Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 3

GA status: Requested changes made

Too bad that those reviewing the article failed to notice that. --NYScholar 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC) See archive 2 for related discussion. Posted topic headings so toc would post. --NYScholar 18:18, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way you can force the toc to appear by using __FORCETOC__ Woodym555 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review

Am i correct in assuming that you want this to be reviewed for GA-Class status? I have reformatted your request to follow the WP:GA/R guidelines. This page is now up for GA review. Interested parties are invited to discuss the matter at Good article review. Woodym555 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I did not propose it for GA-Class status in the first place; another editor not involved in the editing of this article did. But I do wonder if the original reviewer realized that I had attempted to make the changes that he requested. In the interim a number of inconsistencies appeared due to other edits which I have tried to correct as well. I hope that I caught them. It might be a good idea for it to be re-reviewed at this (or perhaps a later) point. Thanks. --NYScholar 02:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Good article review More discussion there. --NYScholar 04:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC) Following Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles and WP:V, and a reference format linked in WP:CITE (MLA Style Manual format), "full citations" are used in this article. For the prevailing format, which adapts MLA Style Manual format to certain Wikipedia style idiosyncracies, see the article and extensive prior discussion in the archived talk pages. --NYScholar 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

New image

I've replaced the previous image with a WikiCommons image. This one should be okay until perhaps a more recent free image can replace it. --NYScholar 19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Split off section

Following the length message, I have split off the section called "Selected bibliography" from this article and cross-linked the split-off section (following the procedure of an earlier editor in the "Works of Harold Pinter" section (related article now). I converted a couple of parenthetical citations to full citations for convenience of readers. The "Works cited" listed is keyed to the parenthetical citations and names of sources cited in the article. --NYScholar 20:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC) [updated.]

After making that change, I have made some further revisions, which I hope improve this article. --NYScholar 04:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I re-nominated the article for "good article" status, updating that entry with a note after making further revisions. (Please consult the comments in the previous review. Thank you.) --NYScholar 04:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

See the review comments both in archive and review page please

A previous reviewer said that "cf." and "see" ("See also") needed links, so I linked them. Please don't remove them in one place. The other places have the links, so that inexperienced readers can access what "cf." and "see also" or "see" signify in citations. I think it's obvious, but the reviewer did not apparently. ["Cf." stands for "confer" (or consult). Some people may need the link.] --NYScholar 06:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

here's what I had...

alter to taste:

His work after the mid-1980s increasingly expresses his political causes and beliefs<ref>Grimes 2005, p. 19.</ref> by portraying politically-relevant situations and implications.

... I think it's important to explicitly note the fact that his plays are deliberately political. It seems you've accepted the idea. :-) Carry on.

-- Ling.Nut 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

...and mention the political criticism in the lede. Alter to taste:

... political interests (Merritt, Pinter in Play xi-xv, 170-209; Grimes 19). The political views expressed in Pinter's alliance of drama with politics has received negative criticism.

Pinter's most recent stage play is Celebration (2000)....

-- Ling.Nut 06:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry--but I've had to correct parts of the sentence; it was not accurate. I am using the most-up-to-date sources on this subject and have four decades of experience doing research on this subject, so I really do want to make that clear. If I see something that I know from my knowledge of the sources is inaccurate in emphasis, I am correcting it. Pinter does not write plays "to express his political causes and beliefs": that is not an accurate statement (according to my research and other published research on the subject in secondary sources as well as primary ones--the works). He explicitly states that that is not how he goes about writing plays or other creative writing. He does that in essays and speeches, but not in his dramatic works per se. Please do not change the emphasis if this is not a field with which you are familiar based on your citation to one page of one secondary source. (I have the source [Grimes]--published and in manuscript--and that is not what he states in it.] Thanks. --NYScholar 06:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fear not, I have not come to put words in Harold's mouth. I'm trying (unsuccessfuly, it seems) to communicate that any important points which are covered in the article should also be expressed in the lede. His plays are certainly political, willfully/consciously or not, and are even more certainly criticized as such. This needs to be mentioned in the lede. Please do so in whatever manner seems appropriate. Thanks. --Ling.Nut 06:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your reply. Thanks so much. If you see anything and change it, I will take a look and only alter it if necessary (given the sources). (I had developed the lead a great deal after the initial review asking for its development.) --NYScholar 06:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. See my comments above — you certainly need to include a sentence or clause in the lede mentioning the negative criticism of his work on political grounds. It seems to me that sentence should be the last one before a paragraph break, but that's up to you. --Ling.Nut 06:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added such a new sentence in the lead now. --NYScholar 07:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The whole issue of "Pinter's politics" and how "political" his plays are and/or are not involves a post-1980s retrospective reexamination of his work (from both his own more recent perspectives on it and newer critics' perspectives on it); it is a major subject in academic criticism; the sources relating to it are already cited in this Wikipedia article. But this is not an academic survey; it's an encyclopedia article, and it is supposed to be written in "neutral point of view" so Pinter's own retrospective view of his earlier plays and his "political activist" viewpoint on his earlier plays is not going to be the only perspective in this Wikipedia article. There are many, many critics who do not view Pinter's early work as "political works" even though now he (and others) look back on those earlier works and see them as more "political" than they used to see them. It's a kind of "revisionism" in Pinter criticism; but this talk page is just for discussing improvements to the article as an encyclopedia article in Wikipedia and not for discussing the subject as a subject, so I won't go into it further than to acknowledge this distinction. We can't just reflect Grimes's or any one other critic's or Pinter's point of view in the article; we have to reflect a variety of points of view on Pinter (life and work). Billington is one source; and other critics other sources; they do not all agree with one another. Pinter is perhaps one of the most highly-controversial subjects in contemporary drama in terms of interpretations of his works, so this article is not going to be able to cover the huge amount of disagreement about what his works mean or what kinds of political values they impart, since that is precisely what critics disagree about. One can only point out that Pinter and his dramatic works are highly controversial; points of view on them are also highly subjective and vary from critic to critic and audience member to audience member. There is more consensus on his deserving the Nobel Prize; but there is also contention about that (as cited). --NYScholar 06:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh it's fine of course to present only a summary of the controversy. An encyclopedia article is certainly not a book. :-) In-depth discussions also run a high risk of WP:OR... I was only trying to say that WP:LEDE explicitly states (or suggests? Haven't looked at it in a couple months) that any controversies in the article should be mentioned in the lede. That's all. -- Ling.Nut 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Please see the earlier reviewers' comments (archive and review page), which ask to develop the lead (lede) more considerably. I liked it better before yesterday, when it got too long due to changes that you wanted added. I'll look at it again tomorrow perhaps. I have to get back to my work off Wikipedia. --NYScholar 00:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

update

• User:LaraLove is currently working on WP:MOS issues that are not required by WP:WIAGA but may be stumbling blocks in WP:FAC.
• After that I'll see if the WP:LEDE can be condensed/distilled in any way.
• After that we'll stop & take stock of where we are and where we're headed.
• -- Ling.Nut 15:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• PS I also have two friends (or friendly acquaintances) who are excellent editors and are literature-oriented. I'll ask them both for help, later today. -- Ling.Nut 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I've developed the "Public criticism" section w/ some examples; note that Hitchens' piece is already in the "Works cited"; Billington cites others, and I document the quotations w/ the pages in Billington's source (Harold Pinter), also on the Works cited page as well as in note 1 (wherre the content note describes the contents of this source is some detail). --NYScholar 00:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK good. I've made my pass at the article; note that it is not finished & don't panic if my alterations have flaws. I'm going now to ask for help from two others. I have no idea how long it'll be before they reply. Patience is a virtue. This is definitely a work in progress. -- Ling.Nut 00:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Since posting that addition, I've added the Hari and Ferguson sources also to the "Works cited" list. These are the sources being cited and quoted by Billington in the dev. that I added in "Public criticism" section (following your earlier suggestions--in the review page and on this discussion page). Will be logged out of Wikipedia doing work after this. Just tried to reply but very pressed for time. (I took your suggestion and re-directed my talk page to my user page. Your comment is in my last archive which is accessible via the redirected page/history. All the archives are still accessible.) --NYScholar 01:15, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dates format inconsistencies now

I had been following an MLA Style Format in dates in bibliographical references, citations, and in the text (all reversed and abbreviated in citations and parenthetical refs.--e.g. 7 Sept. 2007); but someone has changed some (not all) to the other style: September 7, 2007. First of all, that is creating inconsistencies in the prevailing citation/bibliog. format throughout the article and its notes and Works cited (Selected bibliography for Harold Pinter); secondly, there is no requirement for linking all dates in Wikipedia articles and citations/references. To do so creates a mess of links so that it is hard to see significant linkage (Wikified links). I can see that the birthdate needs to be in the order used in infobox code and in line 1); but there is a way to link dates and still maintain consistent reversed (MLA) order w/ abbreviations: e.g., 7 Sept. 2007. There is no comma in this format. The Wikipedia month, day, year format introduces commas where none would be in MLA Style format. These dates were all [or mostly] correctly formatted in the version of this article before those trying to help started their copy-editing. Right now, inconsistencies exists. Could those who changed the dates from the correct format, please restore them? Thanks. --NYScholar 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC) [tc: corrected in article; at least tried to corr. them. Out of time. --NYScholar 11:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)]

Hyphens

In MLA format one uses hyphens between page numbers: e.g., 10-12. Those have been changed to dashes: is that necessary? --NYScholar 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Dashes

I have used the dash from the "Insert" box below editing page between years: e.g., 1970–1971 and in my dashes in the bibliography (where a repetition of a last name occurs; that is standard format (MLA uses three dashes; I'm using the "Insert" dash item to make them appear as a single line, which is MLA format in printed books, word-processed documents [as opposed to previously-typed documents].) I don't really know how to do the dashes differently; I thought that if Wikipedia's own editing box supplies the "Insert" characters, using them should be fine and in keeping with Wikipedia editing style. ??? --NYScholar 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I do appreciate the help that people are giving here; but I hope that they will notice the inconsistencies that some of these changes have or may have introduced throughout and that they will change the items back as needed. Thanks. --NYScholar 11:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The recently-inserted dash in the template for Nobel Prize in Literature Laureates caused a problem; I corrected that by restoring the proper punctuation for the template. (If using a "bot" or some other automatic replacement function, please make sure that the changes display as desired. (See earlier comments here and in editing summaries re: dates too.) Thanks. --NYScholar 20:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I was asked to look over this article by Ling.Nut, as I have some experience writing and reviewing literature articles. I was so happy to see that we have such a thorough and carefully researched article on Pinter - so many literary articles on wikipedia are in such poor shape. This one, on the other hand, just needs a few minor tweaks to make it one of wikipedia's best.

• The first issue, and as I gather, the most contentious, is the one regarding citations. I understand what the writer is doing - I have seen this mix of MLA and Chicago in many places before - but it is not usually done in wikipedia articles. NYScholar, for your own sanity, I suggest that all of your citations be either MLA or Chicago. Editors will keep returning to this point, if you do not standardize them. It is something that you are going to have to compromise on. I would also suggest that you choose inline citations (as they call it here) if you want to go for FA, because I have seen debates at FAC regarding the validity and desirability of MLA. Personally, I gave up months ago trying to sort out the mess that is citation styles at wikipedia and just adopted whatever they told me to. I felt it was better to write quality content than argue over the citations. It is a choice that I have been very happy with.

There is some misperception here; I have not used Chicago Style at all. It is all MLA Style Manual. The only difference between MLA Style Manual format and Wikipedia Style is that Wikipedia requires that punctuation of titles (commas) appear outside of the end quotation mark and that MLA Style uses day month year instead of month day year. Everything else is MLA. A very long time ago (archive talk page), some other editor changed or asked me and others to change punctuation of titles to conform to Wikipedia style, which I did.

I have had to convert MLA Style Manual to Chicago Manual of Style in publishing books, so I know the differences between the two style manuals; there are several, and I am not useing Chicago Manual of Style in this article at all (the punctuation and presentation of page numbers and other typographical features are different from MLA; punctuation is Wikipedia style and MLA Style (where Wikipedia conflicts w/ MLA in punctuation of titles, due to previous editors' comments, I have used Wikipedia). The external link symbol only posts outside the quotation marks in titles if one puts the comma before the end quotation mark; so I have consistently tried to use <"/".> and <"/",> in punctuating titles throughout the citations and the text of the article. APA Style Manual uses dates and not short titles; MLA Style Manual uses short titles (maybe you are confusing Chicago Style Manual with APA Style Manual; I am following neither in following MLA Style Manual--which is for subjects in literature). Chicago is generally used in book publishing, not unpublished essays in literature (where MLA Style Manual prevails--at least in the U.S., where I reside and work--please see my "user boxes" via my user page. Thanks.) --NYScholar 21:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was not clearer. I was referring only to citations, not to the general style (such as quotation marks, etc.). Wikipedia does not follow a recognizable style (that is one of its great drawbacks in my opinion and makes discussions like this difficult). When it comes to general issues of style, I suggest you read the wikipedia manual of style and try to follow it, as that will make your experience here much more pleasurable. Trying to change something in the MOS is a long, drawn-out business - it is not something I recommend. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have already read the Manual of Style pertaining to citations; it links to WP:CITE etc., which points out that there is no "recommended" style for citations and that citation formatting may be done via a number of possible formats, among which is the MLA Style Manual (see "WP:CITE#References"). MLA Style allows for "content notes", which I am using in this article. One can use both content notes and in-text parenthetical references keyed to items listed in a "Works cited" list, and in the content notes, when references (allusions) are to names of authors or works, they also are keyed to the Works cited list (if not otherwise identified). In a very few cases (so as not to lengthen the Works cited list unnecessarily), when a complete reference is already in the content note, I am not repeating those few items in the "Works cited" list. It is simply a matter of convenience for readers. The important thing according to WP:ATTRIBUTION and WP:V#Sources is that editors attribute statements to reliable sources for verification. There are many print-only sources used (by necessity) in this article, and I have checked and verified them from my own library of materials; online citations are linked in the "Works cited" list. I really think that if you read my previous responses to other reviewers about citations (in the archive of this talk page and in the "review" section of the listing (see link at top of this talk page; if it's archived you may need to look for it further), you will have a better understanding of the format for the notes. It is entirely proper to have a "content" note in Wikipedia or any other publication (online or not). The important matter is the adherence to WP:V#Sources. Whatever format one chooses from a multitude of possibilities for citations really depends on the subject and the editors. As an American academic scholar in the field of language and literature (dramatic literature and other literature), I use the scholarly citation format for this field, which is MLA Style Manual format. As Pinter is a winner of the Nobel Prize in Literature, to use the MLA Style Manual format is appropriate for this subject. He is a major literary figure and academic journals published in America generally use MLA Style Manual format in citations and bibliographies ("Works cited"; "Selected Bibliography"; etc.; there are multipled possibilities too) in their articles. The article is in American English; the citation format is MLA Style Manual (WP:CITE; it is not a requirement in Wikipedia to use citation templates, and the citation templates in Wikipedia introduce inconsistencies and errors in formatting of citations in this field (literature). I have no patience for using them due to those discrepancies. In articles where the prevailing format already exists, I try to follow it; in articles where there are already a mish-mash of citation styles, if I want to take the time, I try to correct the problems. Occasionally, I have used citation templates, but I do not enjoy using them, and I prefer not to use them. I prefer to render the citation myself. I have aimed for consistency in my formatting of the citations, and I think (given the style format chosen), I have achieved it. It may not match your experience, but it seems consistent to me given my experience (as an academic scholar). Again, please see my user boxes re: use of scholarly conventions. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be raising issues that are beside the point (templates, etc.) I would agree with you completely that wikipedia introduces problems with its citation style, but that is beside the point, I'm afraid. Users are not familiar with MLA to this depth and, frankly, I think it is confusing for a general audience encyclopedia. Also, as an academic you must know that every publishing house has different style rules - think of wikipedia as just another one of those houses. You have to follow house style when you publish with that house. The house style is to be as simple as possible with the notes. Awadewit | talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have checked the notes. The MLA parenthetical citations (in the text) are the same kind of style as Harvard referencing and should not confuse anyone. The notes are self-explanatory if one reads them; they contain Wikipedia-style in-line citations and explanations (annotations) of some of the sources cited. Again, that should not confuse anyone (if one reads them). Printed sources are keyed to the Works cited list; there would be no links in those cases. Reprinted texts are properly cited and also keyed to the Works cited list. I have either removed or moved a couple of quotations from notes to text and they are also properly cited. Wikipedia's has no single "house style"; it has a lot of possibilities, and I have chosen to use one of them. I have followed WP:CITE and WP:V#Sources as these pertain to WP:BLP#Sources throughout. I see no conflict between this article's citations and Wikipedia "house style"; Wikipedia's Manual of style gives guidance (and it is only a guide) for punctuation of quotations (followed) and so on; if you want to point me via Wikified link to what you have in mind as a required change, please do. Otherwise, I have attempted to accommodate what are now a series of sometimes conflicting reviewers' comments in revisions that I have made to this article, while maintaining a useful "selected bibliography" included "Works cited" (a possibility in Wikipedia and one used in many Wikipedia articles too): see, e.g., Rwandan genocide. -NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• I wonder, also, if you could be even clearer in your use of citations.

• EX: In the first paragraph of "Early theatrical training and stage experience", do all of the quoted words come from Billington 3? Are any of the words Pinters'?

I expect that it is whatever the source says. I will double check the source again (!). --NYScholar 20:36, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

"Loathing" is Billington's word; it is based on Pinter's unpublished essay, "Queen of all the fairies", which Billington quotes from (unacknowledged) quotations [published with Pinter's permission] that appear in Merritt's 1994 article "The Harold Pinter Archive in the British Library"; Pinter's unpublished essay (which is an account of his time at RADA) is or was (in 1993) in the Archive's holdings, but it has not yet been published. Earlier I had adapted Billington's word "loathing" to the sentence about how "he" (Pinter) "loath[ed]" RADA; but now I've altered the sentence to quote Billington's word exactly: "Loathing" (a present participle) now begins the sentence. None of the words are Pinter's unless I use quotation marks within quotation marks and say "Quoted in" or some other clear indication that they are his words (in context those quoting him often make it clear that they are quoting him). The page references for the two paragraphs in that section had followed it; in responding to this comment, I have incorporated additional parenthetical page references for the various parts of the paragraphs. That should correct the problem that you point to. --NYScholar 22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [corrected problem. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

• EX: Pinter acknowledges the influence of Samuel Beckett, particularly on his early work; they became friends, sending each other drafts of their works in progress for comments, as he told Kirsty Wark in their 23 June 2006 interview broadcast on Newsnight Review (BBC Two). - The last clause belongs in a footnote since this is an encyclopedia.

Throughout Wikipedia articles that I am familiar with (many), there are such transitions relating to identifying sources in sentences. The reference (following MLA format) mentions the name of the author in the transition, which properly keys to the "Works cited". Other editor reviewing asked for the opposite (to move the material from the note to the text if the sentence works in the text (which it does), and I did that. When subsequent reviewers contradict previous reviewers' requests, they require editors to undo the "corrections" or "improvements" that they already took time to make. The request that you make is stylistic and not a recommendation in Wikipedia. The 2nd example quoted is a summary (paraphrase) of the interview cited (Wark); anyone who could access the cited interview (which is linked in the Works cited list would be able to verify that. (Sometimes the video and/or audio clips are only accessible for limited times. [Corrected problem. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

I am simply pointing out that wikipedia articles are not like published literature articles. They do not emphasize their sources. Since encyclopedias are general knowledge reference sources, it is best, in my opinion, not to distract the reader with too much information regarding the source in the text itself. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that. I wanted to provide the information to start with; if it turns out that the information is not useful, then people can indicate which is not useful (citation by citation), and that will help with deciding which ones to keep and which ones not to keep. This is a complex subject and a controversial one that requires "full citations"; I have provided them for the convenience of readers who may want to check and verify the sources. I will give this process (of reviewing) some time to develop and will not be deleting the citation information at this time. I have already responded to other reviewers' comments and the reviewers, and I cannot keep changing the citations to match conflicting comments by different reviewers. What is most important, I think, is that they conform to WP:V#Sources (policy), to WP:BLP#Sources (policy), as well as WP:CITE (a guideline). --NYScholar 01:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I just looked over the notes again; I really think that they are useful to keep; they are not obtrusive; the few times that there are some quotations, they are useful ones. They serve to "annotate" the cited sources a bit at times in ways that would be problematic in the "Works cited section. Notes are useful for explaining the nature of sources if that would otherwise not be clear to some readers. As most readers of this article may not be experts in the subject, I've included the additional information for their benefit.

I did not ask you to delete the notes; I suggested that source information be placed in footnotes, so as to emphasize the primary content of the article - information on Pinter. It might help to think who the primary audience of this article is going to be - I often think of college students. Source information is much less important to them than the "meat" of the article. Awadewit | talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

see above. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the notes citations considerably. They are really no longer exactly "content notes"; I've used them for citations that would take too much space w/in parentheses in the text; they are basically MLA/Wikipedia format, by which I mean that I've used the Wikipedia style for linking in in-line citations so that I am not repeating the URL MLA style (which would be between angle brackets); I added the proper note format in a note in MLA Style Manual quite some time ago, if you want to see the difference. Wikipedians familiar with citation templates (with normal order of names, not reversed order, which is unnecessary and silly for notes) will be able to understand the citations. They are clear and they are consistent. Page numbers are not used when an article is just one page long; only the last name of the author and/or last name and the title or a short title suffice. In case of a source like Billington's Harold Pinter, it would be too cumbersome to have a different note citation for each occurrence of a reference to it; it is best incorporated in the text within parenthetical citations (as indicated). These are much smoother than constantly having to access notes. I really don't see a problem with this citation format. I've moved what I could into the text (as an earlier reviewer had asked--see archived comments from him)--prior to Wrad. For lists of several reference sources, I've used the notes. The main sources are listed in "Works cited" in the "Selected bibliography" (keyed alphabetically to last name of author as is standard; Wikipedia citation templates mess that up) or to the article title if anonymous. --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you need to quote as much as you do? Could you paraphrase more? Sometimes I felt that the quotations were getting in the way of the overarching narratives that you were trying to tell. I found this to be a particular drawback to the "Characteristics of Pinter's work" section.

I find that when other editors change quotations to paraphrase, they introduce their own points of view and distort the quotations. Direct quotations are more neutral and eliminate the possibility of introducing editorial point of view (which I do not want to do). The use of exact quotations (especially when the sources are experts on the subject or Pinter himself) are useful means of maintaining neutral point of view in what could be and has been in the past a controversial subject. That said, of course, I will look over everything that you question, however, to see if changes would improve rather than weaken the development of the article. (Perhaps not right away, because I am working outside of Wikipedia on pressing projects, but as soon as possible.) [Did as much as I can do re: this. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

• Of course paraphrases introduce a POV, but so does the selection of the quotations in the first place, as you must be aware. I'm sure we agree that there is no way to completely avoid POV in an article, being lit-crit people ourselves, but we should do our best to make the article accessible to a wider readership. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The points of view are those of the sources of the quotations, which is in keeping with WP:POV for WP:BLP#Well known public figures, which HP is one of (a public figure). I have not selected some of these quotations; sources like Billington have (e.g. in some cases the quotations are part of his sentences in the "Public criticism" section. There are quotations from sources and full citations to those sources (in "Works cited") for those who want to read the sources in their full context. This is not an exercise in interpretation of Pinter or his works; it's an attempt to present a biographical account of him that presents his notability in a neutral manner for people who know little to nothing about him. Those who disagree with his politics (for example) will find plenty of source material cited to explore. Those who agree with his politics have the primary as well as secondary sources listed for their future exploration (on their own). --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• The article states that living through the Blitz affected Pinter profoundly - but how?

The essay cited goes into detail about that. To answer your question requires synthesis (original research) or more quotation from Billington or from the article itself; one has to maintain adherence to WP:NOR; Pinter's account is published in The Pinter Review and those who want more details can read the article. I will see if I can find a summary sentence to quote or to paraphrase (without introducing point of view) when I can. The source is a printed source, not an online source. Billington's (printed) book discusses the matter at length; perhaps another sentence or piece of a sentence from Billington will answer your question. (Just from memory, of course, Pinter's being "evacuated" (the interview is called "Evacuees") was a "traumatic" experience for a boy of eleven or so; he is an only child and was very attached to his parents and being evacuated meant being torn from his London home and moved with a group of other boys his age to the countryside, which was very unfamiliar to him. He missed his parents a great deal. (These are the things he talks about in the interview cited.) He also mentions that he took his cricket bat with him (his most important possession at the time), which also indicates his early and abiding love and devotion to the game.) These matters are discussed in biographical accounts of Pinter like Billington's, but the interview published in The Pinter Review is the most-extended first-hand account (from Pinter) of that experience and his own perspective on it. [Added (brief) development in text re: this matter. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)] (added "brief". --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

• The last paragraph of "Personal life" seems like a list. Is there any way to work this material into the article more fluidly?

Will look into that. [It seems okay to me. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

Later I developed this section quite a bit. The last bit relates to the person's hobby-like interests (sports, reading) and is a quite common kind of bit in biographies of living persons who are also celebrities.

• Could you say anything more about the "memory plays"? That paragraph was quite short.

Will consider that. [I've provided the source. The titles of the plays are linked throughout the article; there are Wikipedia articles on some of the plays, which serve as illustrations of these "memory plays". One simply must click on the plays' titles. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

Organization:

• The section headings are a bit confusing - isn't Pinter's career part of his biography?

"Career" is very frequently a heading in biographies of authors and other professionals in Wikipedia. I can't remember who introduced that heading, but I'll think about it. [I've revised the headings considerably. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

I never liked the "Main Career" format that an earlier editor had inserted; I have split the "Career" section into subsections introduced by semi-colon format (1) is "1957-2005" and the other is "Subsequent .... --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would place everything related to the Nobel Prize under one section, making "Public criticism", etc. subsections.

I do not find that at all feasible. Getting a Nobel Prize is hardly a "public criticism"; it is an "honor" and is appropriately placed in the "Honors" section. The "Public criticism" is the response to that award. Its addition follows the recommendation of Ling.nut. I will look it over again. [Done. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

I misread that comment: the "public criticism" section was initially a subsection following the Nobel Prize subsection of "Honors"; I just reinserted the extra equals signs to make it a subsection again (typographical change). --NYScholar 20:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• I would either delete the "Allusions in popular culture" section as it is listy and trivial or make a separate page that can evolve into a long list such as Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc.

Those additions were (initially) contributions of other editors (more than one); I documented them and incorporated them into a section that makes sense. In the future, people might add to that section. I do not think "cultural depictions of Joan of Arc" and "allusions" to Pinter in "Popular culture" are on a par for separate article status (!). These are not "trivial" or "trivia": they are examples. There could be more, but I do not have the time to add them. This is voluntary work and I only have limited time. Others are free to develop the section if they want to do so. The British allusions to Pinter are quite vast, but who has time to develop them all for an encyclopedia article. This is not a treatise. [Done. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

These "allusions to" sections are often spun off into separate articles because of their length (as you point out) and their tendency to clutter up the main article. The entire point in separating it from this article would be to make this article a bit more organized. Also, others can help the compile the list of allusions at some future date - that is the beauty of wikipedia. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As just stated; done. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is now considerably different from what it was before. I have "spun off" the section as suggested, but kept what were once "trivia" like lists now incorporated more coherently into the spun-off section "Characteristics of Harold Pinter's work". --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Layout:

• More images might make the article look more attractive - are there any more free or fair use images?

Sorry: [as far as I know now] there are not any. Every image that I have attempted to add has been deleted by Wikipedia except for the ones currently in the article. (For good article or even featured article status, illustrations are not a requirement. I read the requirements re: images.) --[Updated in brackets. Please see editing history re: deletions of images over extended period of time. If I do find free or Commons images that are pertinent (or if others do), I may try to add them; perhaps others will alert us of the existence of pertinent free or Commons images for consideration on this talk page. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)]

Added one new image. Hope it stays. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Added another new image. Hope it stays. --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer blockquotes to quote boxes - I think they are easier to read and less intrusive. This could be a personal preference, though.

Sorry: those were originally changed in format by another reviewer and I followed the format. I think it quite attractive. (I myself generally use either only blockquotes or center block quotes (with the curly quote marks in margins). Someone originally deleted my center block quotations and changed them in one case to a box quote and I followed that for especially important quotations for consistency.

• I would place the "Further information" links at the tops of sections. That is where readers expect to find them.

Not necessarily; further information is sometimes useful right after something is mentioned; it may not apply to a whole section but to only a very small part of a section. I will look such references over for consistency.

• I felt overwhelmed by links while reading the article. Perhaps you could delink "United Kingdom" and "internet" and other such obvious links? I also saw examples of double links in the same section.

I certainly did not link "internet"; sometimes other editors come in and link obtrusively to what are simple generic words. I will check this out for consistency. Actually, I just checked and I had linked "Internet", right before blogosphere; I took out the first link; I'm leaving the link to "blogosphere" because some readers may not be familiar with it as a term. I'll check some of the other links that you mention (if I can find them). --NYScholar 22:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC) [Done. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)]

I think someone has added some W. links since then. I've left them in. --NYScholar 00:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, these are all minor issues that can easily be addressed. I look forward to seeing this article promoted to GA and hopefully to FA. Awadewit | talk 19:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I greatly appreciate your thoughtful suggestions. I will consider them more than once and re-consider my responses (already made) to them later as well. I just wanted to reply immediately so that you had some explanations for why some things are they way they are in the article. I am not the only editor of this article; contrary to statements by some other Wikipedia users, I do not feel that I own it. So frequently, there is material contributed by other editors not I and often I have tried to accommodate what they add by documenting it with proper sources when that has been possible. If it is "unsourced" or if it is "poorly sourced", because this is a biography of a living person, I will remove or improve such material added by others. Also, if it is incorrect, I will either correct the material or remove it. But I cannot devote all my time to this article, so some changes may take time to accomplish or others may have to do the work to accomplish them. I welcome additional help, but I strongly stress that any changes to this article should maintain the prevailing citation format, which took over a year to develop at this point. When editors have come into this article and introduced inconsistencies, it has taken me hours and sometimes days to correct the errors. So I ask that other editors (given the "good article" review currently in progress) not create errors and inconsistencies in this article. [I also request that they "assume good faith" on my part.] Thank you. --NYScholar 20:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC) --[Updated; in brackets. --NYScholar 23:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)]

As I could tell that you had worked quite a bit on the article, I did not want to disturb it unduly. However, as wikipedia can be edited by anyone, you should be aware that vandals and poorly informed editors are going to edit this page - it is unavoidable. It will also be edited by those perhaps not as informed as you might want them to be but honestly trying to help out. The article will never remain in a static form. It will however, hopefully, improve incrementally. Awadewit | talk 23:25, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I do understand that. I've updated the nomination page to indicate that you have done at least a partial review and/or are in the process of doing one. (If I did that incorrectly, please correct it. Thanks. ) --NYScholar 00:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This work took me an entire day and part of the evening. I have not got more time to devote to it. --NYScholar 01:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you had that much time. Off to grade papers. Awadewit | talk 02:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't have the time, but I took it anyway, just to get this done. In revisions, I've done what I could (or wanted to) do to address these "minor issues". But now I have got to turn back to my work outside Wikipedia. --NYScholar 10:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was a "review"; I see from comments later posted by Awadewit (history of my now-redirected talk page) that it is just "comments"; I thought s/he is a reviewer and I responded as if that was a review. I also asked that if I had mistakenly posted the "review" thing on the GAC's page that it be corrected. No harm done I hope. I have never dealt with GACs or GARs before in Wikipedia. I am only used to scholarly peer reviewing for journals and books in academe. Clearly, review standards are different! --NYScholar 06:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [Note: I redirected my talk page to my user page at Ling.nut's suggestion; I just do not have time to deal with discussions on my talk page; I can only deal with discussions on talk pages of articles. Since I cannot devote more time to Wikipedia than I have already done, I do not expect to doing any more editing in Wikipedia for an extended period of time after posting this reply (to Awadewit). --NYScholar 06:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive 3

Past discussion archived ... further discussion of GA nomination by various editors. Willow 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)