Talk:Harold Pinter

Please note

From WP:MOS:

General principles

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles. It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors to produce articles with language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise. The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use.

Internal consistency

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.

Stability of articles

The Arbitration Committee has ruled 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. [Bold font added; for details, see 2007 "Good article" review; linked above. The "good article" icon relates to that particular review.]

Follow the sources

See also: Manual of Style:Trademarks and Wikipedia's policy on no original research

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject [bold font added]. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

As [several] recent edits do, please do not continue to damage the internal consistency of the bibliographical entries or other citations (whose format was and is consistent with the format of current Elements of style template and the same template and format in a section of this article Harold Pinter bibliography). [E.g., please do not damage [what was] the current consistency of the article in those entries or other citations throughout by making unnecessary changes from <ref>/</ref> formatting for footnotes or bibliographical MLA style (see "Elements of Style" template above) to inconsistent use of other styles of citation templates (in the "Works cited ..." or the "Footnotes")]. [If the current formatting of the information is correct, as it is, there is no reason to change it.] (cont.)

The information in the reference citations was already correct (except possibly for inadvertent typographical errors, which are easily corrected as noticed) and consistent before the gratuitous changing to citation templates [in the "Works cited ..." list]. Those are inconsistent with the rest of the formatting of the citations. Please revert your own unnecessary changes. They violate the General principles" in these MOS guidelines just quoted. These have all been in existence between the "good article" review (2007) and the present. (WP:LOP makes some of the same points.) Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[I realized after first posting these comments that the changes (so far; there is an editing summary saying that "more" will be following) are in the "Works cited ..." list; but the current list (until several were changed today to citation templates [which are "neither encouraged nor discouraged" in WP:CITE], thus creating inconsistencies in bibliographical style of formatting) is already consistent not only with Harold Pinter bibliography format (MLA Style format and the "Elements of Style" template given both in this article for a period of several years, until editing warring after his death, and in Harold Pinter bibliography), but it is also the format found in published secondary sources by recognized authorities on Harold Pinter and his work (books and articles published by scholars in such publications as The Pinter Review, the only academic journal in the world devoted entirely to publishing work on and about Harold Pinter); The Pinter Review and related peer-reviewed print publications cited in this Wikipedia article are standard authoritative sources on this subject, and the format that these publications generally require is MLA style [for submissions and publishing](or, alternatively, if totally consistent, either Chicago Manual of Style (books published by academic presses; usually not articles) and, much less often, APA style, which is generally not for publications in the humanities, but for publications in the social sciences (dates parenthetically follow authors' names in APA style, but not in MLA style or Chicago style [which are both used for humanities subjects, such as literature and the arts]). The style in Wikipedia citation templates is not a style used in ("the most reliable") peer-reviewed secondary sources on Pinter. [The majority of scholarship on Pinter has been published by publishers in the United States; many journals have their own "house style"; scholars in the U.S. are generally directed to send submissions either in the most current MLA Style format or in the journal or press's "house style" (often based on Chicago Manual of Style; when in doubt, "the sources" (published authorities/specialists) in the humanities defer to The MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing) (or to Chicago style; they are quite similar; neither use "p." or "pp." anymore).] See "Follow the sources" section of WP:MOS above regarding precedents to follow and consistently following the "options" permitted in Wikipedia, while still following "General principles"/"consistency", as quoted above.) [For style guides considered "options" in Wikipedia, and generally referred to in "References" lists in the WP:MOS, etc., see Style guides and the template "Styles."] -- (Updated)--66.66.17.59 (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)]

Please note

From "Wikipedia:Citation templates":

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus. (bold font added)

Please go to the page linked above, which is also linked in WP:CITE (part of WP:MOS, for further guidance. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the errors and inconsistencies introduced by the use of those citation templates; in part, they interfered with the templates already in the entries; also removed the gratuitous information inconsistent with normal bibliographical entries (and all the other ones) in those templates; all one needs is the links and the dates in the proper order, not after the author's or compiler's name. Entries for a compiler (abbreviated as "comp.") follow entries for an author; so the order was/is currently correct and internally consistent (with the other entries); one lists authored works before compiled and edited works. (For the last of the entries for Billington listed (where he is/was listed as "comp." (compiler), it appears that Billington recorded his conversation with Pinter; he compiled the quotations from his recorded tape and/or notes.) --66.66.17.59 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Recent change in numbers of columns for "Notes" (Footnotes/Endnotes) section

Recently an editor changed the numbers of columns for "Notes" from 2 to 3 and then from 3 to 4--see editing history: beginning with Diffs. (Butterflylk); select "previous" and "next" edits to scroll through the changes). Columns in "Notes" and "Works cited and further reading" sections do not seem to show up in Internet Explorer (version 7), at least on my desktop. (The use of the colon instead of the bullet makes the entries post more correctly when there are multiple column parameters.) (cont.)

Just yesterday, though I am an IE user, out of curiosity, I downloaded version 3.6 of Mozilla Firefox, to see how these features show up there, and I did some minor formatting editing changes while in Firefox, in keeping with the column parameters currently in the article. (cont.)

The 4 columns for "Notes" do show up okay in Firefox and the 2 almost even columns of "Works cited ..." show up okay in that browser too, so I kept those column numbers. (cont.)

But today I tried looking at this article using a wireless e-reader (Nook)--the same results might be applicable to Kindle and iPads, etc.: the 4 columns of "Notes" post very incompletely (words and letters are cut off) and post in an annoyingly skinny way (only one to a few incomplete words a line in some cases), whereas that would not be the case w/, say, 2 columns (as it used to be) before the above "Diffs." Similarly annoying distortions occur in these smaller e-reader screens for the 2-column "Works cited". (cont.)

I have not changed the settings in the columns, but I wonder what others who may not use Firefox but who use IE and who use e-readers may be experiencing, and what the consensus for columns (and what numbers) may be. Please let us know if there are problems for you in the 3 or 4 columns of "Notes" and 2 columns of "Works cited ..." if you are experiencing them, or whether you prefer having the numbers of columns defined as is or as they were earlier (2 for "Notes"). (The person who changed the column numbers from 2 to 4 may not have realized the effects on small e-reader screens.) I think the column parameter in "Notes" would probably be better as 2 instead of 3 or 4, and the column parameter in "Works cited" may still be okay as 2 (instead of single). Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed using flexible column widths, see {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Peer review

I have listed the article for peer review, with the objective of taking this to FAC, comments welcome at WP:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to clog the PR page with technical matters, so I report here that on my computer (a newish, moderately wide-screen affair) the quote box with the text from No Man's Land covers and almost obliterates the picture of the Duke of York's behind it. Tim riley (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at that. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Multiple factual and source errors throughout article due to "peer review"

Since changes made "as per" the "peer review" (mostly by Jezhotwells, but also by a few others), there are now multiple factual and source (citation) errors in the text and in quotations throughout this article. Clearly, those working on it do not perceive these errors. Each change needs verification with actual sources. Every change made since the beginning of the "peer review" needs scrutiny and verification. (cont.)

The semi-protection lock needs to be removed so that those who are able to perceive and to correct these errors are able to correct them as soon as possible. Otherwise, Wikipedia is promulgating false information about Harold Pinter and about cited sources. Semi-protection should be temporary, according to Wikipedia's own policies. Those who have taken over this article are preventing corrections of their own (multiple) errors (scroll up).(cont.)

Despite their premature self-congratulation in the "peer review", there is no guarantee that, if this article does become a "candidate" for featured status, feature-article reviewers will be able to identify the errors that these editors have introduced in this article or that the later reviewers will be able to correct them. (cont.)

These are just some of the many errors due to recent changes, mostly made by Jezhotwells:

(1) Pinter did not say that his mother was a "good cook"; as the source cited (Gussow) documents (check it), Pinter said that she was "a wonderful cook" [see both the source and the first "peer review"; the quotation marks were a typographical error; the phrase good cook was initially a paraphrase that occurred when, Timriley et al., during the first "peer review" (scroll up to top for link), objected to using quotation marks for quotations]; this odd aversion to using quotation marks according to the MOS has led to such errors, when the text gets farther and farther from the original source (as in the game of Telephone);

(2) Henry Woolf is not the source of the material [in the scholarly responses section] that someone has erroneously made into a block quotation and falsely attributed to him. That material is actually part of the text of the article, altered by that editor [who made it into a block quotation; perhaps the quote code is misplaced now, as there is an earlier code before that]. Henry Woolf did not say them. The source citation is the print citation given, not Henry Woolf (check editing history for that error; [please see what cf. means in the footnote to a different citation before that]) [Added: Here are the "diffs." in the erroneous changes made by Jezhotwells: [1]: please consult this one and others by going through the editing history. This is a violation of the Blpo template at top and needs immediate correction. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)] [Also: as correct earlier before Jezhotwells' et al.'s changes, the colon belongs after the superscript to the reference citation for Coppa, not before the superscript. Superscript numbers precede colons, not follow them; moreover, only the phrase "a great comic writer" is Coppa's and not the rest of the material; the block quotation is supposed to be cited as written by Jones and the source citation needs to include the citation to Woolf as quoted in "Talking about Pinter", as prevously indicated. When such changes are made by Wikipedians who are not checking the print sources directly and not verifying their changes, they do not recognize their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)];

(3) extended quotations from Sarah Lyall's article(s) published in the New York Times use American English spelling, not British English spelling, and Lyall should be quoted exactly; yet Jezhotwells, following changes proposed by Timriley without verifying the quotation in the source cited, silently changed the New York Times spelling and wording to spelling and word usage to follow Timriley; such changes violate Wikipedia's own MOS, which states that quotations should not be changed silently (consult the MOS). Lyall used the words "Lady Antonia" etc. and the rest of her quotation needs restoration exactly (check the source citation for the wording);

(4) touts [adding the brackets here] is not [precisely] the same meaning as (the more generic) ticket resellers, as changed by Jezhotwells, in following (unverified) suggestion by Timriley in the "peer review (see the linked peer review, at top); the original wording used "scalpers" (which Tr objected to), changed to "ticket resellers", then changed to touts (slang); the linked definition tout [clarifies now] what the (British) slang term is in this particular context (the tickets were "scalped" (resold) on eBay); but, without the link, the word would be indecipherable to most readers of Wikipedia. "Ticket reseller" is not colloquial/slang [as are both "scalper" and "tout"], and it is more easily comprehended by general readers; moreover, the actual (British) sources cited at the end of the sentence do not mention "touts" or substantiate its use [Note that "scalp" or "scalpers" is a term also used in the linked Wikipedia article on ]Ticket resellers, so linking to (the more generic) Ticket resale (via piped "ticket resellers") may be helpful.] (the article re: "tout" was changed since I first noticed it yesterday, so I've updated this. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)] (updated: --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)];

(5) the guest actors in Being Harold Pinter did not read "Pinter's letters" (which are held in the British Library and still unpublished, for the most part)--someone who does did not read the source given for that section recently added the word "Pinter's" (not supported by the source); but rather, as the topic sentence states, these guest actors read Belarusian prisoners' letters [which are part of the production Being Harold Pinter; Pinter's own letters are not; someone changed this section without even reading the first sentence or the sources];

(6) the name of the theater in New York City is the Public Theater (not the "Public Theatre", as changed by Jezhotwells, which leads to a redirect, due to this misspelling). Blindly following Timriley's "suggestions" to change American spelling to British English spelling has led to (apparently inadvertent) misspellings in quotations and names of organizations. For verification, check the Public Theater's own website (publictheater.org). One should not change the official name of the theater in New York (thus, the re-direct due to the misspelling of the name of the theater). It is neither necessary nor justifiable to change the actual name of an American theater to a British spelling because one prefers the spelling "theatre" otherwise. Some American theaters do actually use the word "Theatre" in their name, just as departments of "theatre" in American colleges and universities often use this British spelling. Yet, others use the word "Theater" in the names of American theaters, and in departments of "theater". One preserves the official spelling of an organization in naming it, even when British English is being used otherwise in the article. Apparently, Jezhotwells [made] many of his recent changes to this article very quickly (hastily?), without verification. But all of his (and others') changes need to be verified. If not verifiable or verified, the text needs to be reverted to actual, previously verified, correct forms and correct information;

(7) Beckett wrote more than one one-act monologue; the original (lack of) punctuation was correct: Beckett's one-act monologue Krapp's Last Tape (Note: that's a restrictive phrase--use of no commas restricts its meaning);

(8) The use of hyphens for compound adjective-and-noun phrases modifying a noun is not an "American" usage (as Timriley seems to believe); check (verify) guidelines in Wikipedia's own MOS and other current style manuals upon which it is based; for other guidelines, see the "Style sheet" for this article, linked at top ;(cont.)

(9) Watch out for other unnecessary national-variety-of-English changes (claims about grammar and usage going beyond spelling), especially when the words are not actually in quotations being quoted. (cont.)

(10) Be wary of falling prey to nationalistic biases going beyond spelling, so as not to violate Wikipedia's specific editing policies and guidelines relating to varieties of English. When in doubt, first check (verify claims about) the MOS for the actual (frequently changing; recently protected) guidelines on altering quotations when necessary (e.g., use brackets, ellipses, etc.); (cont.)

According to Wikipedia policy (click on the lock icon at top of the article on which it appears), this particular article on Harold Pinter, the related Bibliography (cross-linked), and the also cross-linked article on Antonia Fraser (Pinter's second wife and widow) should not be either "semi-protected" or "protected" "indefinitely" (as they have been for some months). Registered users who are editing this article (and the others) have not recently consulted all the print and/or online sources cited in the article; thus, they do not perceive their own recent errors. Because they are unable to notice them, they are unable to correct them. Others also interested in maintaining the integrity of this article (who might be able to spot their errors but who may not want to register for a variety of reasons) should be able to make the necessary corrections. (cont.)

Contrary to its history since Pinter's death, after which it was taken over by a handful of Wikipedia editors, this article is not, in fact, "owned" by anyone (see Wikipedia's WP:OWN and "Terms of Use"). Because the article has a "Common attribution Share alike" license, as it is not "owned" by anyone, it is also open to re-posting throughout the internet, and so these errors are being spread throughout the internet. These errors (and the others in these articles) need to be corrected. As Jimbo Wales (a founder of Wikipedia) states regarding the principles of editing Wikipedia: the main aim of Wikipedia editors should not be to protect their own turf or to rack up "good article" and "feature article" statistics. The main aim is to "get" articles "right". Making factual and citation corrections is not "vandalism" in Wikipedia; calling it "vandalism" does not make it vandalism. -- 66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually editors have been careful to not remove cites, but it is possible mistakes have been made. Perhaps you could could point out specific errors, one by one, so that corrections can be made, [...] Of course, if you wish to rationally discuss the future of this artcile you could appeal your ban. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I already did that [pointed out specific errors]; see the numbered items and check your own earlier changes. I've pointed you to some of the problems. Otherwise, you need to ask an administrator to remove the lock (semi-protection), as should have been done long ago, so that others can make these necessary corrections. Clearly, you and the others posting in the "peer review" don't perceive them. Perhaps if you go over each of your own and others' changes more carefully, and consult the related guidelines in the MOS, you will be able to correct the problems. (Don't just take what someone says about the MOS at face value, as the person may just be citing his or her memory of it; e.g., one is not supposed to change quotation marks within quotations to italics (as Timriley told you); one changes old-style typed underlinings to italics, according to the MOS). The exact punctuation of the original quotations needs to be restored (from your changes). --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, you yourself removed citations that were keyed to the Works cited (apparently without realizing it)--leaving orphans in the "Notes" section; some of those citations had resulted from work by several previous editors. You are not verifying your own changes. [Please do not alter my signature.] --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is this article protected? Is this some kind of censorship???