Talk:Harold Pinter/archive8

A continuing dire situation

Having been (driven) away from this article some months ago, and only now daring to look at it again, I despair.

What did HP do to deserve such overweening attention? (No, don't answer.) The opening section alone, though I'm sure pored over with the best of intentions, is an even more execrable stylistic mess than when last I saw it. Yet this article's (almost) sole contributor will brook scarcely any alteration, it seems, to his own efforts.

I can only repeat and endorse an almost randomly selected comment from above: he "has exhibited extreme symptoms of ownership of this article, rarely responds to corrections in style and grammar, but writes at inordinate length attempting to justify his obsession with maintaining ownership of this article driving other editors who have much to add away."

I fear the effect of my remarks will be only to provoke yet another stream (hopefully, brief) of frenetic self-justification. Is there no remedy to this most (in that it is without pause) un-Pinteresque pestilence? Sadly, the system for once seems to fail us. Wingspeed (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been considering requesting a WP:WikiProject Biography/Peer review as a way of moving this article forward. What do you think? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I'm reluctant once more to step into this steaming geezer, yes, please - whatever that may entail. It's all most distressing: such industry combined with such apparent inflexibility. Wingspeed (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Peer review is quite simple really. It is just a through review by an experienced Biographies Literature person. Should give a good third party perspective. It is now listed at WP:WikiProject Biography/Peer review/Harold Pinter Jezhotwells (talk) 22:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for all your patient efforts. Let's hope that whoever the particular peer may be, he/she will have proper regard for considerations of readability, accessibility and the need for WP to be a collaborative effort. I really don't know how you keep at it. Wingspeed (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Somehow both Wingspeed (who it does not appear had read all of the other editors' comments above before posting) and Jezhotwells may have missed the comment made earlier at the end of J's own #RfC: Article style posted in March 2009 about the matters continually rehashed in this talk page mostly by Jezhotwells: I copy it below so others will not think that these complaints by Wingspeed and Jezhotwells have not already been considered, reconsidered, addressed, and redressed:

I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says [in the RfC about the article style] (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently [typo. error: ed. apparently intended to type Consistency] is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

[I added the bracketed clarifications in copying here. Scroll up to linked RfC section for contexts.] Wikipedia's Manual of Style and WP:CITE make it very clear that the current "article style" (including its "citation style") [see the style sheet template for details] is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I and others have pointed this out numerous times to Jezhotwells, who continues to complain anyway. There is no basis for changing the citation format. It is consistent and readable, as LeValley's comment observes. Jezhotwells appears to me to be beating a dead horse. --NYScholar (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have requested a peer review as a way of moving the article forward. It may take some time for such a review to be carried out. I see no problem in seeking such a review which may well bring in useful opinions on ways in which the article can be improved. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

The request template added at top of page

With regard to the automated "script" mentioned in the "Request" that J. now posted at the top of this talk page; it is inaccurate: there have not been any complaints about the "grammar" of this article, and the "house style" linked in the template is WP:MOS, which is a series of Wikipedia "guidelines" for style, which are not mutually exclusive; the MOS presents many "optional guidelines"; that fact is observed already in this article's templated style sheet. As Levalley (and earlier editors) in this and various other article and project talk pages where Jezhotwells has raised questions about MLA Style and parenthetical citations have already observed, the current style sheet is within these WP:MOS guidelines. [corrected some P here a bit later; posted originally at time of next sec. --NYScholar (talk) 19:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)]

There are in fact some useful suggestions in the automated script peer review, which is only part of the peer review process. I shall consider these over the next few days, e.g. weasel words, date Mos concerns, splitting to appropriate sub pages, contractions and copy-editing. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

MLA Style

Jezhotwells does not like MLA Style; but this article is an article about Harold Pinter, winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature: a major author of literature (a subject in the humanities), and, as I and others have observed, MLA Style is an "appropriate" choice for it. The WP:MOS makes very clear that one does not change already consistent prevailing citation style to some other citation style for reasons of personal (Jezhotwell's and/or Wingspeed's) personal predilections/preferences, as Levalley correctly emphasizes too. --NYScholar (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I also direct others to Jezhotwells' earlier comment in relation to the citation style that the changes made in January 2009 improved the article and that J. accepted them as improvements. [See the Mediation filed by Jezhotwells back then: archived link in Archive 7 of this talk page: Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#Mediation: which provides a direct link to Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Harold Pinter.

The current format is the same as it was when accepted by J. then: it follows the 3rd ed. of MLA Style Manual. (The 6th ed. of the MLA Handbook is the same style; it is now in hand.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Dates

[For more information please see the link to the MLA Style Manual in the Style template at top of this talk page.] Note that MLA Style for dates in parenthetical references and in bibliographical entries calls for abbreviations of months; many articles in Wikipedia use abbreviations for months in parenthetical refs., within other parentheses (to save space), and in bibliographical references; whole words for months are used in sentences in the text and notes (not within parentheses) otherwise. This is common practice. Inverted (European style dates, consistent with UK and other European style of dates: day month year) is also MLA Style. These dates are consistent both with WP:MOS and MLA Style. Please do not alter this style; it is consistent with MLA Style for quotations, citations, and bibliographical entries […]. --NYScholar (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Punctuation of titles of articles/chapters

To enable ease of viewing external links in sources, following WP:MOS, commas and periods normally placed within the titles in MLA Style are placed after the end quotation mark if part of an external link; otherwise, when there is no such external link as part of the title, MLA Style requires that commas and periods be placed before the end quotation mark of a title. [Discussed this earlier in archived talk page.] MLA Style of punctuating titles is more traditional than Wikipedia's. The adjustment is made to be consistent with WP:MOS for titles within external links. [The perceived goal of the specified WP:MOS guideline is not to interrupt external links to titles w/ the icon for an external link.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [typ. corr. (I meant to post this here not in the previous sec., where I've now added […].) --NYScholar (talk) 02:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)]

More information about stylistic details

For more information about such stylistic "details" relating to citation and bibliographical format, see WP:MOS#Further reading, which lists MLA Style Manual and other such manuals. Wikipedia's MOS explicitly acknowledges that it does not cover all such details as thoroughly as some of these listed Style guides do: "Wikipedians are encouraged to familiarize themselves with other guides to style and usage, which may cover details that are not included in this Manual of Style." --NYScholar (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Note also that the punctuation of quotations is currently under dispute (template) in WP:MOS#Quotation marks. Aside from the attempt not to break up external links in Wikipedia (and to avoid ambiguities), I have attempted to follow punctuation of quotations and titles in MLA Style, which is the style sheet for this article and generally consistent with the WP:MOS, except for the problematic use of "scare quotes" for phrases that in MLA format might be punctuated with periods and commas within the quotation. It is common in Wikipedia for people to mistake exact quotations of phrases for so-called scare quotes when scare quotes are not intended. The placement of commas and periods before the end quotation mark of a quotation eliminates that unintended ambiguity. An example called a "sentence fragment" in the section linked on "Quotation marks" ("Come with me."--mispunctuated as "Come with me") is actually not a "fragment" of a sentence; it is a full sentence: an imperative command ("Come with me." is a sentence based on the imperative usage of the verb "to come"; "Come." signifies "I am telling you to come," just as "Come with me." signifies "I am telling you to come with me." (It appears elliptical ["a fragment" to some], but it is an imperative.) Such interpretations or misinterpretations in discussions of the grammar of sentences can lead to problems in the WP:MOS and inconsistencies with other conventional style guides. --NYScholar (talk) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) [I have also copied the part of this comment directly pertinent to WP:MOS on its talk page. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)]

Additional concerns

I really still think that it is beyond the time for Jezhotwells (and Wingspeed) to let this matter go and to stop fighting what is appropriate citation format and article style. As time goes on, other editors will come along and work on this article further. There is no "dire" situation as I believe Wingspeed has greatly overstated. The article is within Wikipedia editing requirements and guidelines; it passed a good article review (when I was working collaboratively with a good article reviewer to improve it according to guidance by that reviewer, Willow), prior to the subject's death; at that time, the article was still required to follow WP:BLP. [adding link for convenience: #Good article review, which links to User talk:WillowW/Archive11#Harold Pinter above.]

After the subject's death, new material has been added by me and by a number of other editors, with updated sources (when errors in the format have been introduced by other editors, I have tried to correct them, to maintain the consistency of the format).

It is not yet a year beyond the death of the subject. Further splitting off of some sections of the article (see my informal request for comments on a proposal re: such a split above) may occur in the future. But the article is not in any such "dire" need, it seems to me.

The question about why Harold Pinter deserves the kind of attention that this article gives him is answered by sources cited in the lead of the article (e.g., in para. 1) and in the obituaries and tributes provided as additional sources.

(Ultimately, I would recommend removing the redundant section of this article "Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles, which is readily accessible via the link to Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles. I propose that above in this talk page, but, for the time being, am still welcoming comments on that matter. The cross-linked section provides the sources for verifiability.) --NYScholar (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC) [added links for convenience above. --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2009 (UTC), --NYScholar (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)]

Peer review

The first part of the peer review is at Wikipedia:Peer_review/Harold_Pinter/archive1#Harold_Pinter. I find many useful points raised there, especially the overuse of quotation marks for single words and phrases. Other comments welcome. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is on the peer review page, not here. It is more efficient and easier to follow if one discusses the points made on that page. Removing quotation marks from sources' words and phrases will result in Plagiarism. See the explanation on the review page and please consult WP:MOS#Quotations if one does not recognize the problem. If one feels that there are too many quotation marks (quotations), one has to create other words (paraphrases) and still cite the sources properly. One does not simply delete quotation marks from quotations; to do so violates Wikipedia policy of citing sources properly. -NYScholar (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"the American people," who, Pinter noted, were increasingly protesting "their government's actions."

This statement in the article is currently referenced to note #50 [Rpt. in Pinter, War (n. pag.); qtd. in Chrisafis and Tilden.]. When checked at Bibliography_for_Harold_Pinter this is given as [Chrisafis, Angelique, and Imogen Tilden. "Pinter Blasts 'Nazi America' and 'deluded idiot' Blair". Guardian. Guardian Media Group, 11 June 2003. Web. 2 Oct. 2007.] The link is [1] which does not support the statement "the American people," who, Pinter noted, were increasingly protesting "their government's actions." In fact the article states:

Pinter blamed "millions of totally deluded American people" for not staging a mass revolt.

He said that because of propaganda and control of the media, millions of Americans believed that every word Mr Bush said was "accurate and moral".

The US population could not be let off scot-free for putting the country under the control of an "illegally elected president - in other words, a fake".

He asked: "What objections have there been in the US to Guantanamo Bay? At this very moment there are 700 people chained, padlocked, handcuffed, hooded and treated like animals. It is actually a concentration camp.

"I haven't heard anything about the US population saying: 'We can't do this, we are Americans.' Nobody gives a damn. And nor does Tony Blair." Pinter added: "Blair sees himself as a representative of moral rectitude. He is actually a mass murderer. But we forget that - we are as much victims of delusions as Americans are."

I have tagged the citation as it is currently incorrect. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The print source is War for the reprinted Turin U honorary degree speech, which is also posted online in an EL given as well; someone else originally added the sentence relating to 'in a public reading' (this keyboard does not have double q. marks; this phrase should be in double quotations (just in my comment here): there is no incorrectness, as 'the actions of their government' is used by Pinter (not the secondary source): I'll find the exact q. after I return to the U.S., as I am traveling for work and have to leave this laptop in a min.; 'It is obvious, however, that the United States is bursting at the seams to attack Iraq. I believe that it will do this - not just to take control of Iraqi oil - but because the US administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal. Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government but seem to be helpless.' I will eventually put in the last sentence as a full quotation; on some occasions Pinter referred to 'the posture of their government' and in others to 'the actions of their government'; one can paraphrase if necessary, but using the exact words of the primary source (Harold Pinter) is most effective in demonstrating what he said and thought (not putting words into his mouth); elsewhere he did refer to Americans speaking up against (protesting) their government's 'actions' in Iraq and the so-called War on Terror. If one does not have the print sources to consult (and if one is totally dependent on online sources), one should not be claiming that the print sources and/or the transcripts of a 'public reading' published later (online and/or in print, with occasional revisions and/or additions and/or deletions) do not support the statement. --NYScholar (talk) 11:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Jezhotwells missed Harold Pinter's own use of protest without the against in his sentence (quoted in Chrisafis and Tilden): In a British society where people were increasingly encouraged not to use their brains, the only way to protest was by "thought, intelligence and solidarity". There is no use of against there. I'll find an additional source to add if necessary, but please stop deleting the word protest and/or adding the word against as that is not what Pinter intended to say. It is in the U of Turin speech that he speaks of Americans being horrified at the posture of their government; actions is used also by Pinter (perhaps in yet another source or version; but I'll find it later, when I have more time to consult my print sources at home). (cont.)

The impression that Jezhotwells is giving is that the quotations are not verifiable; they are. One has to read the sources (in War [an unpaginated printed book which reprints some of Pinter's speeches and essays and poems] and in his online posting of some earlier versions of same speeches and essays and poems). I'll check these various sources out again after I return to the U.S. from the UK, where I have extremely limited time to spend in Wikipedia, as I am engaged in research at the British Library. --NYScholar (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not use citation templates in adding sources; they are not the prevailing style format of citations and adding citation templates is creating inconsistencies in the citation and bibliographical format of the article. If an editor is unable to follow and mimick the citation format (despite the many examples already in the article), then perhaps s/he can just add the information for other editors to create proper citation format for. Sources cited in this article are supposed to be keyed to the Works cited list (as per those already in it). When citing a source in the text, a bibliographical entry for that source needs also to be added to the cross-linked Works cited list. Please convert those citation templates recently added to the prevailing citation format. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

For definitions of the verb protest (to protest), which incorporates the concept of being against something, see the many British examples given in the definitions in dictionary.com's online site. Dictionaries are what we consult as reliable sources of the definitions of words and idiomatic usage, not Wikipedians. Pinter himself uses the verb frequently without using the (repetitive) against; at is not against. At in the context of the source signifies on that occasion. Please consult various dictionaries before weighing in on the meanings of words and removing what is commonly-accepted usages (in both British and American varieties of English); Wikipedia's guidelines relating to varieties of English recommend avoiding variety-specific usages when possible; there were no quotation marks used in the original sentence (which I have already removed); it was a paraphrase, and it was clear in both varieties of English. I may add another source reference after next week, after I return home and can check whatever sources I was using to develop that part of the article (often editors would add material without sources, and I would find sources to document their insertions; the earlier part of the paragraph in question already cites other sources (giving source citations) wherein Pinter makes a point later about Americans being horrified and disgusted by their government's posture [and behavior (actions)] but helpless to do anything about it; he would not know that if they were not protesting it (stating that they were against it, speaking out against it). Please consult all the sources in the paragraph, as cited. (The Dec. 2005 Nobel Lecture expands upon and updates his statements made between 2002 and [earlier in] 2005. Several of his earlier speeches made between those years are accessible on his website and elsewhere online; they are listed in the Works cited and in the EL sec.) --NYScholar (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) [typ. corr. --NYScholar (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)]

For some distinctions between the implied against in to protest (e.g., to protest something: to speak against or to speak out against something) and the noun protest (e.g., to organize a protest against something), please see the definitions of the noun and the verb in (e.g.) Protest (at dictionary.com) and in some other dictionaries. I have been finding usages both with the against and without it in current British and Canadian news articles when the word protest is used as a verb (not a noun); it is common in both American English and British English to find against used with protest as a noun. (Sorry, but I composed more much earlier and it didn't get saved when I mis-hit a key.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Lead

Can we move Footnotes 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 out of the Lead? I don't think the statements they support are controversial, so moving them lower should be OK. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The new info added about Pinter's early stage career is, IMO, too much detail for the Lead, which is already very long. Why not just say that he "began his professional stage career in 1952 touring in Ireland, and from 1954 to 1959 he used the stage name David Baron while touring in England"? -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

When you added the "throughout Britain" and then "throughout England" was needed instead, since HP did not act as David Baron "throughout Britain", that altered the entire sentence, because Mac (Anew McMaster) was perhaps the most significant influence on Pinter as an actor and the name needs to be red-linked so that there can be an article on him. I've added the notes to document this part. It is not just "controversial" material that needs source citations in Wikipedia; statements need to be verifiable. The sources make them verifiable. I don't see your interpretation of leads as not needing source citations anywhere in WP:MOS or WP:V. The sources are there for those who want them. But if you want to work further on this, I have no objection, as long as what you change remains accurate. Sometimes, when people don't know the sources firsthand or the subject of an article, they make changes that are not supported in actuality (by sources). This article has been highly contested at times and the source of contention, and not giving sources can lead to further contention among editors. (I've been editing it since 2005, and this is my impression working on it. Some editors will jump on any statement not being supported by a source [directly after a sentence] and claim that it is not true because there is no source. (See past history, as recent as last week). --NYScholar (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Only just noticed this exchange; fully concur, for what it's worth, with Ssilvers' suggestions. Such pruning is long overdue. Wingspeed (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Biography subheadings

Can we combine the first two subsections under one subheading like "Childhood and education"? I think it would be better to combine these short sections? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've tried "Early life and education" because the material in these sections includes his experiences as a teenager, not just as a child. It also parallels a later subheading in this sec. --NYScholar (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that's good. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The photo of Pinter as David Baron

The photographic image is taken from Harold Pinter's own official website, which is copyrighted and copyright protected. Having spoken with his agent last week, while in London, I am aware that the website is now part of his estate and will still be overseen by his agent, to whom one must write for written permission (to be sought from Pinter's widow, Antonia Fraser) for the rights to reproduce material still under Pinter's own copyright and protected by his estate. There is also the photographer of the photograph which is not identified in Wikipedia's "fair use rationale" for the photograph; there is a note in the copyright information linked at the bottom of Pinter's official website stating that permissions have been sought when possible for the reproduction of reviews and other copyrighted properties (e.g., photographs taken by others) for use on his website. That note suggests that one must seek and obtain such permissions if using material from his website. Much as I appreciate this photograph, I am not sure its use can be considered within the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law, which governs Wikipedia. If it cannot be used in the infobox, I am not sure that it can be used as an illustration to show what he looked like in the 1950s "within fair use". I doubt also that it could be used in his infobox as a "free image". Discussion? --NYScholar (talk) 04:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Aww I have no discussion, only regrets. What a great photo it is, and how nice it looked on my talk page to illustrate real drama. NYScholar, can't you pull some strings or write some letters and get a million photos available for our (my) use? or just a couple, at least to illustrate the article on the greatest modern playwright? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A small thumbnail like this, used to illustrate the relevant section of the article is permissible under the fair use doctrine. If we need to tweak the "fair use summary", that's fine, but the image is fine as a legal matter and under our policies. Having said that, if you can get permission, by all means do; and it would be nice if they authorize us to use a juicy one in the box. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) In London 2 weeks ago, I did discuss the possibilities of obtaining non-copyright protected photographs for this Wikipedia article firsthand; but I'm being very cautious about the matter. I myself did take some photographs at an event in London discussed in the article, but, again, I'm cautious about using them, because (1) I do not want to bother those in the photographs unnecessarily; and (2) I don't want to post them publicly via the internet without their explicit permission to do so (even if it is not needed for copyright purposes, it is a courtesy to ask them first). I'm afraid there is no way to get "a million photos" (I assume that is hyperbole); but someday perhaps Pinter's agent or his widow via his agent will supply some photos for this article. They are all incredibly busy with matters concerning his estate (and have been since he died), and unable to deal with such matters right now, I believe, from my conversations in London in the past couple of weeks. (cont.)

In private meetings, attendance at invited events, and my own "original research" conducted in Pinter's BL Archive (in the past several years and in the past two weeks), I have learned much new information; but, given editing policies in Wikipedia, most particularly WP:BLP, pertaining to Pinter's relatives especially, I cannot cite it here. I cite third-party published sources whenever possible. (cont.)

My own personal photographs of Harold Pinter (taken during his lifetime) and those taken at events in London over the past 2 weeks are not those I can post without first seeking permission from those I photographed and/or from his estate, out of courtesy. Right now I am not comfortable bothering these very busy people or making any of these personal photographs public, since they would become posted all over the internet and that might upset their subjects. I have asked someone with whom I am in correspondence just in the past day if he would be able to make one or two photographs of Pinter's gravesite in Kensal Green Cemetery that he sent me accessible via Wikipedia Commons perhaps; he may be trying to upload one or two of them. There are very similar photographs of the gravesite in the "Find a Grave" website, but I am not sure that any of them can be posted in Wikipedia, as they are owned by the photographers who posted them there. Photographs in albums that are now part of the BL Archive [there are many] are still the copyrighted property of Harold Pinter and hence controlled by his estate; these cannot be published without the permission of the estate and any other potential copyright holders. (cont.)

In Wikipedia, I do not think the "thumbnail" size is relevant, as the photos become enlarged when one clicks on them with a mouse and/or can be enlarged otherwise. They are still the property of whoever actually owns them (Pinter's estate and/or the photographer's). Pinter's copyright endures for several decades beyond his death. These items are not within the public domain, and I do not see how using them is within "fair use" (despite the "fair use rationale" supplied in the photo file page.) --NYScholar (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would be very pleased if this photo of Harold Pinter as David Baron were able to be legally deemed "within fair use", but I am still currently doubtful that it can be. The same would be true for other photographs taken from Pinter's official website or other copyrighted published sources (on the internet or in print). --NYScholar (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, (pause) that was hyperbole... (silence) Drmies (talk) 05:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

:-) --NYScholar (talk) 05:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

NYScholar, could you clearly explain which elements of Wikipedia's non-free content criteria you believe that this image fails, and why? I have my own views on the subject, but I haven't been able to glean yours from your above remarks. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my explanation already in the template on the image page; I've explained it as best I can. I just added a source citation to this article indicating that the photograph comes from Harold Pinter's official webpage (the index page of the "Acting" sec., as cited, which is where Ssilvers downloaded it from in order to upload it to Wikipedia) and was taken by the authorized compiler of that webpage (Mark Batty/Mark Taylor-Batty) from Pinter's personal archive, which is now housed in The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library and under very strict copyright regulations. It is not a photograph that should be uploaded to Wikipedia claiming "fair use" and posted on the internet, in my view, without violating Pinter's copyright(s) and possibly in the view of its copyright holder (Harold Pinter's estate). Pinter's copyright is still in force after his death; it continues for approximately 80 years (can't remember number it has been changed to since 70 or 75 years). He owned this photograph during his lifetime, enabled (allowed) the compiler of the "Acting" section of his official website to place it on his website with his permission, and copyright-protected and still protects his website via his estate. The use of this photograph, in my view, violates his/his estate's copyright (rights). The photograph is not in the public domain; it is not public property; it is Pinter's/his estate's property. See the note added for more information and the British Library help for researchers and other regulations pertaining to copyrights of manuscripts, photographs, and other materials in The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've read your explanation; my concern is that you seem to be debating something that isn't up for debate (whether copyright on the image persists; all involved agree that it does) while mostly ignoring the question of whether it's usable on Wikipedia notwithstanding its continued copyright. WP:NFCC lists the criteria for using copyrighted works, like this one, on Wikipedia. If you believe that this image cannot be used on Wikipedia, it must necessarily be because it does not comply with one or more of those criteria. My questions: which one(s), and why? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This reply seems to ignore what I just stated (I really do not understand what you are talking about); the photograph is from a copyrighted website; Pinter's copyrights all still are in force and will be for several decades after his death. The content of the website is protected by Pinter's copyright; he owned (his estate owns) the photograph, which is now part of The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library; his agent serves as the spokesperson for his estate. Take it up with his agent if Wikipedia wants to use this photograph; it is not a free photograph, and the assumption that no commercial rights are being violated in using it is an assumption without any documentation. The British Library owns the Archive, but Pinter's copyrights still pertain for everything in it. I was just there, working in the Archive, and this stipulation is very clearly made for all researchers who work in it; it is explicitly defined in the BL help for researchers site. Please consult it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it would be useful if the discussion was confined to the fair use rationale, which has not been addressed by NYScholar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) yet. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Everybody agrees that the image is still under copyright, that it is not free, and that Pinter's estate owns that copyright. There is no dispute about that whatsoever. But - and I'm going to bold this, because I think this is probably the source of your confusion - this does not mean that it cannot be used on Wikipedia, even without permission of the copyright holder. Wikipedia uses thousands of non-free copyrighted photos, virtually all of them without the permission of the copyright holder. This is done under the American legal doctrine of fair use. In taking advantage of this doctrine, Wikipedia has created the non-free content criteria, which dictate when Wikipedia will use images under fair use. The issue here is not whether the image is copyrighted, etc. The issue here is whether it meets the criteria for use of copyrighted images. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have read the criteria, and I still do not think that most of them apply at all to this usage of this image. [BTW: Pinter's being dead--as given as a reason on one of the image review pages--has nothing to do with being able to find a "free" image of him from the 1950s. The fact that images can no longer be taken of him (because he is dead) does not pertain to the 1950s.] The criterion that this image should be necessary for this article or add something to it not already easily accessible from it (the official website) does not apply at all. The posting of the non-free copyrighted image does not add anything to the article in the way of additional knowledge (as per that criterion). It is purely being added to have "more illustrations" in the article. (The comparison to the article on Shakespeare is also not pertinent; Pinter's copyrights are still in force and will be for nearly another 80 years or so from his death (till nearly the next millennium, about 2090/3000, particularly if they are extended, as they might be--if anyone is still around to extend them!). The photographer's copyright (whoever it is and whether or not he or she is still living) would apply for the same period after that person's death. (We don't have an identity/credit for the photographer.) I am generally struck by how the wish to include an image often seems to blur the actual stated criteria [referred to]; I just don't see how these criteria are being met in this instance. --NYScholar (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

When people want to produce plays by Pinter or to use photographs of Pinter owned by Pinter/his estate for both commercial or for non-commercial purposes (which is always an ongoing possibility--for books, articles, production programmes, etc.), they need to write for and to receive permission from him/from his estate (his executor/s, including Antonia Fraser, to do so. This photograph is not in any way any different from anything else that is (still) his copyrighted property. Such material has to be licensed for use in publication(s), including online encyclopedia (whether Wikipedia or another one). Using it in Wikipedia is not within fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law (or international copyright law). Wikipedia is governed by U.S. copyright law (which includes international rights as well). (cont.)

To non-Pinter scholars: Please stop making assumptions about material about which you may be unfamiliar (in this case, the photographs on his website). If you do a Google search for this photograph, you will see that the Google website result [2] features a notice, saying may be protected by copyright; Pinter's official website is protected by his copyright; moreover, there is no legitimate fair-use claim in the fair use rationale attached to this image. --NYScholar (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not permit using such images on copyright-protected websites simply to show what someone looked/looks like; the rationale state that one needs to see what Pinter looks/looked like is bogus; one can simply click on the official webpage already given as a source and see the image on the website; one does not need to link to the image directly to see it. --NYScholar (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) "When people want to...use photographs of Pinter owned by Pinter/his estate...they need to write for and to receive permission from him/from his estate." You are mistaken about this. Fair use provides exemptions to this general requirement. You are repeatedly asserting that fair use does not apply here, but the only reasons you give are that Pinter's estate holds the copyright. Any fair use rationale used on Wikipedia must be evaluated against the non-free content criteria, which is why I have several times asked you to reference which criteria you are claiming do not apply. If you continue to refuse to do so, I'm afraid that we have nothing else to talk about. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with being or not being a Pinter scholar. This has to do with the Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline. Please read this and try to understand that the discussion is not about copyright, as you erroneously aassume, but with non free use, which may be allowed under Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I have disputed and dispute the accuracy and veracity of the fair use rationale provided by Ssilvers for this image. I leave it to administrators to decide. I will not discuss this matter any further [beyond what I've posted since writing this!], and I will certainly not engage further with Jezhotwells relating to this matter. It will go nowhere. Let the administrators decide. The template is posted; let the administrators decide. --NYScholar (talk) 23:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC) [updated prior to going offline, for a while, I hope! --NYScholar (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)]

As an administrator, I have removed the template. If you wish to make your case for deletion to the community, you may take it to non-free content review. Good day. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

"{{di-disputed fair use rationale}}": Criteria 7 applies specifically: The fair use rationale makes false statements. I dispute your removing the template; it has 7 days to be considered. I restored the template before I saw your comment above. I really do not think you recognize the danger to Wikipedia if Pinter's agent representing his estate sees the use of this image here and decides to contest it. Editors have to protect Wikipedia. The image is obviously fully accessible on his official webpage and there is no necessity to include it here. We all know what he looked like if we've looked at the website page already cited: "Acting" from the main menu. I think we need to let other administrators consider this. I will post it in WP:FFD if/when I have more time (or someone else can do that for me). I need to log out now. --NYScholar (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm sorry that you have been put to so much trouble. The criteria for 'free use' would make the image a no-no whilst the subject was still alive. However, now Mr Pinter is deceased, a claim of 'WP:fair use' is germane within the article - as no free equivalent image is available. Should the estate wish to make a 'free use' image available, then we should be very grateful. The issue of copyright is not germane, as this article is for the purposes of scholarship or review; the image is a low-resolution copy of an art work, and does not seriously detract from the rights of the copyright holder to exploit the original work's commercial value. As an administator - and a resident of Hackney - I would wish to respect the family's wishes, and if an alternate image is indicated, or provided I would support it's use. I hope that helps. Kbthompson (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I am leaving this matter with Wikipedia to sort out itself at this stage, because I must do other things. (cont.)

For the record: I still dispute statements made in the fair use rationale, which appear to me to be inaccurate, and I still do not see the necessity of including the photograph (as stated in that rationale), since anyone can see it via the source link to Pinter's official webpage.

I hope that eventually Pinter's agent on behalf of his estate will make a photographic image available for the infobox (as I state above).

Pinter's website copyright notice/disclaimer (one has to click on it) says that permissions have been sought wherever possible in posting material on it: "Disclaimer … Every effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders in all copyright material on this website.

If there are any errors or omissions, please contact news@haroldpinter.org".[3] (cont.)

No specific photographer is credited in the fair use rationale or on Pinter's website for this particular photograph. (It suggests that it may not have been possible for the website administrator working with Batty to identify the photographer or to seek such permission. Or, it may have been a personal photograph and not a publicity photograph, though it looks like a publicity photograph--or part of one, anyway.)

Information about the contexts of the photograph and the identity of the photograph may be available in the photograph albums now part of the BL Harold Pinter Archive (linked earlier and in the article). More research may be needed to identify who took the photograph. I have supplied the quoted caption from the official HaroldPinter.org webpage in the current version of the photograph. One can click on the source citation in this section (36 last time I checked) to see the way it appears on the site.[4] Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to read

After reading the article, I would like to offer some input. Much of this may have already been covered above at Peer Review, but the thought of trudging thru the endless comments there is enough to spin the head and bulge the eyes! To state it simply and quickly, the article is hard to read, owing to far too many parentheticals, quotation marks, multiple references, lengthy notes, etc. I would suggest the editors take a look at the FA article on William Shakespeare. It's visually appealing due to the use of images, the references and bibliography are clean, and the notes are short and to the point. I certainly don't want to offend anyone involved with the creation of this article, as it is quite good. But it's simply very, very hard to read. (And I imagine its length is an issue given the related standards advised in the MOS.) Smatprt (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but unfortunately the owner of the article does not agree, and refuses to engage in constructive debate. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest making the edits that you believe are necessary, Jezhotwells, and then others can follow up. I think that a number of editors have pointed out the problems here and at the peer review, and there is broad agreement, but we now need to go ahead and execute the changes. The over-referencing problem here is so serious that it discourages editors from even attempting changes. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I will do, I now have the main source books to hand so shall proceed with this in the next few days. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:21, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

"the main source books" pertaining to Harold Pinter

I would be interested in what books this phrase refers to in the previous section of comments. Bibliography for Harold Pinter already includes the sources cited in this article. There are annotations there. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, so to speak. Published criticism and scholarship on Pinter already provides sources, cited in this article. --NYScholar (talk) 19:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

External links sec.

I object to the reference above to Harold Pinter#External links as a "linkfarm"; it is not (This matter has already been discussed in this talk page above/archived sections.)

Each link has been scrutinized in the past and is useful for readers to have for this main article. See Harold Pinter and politics and previous sections of discussion pertaining to that. I've devised that External links section so that the EL section here may be pruned if necessary, since some of the links are now in the new article just created and in progress (see its template). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Redundant section

I still think that the Obituaries and related articles list in this version of the article is no longer needed (see prev. discussion above), and the cross-linked section of Bibliography for Harold Pinter suffices. It does not need to be listed in both places, as it is conveniently cross-linked already. --NYScholar (talk) 19:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Quite the opposite. The sources cited in the article should be listed in the article. The fact that there is a separate bibliography (a useless page, IMO) does not permit you to remove all the references from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

If you [one] want[s] to shorten the article, removing the redundant section of Obituaries and relataed articles is one way to do it. (cont.) [I was referring to anyone who might want to shorten the article, not to one single editor. The length is a subject among other editors as well. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

I have not removed the section of Obituaries and related articles; I am the one who developed it most from a time when it included very few items (added by its creator) who is not an active editor of this article or of Wikipedia in general. (cont.)

You have clearly not read the previous discussion about this subject; I refer you to it. Jezhotwells and you are conveniently ignoring earlier editors' agreement that the way the Bibliography for Harold Pinter serves as its "Works cited" list. It is clearly linked within the article for purposes of verification; that is all that Wikipedia requires. The handful of "peer reviewers" have said that they do not want to take their time to read previous discussions of such matters; well, if they don't they are not paying attention to already-achieved consensus, which Jezhotwells has refused to accept, regarding the prevailing citation style/style sheet. --NYScholar (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see my own #Obituaries and related articles subsection (proposal) above for more information about this matter and other editors' views. --NYScholar (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [(fixed link). --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

I do not believe that your proposal is an acceptable way to do it. The sources cited in the article should be listed in the article. The sources that are not cited in the article can just stay in the separate bibliography article. Please do not remove from this article any references that are used here, and ultimately, we will need to copy back the ones that are used but not listed here. Each article should show all of its own sources, and I do not believe that there is any support for relying on a link to another article for this purpose. Thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That response is really not germane to what I am referring to at all in my previous "proposal" (which is something I continue to elicit comments about) from a variety of editors, not just one or two or even a handful. It is an ongoing topic of discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography for Harold Pinter is not a "separate article"; it is a section of this article (it was split off from it when the number of references/sources became many): please read the lead. It is conveniently cross-linked so that anyone can consult it for verification of the content of this article (which is why sources are required in Wikipedia). (cont.)

The recommended layout is followed here; the "Works cited" section is extended via the link so that it won't be so long that it makes it more difficult to read the article online (just click on the link). A print out feature exists in Wikipedia, and anyone can use it to print out articles. There would be no such feature if people didn't want to print out articles to read them. Once printed out, it is very easy to find a source in the Works cited list as cross-linked to Bibliography for Harold Pinter. Please read its lead; it serves as the "Works cited" for this article (and for some others that cite sources in it). Sources cited in this article may be found there. If one wants to repeat all the source citations, one can do so, but it will require the kind of work that I just did in Harold Pinter and politics (today) and that I have done in the past with several other Pinter-related articles created most often by other editors. --NYScholar (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Other articles in Wikipedia, see, e.g., Rwandan genocide, have a similar method of listing sources, wherein the "Works cited" is a cross-linked bibliography. Please consult it. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Notwithstanding my own sense that the article was fine the way it was, I have copied (duplicated) source citations so that they appear in the "Works cited and further reading" section now. It took a lot of work and many hours, and there may be more entries to add, but it's a firm start. I have tried all along to accommodate these requests and to adapt the MLA prevailing style to them; it is still consistently MLA style (3rd ed. of the Manual; 7th ed. of the Handbook), and it is also in keeping with WP:MOS regarding need for verifiable "full citations" (see "controversy" template at top here). There is very little difference between the information supplied via MLA style and that via citation templates except that the punctuation in MLA style is more up to date and more in keeping with bibliographical formatting for the humanities (literature) than those templates are. (E.g., no "p." or "pp." is used in MLA style, and source citations may be parenthetical (when brief) and placed in content endnotes otherwise; dates are in proper international (MLA) style and more readable than citation template style is for dates, and the whole source citation makes more sense; use of "retrieved" or "accessed" is not necessary anymore in MLA style; one just ends with the access date in the proper place. Anyone can understand this format, due to the consistency (as others have already observed). To accommodate Jezhotwell's continual complaints in late December, I adjusted the longer parenthetical refs., placing them in endnotes (e.g., "Qtd. in", "See"; "Cf., etc. (In January, Jezhotwells accepted those changes in an arbitration mediation that s/he filed, citing "improvement" in the article, but s/he backtracked later, filing various disputes in various places). Please scroll up to earlier discussions for this history and links to related discussion pages. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

This article's source references

Over the past four to five years, I added most of the source references in this article, and they are all already linked in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. The link is already in this article many times: Bibliography for Harold Pinter#Obituaries and related articles which appears as "Obituaries and related articles" due to the piping included. Other editors have removed bonafide and verified reliable source references. I have not. [I've had to restore those source citations removed by others from time to time.] The proposal is something to be discussed in the section of this talk page where it appears, in which I've asked for further comments. Please place your comments there. I am not removing any sources from this article. I hope that others will not do so either. It took me an enormous amount of work and time to add them in the first place. Their format is correct at this time. --NYScholar (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC) [clar. --NYScholar (talk) 01:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

I've placed an in use template on the article, while I'm doing a "major edit" involving copying entries from Bibliography for Harold Pinter and duplicating them in this article. I really don't think this is necessary, but, due to the clamoring and constant harping on this matter, I've done it. If some need still to be added, that can be done later. One can get the idea, and one can easily follow the MLA style format. It is virtually the same as the items used in a Wikipedia citation template, but the punctuation of the entries is more up to date (current), in keeping with The MLA Style Manual, 3rd ed. (and the MLA Handbook, 7th ed.), both the most current and authoritative editions of MLA style. --NYScholar (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed the template after finishing that work for the most part. See prev. subsec. of comments. --NYScholar (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Instability of this article

This article is not currently admissible for a "Featured Article" review and the terms of "featured article" criteria do not apply to it, because it is not currently "stable"; the subject died less than a year ago, there are ongoing memorial events and productions of his work that are forthcoming frequently, and frequent updating of the article occurs due to that. He is dead, but not dead long, and the situation of the article is not comparable to the stability of an article of a person long dead, like William Shakespeare or Noël Coward (which, BTW, uses MLA style (inconsistently) in its endnote source citations and bibliographical format, except for the discontinued use of "p." and "pp." for page numbers; those "p."s and "pp."s can be removed; its note citation style is also inconsistent in places), or others to whom people have referred in mentioning already "featured articles". This article needs to evolve further as the subject's death recedes in time. The article will not be stable for a considerably long time due to the need to keep it up to date. --NYScholar (talk) 01:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC) (updated. --NYScholar (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC))

Unlike the article on Shakespeare, the sources used for this article are primarily print sources; when online sources are used in this article, there have been links to them provided for convenience. Otherwise, the sources cited (both print and online) are keyed to the "Works cited" list with full citations provided in Bibliography for Harold Pinter. If one were to repeat all of these sources in this article, the length of the article would be considerably greater than it currently is. See #Comment, by LeValley, already quoted (but ignored by Jezhotwells et al.): "I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley"--and #RfC: Article style comment by another editor (IceCreamExpress) re: its appropriateness for support: "Use of MLA citation format seems like a reasonable choice to me." [Jezhotwells never responded to the question asked there about what other kind of style was desired. [Of course, there are many possibilities that are "reasonable" for citation styles; the aim is consistency, which currently obtains, and a style that matches the subject (whose identity is primarily a playwright; a writer of dramatic literature). His grave marker says "Playwright".] --NYScholar (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I just finished copying (duplicating) the source citation entries (most of them) from Bibliography for Harold Pinter into this article (as Ssilvers et al. have been lobbying for), and voilà, look at the resulting additional length! Nevertheless, one can see what's involved in doing that--it took several hours of painstaking editing. Not every source may be there; it will need checking and further copy-editing (by others) to make sure all the sources mentioned by name and/or title are in the accompanying sections of the list. --NYScholar (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Parenthetical referencing

As already discussed throughout this current talk page, the WP:GA review approved MLA style format used here consistently since before that review commenced 2 years ago--see Oct. 2007 discussions). MLA style uses both parenthetical references and content endnotes (as do most documentation styles now--including Harvard referencing, APA style, ACS style, and so on). They have all adopted using both parenthetical referencing in text and notes (keyed to References or Works cited lists). See the Wikipedia article Parenthetical referencing for current information, references, and external links, if one needs further information about these styles. There is no inconsistency in using both parenthetical referencing and content endnotes, despite the continuous assertions by some Wikipedia editors (often from the UK) that there are. Even current British recommended documentation styles use both. It is time to revise this position and accept what is common practice, I think. --NYScholar (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Jezhotwells complained much earlier about the (proper) use of parenthetical referencing, and I devised a means of shortening [some of] them [i.e., longer ones] by moving them to content endnotes (e.g., "See", "Qtd. in", "See also", and Cf., and so on) [to accommodate that editor's requests]. This would be clear from any examination of both the earlier talk page(s) of this article and its editing history; I provided the links for convenience relating to verification. Wikipedia's main concern is meeting WP:V core policy; this article currently meets it. The parenthetical source citations and endnotes verify the content. Apparently, the "FA" review page has not updated its references or understanding of parenthetical referencing beyond a flawed and incomplete idea of Harvard referencing based on errors in Wikipedia articles written by peer editors. The understanding of documentation styles needs updating to reflect current styles (which evolve over time); Chicago, so-called Harvard style, APA, and MLA styles have all been revised since that "FA" review page was first created, and the current review page does not take account of these changes. It is out of date. --NYScholar (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC) [(Clarifications in brackets.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)]

See, e.g., #Comment above, which Jezhotwells ignores, moving instead to the request for "peer review":

I just want to say that I agree with pretty much everything NYScholar says [in the RfC about the article style] (which is a rare moment in time, that I agree with anyone and don't feel like adding a lot). Consistently [typo. error: ed. apparently intended to type Consistency] is the main standard. If you start holding we who actually want to fix and add substance to articles to arcane disputes about style and citations, well, Wikipedia is the same as dead. As long as it is consistent, any reader of English can figure out what is meant, even the marginally competent. I am not at all being uncivil, I mean this in the most sincere way possible.Levalley (talk) 04:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)--LeValley

--NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the MLA syle is going to have to go, as your former mentor noted [5]. It is preventing this article from being accessible to most readers and editors. I note, by the way, that you have a COI with respect to the MLA Style Manual [6], and so you should recuse yourself from the discussion about referencing. By the way, I do not wish to shorten the article, just to make it easier to read. I hope that you will heed the words of your former mentor and step back from the style issues in this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no such COI; the person who thought that I did later admitted that she was incorrect: Apologies. thanks for explainingFrom my archived talk pages. [Please stop wrenching things out of context. I am finding this both offensive and abusive.] --NYScholar (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not employed by the MLA and have nothing to do with its publication of its style manuals or any other publications. Like tens of thousands of academic scholars around the world, I am a member of the MLA and I receive its publications in the mail. I really do not appreciate your contentiousness. I cannot begin to express my dissatisfaction with your current approach to editing this article. Let it suffice to say that I am extremely displeased by it. --NYScholar (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing my former mentor's advice, I am going back to editing Harold Pinter and politics, and cannot take time to reply [about article style] further here. The article is longer than recommended, and I created the new article as one way of shortening it, as there has been a long standing consensus to shorten it (in that way). Splitting off or reducing sections of the article has occurred in response to the "good article review". I've already explained all this before, so please see previous discussions on this and archived talk pages. I can't continue discussing things already discussed at length, and I am following advice in not doing so. --NYScholar (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

[Please see the new article Harold Pinter and politics, which is cross-linked now in the related section of this article at Harold Pinter#Civic activities and political activism, which seems to have consensus earlier. It took a lot of time to create, and I hope it serves its purpose. --NYScholar (talk) 01:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

Hi there, can I suggest you both take a couple of deep breathes. The purpose of discussion if to obtain consensus about improving the article - which is the ultimate aim on WP - improving the encyclopaedia. I appreciate the amount of work that has been put in by nyscholar on this article; but I'd suggest that you also take some time to listen to ssilvers - he has a good track record of taking articles through the wikipedia quality process. I'm surprised that an article which has had this much work has yet to go to FA. I'd suggest opening up the article to wider comment; and perhaps if there are issues with the quality process itself - putting the article up for FA and getting feedback from that wider community on specific issues within the article. The main problem (at the moment) is stability, the article has a long history of constant 'tinkering' with the text.

My understanding of the 'parenthetical referencing issue is that it is allowed within the standards; but my experience is that it is very unpopular with some editors. The aim is to achieve an article of quality, conciseness and readability. You're already dealing with some of the issues of length. I think readability remains an issue in such a complex life story.

Anyway, guys remain focused on the content - and not the editors. It is inevitable that a lot of matters which nys considers closed will be re-opened in the development of the article. I'd counsel patience rather than dismissal and an understanding that other editors do have the best interests of the article at heart. When it does get to FAR, NYS will need that patience. It's not an easy process at the best of times. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your input here Kbthompson. Just to be really clear: in the "peer review" page that Jezhotwells posted (and earlier elsewhere), I explained that I do not expect to be participating in the FAR process. I just do not have that kind of time. (I participated in weeks of the "good article" review process, and realized that I cannot do that type of thing again; I have my own non-Wikipedia-related work to do.) My aim here has been to give the other editors all that they may need in the way of sources and citations and quotations and content to work with, as I am a scholar of Pinter's work and criticism of it, and also an expert in bibliography, so that is my most useful contribution. FAR is not my cup of tea, and I am leaving to others that chore, if and when this article gets stable enough to be an FAC. It is not "patience" but time that I would need, and I just don't have it. I hope that, when that time comes, you will all understand my position on this matter. The FAR I leave to others. --NYScholar (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please scroll up to #Instability of this article for why I think that it is way too soon to be considering nominating this article on a relatively recently-deceased subject as an FAC and why changes occur in the content of this article and will continue to occur between now and at least 2010, when there are going to be 80th-birthday festivals and events in Pinter's honor (already scheduled). (Verb tenses, etc., still need updating, and reviews of these events get added after they are published.) I'm still "copy-editing" sections that I believe need further copy-editing with the help of other editors (in the next few days, weeks, months). --NYScholar (talk) 09:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Infobox image

Someone had placed an inline comment in the infobox that “a free image is needed in the infobox”. This is just plain false. On the contrary (as long as no free substitute exists or could be created) a non-free image is more acceptable in an infobox than any other place. Look at the infobox of most any organization or company and you will find a non-free logo; look at the infobox of most any play or movie and you will find non-free poster art; look at the infobox of most any album, CD or DVD and you will find non-free cover art. There is a well-established precedent that a non-free image used in the infobox fulfills the significance criterion by identifying the subject of the article. Anywhere else a strong argument must be given justifying how the use significantly increases readers’ understanding. —teb728 t c 10:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The photograph of the DVD cover was used in the section that discusses it; I don't know who removed it or when. I'm resotring it in a moment. The photo image already exists in Wikipedia and should be in the proper section as an illustration, not in the infobox to illustrate what HP looked like. Another image can eventually be used for that. --NYScholar (talk) 10:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I restored the image to the section where it had been for months; again, I don't know how, when, why, or by whom it was removed. Its image page contains the fair use rationale for its use both here and in the article on the lecture, Art, Truth and Politics. --NYScholar (talk) 10:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The rationale for using the DVD cover pertains to its use both in the article on the Lecture and in the section of this article on the Lecture. --NYScholar (talk) 10:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The photographic image removed apparently comes from the Nobel Prize official website and that is copyrighted and its images cannot be reproduced without written permission of the Nobel Foundation; please see my user page subsection discussing that issue; it goes back several years. The same image (perhaps w/ a diff. name) has been removed for copyright violations before. Its use is not within fair use. There are many free images of Harold Pinter taken during his lifetime; one has to find one and upload it with proper licensing and fair use rationales if needed (if not free) to Wikipedia. The male.svg photo says that a free photo is needed. Please see the policy in image use. WP:IUP, particularly WP:IUP#Fair use images. --NYScholar (talk) 10:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The DVD cover is not acceptable in the Nobel Lecture section, for the section is perfectly understandable without it, and furthermore there is no critical commentary on the cover. Conversely the Nobel lecture photo is acceptable in the infobox to identify the subject of the article (as long as no free substitute exists). But I am perfectly satisfied with your substitute, but please notice it is just as non-free/fair use as mine. I considered uploading the same photo, but decided not to because I could not identify the author/copyright owner. In any case the DVD cover has to go.

(By the way, according to the Nobel website, they do not own the portrait—not that it would affect fair use anyway.)

If you don’t believe what I say on fair use law and Wikipedia policy, ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't believe what you say regarding Wikipedia policy in general; I don't agree with your assessment that the photo of the DVD of the Nobel Lecture is not acceptable. I see no problem with it as an illustration of what the cover of the DVD looks like. There is no policy requiring that there be critical commentary on the cover per se; the critical commentary is on the Lecture that is on the DVD, as shown. That is what is discussed; and the DVD itself is critically discussed, by virtue of saying that it does not include the introduction by David Hare in the TV broadcast by More 4. I know that because I have watched both [I was in Stockholm in the audience of Pinter's Lecture on the 3 screens at the Swedish Academy, and I watched the More 4 broadcast, which is accessible on the internet later; the content of the DVD is the subject of this article section's critical commentary; its difference from the More 4 broadcast is also pointed out by sources cited. On this basis, I am restoring the long-standing image in this section (click on the image page for its history). As I said earlier, I do not know who removed it in the first place or why that person did. --NYScholar (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC); updated. --NYScholar (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right that policy does not require critical commentary on a non-free image in so many words. It does require, however, that “its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Use of the cover image is not necessary for readers’ understanding of the section. It is merely decorative, an illustration of what the cover of the DVD looks like. —teb728 t c 06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the identification of the photographer as a Corbis photographer, and the information that I have since found that it is not licensed to be "royalty-free", I think it doubtful that we can use the infobox photographic image w/o permission of Corbis (which costs money). I've updated the description/fair use ratonale on its image file page.

Nevertheless, I do thank you for your thoughtful consideration and replies. Maybe something for the infobox will work. --NYScholar (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no doubt that your infobox image is fair use. But if you are concerned that Corbis will be losing royalties on our use of it, how about switching back to my image. It is equally fair-use, and it is owned by Illuminations, which is not in the business of selling it as an image. —teb728 t c 06:40, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained why the image of Pinter's Nobel Lecture [on Illuminations DVD] is in the section of this article discussing it; it was fine there; you keep reverting it. I do not think any portion of it belongs in Pinter's infobox; administrators removed it in the past from the infobox. I've already explained that. Why are you still reverting? It contains the name "Illuminations" of the distributor of Pinter's Nobel Lecture Art, Truth and Politics, which was screened publicly only for the first time in the United States on 2 May 2009, as stated. That is educational information, and justifies showing what is being referred to: that particular filmed version of the Lecture on DVD. I see no justification for your continual removal of the image. It is within fair use and remains as an image in Wikipedia; its fair use rationales (both of them) passed muster quite some time ago, as being in keeping with criterion 8 and the other criteria for fair use. Please stop removing the image from the section of this article where it pertains directly. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Updated:) If you have a dispute, please file it through proper protocol and place the appropriate templates on the image file page, as they direct. Right now, there are no templates of that kind disputing this image on that page: please click on it and read the fair use rationales and the licensing template info. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

teb728, a discussion of NYScholar's understanding of fair use and WP image policy is ongoing here, and you can comment. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Canvassing. Thank you. If anyone has a dispute with a particular image's fair use rationale, he or she can file it through the appropriate protocols. Right now, there is no dispute on that particular image file page and no reason to delete it from this article section listed in its fair use rationale. Thanks. Please see my own talk page and my comments already in the section that the above user has linked for my position on Ssilvers' in my view outrageous attempt to "ban" me from editing this article, as well as the one initiated by the other editor listed there. And please stop making this article the nexus for personal feuds. Thank you. See WP:NPA. --NYScholar (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I posted a reply to your 12:20, 25 June 2009 post (about the DVD cover) between that and your next post (about the infobox image). I thought you would see it there; it appears I was wrong, sorry. I copy it here for your review.

You are right that policy does not require critical commentary on a non-free image in so many words. It does require, however, that “its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.” Use of the cover image is not necessary for readers’ understanding of the section. It is merely decorative, an illustration of what the cover of the DVD looks like.

In response to your more recent posts: You say that DVD image contains the name “Illuminations”, but it is not legible even at 500% magnification. Even if it were legible, the fact that Illuminations is the distributor could be stated in plain text, as could anything else the DVD image might convey; the image is not needed for readers' understanding. When you say an administrator removed the image from the infobox, I assume you mean this removal on 18 July 2007. As Quadell explained at User talk:Quadell/Archive 29#Image query, the reason why the image could not be used at that time was that inasmuch as Pinter was still alive, a free replacement could be created. He was correct at that time, but Pinter is now dead. (Now I understand the reason for the inline comment: it was a relic from before his death.) —teb728 t c 05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use and WP non-free image policy

Let me try to explain the basics of fair use and en.Wikipedia's non-free content policy, because I believe you are not understanding what Jez, teb, sarcasticidealist and others have been saying. Please bear with me: Fair use is an *exception* to U.S. copyright law (U.S. copyright law applies to en.Wikipedia for various legal reasons). This means that even if the copyright holder does *not* wish their copyrighted property to be displayed, an image can sometimes be used under the legal doctrine of *fair use*. So, all "fair use" images" are copyrighted, and the fact that they are copyrighted and that we have not been given permission to use them is a given. It doesn't matter what the copyright holder wants, it matters whether or not, under the law, the image can be used *anyway* under the fair use doctrine. Now, to qualify as fair use, the law says that an image must satisfy a "balancing test" where several factors need to be "balanced" to judge whether the use is fair or not. The factors involved include the following: 1. Is the image used for commercial gain? In the case of Wikipedia, it is not used for personal gain, so that is a big factor in favor of allowing images to be used here. 2. Is the image being used for an educational purpose? Again, this is a big factor in favor of use on Wikipedia. 3. Will use of the work interfere with the copyright holder's commercial opportunities? If a low-resolution (small) copy of the image is used, it is generally held that the use will not interfere with the copyright holder's rights. This is because the image would not be of high enough quality to print and sell as, for example, the cover of a birthday card or some other commercial product. 4. Has the image been previously widely published? If the image is, for example, a publicity shot, then it has already been widely distributed, so the use copyright holder would not be able to complain that the image has never been seen before. This is part of the discussion as to whether or not the use of the image would hurt the copyright holder's value in the image. Now, even if an image could be used by a non-profit educational website such as en.Wikipedia under the copyright laws, Wikipedia community has decided that this standard is not tough enough. First of all, we want to encourage the use of free images. Second, the Wikipedia community wants to be very conservative and stay far away from the line drawn by the fair use balancing test, described above. Third, Wikipedia's policy is to avoid embarrasing or harassing living persons. See WP:BLP. So, taking all three of these reasons into account, the en.Wikipedia community created the non-free content policy. That policy has, as you know, 10 criteria, and, unlike the copyright law's exception for fair use, ALL of the 10 criteria of the Non-free content policy must be satisfied. So, the bottom line is very simple: Does an image satisfy each of the 10 criteria. It is completely irrelevant, and it is always true, that the image is under copyright and that the copyright holder does not wish us to use it. If they wished us to use it, they could license us to do so, and then we would not need to consider the non-free image policy. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:26, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to be Sarcasticidealist, and I approve this message. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright restrictions on Pinter's Archive materials, including the photograph in question

[Do not delete other editor's headings. Thank you.--NYScholar (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

I do appreciate your taking so much of your time above, Ssilvers. But (1) I already understand the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law, and (2) what people here do not seem willing to accept is that the [copied image of the] photograph in question comes from Harold Pinter's personal archive which was placed on a copyright-protected webpage on his official website and then that archive was sold to the British Library (BL), where it is housed in the Modern Literary Manuscripts Division. I have already posted the copyright policy stated by the BL in its "Help for Researchers" section and placed that both in a content endnote and in the EL section for ease of finding. Harold Pinter had already placed a strict restriction forbidding the copying (including downloading digital files of them/uploading those files/scans) of any materials in his BL Archive without his permission and the estate has the same restriction. The BL fair use exception relates only to researchers (photo)copying a document for their own "individual" and personal research use (not publication on the internet) and, if the copyright owner (Pinter still and Pinter's estate as his personal representative) restricts copying, no one can (photo)copy anything even for personal research use without written permission from the estate, in this case Antonia Fraser, his widow. (cont.)

Further discussion

Any kind of publication of these materials (including photographs in his albums, programmes in his scrapbooks, his copies of materials in his Archive--now consisting of approx. 150 boxes of manuscripts, [20,000] letters, e-mail messages, and these other kinds of photographic materials, images,programmes, publicity photographs, press clippings (with his handwriting on them in many cases), etc.) are not permitted at all without express written permission. There is no "fair use" operating in this instance beyond what the British Library defines regarding these particular properties still copyrighted properties of Harold Pinter and his estate. It is the restrictions that he placed on the use of the materials in this Archive that restrict their use beyond any other kind of restriction. Copying (downloading and then uploading) such restricted materials to the internet is explicitly forbidden by the terms of the sale of the materials to the British Library. [E.g., Even for its own exhibits of sample manuscripts and letters from his Archive done during his lifetime, in each instance the BL would have required his written permission/stated agreement to put any of it on public display; the estate (operating on behalf of copyright owner Harold Pinter--for at least 70 years beyond the date of his death, 24 Dec. 2008, to 2078/9--now has the purview to decide what can be placed on public display in the BL exhibition spaces.] (cont.)

As one who just spent the past two weeks (as well as time from 1994 until now) doing research on this Archive, I can tell you that every instance in which I published any document from that Archive was the result of seeking and obtaining his written permission. If he did not want something quoted and hence in that manner published, I withheld it and did not quote from or publish it. (I had copies that he permitted me to have for purposes of individual research and personal study, but some of the material in the copies could not, without his written permission, be quoted in publications and thus distributed to others (publicly, publicized, made public, published). (cont.)

The same restrictions exist with perhaps even greater stringency now that he is dead, because one has to initiate with his agent (representing his estate, its executor[s], including Antonia Fraser) any such request for permission to make (photo)copies, scans, digital copies of anything in the Archive, including parts of his website that came from his personal archive first loaned and then sold to the British Library, which defers to his estate any and all such copyright matters. Whereas I used to work with him directly about such matters, for example, there is now an additional level (the agent) to contact initially. These are extremely restricted materials and the "fair use" concepts that you are citing with regard to other kinds of less restricted items (not materials in a BL Manuscripts Room Archive) do not pertain to them, because additional restrictions (rights) of an author/copyright owner with regard to such materials trump them. The linked BL webpage on copyright policy relating to manuscripts and related materials in archives that it owns (and those on loan)--including photographs, programmes, etc.--provided in it "Help for Researchers" section--makes that crystal clear; as it states, with regard to these highly specialized matters concerning "fair use", it complies with the Berne convention, of which both the UK and the U.S. are signatories.[See [[The Harold Pinter in the British Library#External links], where I've placed the EL, and current note 36 in this main article. --NYScholar (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)] (cont.)

In addition to concerns of general human courtesy, from the perspective of Wikipedia as an entity, one does not want to involve Wikipedia in the kinds of legal actions or law suits that can result from violating such copyrights as those defined in the BL informaton. --NYScholar (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you are totally wrong (as everyone keeps trying to explain to you here and on every forum that you brought the David Baron photo to), and it strains the bounds of good faith for you to keep saying this. No one disputes that the images are under copyright. However, one can use them if one satisfies the exemption to the copyright law provided under Template:UnitedStatesCode of the U.S. Code, a federal law that controls all claims of fair use to images in en.Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the British Library, Harold Pinter's estate, you or anyone else says about it. It doesn't matter what they write on their website or how many (c) symbols they stick on it. The images can be used if one uses them within the boundaries of section 107 and the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. I'm afraid that even though you don't believe us, you are just dead wrong. There is no other way to put it. That doesn't mean that all the images satisfy the 10 criteria of the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. But it does mean that your arguments about the BL and the estate are irrelevant. Also, *please* stop making new headings every time you post. Related discussions should be kept together under the same heading, unless the discussion gets long, and then a new heading is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

One: if I want to make a new heading for my comment, I will do that. Two: you have clearly not bothered to read the BL Copyright policy statements, which you need to read before you tell me that I am "wrong". I think I know what I am talking about; and it certainly does matter what a copyright holder's rights of restricting materials are. I've already explained in responses on my talk page why the criteria are not met in relation to that particular photograph, but your claims above go way beyond that, and I am addressing (in my section heading) the larger issues pertaining to material taken from Pinter's website (featuring his copyright notices) and posted on the internet (with Creative Commons licenses), which is not "personal" "research" use or use for individual published criticism. Wikipedia is now using a Creative Commons license and none of us is able to claim that we are individually publishing criticism in it. None of us is copyrighting our own contributions under our own name; we are relinguishing them to Wikipedia. That is not "individual research use" or "personal research"; that is publication on the internet, distribution on the internet in a collective authorship situation, and not individual research, criticism, and publication.

The BL and Harold Pinter's copyrights (in force) restrict that kind of usage, as the copyright policy in the BL "Help for researchers" explains; it sets forth general copyright policy that pertains to materials published in the UK and used by people in a U.S. internet site. I suggest that you consult it and stop arguing with me about this. Just read what it says. Thank you. (cont.)

Wikipedia does not make laws; it interprets and observes them. WP:IUP is when "in doubt" remove copyright violations from Wikipedia (WP:IUP (i.e., play it safe). I leave it to Wikipedia to decide what it wants to do in each instance. But I will not let the false statements in the presentation of what constitutes fair use in relation to his personal archive go by without my referring readers to the BL copyright policy "Help for researchers" page pertaining to materials still under Harold Pinter's copyright (and administered by his estate). --NYScholar (talk) 21:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, BL and Harold Pinter's copyrights *claim* to restrict our usage, but U.S. law says "too bad". I can write on my website: "NYScholar may not use the word 'hello'", but you don't have to obey my website. en.Wikipedia does not need to obey the BL or Pinter websites. It needs to obey U.S. law, which says that people can distribute images on the internet as long as they are fair use. Now, I'm tired of repeating this over and over. By the way, I must repeat what User:Shell Kinney tried to tell you many times: if you want people to read your talk page posts, you should keep them concise. Your extremely long and repetitive arguments are beyond the patience of most readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, not to the subject. So the Pinter estate may own the physical photograph but not the copyright. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Further discussion

Pinter's estate controls the rights to reproduce the photograph that he owns in his personal archive (now in the BL); it is still not clear who the photographer is (that person has rights too, whether alive or dead, as that person's estate would control that person's rights if dead; the photograph is not in the public domain. People here are acting as if it is. It is not. One needs to find out who the photographer is to be able to see what copyright pertains in the photographer; both Pinter's copyright to his website (which posts the photograph) and his copyright (ownership) of his personal archive in which it resided when posted, subsequently sold to the British Library, which asserts the ongoing need to protect Pinter's surviving copyright on materials in his Archive, and the photographer's rights pertain. Please read the Copyright statement; it pertains both in the UK and the US, which are parties to the same Berne copyright conventions and treaties and their updates. Wikipedia explicitly states that one cannot simply copy photographs from websites because one wants to do so; I have the same doubts about the current image in the infobox. One needs to meet the critera for fair use and stay within WP:IUP in each case. I don't know that these images (1 in infobox and 1 of him "Alias David Baron" do that. We'll see. If no one else objects, it may be that they stay. But that does not resolve very complex matters relating to making digital copies of photographs from websites without permission of photographers who made them or website owners who posted them, downloading them to one's computer, and then uploading them to Wikipedia. It still seeems a very grey area to me with respect to fair use; Wikipedia is not "individual research" or "personal use" or "personal study" or individual "criticism"; it is an internet-based non-copyright-protected online encyclopedia [rarely "criticism" at all; but often "biography" or "definition"], giving out creative commons licensing for other people's properties and claiming that there is no commercial conflict (there is a lot of plagiarism going on throughout Wikipedia). How do Wikipedia editors know that if they don't know the identity of the photographer or how many royalties a photographer may not receive as a result of Wikipedia's posting of his or her work? (I see very little lower resolution if any in the versions uploaded from the website(s) [and I am seeing them on a Dell Ultrascan monitor, though not in HD] and those copied in Wikipedia; they look the same to me as far as resolution goes. They seem quite high resolution.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW: The same photograph that is currently in the infobox is one of two photographic images posted in the Britannica Web article on Harold Pinter; the version I uploaded comes from a Canadian U website, but it probably took it from Britannica. Britannica gets permissions to post such images and has a caption with the photographer's name, the copyright notice, and Corbis as the photography agency source. The photograph is listed clearly at Corbis as one that is subject to royalties (including for use on the internet), and it is used in several British newspapers articles about Pinter that I have seen (in the same exact resolution it seems to me). I don't see how this use in Wikipedia is not a commercial conflict with the photographer (whose copyright information/credit and name with Corbis Ssilvers removed from the caption). Corbis requires that the caption include the credit and copyright notice. It is not sufficient to have it in the image page in Wikipedia; it's supposed to be obvious in the caption, according to Corbis, its direct source, the agent for the photographer in this case. --NYScholar (talk) 22:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Length of comments: I found Ssilvers' comments quite lengthy; the length of mine is proportional to the number of inaccuracies that I found in those comments. I'll use a "hide" (if I can find it) template to have them take up less space (later). --NYScholar (talk) 01:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing and style transition

Just a heads' up: Over the next few days, some editors will be attempting to change the referencing style in this article to a simpler system, eliminating the parenthetical referencing and using WP:CITEs that are easier for non-academic readers to follow. We will also make WP:MOS and stylistic changes intended to improve the flow of the article, decrease redundancies and WP:OVERLINKing and make the article more accessible to most readers. These ideas were discussed in the recent peer review and over time on this talk page. We hope that User:NYScholar will step back from the article for a few days and refrain from reverting this work while it is in progress. I am posting here, because NYS has asked me not to post on his/her talk page. Many thanks. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Good stuff. I will look at this tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: re "We hope that User:NYScholar will step back from the article for a few days and refrain from reverting this work while it is in progress" . . .

I note that on his talk page NYS now says (04.50, 28 June): "I will be stepping back (topic banned/community banned or not) and not editing articles in Wikipedia. I think that I devoted far more time and energy to Wikipedia than most people (though not everyone) seems to appreciate. I don't demand appreciation, but I also don't tolerate abuse." [emphasis added] Wingspeed (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wingspeed, please also note this from NYS's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I understand that a new version of this article, which is being worked on offline with the goals described above, will be ready about Wednesday. Please wait on further changes, everyone, until that is done. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update - We are still on target to post the new version on Wednesday evening. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Archive box

I have added a search facility to the archive box, which may aid finding specific discussions where suggestions or comments may be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Have also archived older, now dead threads up until early May 2009. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Updates on referencing transition

We have put up a new version of the page, but we are not finished converting the referencing style. Please, everyone, be patient while Tim riley, Jezhotwells and I work to complete the transition. Then, we will need to go back and replace more bibliographic detail in some references. We will give another update tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Will hold off. Only just noticed this message. Wingspeed (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well, even though we are not finished converting the references, everyone should feel free to contribute. Just note that I will be simplifying the references, section-by-section, as I have done to the first couple of sections. If you are doing some major edits, put an 'in use' or 'wait' tag on the article, please. Happy editing, everyone! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. I am wondering if we can split off the obituaries section and perhaps cull the ELs, which are rather too much IMHO. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that all the references should be combined, so that there is just one alphabetical list, and a reader can find the refs. Many are repeated in the footnotes and do not need to also be in the list of references. Also, we need to convert them to bullet points and delete all the unnecessary junk in them. Why don't you go ahead and cull the ELs (yes, too many!), but I'd say leave the obit list until I have time to alphabetize all the refs into one list? Sounds OK? ALSO, note that I have left hidden comments, mostly asking for page numbers. Can you chase any of them down? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got Billington & Gussow so will do. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now converted the refs to bullet-points and begun alphabetizing them. The list of refs probably needs further weeding out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggesting EL that might be removed

Ssilvers asked me to stop by and the first thing I noticed was the notes/references/EL taking up half again as much space as the article. I noticed that the reflist is supposed to be a 2 column affair, but its not doing that for me - is that a me thing or does everyone only get one column?

Anyways, when thinking about how the bottom might be cleaned up a bit, I noticed there are some really fantastic external links but they're being drowned out by some that aren't as unique. Following is my take on what might be pruned out:

These links appear to contain brief biographies; though some are at important publishers or written by important people, they probably don't meet the criteria of significantly enhancing the article.

• Harold Pinter at the British Film Institute's Screenonline
• "Harold Pinter" at Faber and Faber
• "Harold Pinter" at Grove Press
• "Harold Pinter" in Books and Writers
• "Harold Pinter" in Contemporary Writers
• "Harold Pinter" in the Literary Encyclopedia
• Harold Pinter memorial and photographs at Findagrave.com.

Other's that might be trimmed out

• "Harold Pinter" at the Stop the War Coalition - links to search with three articles; not sure why this is here
• Harold Pinter in ZSpace - are these supposed to be articles written by Pinter? Is that verifiable?
• Harold Pinter portrait by artist Joe Hill - not certain that this adds anything to our understanding
• "Harold Pinter Tribute" Announcement of A Tribute to Harold Pinter - just as it says
• "Pinter Archive Saved for the Nation" Press release - should be moved to references if used, otherwise this fact should be in the article, not an external link
• Pinter at the BBC - this is a link to the internet archive; fine when we have to dig out a reference that went dead, but not appropriate here
• "Pinter on War". Red Pepper Feb. 2004 - brief glimpse at his poetry; not certain this adds a great deal
• Premio Europa Per Il Theatro – X Edizione - Symposium events, if this is used to verify his participation it should be used as a reference, not here

So that's my first pass. Are there any here that are significant for reasons I've missed? Just wanted to dip my toe in consensus before ripping a section apart wholesale :D Shell ^babelfish 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Shell, refs show alright in 2 cols for me (Firefox on Windows XP). Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented most of these. I kept the findagrave and the image of the painting, since we don't have enough images in the article, but I got rid of some others that seemed redundant with the refs or otherwise unnecessary. Jez, Tim, Shell: please look at what I've done and adjust if you disagree with any of the changes. Shell, I use Internet Explorer, and I never see columns in reflists, so it seems to be an IE thing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now put the entire list of "Works cited and further reading" into one alphabetical list, combining all the little sections that were there before, but it needs to be split into two parts: the works cited (which I would call "References") and the Further Reading (then, we probably need to cut down the list of "further reading" to the best sources). I have been working steadily on this article for a week. Can someone else help with this task? Also there is still a lot of extranneous information and formatting in the refs. Can someone please help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be there butt probaly not for another 24 hrs or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime, I've formatted them more consistently. I'll let you break the list into the two lists tomorrow: 1. References currently used in the article; and 2. Further reading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Sources: Billington, Michael. Harold Pinter. and Gussow, Mel. Conversations with Pinter

As far as I can ascertain all page refs. in the above two works check out fine. I meant to complete this earlier. Basically I think the article is in pretty good shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

MiszaBot

I have added the MiszaBot to archive this page, set at seven days with a minimum of five threads to remain. Please revert if you disagree. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Can't we

Just clear out that mess in the middle or at least have a single list of his plays? -114.91.67.188 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers narrative discussions to lists in articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is an adequate list in the Pinter navbox at the bottom also in the linked article Works of Harold Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Addition of six Italian works to works cited

I reverted these as an unnecessary addition, not bringing any further advantage to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this a biography or a Wiki entry?

I am fairly new to editing but reading this, my immediate reaction is that a Wikipedia entry should be about the salient facts of someone's life, and an analysis of reasons for their marriage break-down, quotes about their love of cricket etc, are inappropriate.

I understand it's important to include "Pinteresque" quotes, of course. However, personal comments are used in a full biography to convey the spirit of the person and something of their personality - which is not the objective of an encyclopeadia entry.

Because too much space is spent exploring his personality, the important facts and figures, which is what most people come here for, get lost. I personally think this needs really stringent editing - although the other material is good and would have a place on another site.Marisa Wright (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marisa, I am inclined to agree - BUT this artcile has for long suffered from the obsessive "ownership" of a now indefinitely blocked editor who resisted minor changes and and impor=sed an impenetrable citation style. (If you have time to spare try looking through teh archives of the past eighteen months!).

I think we need to move carefully to avoid the whole article falling apart. There probably is too much personal detail but some of the personal detail, eg the Bakewll affair, realtionship with son, Viv Merchant, Hackney downs School, cricket does strongly inform the context of Pinter's writing. It would be good if proposed chnages were discussed here before being implemneted. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit have split the lead into a large number of separate paragraphs. If you care to read WP:MOS, four would be the maximum for this length of article and single sentence paragraphs are not acceptable. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I disagree. Most high-quality Wikipedia bio articles contain information about the person's personal life that are of interest to general readers. If secondary sources focus on "an analysis of reasons for their marriage break-down, quotes about [his] love of cricket, etc." then we must report this in a balanced way. Please be careful with what you are doing, as many of us have worked hard to rescue this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Barbara Stanton affair

This needs to be added, and this reference contains other relevant material: [7]. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, the Bakewell play directly informed his writing, we don't need to catalogue every person he went to bed with. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent sockpuppet edits

I have reverted the recent addition of unnecessary minutiae and over referencing by apparent sock-puppets of User:NYScholar. I am examining all of these edits to salvage any useful material, have also pruned the post death memorial section. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Over a period of one year, despite statements made on this current talk page and archived ones, the above editor (Jezhotwells) did not actually return to examine "all of these edits" mentioned above and to make still-needed corrections of errors (some involving living persons, such as Antonia Fraser, Pinter's second wife and widow. These errors and other errors in citations are now corrected; see editing history for details. For further guidance regarding Wikipedia style options and recommendations, see WP:MOS and WP:OWN. (cont.)

Have checked posting in Firefox as well as IE for legibility, which is now improved. See templates at top of this talk page. See archived talk pages (some material in them was improperly deleted). (cont.)

The editor mentioned above (NYScholar: [8]) was improperly banned without an actual consensus of "uninvolved" editors and that editor's editing privileges should be restored. The editor has explained many times that e-mail with Wikipedia is not an option, so directing the editor to use it is disingenuous. There is no way to appeal the ban otherwise. But the ban and the non-neutral description of it in the list of banned editors needs review. (cont.)

(Warning to all readers of this article:) Since Harold Pinter's death (24 December 2008), a handful of Wikipedia editors have made it impossible to correct errors of fact (content) and format in this article. If the changes are reverted, the article will revert back to incorrect information. (None of those editors is an expert on Harold Pinter and they are unable to recognize their own errors.) Wikipedia's editing policies require accurate information and fully verified citations in articles in which living persons are mentioned. If readers are new users of Wikipedia or newcomers to this article, please see BLP template above, and see WP:LOP for further guidance before making changes. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 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)

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: [9]: 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 tRiley'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)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2012 (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)

Citation 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)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2012 (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)

Images

Sadly, this article has very few images. Can anyone do anything about this before it goes on the main page? Most of the images were deleted at FAC because of, IMO, overzealous and misinformed enforcement of WP:NFCC#8. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any specific instances where another image would aid the encyclopaedic content of the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. For starters, I would replace the images of Pinter as a young actor and in his last role, or from the Nobel Prize broadcast. It would be a great aid if there were images depicting performances (or just programme covers) of his most famous works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC) [archived manually since the archive bot has not been functioning for well over a year apparently. --208.125.67.1 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (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)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2012 (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)