Talk:Peter Sellers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 08:57, 16 March 2014 editSchroCat (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers112,887 edits →Valuable impression about his personality and desires ← Previous edit		Revision as of 10:19, 16 March 2014 edit undoDr. Blofeld (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors636,182 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 69:		Line 69:
	:::::Maybe Sellers was aware that Winston Churchill called Wingate "A man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny." There was also a BBC movie . But I doubt if the film Sellers was thinking about would have been a comedy. --] (]) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)		:::::Maybe Sellers was aware that Winston Churchill called Wingate "A man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny." There was also a BBC movie . But I doubt if the film Sellers was thinking about would have been a comedy. --] (]) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
	::::::"Maybe"? "I doubt"? Your opinion on the facts is as irrelevant as mine or anyone else's here, as it's POV and utterly unconnected to any material that will get near the article. I have no idea why the BBC film also has any relevance: Sellers was unconnected to it and Lewis didn't mention it, so why is that of relevance here? - ] (]) 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)		::::::"Maybe"? "I doubt"? Your opinion on the facts is as irrelevant as mine or anyone else's here, as it's POV and utterly unconnected to any material that will get near the article. I have no idea why the BBC film also has any relevance: Sellers was unconnected to it and Lewis didn't mention it, so why is that of relevance here? - ] (]) 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

			Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks.♦ ] 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 10:19, 16 March 2014

Peter Sellers is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 2, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed
August 19, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured 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: Actors and Filmmakers

	Biography portal 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
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Comedy Mid‑importance

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

James Bond (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Radio Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Radio, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Radio-related subjects 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.RadioWikipedia:WikiProject RadioTemplate:WikiProject RadioRadio

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do List:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Create: Missing years and articles in radio, National Association of Radio Distress-Signalling and Infocommunications (Hungary)
Assess : Unassessed Radio articles; Unknown-importance Radio articles
Cleanup : Radio articles needing attention
Expand : Midweek Politics Bob Crane
Maintain : Portal:Radio
Stubs : Expand: Radio stubs
Verify : Unreferenced BLPs
Other : Collaboration of the Week:
Requests for Radio peer review:

Archives

Index

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Valuable impression about his personality and desires

The material below, which seemed to be offering some valuable insight into Sellers' mindset, has been deleted twice, claiming Sellers never got the part, and suggest discussing instead. However, whether he got the part is less important than that he wanted it "most of all." As it is, IMO, the article is overloaded with minutia and trivia, and more general details about Sellers such as these are useful. Feedback requested.

Sellers tried to play the part of Orde Charles Wingate, which he described in 1962 as "the film part I should like to play most of all." Sellers went to Israel and did his own research into Wingate's career. Lewis states a number of reasons why Sellers was attracted to Wingate, adding that he saw direct similarities between Wingate and Sellers:

"The enigma of Wingate, and the anger and questing which inspired him, make explicit the two strands of Sellers I've been drawing out: the reflectiveness (which was moody and mystical) and the rashness—Wingate had an impetuosity which must have seemed almost crazy. Sellers responded to the drama of a heroic career . . . and felt an affinity, too, with Wingate's maverick nature."

--Light show (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This is beyond trivia really. It's the opinion of a man who didn't meet Sellers, and comparing him to Wingate, another man neither he nor Sellers met! (BTW, if you add material,in future, please use the {{sfn}} template to ensure consistency). - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lewis is one of the most cited sources in the article. Why would his "opinion" be invalid now? --Light show (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

His outline of facts is cited: his opinion of Sellers's character is not. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Light show??♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

These seem like worthwhile edits to me. We should be concerned with the personality of Sellers. Insights into his personality provided by biographer Roger Lewis would seem worthy of our consideration for inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really: Lewis didn't meet either Sellers or Wingate, so his comparing the second hand opinions of others to force a third hand opinion doesn't add anything to our understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't make sense if he didn't meet him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can any of the editors who consider a cited author/biographer's "opinions" as invalid, please support it with guidelines? It seems that an "opinion" from a reliable source is an acceptable secondary source. Otherwise, we may have a few hundred thousand biographies that should be deleted. Maybe an RfC related to biographies and policies would be helpful. BTW, Lewis goes into more factual details about both Sellers and Wingate in his book, which is heavily relied on for the article. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the above is a good thing to put into a featured article, then you have no idea what quality content actually is. Despite the overlong quote, it focuses on a film that he didn't make: we've left out information about films he did make for reasons of clarity, and keeping the article readable, and you want to bloat it out with guesswork about Sellers's character from someone who never met him? If it had been one of Sellers's family or colleagues that made the connection then it would be a good post to raise, but from a total stranger? It's just not a very valid point to make. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For a 10,000-word bio with facts and quotes by everyone else but Sellers, a direct quote from him mentioning "the film part I should like to play most of all," is of value. But the quote needs context to have any meaning, therefore comments about that statement from one of his key biographers are logical to include. --Light show (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A quote about a film he didn't make is borderline boring and trivial (especially given the amount of his work we don't cover), but the over bloated nonsense that accompanies it? If you think that is a good way to approach quality articles, then it's no surprise you've never written and FA or GA. We've kept large block quotes from Sellers himself and one from Milligan, who probably knew and understood him better than anyone else. We certainly do not need trivial bollocks from someone who never met him, comparing him to someone else he never met. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A biographer is not a "total stranger". Roger Lewis seems to have reasonably good credentials in the area of writing biographies. There might seem to be traction in the reasoning that "he didn't meet him" but we need not omit reliably sourced material from a biography based on such reasoning. I think this material serves an encyclopedic purpose. The opinion that an acting role is "the film part I should like to play most of all" would seem to be potentially of interest to a reader. Perhaps some questions are left unanswered but I don't think this is "trivia". The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. But we are not responsible or answering all questions. The subject of this biography is an actor. The inclusion of the material under consideration can serve the valuable role of providing the reader with a jumping-off point for further research. In my opinion that purpose intrinsically would be of encyclopedic value. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lewis never met Sellers; he never met Wingate. He may well have an idea of Sellers's personality from others, buts it's still a second hand opinion. He has even less of a grasp of Wingate, and has never written about him, as far as I can see, so he is basing his opinion on rather shaky third hand gossip. The only truly factual and encyclopaedic information here is a) Sellers wanted to make a film about Wingate (and a quote about that); and b) He didn't make it. The rest is unencyclopaedic. Does the fact about Sellers not making a film need to go into an article which (by design) doesn't cover all the roles he did actually play? Not so much, no: it dips down to the levels of trivia in comparison. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Sellers was aware that Winston Churchill called Wingate "A man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny." There was also a BBC movie about him. But I doubt if the film Sellers was thinking about would have been a comedy. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Maybe"? "I doubt"? Your opinion on the facts is as irrelevant as mine or anyone else's here, as it's POV and utterly unconnected to any material that will get near the article. I have no idea why the BBC film also has any relevance: Sellers was unconnected to it and Lewis didn't mention it, so why is that of relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lewis, p. 67
Lewis, p 67

Categories: