Talk:Harold Pinter

Please note

[Restored current discussion that was lost when improperly archived by a bot. The bot needs to be corrected. The material deleted was not placed in "archive 7" as it states; something needs to be fixed so that there is an end date for archive 7 and (perhaps) a new archive page 8? --208.125.67.1 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)] 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)

Since these corrections, Jezhotwells has again added some incorrect citation templates, damaging the consistency of the format of citations. These citation templates still need to be made into the prevailing citation format; in one case, the source is already cited (see below). Also, in a recent edit, he has kept someone's adding of an external link to the official Nobel site's Nobel Lecture, which needs to be converted to the current citation format for consistency; it needs to be in <ref> or <ref name=></ref> format. The article already has a print version of the Nobel Lecture ("Art, Truth and Politics") listed as a full entry in the "Works cited"; if using a different version, it can be added to that entry. All notes and bibliographical entries end with a period (according to the current style sheet). Jezhotwells has changed some citations and left off the final periods at times; one may have to check to see if the final periods have been restored. Reminder: one cannot include a link in the "External links" section if it is already cited in Notes and/or "Works cited" sections. So please don't add the Nobel Lecture to the External links section, since Jezhotwells has a note linking to it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

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

[See the section on citation templates above. Some recent changes since "peer review" need correction. (Updated.) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)]

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.) [(Update): See separate section below posted by another editor. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)]

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);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(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)];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 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);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Still need to fix the double quotation marks within the passage to single quotation marks (quotation within quotation), as it initially was before you changed the passage; your summary says you fixed quotations, but actually you also restored words and the rest of the full quotation, which you had deleted earlier:

Here is the original passage from the source, with proper Wikipedia-MOS quotation marks (straight not curved or curly):

{{quotation="His latest work, a slim pamphlet called 'Six Poems for A.,' comprises poems written over 32 years, with 'A' of course being Lady Antonia. The first of the poems was written in Paris, where she and Mr. Pinter traveled soon after they met. More than three decades later the two are rarely apart, and Mr. Pinter turns soft, even cozy, when he talks about his wife."}} [moved up.] --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)(cont.)

(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)];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 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];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It should read "prisoners' letters" (plural) not singular; Jezhotwells' "correction" needs further correction; please examine your own earlier edits, where you changed this passage in the first place; it was initially correct before you edited it after the "peer review". --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(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;

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(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);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(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.)

• Specifics please. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You will have to scrutinize wherever you deleted hyphens based on what Timriley erroneously told you. Some use of hyphens in units of adjectival-noun phrases is correct, not incorrect as he states. He advised some changes to grammar and typography that was already correct and that should not have been changed. Punctuation similarly has problems; one is supposed to follow Wikipedia's MOS, not Timriley's more idiosyncratic "British" punctuation preferences. In quotations of full sentences, the period comes before the end quotation mark; you have changed the previously correct punctuation of quotations in sentences to incorrect punctuation (incorrect, that is, according to Wikipedia's MOS; such earlier changes by a "copy editor" were actually incorrect and in conflict with the current Wikipedia MOS. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Timriley advocated changing the previously correct quotation format to: {{quotation="My grandfather introduced me to the mystery of life and I'm still in the middle of it. I can't find the door to get out. My grandfather got out of it. He got right out of it. He left it behind him and he didn't look back. He got that absolutely right. And I'd like to make one further interjection. [break] He stands still. Slow fade."[133]}}, so now it is incorrect.

As it used to be, the end quotation mark needs to come after interjection (end of the Waiter's last speech). Pinter's stage directions should be italicized (as they used to be before you/he changed them as part of the "peer review"; the stage directions are also part of the block quotation, and there should be no final quotation mark after them (because they are part of the block quotation, according to format.)

Also, you need to restore the quotation marks around Pinter's own phrase "power and powerlessness"; any direct statement that a playwright makes about his own plays is highly significant and the quotation marks indicate that they are his own choice of words; otherwise, a reader would not know that. In the context of criticism of Pinter's work, his use of the exact phrase is especially significant; you can also find a passage in Antonia Fraser's memoir Must You Go? My Life with Harold Pinter where she points to when he used that phrase in describing his own plays in a publication; for her, it was a notable occasion (you'll have to consult her book as a source directly; it's cited in this article). Timriley's personal predilection for removing quotation marks from quoted words and phrases conflicts with Wikipedia's current MOS and conventional writing practices acceptable throughout the world. When quoting an author, one uses quotation marks. Period. The quotation marks need to be restored from wherever you removed them. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(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.)

• Specifics, please. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Already gave examples above; this was something for you to "watch out for" in general ("be wary of") because Timriley's changes tended to do this. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(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.)

• Specifics, [;ease. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

???? Where did that happen? Thanks for the specifics which have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As already stated clearly above, the still-existing errors of fact and/or format-citation problems are in your own changes where you deleted full entries from the "Works cited" list which are cited in the notes as short references, according to the current style sheet. You need to restore the full citations. If you go over your own changes since the "peer review" began, you will find them. There are no full entries for some of the print references cited in the notes only now because you yourself deleted the full entries for those sources in the "Works cited." (cont.)

See, e.g., note 153: you deleted the full entries in the "Works cited" to which these short references were keyed (so now they are "orphans" in the Notes); you'll have to find when you did that; it was among your first revisions after the "peer review" following Timriley's comments about some sources. As you know, some of his comments still need to be brought to the attention of Oversight so they can be expunged from editing history. [You can find the original sources if you go back to an earlier version of the "Works cited" when it was still called "Works cited and further reading". [I think your ultimate splitting of that into two sections does work; with the cross-ref. to Harold Pinter bibliography.] (cont.) (Updated.) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You also added citation templates inconsistently in places, when citation templates are not the prevaling citation format for this article. In one case (examine the diffs.), you added a citation template right before the same source's full citation already appears (in the very next note citation now); you just needed to code the citations properly (e.g., using the prevailing citation format: <ref name=></ref>. (You need to restore the proper source citation format and remove the out-of-place citation templates.) These are your own edits, so you should be able to find them by scrolling through your edits post the "peer review". (cont.)

Someone more recently added a comma after a date (1996?) that is not needed there; the very next sentence uses the same "In [year]" syntax with no comma. You cannot assume that every editor who comes along and changes something is doing so correctly or consistently. You need to scrutinize their changes immediately after they make them, so that they do not introduce errors in the articles. Moreover, you need to do that work before submitting a request for the article to be a FAC! (cont.)

More recently, someone else removed italics from the title of a website for The Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine, claiming that it is a "service," etc.; however, the current prevailing style sheet format calls for italicizing the titles of such websites, and The Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine *is* the title of a website; for that reason is also already italicized elsewhere in the article's notes. Such a change damages the consistency of the article. The change needs to be reverted and consistency double checked. If, down the road, a review for Featured Article status changes the article to a different format and/or style sheet, which could happen, that particular style format will have to be applied consistently too, as Wikipedia's MOS calls first and foremost for "consistency"; see earlier comments quoted from the MOS. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Note: If you (and your co-"peer review" editors, e.g., Ssilvers and tRiley) were not all still aiming primarily to maintain your ownership of this article in arguing for semi-protection (as you have still been doing and where some of you argue against removing the semi-protection, with what appear to me to be dishonest claims, which violate WP:AGF); that is, mainly striving to block one or more anon. IP addresses from editing (which is not an acceptable reason for semi-protection according to the policy linked via the lock icon), you would not have to do this work yourself. But, as it stands, you have to find your own errors, because you are abusing those who want and have tried to help by engaging in insincere arguments for blocking them. Why would people want to help you if you are so hostile, rude, and even cruel toward them? The alternative will be continuing errors in the article, which does not help the greater Wikipedia community or those who consult Wikipedia as readers. (cont.)

It is not fair to ask other people to do the work for you while at the same time blocking those people from editing this and other articles relating to this subject in Wikipedia. You are the one who stalked other editors over a period of many months and then even years when you couldn't get your way with citation formats that had prevailed in this article over a period of several years; and you are the one who enlisted your friends and their friends to ban the other editors when your various calls for administrative reviews did not result in your favor. Clearly, you engaged in canvassing of other editors relating to the banning process that resulted from your and their filing of incident reports when such should never have been filed. (Ironically, indeed, the main argument about the copyright relating to one image currently claimed as being "fair use" used by you and others as an initial argument for banning "NYScholar" is actually an image being questioned by another editor voting "oppose" in the linked FAC comments. Just because you want the copyright-protected images to be deemed as within "fair use" doesn't mean that they actually are within "fair use", as that editor points out. The use of the image of David Baron is still uncertain. The argument that one needs to see what HP looked like in the 50s is not really convincing, since one can do so simply by viewing the image on Pinter's own official website, from which it derives. Pinter's website is prominently linked; a note can point one to the section with the photo there if one wants to discuss his appearance as an actor in the 50s.)

Doing the actual content editing yourself and actually improving the accuracy of this article by scrutiniziing your own earlier changes and your own reversions of earlier corrections would be a much better use of your time than stalking and banning other editors who have tried successfully and who continue to try to improve the accuracy and citation format of the article in good faith. Doing such work would be a far better use of your time than continually and misleadingly calling good-faith editors "vandals" or saying that their good-faith attempts to correct errors in articles are "vandalism." Correction of errors of fact and format is not "vandalism," no matter how often you say it is. If you can't perceive your own errors that they perceive, you need their help in doing so. No such editor is doing such work to avoid a Wikipedia ban; such efforts are purely to improve the article(s). (cont.)

• Note: The major concern should be for the integrity and accuracy of this article, not for maintaining your, Ssilvers' and T riley's, et al. control over it. (Again, the repeated attempts to do so since December 25, 2008 are clearly your own violations of WP:OWN, which I refer you back to examine with yourselves in mind this time. (cont.)

Please call for removing the semi-protection of this article and its bibliography Harold Pinter bibliography, and the related article Antonia Fraser, so that all Wikipedia editors can help to improve them. One is not supposed to have to register in Wikipedia to edit articles in it, so advising people to do so is not within Wikipedia editing policies or guidelines. If people don't want to register to edit, they do not have to do so (if articles are not semi-protected). Given how you yourself and your friends have treated previously registered users, no wonder people don't want to register! (cont.)

No article is ready to be a FAC if it still contains errors of fact and format (whether or not you, as the editor who introduced those errors, can perceive them). I still urge you to ask to remove the semi-protection status, so that all users of Wikipedia can edit these articles. Indeed, the attempts to protect the article from editing by everyone is preventing it from being improved further. It is the mark of extreme hubris to assume that only you and your co-"peer review" editors are capable of improving and "maintaining" this article. There is information about the subjects and the sources cited that you may not be aware of, because you are not experts on the topics and really do not have access to the majority of the sources cited in these articles. According to the most recent New York Times "Times Topics" section on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is currently trying to increase the role of expert editors in improving the quality of articles in Wikipeda, not the opposite.

Finally, as you yourself and your colleagues know that the banned editor(s) cannot contact Wikipedia directly to ask for the removal of the bans, you can do so on their behalf. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

...if you wish to contribute here then you can appeal the ban yourself, learn to work with other editors and drop your, frankly, ridiculous stance of not engaging with Wikipedia processes. If you can't accept them then perhaps it would be best to stay away. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an anonymous IP address user; you asked user 66.66.27.196 for further "specifics", and I supplied them (above). WP:AGF. Please stop your ridiculous crusade; you've done enough damage. Please just focus on correcting your own and others' errors. Thank you. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Protected?

Why is this article protected? Is this some kind of censorship??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if you have suggestions, please post them here. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected because (Changed protection level of Harold Pinter: regularly accessed by banned user ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))). If you get an account you will be able to edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Moondyne (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.12.16.226, 23 June 2011

I am sure that this image (HaroldPinter.jpg) is surely better than this (Pinterfoto cropped2.jpg)

46.12.16.226 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a free image and so it falls foul of the FAC criteria, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1. --Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: as above See WP:NFC#UUI - Happysailor ^(Talk) 08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Citatiion style

This has been changed to standard WP templates following the banning of User:NYScholar and susequent discussion, which may be viewed in the talk page archives. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

sacerdotal

I had to look this word up in a dictionary - I've never even heard it before. It currently appears in a quote. Can I suggest its presence indicates the quote is less than suitable for an accessable encyclopedia? Can someone suggest a truncation of the quote or its replacement altogether with original text? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly proper English word. Just beacuse some readers may have to look it up in a dictionary, I don't see any problem with its use. I often have to look up military tedchnical terms when reviewing military history artciles or even baseball or basketball artciles for that matter. Discovering new words and their meanings is one of the joys of reading. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree in general, I just wasn't sure if this wasn't a bit...extreme. If no other editor has raised it, then I agree that it is one of the joys of reading! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Restored current discussion due to errors throughout article

Several of the errors pointed out in the top discussion have not been corrected. The introduction of faulty citation templates have introduced further errors in the citations. There are inconsistencies and errors throughout the article. All of the source citations now need verification. Some citation templates added by Jezhotwells are incorrect. Some changes that he made to the text require either providing new citations or deleting old citations that no longer pertain to changed sentences in the text. The Caretaker needs to be restored to the lead, as it is among Pinter's best-known works and should not be omitted (see the body on its importance in his career). An entire section of the body (Pinter's civic activities and his politics) now has no mention in the lead due to Jezhotwells' deletion of mention of Pinter's controversial political activism on behalf of human rights. In deleting three source citations that other editors had added earlier and that he had restored earlier, Jezhotwells has lost all those source citations, which were formerly in the lead. The infobox description of Pinter does not match the lead and is now not supported by the sources (the ones that were deleted). The wrong type of templates are used for chapters or essays in book publications (ISBN numbers are omitted for those sources and obsolete or incorrect ISSN numbers supplied do not enable anyone to verify the sources). ISSN numbers are not necessary for newspaper publications like The Guardian, as the Wikilink suffices. It is not necessary to supply place of publication for such a news source. The inconsistencies in notes enumerated in one of the "feature article" comments have not been corrected. At that time, there were only a few citation templates that Jezhotwells himself had added, creating those inconsistencies. Now, instead of correcting the inconsistencies, he has added additional inconsistencies by mixing citation formats. (See the greater flexibility of "citation" vs. "cite" templates, discussed in the related MOS pages. See the comments on how introducing citation templates requires consensus. There has been no consensus for the particular kinds of templates that Jezhotwells has added. If there is consensus, the errors in the individual templates used need to be corrected still throughout. See top sections of this current talk page, where some of the remaining errors after Jezhotwells says he corrected the previous errors were pointed out but never addressed. In the comments in the "FAC" page, Ssilvers states that he began to edit the article before its "good article" review (2007); however, he did not begin editing this article until Jezhotwells initiated its first "peer review" (2008). Source citations throughout the article need correction. Every source citation now needs more careful checking and verification. (cont.)

E.g., Lyall's article title is "Still Pinteresque" (not the one that Jezhotwells has invented for it); as the article is cited several times, its source citation needs to have the correct title. (cont.)

E.g., Pinter's website sections do not all have credited compilers; most of his website was created, compiled, and later edited by his personal assistants. The "compiled by" credit on a handful of the sections need "comp." or "comps." not "ed." in the source citations; Jezhotwells has invented (made up) "editors" of several parts of Pinter's website erroneously. Check all such citations by looking at the webpages. If no "compiled by" credit is given on the site for the webpage in question, none can be verified. The date of "2011" for "updated 2011" is incorrect throughout most of Jezhotwells' source citations. The copyright date at the foot of the home page of the official Harold Pinter website has been updated from 2000-2005 to 2000-2011 (by Pinter's agent, acting for the Estate of Harold Pinter, whose copyright still pertains). That does not mean that each of the webpages on the site has been updated as of 2011. The "calendar" of upcoming productions has no named "editor"; Pinter's personal assistants used to update it periodically, often adding information posted in its "Forum" (whose link needs updating in some parts of the website); the lefthand menu link to it on the home page was corrected (updated) after Pinter's death (after Dec. 2008), but there is no date given for the update. "Harold Pinter" (i.e., now the Estate of Harold Pinter) is still the publisher of that official website, though, since his death, his agent has been overseeing it on "his" behalf (on behalf of the Estate). Date of access of the site will indicate when a Wikipedia user supplying a citation to it accessed the site. Date of the site is currently, however, the copyright dates "2000-2011". 208.125.67.1 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

==

==

The article Harold Pinter currently needs a "clean up" template tag, due to multiple errors of fact and format. See above. (Restored from editing history.) Jezhotwells did not respond to additional errors pointed out after his "Fixed" comments, and some of his "Fixed" parts of the article require addition corrections ("fixes"). It is not sufficient to "spot check" 5% of the source citations. Even the ones already "spot checked" by Tim riley (who apparently cannot perceive his own and Jezhotwells' errors any more now than he could when they made them) still contain old errors or new errors. (E.g., Lyall's "Still Pinteresque"; for correct bibliographical information, one might check some of the full entries in Harold Pinter bibliography and the editing history of Harold Pinter (back to 2008 to June 2011, where the full citations since removed used to exist); format changes may be needed, but the source citations originally supplied the proper details (names of authors or editors or compilers, titles of articles or parts of books, titles of book or periodical publications, dates of publication, dates of access, ISBN nos. for book publications, and so on). (cont.)

"Staff" is not necessary for anonymous articles in newspapers; one just gives the titles of the articles. Titles of articles need to capitalized consistently; currently the capitalization of words in titles is inconsistent throughout. Serial commas are recommended by the MOS and used primarily in this article, even though Jezhotwells changed the prevailing style sheet to "no" for serial commas. (cont.)

Jezhotwells' response to some errors or problems pointed out by "cursory" reviews by commenters in the "FAC" page is his overfamiliarity with the article. The errors are, however, caused by his lack of familiarity with the majority of the printed sources and with his not verifying accuracy of his own changes to text and citations. --208.125.67.1 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

See related request directly below. --208.125.67.1 (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)