Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:31, 6 September 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 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 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: Rod Serling The Howard Stern Show The History of Rock & Roll American Top 40; The Museum of Curiosity; Scott Mills (radio show)

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.

Milligan's comments to the press

EEng, you are edit warring: stop immediately and use the talk page to discuss and try and reach a consensus. As per WP:BRD, you should have done this some time ago, rather than try and force your preferred version on the page. Before you edit that phrase again (and I'll be happy to report your warring if you do), please outline why you consider your deletion to be improving the article in some way. I will also point out that leaving edit summaries like "angry tag-team ownership" is unlikely to put other editors in good humour, so try and keep a civil tongue in the discussion; similarly, when you accuse editors (me) of "cursing and swearing", please try and keep a little closer to the truth, rather than dip into falsehood to smaer by innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Innuendo is what we do best SchroCat seeing as we are a "music-hall comedy duo" . The editor is nothing but troublesome and should really go and find something else to do. Cassianto 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that personal attack, or the title of the sub-thread "157.1 A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination". It seems that incivility is the standard modus operandi here, rather than than something that has been reached through frustration. It's a shame this may have to go to AN - the dramah boards are always something to be avoided wherever possible. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that this passage --

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death, but he later stated that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

-- strongly implies that Milligan made this statement to the press. In fact, the source cited gives no context at all for Milligan's statement. I suggested two alternatives -- one which preserves both points but makes it clear they're not necessarily related:

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death, but he later told someone that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

-- and another with edit summary one possibility is to just omit the initially-too-upset bit -- I'm sure that's true of many around PS and not sure what it adds:

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan later said "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

These changes have been reverted several times, but unfortunately with only unhelpful edit summaries such as :

• You're obviously a stranger to BRD (as well as good grammar, good writing, precision and manners, but heigh ho
• ce - too awful to remain a blot here any longer
• Not an improvement
• boring

A recent message on my talk page read

• You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious!

It's not hard to see why I characterized this series of unexplained reversions as merely angry tag-team ownership. Nonetheless I still hope a substantive discussion can be had about which version is best, or to arrive at some fourth version which is better still. EEng (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. As for ANI, watch out for that boomerang!

If, as you claim, you are interested in getting the phrase right, why the muck-raking and pointy insults? Why not try and be constructive from the start and just deal with the issue in hand? Why didn't you come to the talk page instead of edit warring, and why didn't you take on board the comments about aspects of your edits not being an improvement? You may not like the one sentence in question, but it's a bloody big song and dance over nothing which could have been settled eons ago if you had discussed first and left the pointy comments out of the equation. Heigh ho. On to the matter at hand.

I'm not sure that it does suggest that what he was later talking to the press, but if you are reading it that way, then what would you suggest as an alternative? "he later told someone that", is poor, and I'm not sure we need to remove the preceding sentence about Milligan not speaking to the press—as I said in my edit summary: it's not an improvement. Two suggestions are below, which separate the two a little more and tweaks the language to be a little less suggestive.

1. Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death; he later said that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."'

2. Director Blake Edwards thought that "Peter was brilliant. He had an enormous facility for finding really unusual, unique facets of the character he was playing". Sellers's friend and Goon Show colleague Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death, Fellow Goon Harry Secombe said "I'm shattered. Peter was such a tremendous artist. He had so much talent, it just oozed out of him"; in dark humour, referring to the missed dinner the Goons had planned, he added, "Anything to avoid paying for dinner". Secombe later declared to journalists "Bluebottle is deaded now". Milligan later said that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

My preference is for the first, as it stops the chopping back and forth between the two Goons. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a one-way edit-war. There is nothing here to excuse the recent reverting, either. You both were edit-warring, and I almost reported it the other day. Don't edit war. Real simple. Doc talk 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits don't have to be discussed first. You (I'm speaking to both of you collectively) simply mass-reverted, without explanation, my initial changes, including such obviously appropriate ones as supplying a missing quote mark, and making a non-sentence into a sentence . The pointiness began with your summary For the hard of understanding so skip the lectures about civility, pointiness, and ANI. I have no worries along those line.

I think your version (2) is best. You could have just done that instead of repeatedly reverting to the original text which, I had said over and over, I felt was misleading. That would have resolved this immediately. EEng (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right: they don't have to be discussed first, but once your first edit was reverted, you should have come to the talk page, rather than try and force it, or a variant, back in. If you had come to the talk page at that point, there would have been no further reverting, and a possible change could have been discussed at that point, without all the brouhaha that followed. Your example above about a "non-sentence" is about adding a comma only (the "he" isn't needed in BrEng), and the remainder of the constructive edits were the addition of a closing speech mark. That's it. There were errors you introduced as well, and much of what you did was not an improvement.

You should have worries about incivility: your behaviour will lead you to ANI in future, I am sure of it (viz. this thread title, and this one, and your constant comments towards other editors in a derogatory manner. Referring to others as "angry tag-team ownership" just because they disagree with you is not helpful, nor is calling others a "music-hall comedy duo" . De-personalise your comments of someone will drag you to ANI – very happily I am sure. Hopefully our paths will not cross again, as I have not enjoyed the encounters so far.

I will tweak the text to version 2, but I am not sure it will stand the test of time: switching from Milligan to Secombe and back to Milligan is pointless, and avoids something that isn't really an issue (I still disagree with your misunderstanding of it here), and I suspect it will be changed back by a future editor. – SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New York Times obituary

The New York Times obituary as a reference was removed as "not needed". Is there a valid Misplaced Pages rule that demands it not be included? Are 319 references the maximal number, and 320 references excessive? Are book references preferred to newspaper references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1. See WP:BRD and don't re-revert: go to the talk page INSTEAD. I have put this back to the stable state before your warring.

2. See WP:LEAD. Citations are not needed in the lead, which summarises all the well-sourced information in the body. The additional citations are superfluous and, as per my edit summary, "not needed". - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Being bold is your rationale? Everyone is bold in every edit. You really should not cite essays as your reason for doing things. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no references in the lede ... err, except when others put them there. There are already two references in the lede. As a compromise I will remove the one from the lede and restore the other uses. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RAN, references in the lead are required for direct quotations, so those must include them. Otherwise, I agree that they shouldn't be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is edit warring: discuss FIRST. The additional refs are pointless and not needed. The information in the article is already well-sourced and additional refs are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

FFS, why the fuck are you edit warring, rather than discussing? You do know the edit warring policies also refer to you as well, and that you are it some higher form of editor? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong citation format, wrong date format, unnecessary and overlong quote, cutting across an existing citation. I could go on, but you've shown little interest in the collegiate approach to editing so far. Your last (partial) revert was outside policy, as well as being poor and not necessary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, look in the mirror. I am sorry you find it tiresome to remove my reference. BTW, I am not edit warring, I am compromising. You are citing an essay as to why you are removing it. I understand the feelings of article ownership and the feeling that something you have worked on is blemished when someone else adds to it. I am not adding an extra dab of paint onto the Mona Lisa, I am adding a good reference for his death, a reference from one of the most highly cited reference works used in Misplaced Pages. The only reason I can see for you removing a high quality reference, is that you did not add it, or you think references from books, specifically books you have read and cherished, are more reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is no reason for you to say: "why the fuck", keep it polite. Everyone thinks they are being reasonable and the other person is doing the edit-warring whenever they add or delete something they do not like. Collaborative editing requires compromises, not complete reversals. Writing not necessary as your rationale is subjective and not policy based, you feel it is not needed even if you cannot cite a policy. We need to find objective reasons for removing it such as: the source is not reliable, the source has incorrect information, sources farther away the date of the event are more reliable, etc. Otherwise it gives the appearance you are removing it because you did not add it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cut it how you like, you are edit warring: I asked you not to add a pointless reference (especially one done so bloody awfully). You didn't bother to discuss, you added without comment, and it's not a compromise: it's still a poor addition forced in by your edit warring. Your slide into uncivil, unfounded and frankly ridiculous accusations of OWN are noted, laughed at and dismissed for the the pathetic rubbish they are. The information you added one of the citations to is already supported by a more reliable source than a newspaper, and the other by a widely-reviewed biography. Pointless and poor addition. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not trying for collaboration or compromise, you are fucking edit warring. Don't tell me to be polite when you can't be bothered to discuss things prior to you edit warring and forcing in something that isn't needed, is STILL poorly formatted, and just about falls into CITE CLUTTER territory. There is no need for the addition, except that you want it, rather than any good policy based reason. It is not more reliable than the biography, probably a lot less so, and it is certainly well short of have standards of the DNB, whose information you cut across in the first use. It's still a pointless piece of edit warring, and for absolutely no reason, except because you wanted it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said before: "I am not edit warring, I am compromising." The person refusing to compromise is warring. The person saying "fuck" is being rude. I adjusted the date format, I trimmed the headline and removed the quote, and I removed the reference from the lede, despite there being two other references in the lede. Those are compromises. I did it without being rude. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not the DNB, we have our own style guide. If people want the DNB, they can use the DNB and not use Misplaced Pages. Please note that I have not changed a single word in the biography that would spoil the perfection that it is. I just added an additional reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you edit warred, not compromised, that much is so obvious that only you seen to be unable to see the reality, or you are being deliberately disingenuous about it. Edit warring is rude, and I don't give a fuck if you don't like me saying that or not. You were arrogant enough to force your piss-poor version back in without bothering to discuss first: that's rude. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

???WTF are you on about??? It's not about style, it's about standards and reliability, which is where the DNB will win hands down against a US newspaper, writing an obituary the day after a death, simply so you can add in a citation that isn't needed. The addition is stupid, pointless, unnecessary (STILL poorly formatted, and causes cite clutter. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the first citation. Not only is the DNB a superior source, the NYT obit does not support the information it purports to. Why you thought it suitable to add a citation to material that isn't in the source, and then edit war to try and keep it in there is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "without bothering to discuss". I was the one who started this thread, did I not? OK, think I understand your complaint now: UK reference works for British subjects ... US reference works for American subjects. Maybe that would be a good Misplaced Pages policy. Or if we have two references for a fact, we have to delete the US/UK one based on nativity or citizenship at death. Dual nationals can have references from either. Québécois biographies must have a French language reference and a English reference balance of roughly 50/50. Why don't you lobby for that to be a Misplaced Pages rule. Just like the European date style and British spelling conventions and the native language diacriticals in names. If you start a campaign, I will support it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "I've taken out the first citation". No problem, excellent compromise. BTW, I really enjoy your articles and your writing style. You bring a professional quality to Misplaced Pages. Unrelated, isn't that image in the infobox amazing? All the photos he adds are the highest quality. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter. I think SchroCat is right, the reference you are trying to add to the lede is not needed in the slightest. Sorry for my lateness on this and I hope things are now sorted. Cassianto 01:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Peter Sellers English?

Despite Peter Sellers being born in England to English parents and there being no suggesting outside of Misplaced Pages that he wasn't English, there are editors suggesting he wasn't - yet somehow describing him as British (also without reference) is fine.

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of instantly reverting my edits to re-instate your preference option (I notice you desribe yourself as British on your user page and edit Arthur Conan Doyle where there is no reference for him to be described as Scottish and came from an Irish background. Interesting...), engage in conversation. There's no justifiable argument against describing him as what he was. I assume you aren't taking the racist view that because his English mother had a Jewish background, that he wasn't English?

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring: the stable consensus remains until that consensus changes, not when your narrow nationalistic interpretation decides it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no stable consensus, don't talk nonsense. There is no narrow nationalist interpretation involved, apart from perhaps yours. Perhaps you should go across the whole of Misplaced Pages and change every description to suit your own view (your view isn't in the majority btw).

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is a stable consensus: this article, with the "British" label has been through a peer review and FAC process, which means the eyes of the community have gone over it, looked into it, pulled it apart, put it back together again, and not questioned the term: that's a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

92.8.22.63 - I'm not reporting you yet, as you have, in fact, just touched your 3-revert limit. But if you revert one more time, I will certainly file a report if another editor doesn't beat me to it. It is strict policy at Misplaced Pages that an editor, no matter how right they believe their version to be, will be blocked if they revert an article more than three times within 24 hours.

Considering I have not breached any limits, there is nothing to report here... - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The way forward is to present your case here, and discuss it with other editors here before you even think of editing in your preferred version of Sellers' identity. Can you find reliable published sources which identify him as English? Alfietucker (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :As to his nationality, he carried a British passport and didn't (as far as the sources tell us) self-identify as English. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sellers has been described as British and as English. Was he an English nationalist? No.

• Shilp S. Dave says "British actor Peter Sellers" in the book Indian Accents: Brown Voice and Racial Performance in American Television and Film, page 165. Published by the University of Illinois Press.
• Horace Newcomb in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Television calls Sellers British; see page 2048.
• Mitzi M. Brunsdale says "British actor Peter Sellers" in the book Icons of Mystery and Crime Detection: From Sleuths to Superheroes, page 177, published by ABC-CLIO.
• Alistair Lawrence lists "Peter Sellers, Comedian, British" in his book about Abbey Road.
• Sarah Street writes in British National Cinema, page 111, "British comedian Peter Sellers"; a Taylor & Francis book.

So these reliable sources say British. I also looked for ones that say English, but they are far fewer and less authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus. What a surprise there isn't an online reference from someone who's been dead several decades explicitly stating they were English. LOL. That you arrogantly announce that he didn't self-identify as English just shows that you shouldn't be editing on here. Everyone else knows he was English. You don't have to be an "English nationalist" to see yourself as English. What utter nonsense. Do you accuse all people who identify as something else or in addition to British as nationalists? lol You can cite as many articles as you want that describe him as British - you do realise that English, Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish people are all British? Carry on lads anyway.

92.8.22.63 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that there is a consensus, it just happens to be one you don't like. As per WP:OPENPARA: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". As I've already pointed out, he was a British citizen, who didn't self-identify as "English" (as opposed to people like Sean Connery and Conan Doyle, who self-identified as Scottish). There is nothing arrogant about this, so please try and remain civil: it's the way we do things on Wiki: stick to the guidelines and discuss to reach a consensus, not edit war against consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right, there is a longstanding consensus for "British', formed over the years that this article was improved to the point of attaining Featured status. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus for British. Why must so many niggling ips fuss about trivialities?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph confusion

Greetings. I find the following comments in the last paragraph in the article to be confusing:

. . .Although the film was widely praised by critics, both Lord Snowdon and Britt Ekland were highly critical of the film and the enactment of Sellers; Ekland believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all".

• Presumably, this Lord Snowdon is the same man, the "Close friend Lord Snowdon read the twenty-third Psalm . . ." Snowdon's objection to the film isn't spelled out, but the close association with Britt Ekland's quotation invites a similar comparison. If Snowdon was equally negative about Seller's personality, as the wording of the paragraph hints at, why did he fill such a notable place at the memorial? If Snowdon's objection to the film was materially different than Ekland's, then please say what that objection was .

• Why does Britt Ekland get the final word in the article? I realize that the marriage was highly discordant and that she may have excellent reasons for saying what she did, but is her insight more significant than anyone else's? Did she know him longer than anyone else, was his closest confidant, continued to exchange frequent telephone calls and letters after they divorced until his death? This sure ends the article on a bummer of a downbeat! I'm not saying that her words (taken from a inflammatory source, the Daily Mail) shouldn't be incorporated elsewhere in the article at an appropriate place (if there are more reliable sources for them - perhaps are they also appear in her autobiography?), but placed as the quote is, it gains enormous weight, even undue weight. Seller's true legacy to history isn't going to be the "monster" with "no saving graces", but the highly talented and creative comedian/actor whose death was a loss to culture. I question the order of the various quotes. Ending with a quote that reflects his true legacy as an artist would have been appropriate.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wordreader:, you need to read here (and look at the article) before you complain your comment hasn't been dealt with: SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wordreader. You are right on this, and I've added a quote from Snowdon that clarifies his position, separates him out from Ekland, and ensures the article finishes on a more positive personal note. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a previous editor, I pointed out similar issues in another talk page discussion. --Light show (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably worth repairing another similar misleading ending quote in another paragraph: Wilder was unsympathetic about the heart attacks, saying that "you have to have a heart before you can have an attack". That quote was strangely tacked on to the end of the paragraph describing Sellers' eight heart attacks in the U.S. However, the quote was not, as implied, in response to that specific event. Sikov simply stated that the comment was something Wilders "once remarked about Peter." Wilders could have made that half-joking comment at any time after the heart attacks, so attaching it as an ending, gratuitous quote to what was a life-changing event in Sellers' career, is both out of place and misleading. --Light show (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about it, and the only thing "confused" is your editing ability, or the ability to see any of this article without looking at it through toxic-tinted spectacles. – SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Very misleading: Your edit says "Wilders was unsympathetic about the heart attacks," when that was not in the source.

The entire paragraph, in fact, is really just a tabloidish bedroom and sex description of Sellers, which the paragraph concludes caused his heart attacks. However, according to Alexander Walker, who is cited 39 times in the article, that's doubtful, writing that it was in fact Sellers' weeks of "slaving away at building up his muscles for one of the most macho roles of the screen—James Bond," that "was probably a far more likely reason." But I'll admit, that portraying Sellers as a jealous, sex-crazed, drug-taking "monster" is more sensational to some than seeing him as a heroic figure, such as James Bond or Orde Wingate. --Light show (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we couldn't give a toss about your opinion. Cassianto 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? --Light show (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the community who dismissed your numerous RfCs, went through PR without complaining about it, and agreed that that article, as it substantively is at the moment, is good enough for featured status, regardless of your input. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Light show, for acknowledging my query. To tell the truth, I haven't tried to wade through this whole article yet as it looks like heavy sledding. The other posters have not addressed my query.

I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude. Examples: "the only thing "confused" is your editing ability", "toxic-tinted spectacles", and last, but not least, "Fortunately, we couldn't give a toss about your opinion." I hope such remarks made to another WP editor don't become a habit. Unless there has been an egregious violation that has gotten one banned from the site, we are all of equal value here, so, yes, you should "give a toss". "Civility is part of Misplaced Pages's code of conduct and one of Misplaced Pages's five pillars." - even if you disagree with another editor's opinion. Especially if you disagree!

So, can we get down to fixing the problems with that last paragraph? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment has been dealt with (here and in the article) if you'd looked properly. I've highlighted the comment above so you can see it. As to the other editor, you can drop the lecture: I have not come across someone so bitter, so lacking in ability and someone who made the editing process so unpleasant. Go back through the archives to see his ownership issues, sniping, moaning, endless RfCs and constant trolling. - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to get out more if you find our comments offensive. Frankly, SchroCat and I are thoroughly pissed off with Lightshow keep coming here every time someone opens up a new thread with a legitimate question. You can almost set your watch by him/her turning up with his/her "disparaging and rude" comments. So the next time you drive by an article and draw an inference on something said, do some research first. Thank you. Cassianto 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wordreader: It's actually much worse than a habit, Wordreader. Do go back over some of the archives, as suggested, to see for yourself how a famous British comedian can be transformed into a "monster" on WP.--Light show (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

... And to see how Lightshow has turned the editing experience so horribly toxic. He seems to miss the point that we do not write hagiographies, but we report what sources tell us: he would rather lie about Sellers than give a truthful reflection of the sources, which makes him a rather despicable form of editor. – SchroCat (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (HBO Film)

Any comments regarding this film should be in the HBO film page. Details unnecessary for this page.

I have copied the para to that page (Refs fixed btw!). Readers can see whatever comments, in the "Reception” section of that page, where they rightly belong.

SchroCat You are being a little too overprotective. This is a common sense edit. Be grateful if you agree to reduce the detail on the 'Peter Sellesr" page.

If not, please explain why? MrBalham2 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not being overprotective (and in future, please comment on issues, not editors), and yours is not a common sense edit. This article is about Sellers, and rightly mentions the film. As the film is also about Sellers, and provides a controversial interpretation of his character, it is right to reflect that here. It is also right to reflect that in the article on the film, but as I've already told you, in future please do not cut and paste between articles: it is against one of our guidelines or policies. – SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the page should have a brief mention of the film. The reference or link to the film was not removed.

But the film has it’s own page. Readers will be able to see the detail there. This page is about Peter Sellers, not his portrayal. It is not a cut and paste. It is a transfer of all the detail (nothing is lost) regarding the comments on the film. Thus avoiding any duplication.

All detail does not have to exist on one page. However, awareness is maintained. That is the nature of Wikis.

For example, the “Kenneth Williams” page links to his portrayal and comments on interpretation. If readers want more they will seek it out. Similarly, the "Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record” links to his body of work in detail.

A solution to reduce the detail here would be a one line summary, for example:

“There was controversy over the portrayal, where individuals close to Sellers (e.g. Britt Ekland and Lord Snowdon giving opposing views), did not feel the film was an honest appraisal.”

If people want more detail regarding those comments then they can go to the film’s page.

Do you object to this change? --MrBalham2 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I find merit in the inclusion of the information here. The reviewers at PR and FAC also thought so, which is why it is here. And, despite your protests to the contrary, it was a cut and paste job you undertook, which is a no-no: see WP:CWW. – SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to Balham's edits too. The content of the film is relevant, especially the quotes from Ekland and the other. Based on your criteria Balham we wouldn't discuss any films in actor articles because "it is covered in the film article".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything about Peter Sellers the actor remains here. Any comments and detail on his film portrayal should be on the HBO biopic page. Nothing is lost. I have suggested a one line summary to reduce the detail here. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. The summary is perfectly reasonable and not in the slightest bit excessive. Clearly you have very little experience of article writing and what is required.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. Compliment accepted! MrBalham2 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• "For example, the “Kenneth Williams” page links to his portrayal and comments on interpretation. If readers want more they will seek it out." – the idea is to keep readers on our page, not to force them off to another. Cassianto 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is being forced. The one line summary will suffice if they wish to stay. If they want to find out more about the portrayal then all the information is on the HBO biopic page. Nothing is lost. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Cor, you like you copy-and-pasting don't you? Did the inspiration for that last comment come from the plucked air, or was it taken from a couple of lines up? ;) They are being forced with your alternative. What is there currently leaves no question in the reader's head; a cut down version would. This would make readers more prone to clicking off the page I'm afraid. Cassianto 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's all one Wiki. We're all one family! Clicking to another page doesn't mean they won't return. The comments deserve to be in the correct place. I'll repeat the line again. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Cassianto 17:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've offered a reasonable solution. You haven't really countered the argument with a reasonable alternative. No information will be be lost. You're refusing the change simply because you don't want to? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBalham, Three other editors have raised doubts about your suggested edit. It may be time for you to think that these three very experienced people with a pile of FAs and GAs behind them, may actually know what they are talking about. As I've said before: the current version (or very close to it) went through a peer review and FAC process. It has, therefore the consensus of the community to remain, and you have not provided any good arguments to remove it, so it may be time to move on to something more constructive. As you seem to be quite interested in it, have you thought about trying to take the Sellers film up to GA status? - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could bring the FAs and GAs to this page. I have suggested a summary that will suffice. None of the above editors have objected to the summary. They just don't like the change. It is too much detail for the mention of one film whereas others in the article barely get a sentence. I think the "fanboys" are ganging up on me for what is a perfectly reasonable solution. The language towards "newbies" is unacceptable and unsupportive. I'll make the change with your permission and guidance. If not, it will need some independent and objective scrutiny from people who haven't been so heavily involved in the article. I'll return this later. Speak soon. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Three editors have objected to the summary, and given you good reasons for including the information here, and not removing it. I'm not sure that starting to throw names around about others is a constructive way to go, especially when they have given you good reasons to keep it. MrBalham, I think it's time to accept that others may know how and why to do things better than you, and also know what is beneficial for an article. It may be time for you to move to more productive areas and stop flogging this particular dead horse. – SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with MrBalham2. It's wrong to flood a third of his so-called "Legacy" with such negative criticism from some Irish paper about a single film in which he was not even involved with. The text below does not belong either in his legacy or anywhere else, as it gives undue weight to non-legacy material, relying on critical commentary and other disparaging comments, and is far from presenting a neutral POV. This is very similar to some of the earlier discussions above.

In 2004, the book was turned into an HBO film with the same title, starring Geoffrey Rush. The Belfast Telegraph notes how the film captured Sellers's "life of drugs, drink, fast cars and lots and lots of beautiful women". Although the film was widely praised by critics, both Lord Snowdon and Britt Ekland were highly critical of the film and the enactment of Sellers; Ekland believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all". Snowden disagreed with Ekland's verdict, and with the film, and stated that Sellers"had a light touch, a sense of humour, I can't bear to see him portrayed as somebody who was apparently without either ... The man on the screen is charmless, humourless and boring - the one thing you could never say about Peter." --Light show (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you disagree Lightshow. Unfortunately you've managed to get your facts rather badly mangled. "Some Irish paper" provided one quote here, which isn't negative. The quotes, one positive and one negative, are beneficial to provide and come from two people who knew him well. There is nothing to do with undue weight here – that's just a straw argument, as is suggesting it isn't neutral (providing quotes for opposite opinions is hardly that), and your discussions above have all ended up the same way: with the consensus of the rest of the community coming down heavily against you. – SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point at ANI, which, may I remind you, you are involved in. Maybe you could get your friend here to post there in your favour, or maybe you could log off as Light show and log back on again as MrBalham2 to support? Cassianto 21:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• High-importance biography (actors and filmmakers) articles
• Actors and filmmakers work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Comedy articles
• Mid-importance Comedy articles
• WikiProject Comedy articles
• FA-Class Radio articles
• Low-importance Radio articles
• WikiProject Radio articles