Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:17, 6 July 2009

Harold Pinter received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

	Harold Pinter has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 30, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed October 9, 2007 Good article nominee Listed June 25, 2009 Peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Poetry Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of poetry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Theatre High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Misplaced Pages. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

(2 Jul. 2006 – 3 Feb. 2007) (19 Feb. 2007 – 20 Aug. 2007) (30 Aug. 2007 – 11 Sept. 2007) (12 Sept. 2007 – 22 May 2008 (3 Sept. 2008 – 7 Jan. 2009) (6 Jan. 2009 – 12 Jan. 2009) (12 Jan. 2009 – )

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 (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, Misplaced Pages 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

Misplaced Pages's Manual of Style and WP:CITE make it very clear that the current "article style" (including its "citation style") is acceptable in Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages "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.

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 Misplaced Pages: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

Note that MLA Style for dates in parenthetical references and in bibliographical entries calls for abbreviations of months; many articles in Misplaced Pages 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. MLA Style of punctuating titles is more traditional than Misplaced Pages's. The adjustment is made to be consistent with WP:MOS for titles within external links. --NYScholar (talk) 00:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC) .) --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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages (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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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)

Peer review

The first part of the peer review is at Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 . When checked at Bibliography_for_Harold_Pinter this is given as The link is 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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); Misplaced Pages'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 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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages; 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 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, as they are owned by the photographers who posted them there. Photographs in albums that are now part of the BL Archive 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages) 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages notwithstanding its continued copyright. WP:NFCC lists the criteria for using copyrighted works, like this one, on Misplaced Pages. If you believe that this image cannot be used on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 · 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 Misplaced Pages, even without permission of the copyright holder. Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages has created the non-free content criteria, which dictate when Misplaced Pages 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. 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 ; 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 Misplaced Pages or another one). Using it in Misplaced Pages is not within fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law (or international copyright law). Misplaced Pages 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 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)

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 , 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)

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 Misplaced Pages if Pinter's agent representing his estate sees the use of this image here and decides to contest it. Editors have to protect Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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". (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. 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 want to shorten the article, removing the redundant section of Obituaries and relataed articles is one way to do it. (cont.)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 Misplaced Pages). (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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages, 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. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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, Misplaced Pages 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." --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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 them by moving them to content endnotes (e.g., "See", "Qtd. in", "See also", and Cf., and so on) . 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. Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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 (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, Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 , 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. --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 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)

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-Misplaced Pages-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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages policy, ask at Misplaced Pages:Media copyright questions. —teb728 t c 11:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't believe what you say regarding Misplaced Pages 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

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 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 Misplaced Pages; 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/archive29#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.Misplaced Pages'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.Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.Misplaced Pages under the copyright laws, Misplaced Pages community has decided that this standard is not tough enough. First of all, we want to encourage the use of free images. Second, the Misplaced Pages community wants to be very conservative and stay far away from the line drawn by the fair use balancing test, described above. Third, Misplaced Pages's policy is to avoid embarrasing or harassing living persons. See WP:BLP. So, taking all three of these reasons into account, the en.Misplaced Pages 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

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 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.)

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, 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. (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, 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., 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 Misplaced Pages as an entity, one does not want to involve Misplaced Pages 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 17 U.S.C. § 107 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that controls all claims of fair use to images in en.Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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.)

Misplaced Pages does not make laws; it interprets and observes them. WP:IUP is when "in doubt" remove copyright violations from Misplaced Pages (WP:IUP (i.e., play it safe). I leave it to Misplaced Pages 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.Misplaced Pages 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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. It still seeems a very grey area to me with respect to fair use; Misplaced Pages is not "individual research" or "personal use" or "personal study" or individual "criticism"; it is an internet-based non-copyright-protected online encyclopedia , 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 Misplaced Pages). How do Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages's posting of his or her work? (I see very little lower resolution if any in the versions uploaded from the website(s) and those copied in Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages; 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 Misplaced Pages. I think that I devoted far more time and energy to Misplaced Pages than most people (though not everyone) seems to appreciate. I don't demand appreciation, but I also don't tolerate abuse." 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)

Update 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)

• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Language and literature good articles
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• GA-Class Poetry articles
• Mid-importance Poetry articles
• WikiProject Poetry articles
• GA-Class Theatre articles
• High-importance Theatre articles
• WikiProject Theatre articles