious Sellers' quotation, rather than anyone else's. That's obvious. blue sky stuff. The articles explain why, using his name. There's little more that can be said. HiLo48 (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not at BLUESKY level at all. On the basis of her information from those sources, to claim too much is either going into OR, or synthesis territory, I'm afraid. And it's not an "obvious Sellers quotation": I remember Dick Emery, Ronnie Barker, and the Indian character from Mind Your Language all using the same phrase – and two of those were white comedians also 'blacked up'. That's one of my issues here: it's not a Sellers legacy, it's the legacy of British comedy from the 1950s until the late 80s/early 90s. Milligan would also black up, as would a number of other comedians (let alone the 30 years of The Black and White Minstrel Show on British television! – SchroCat (talk) 07:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But the articles and the creators of the show named Sellers, not those other performers. This is pretty clear stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's not just about Sellers. Both articles say something along the lines of "to signify the end of white actors 'blacking up' " (quote from Screenonline). So it's not just about Sellers, it's about comedians in the 50s, 60s, 70s and 80s in general. Sellers was presumably chosen because he was high-profile, although it could have been because he played Indian characters in films, or because he did it more than others, or better than others, or because he was dead and they couldn't libel him. All possible reasons, and no clarification from the source means we don't know and can't make it up. Essentially this boils down to Sellers's "legacy" being that a small stage show used his name in the 1990s (even though they could have used the name of numerous other actors), and that stage show changed it's name to something else when it hit television and people became aware of it. That's not exactly germane enough to include here, and if it had been in the article originally, it would have been ripped out at PR, let alone FAC. - SchroCat (talk) 08:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's badly written. For starters, "south asian/indian descent" isn't even capitalized where applicable. Ouch. And it's trivial. This seems more an attempt to give weight (undue at that) to a short-lived series in Sellers' biography. The sources mention the name "Sellers" only 3 times; and it is only to mention the title "Peter Sellers Is Dead". Therefore there are concerns of potential original research. I would not include this content here. Doc talk 06:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

"Bad writing" can be fixed. I often improve the prose of those adding valuable information to articles. You can too. I can see the value of this addition. It highlights how, to the creators of the series involved, Peter Sellers work, among all the people who did blackface, was the one whose they chose to use, not anybody else's. It IS part of his legacy. HiLo48 (talk) 06:56, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Do I detect a whiff of paranoia in Caden's comments? Imagining that some conspiracy exists between experienced editors who frequently contribute to peer review and FACs in similar areas certainly seems a touch delusional. Caden's imaginary coven comprises four editors who have jointly or severally steered more than fifty articles to FA, and have reviewed hundreds for PR and FAC. One keeps an eye on many FAs one has reviewed as well as those to which one has contributed. If a discussion such as this were about an astrophysicist or rugger player it would not have come to my attention. As to the substantive question, there is no consensus for the proposed addition and throwing slurs, accusations and sneers at the main authors is no way of achieving one. – Tim riley talk 07:53, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Good lord, this whole thing again?? The sooner Graham Beards locks this talk page too the better. The time wasted over this non entity of content is atrocious.♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Locking the talk page in order to prevent discussion of potential content? Yeah, that's not a good idea. Doc talk 08:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Potential? Hardly. I've not seen anybody turn up here with a constructive suggestion which will actually improve the article in a long time. The talk page causes far more trouble than it would be in stopping anybody wanting to comment on it in the rare chance they might have a point.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:10, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Capping an unproductive and increasingly insulting thread. Let's all move back to the issue at hand. - SchroCat (talk)

::I make it 7 to 3 in favour of not adding the information. I think it will be a good idea to walk away and shun the trolls. Cassiantotalk 08:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I don't agree with the troll characterization at all. And edit-warring on this thread with edit summaries suggesting that one should go play in traffic: nasty low-grade bullying, really. Doc talk 08:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC) Fortunately, I couldn't give a fuck what you think really. Cassiantotalk 09:17, 18 October 2014 (UTC) The shit's being thrown again, by the self-appointed article owners. Sad. Wikipedia shouldn't work like this. HiLo48 (talk) 09:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC) I'm out of here. Bad ownership. No point trying to make it work. HiLo48 (talk) 10:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Collapsed Infobox

I was wondering why the Infobox is collapsed. I edited it because it seemed nonsensical, and upon wondering why it was that way in the first place, discovered that this was a long time issue, and submitted a blank edit with my two sense, only to be reverted; being cited with some mystical consensus that does not, has not, and will not exist on Wikipedia. Of course, I brought this up on my talk page, only to be verbally berated by SchroCat who thinks that I want to engage in an edit war. I wish to clarify for SchroCat: I gave the 72-hour deadline to prevent an edit war by allowing for discussion while at the same time avoiding being pocket vetoed. Then Cassianto comes in and starts attacking me on my talk page. I call for a formal discussion and debate to finally end this madness. My arguments are that if you're going to have an infobox serve the purpose which they are there for, which is, to act like an anchor for viewers, then it makes no sense to have the viewer click on something to obtain the information within. I would have to read 3,414 characters before even obtaining his age at the time of death. This is unacceptable. For some reason, 2-3 editors feel like they own this article simply because they have significantly contributed to it. — k_scheik ^{talk to me!} 10:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)