Talk:Harold Pinter/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Punctuation of quotations throughout article 2 "Incorrect" typography 2.1 Punct-uation-ilious? 2.2 Honors 2.3 Honors 3 This is not a discussion forum 4 Prior to making substantive major changes 5 The "Pinter pause" 6 The undocumented addition referring to a quotation from "Cave Dwellers" 6.1 Notes 7 Width of infobox 8 Infobox image 9 GA Nomination on 7-day hold: Fixes needed 10 English 11 American English [and MLA format]

Punctuation of quotations throughout article

Currently correct. See the archived talk pages. The format followed for punctuating quotations in this article is consistently MLA format. Do not change correct punctuation of quotations to incorrect punctuation. These are not so-called "scare quotes." This is American-style punctuation throughout (unless the original quotation is UK-version from original source; original source punctuation is followed at all times; with "[sic]" used to indicate "as is." Do not change; it will created inconsistencies and errors throughout the article if one changes it as a recent editing change did. I restored correct punctuation throughout. See archived talk pages: this article is written consistently in American English, and that is in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines for editing in English Wikipedia (which this is). American English is acceptable in this article. This matter is discussed in the archived talk page (archive 1). --NYScholar 00:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

"Incorrect" typography

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Quotation_marks. Alai 00:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it before. The format is MLA format, which is part of Wikipedia's manual of style and acceptable punctuation usage. You are incorrect. The issue was discussed ages ago on the talk page of the article. Read the talk page and its archive before making such changes. Such changes should not be made disregarding the prevailing format of an article, in this case MLA format. Harold Pinter is an international English literature writer; MLA format is a format style used for articles about literature. It is consistently used in the article. You are using scare quotes and altering original source punctuation. Your UK format is incorrect in an article following MLA format, which is one of the recommended formats in W's manual of style (read the whole thing). I am a professional editor, and I know what I am doing. --NYScholar 00:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The quotation format in this article is American usage. See above. Wikipedia manual of style gives examples of the usage used in this article correctly. Alai is incorrect. --NYScholar 00:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Such formatting should not be made disregarding the prevailing format of Wikipedia: once again, please follow the manual of style, and if you wish to suggest any changes to same, please discuss it there. In which instances did I change source punctuation? Please also don't change the source capitalisation, as you've also done (and blanket-reverted). (And please fix your signature, per earlier request.) Alai 00:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I really do not know what you are talking about. Titles are capitalized according to MLA format; at least they were until you started tinkering with it.

Regarding my signature, in Wikipedia one is allowed to choose preferences. I use four tildes, and my signature posts correctly as is my preference. Please don't harrass me. I don't have time for this. --NYScholar 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Please don't take this sort of needlessly belligerent tone. "Titles are capitalized according to MLA format": why? It's not the original format, which is what would normally be determinative of such matters, and it doesn't correspond to Wikipedia's style guide, if one were to start "correcting" these to some consistent format. (I shall take the matter of the signature to a more appropriate venue, though as you immediately 'archive' comments to your talk-page unanswered, I shall have to work on what that venue might be.) Alai 01:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines are to follow the prevailing format of an article. This article is highly developed. It has a prevailing format. Your job as an editor is to follow it. See the talk pages. "Original format" is not what MLA follows in capitalizing titles. Capitalization is standardized. It is not "newspaper" format. Newspaper format is not MLA format. MLA format standardizes capitalization: read the rules; they are linked via Wikipedia's own style manual. Due to so many variations among different newspapers in how they render article titles, one standardizes. It is actually incorrect in American English version following MLA format (which this article does and has done for many months) to reproduce titles of articles in newspapers, which do not capitalize words correctly acccording to MLA format. Encyclopedia articles are not newspaper articles. They are formal articles and follow formal formatting requirements. Most Wikipedia editors are not professional editors of peer-reviewed publications and they are not aware of these distinctions. There is no reason, however, to reproduce their errors, no matter how prevalent they are in Wikipedia. This article is about a Nobel laureate in Literature; MLA format is the main format in articles about literature. It is appropriately used in the last version of the article as I edited it. Since then changes have been introduced that I will consider later. I have not got time for this now. --NYScholar 02:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the applicable Wikipedia guideline is, 'put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations)'. The "prevailing format" clause applies only to the "National varieties of English" section, which is expressly concerned with grammar, spelling, and capitalisation, and not punctuation, for which there's an unambiguous rule. (For quotes, at least, and an explicitly laissez-faire position on matters like the sertial comma.) And at that, only if other considerations don't apply, which needn't concern us at present. It's not appropriate to tell people to "read the rules" of MLA style, certainly not on matters which contradict Wikipedia style guidance, because those do not in any way override it. (Other than to encourage their intellectual curiosity.) The entire tenor of this discussion seems to smack of WP:OWN issues (and a distinct lack of much in the way of WP:CIVILity). To coin a phrase: 'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.' Alai 02:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is not to make changes simply for the sake of making changes. If something is not incorrect (according to the prevailing format of the article, which was initially correct, given that it is MLA Style format), one is not supposed to change it, creating inconsistencies in an article. The goal is "to improve" (to make "improvements") to an artice--see talkheader--not to introduce the opposite because one is being pedantic. Don't quote some of Wikipedia out of context without adhering to the general guidelines editing. There is no need to "mercilessly" edit already correct articles. I find your insistence on doing so absurd and unwarranted. --NYScholar 23:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The changes that Alai made to the punctuation of titles in the text and in notes and references has introduced inconsistencies throughout the article; MLA format in notes and bibliographies and American English-style punctuation of quotations place periods and commas within the final quotation mark in rendering titles and sentnences. To place the commas and the periods outside the quoted titles and phrases is not American-style English (which prevails in the rest of this article) and it creates errors in the format in the notes and bibliograpy. (Titles of essays and short plays, sketches, etc., and quoted phrases were correctly punctuation consistent with the MLA Style format and American-English format in this article. Wikipedia style of quotation marks in titles, putting commas and periods outside the final quotation mark, conflicts with MLA Style Manual style. Experienced professional editors know that consistency is the hallmark of their work. Wikipedia's "convention" is contrary to professional editing practices and inconsistent with American English format of punctuating such titles in texts and in notes and bibliographical-form entries.) It may be Wikipedia style of quoting titles and phrases (that are also not so-called "scare quotes"), but it is inconsistent with the prevailing documentation format in this particular article. For those who print out articles from Wikipedia, it creates inconsistencies in the print out and every reference should be consistent for anyone who is formating a note or a bibliography entry in MLA format. I intentionally followed correct American-English and MLA Style formatting of quotations (which incl. following P of the original, even if that is UK spelling or some incorrect amalgam, according to MLA Style format rules).

What Alai has done is to introduce errors now throughout the article. People who are citing notes and intend to use MLA bibliography format will now have to make changes throughout the article. To avoid getting into a so-called "editing war" over this typographical detail (Wikipedia punctuation of quotations and of titles conventions vs. MLA and American-English punctuation of quotations and of titles conventions), the errors will remain for the time being. I haven't time to re-edit this article (again). Please do not introduce any further inconsistencies in what was already correct MLA Style format for an article on an international literary figure (permitted style format in Wikipedia). Thank you. --NYScholar 22:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I really have to side with Alai on this. I've read this and the supporting documentation several times, and thought on it for almost a week. This is beginning to smack of WP:OWN, and additionally of WP:LAWYER, especially in quoting things like "inconsistent with the prevailing format" out of one side of one's mouth while ignoring WP:STYLE in other ways for the convenience of one's own argument, on the other. The MLA style is really of no relevance here at all, as it is intended for students writing term papers ("or if your instructor says otherwise", etc.) Wikipedia is not your term paper or even your dissertation. This is a substantially British-authored article about an entirely British subject, and should therefore use British conventions. And, BTW, I am an American, so there is no "anti-Americanism" on my part. The characterizations like "Alai has introduced inconsistencies" and "Alai has introduced errors throughout the article" strike me as antagonistic nonsense, especially after looking at the actual diffs. As Alai pointed out: WP style calls for one to 'put the punctuation mark inside the quotation marks only if the sense of the punctuation mark is part of the quotation ("logical" quotations)'. He further pointed out that 'The "prevailing format" clause applies only to the "National varieties of English" section, which is expressly concerned with grammar, spelling, and capitalisation, and not punctuation, for which there's an unambiguous rule.' I've yet to see any refutation of this. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

PS: The "MLA is part of the WP style guidelines" stuff doesn't seem to hold water. Wikipedia:Manual of Style does not include the term "MLA" or "M.L.A." at all, and the only occurrences of "Modern" (the M in MLA) are both references to Fowler's book, which has nothing to do with MLA. Cf. the second policy/guideline I wikilinked to above. <ahem> And, yes, please do fix your sig. WP sigs include links at very least to the user page, even better to the user talk page and user contribs, for a reason. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ

The MLA Style Manual is linked in the "See also" section link to WP:Cite in Wikipedia:Manual of style. WP:Cite governs citations in Wikipedia and it offers several ways of making citations, including MLA Style Format. (The link to "Citation Style Handbook: MLA" is listed in the "References" section of WP:Cite: see WP:Cite#References. Wikipedia does not invent citation styles; it incorporates information from existing style formats, listed in its References section in WP:Cite. The link to the Modern Language Association website is provided via the external links section in the article on the MLA in Wikipedia, as well as in WP:Cite's References link to a version of MLA format on an external academic site for students. MLA Style is the format for articles dealing with subjects relating to language and literature (Harold Pinter is a subject in this domain--literature). MLA Style format is taught to students at undergraduate and graduate levels in English and other languages and literatures throughout the United States (and elsewhere in the world), beginning with elementary composition classes in college and through graduate level instruction. Chicago Style is used for books and some other journal publications by scholars in these fields as required by book and journal publishers; for preparation of their students' term papers and of their own submission of articles and books for publication, teachers and scholars in these fields generally instruct and follow MLA Style format.

My signature is my selected preference in Wikipedia. I am not changing it. --NYScholar 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [Some months later, I did change my Wikipedia preferences. --NYScholar 09:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

Punct-uation-ilious?

Is there User-torture here? Is any of this related to copy being from both sides of the Atlantic in Pinter's case? (Pinter himself seems to be that way.) I'm an editor person too and I feel there's a difference between being conscientious or diligent, and being pedantic. Somewhere in Wikistyle it says to keep to the style of the original article. So if this is British English, we keep our sense of humour and don't change it to "humor" – if it began with American English the same applies in reverse. The overarching style is Wiki and there's a guide for that, too.

As for [sic] – it applies to an odd or erroneous word appearing in a quote. Usually it is not used simply to indicate an alternative spelling as if it is an error. Skilled editor or not, it pays to be flexible as well as applicable and keep self up to date. Non? Julia Rossi 01:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This article is not written in British English; it never was. It is written in American English, which is fully acceptable in Wikipedia. See archived talk page, which, clearly, you still have not done. --NYScholar 02:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The original punctuation and format of this article was never English or UK format. It has consistently been American English and MLA format. Read the archived talk pages. You come lately to this article and are unaware of its prevailing and original format. It has been this format for many months. It is a painstaking job to edit correctly and consistently. Johnny-come-lately editors who attempt to make changes here and there without concern for the prevailing format of an entire article are creating inconsistencies in the article's format. It is a question of consistency, not pedantry. I really do not think you are aware of the previous discussion. --NYScholar 01:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

One is supposed to quote accurately. If one quotes a UK publication or Pinter' own writing, one follows original format accurately. If one quotes an American publication (which is also a source of Pinter's own writing and punctuated American style most often in that case), one follows that original format accurately. One does not introduce so-called "scare quotes" where they are not in the original; it alters the meaning. Pinter himself in UK-published material makes a distinction in how he punctuates as well, and some UK newspapers themselves use mixed styles. (I have followed exact punctuation in any case.) One follows the source in punctuation; one does not change it, because that can introduce errors in intended meaning of the source being quoted. As for capitalization of titles, one follows MLA format in this article. That is the prevailing format. In MLA format, the only punctuation that goes outside the quotation mark is a colon or a semi-colon; phrases are sometimes punctuated as if they were so-called "scare quotes"; sometimes not. It depends on the intended meaning in the original quotation. It is not as "cut and dried" as one is making it out to be. One has to exert editorial discretion in what one is doing. I have done that. "sic" within brackets indicated "as is": that is how it is in the particular "source." "That is how it is in the particular 'source.' [sic]." [The previous user's definition of what "sic" within brackets indicates is partial and not fully accurate.] --NYScholar 01:54, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Honors

My earlier comments (restored from archive 1). It is against Wikipedia policy to remove other editors' comments in talk pages without their permission. I intended the following to appear, since clearly other users need to be reminded of it and are not reading the archived talk page(s). --NYScholar 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)]

[Um, no. Please see WP:ARCHIVE and WP:REFACTOR (not to mention, again, WP:OWN and WP:LAWYER. If you're going to throw policy around at people, at least please be accurate about it.) PS: See your own pot/kettle talk page "notice": "Comments added to this page are moved if they are misdirected and/or archived. This is my personal talk page. I archive comments as I wish. That is my prerogative. You can find them in the archive." — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 08:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)]

Consistency: Please note again that the prevailing language used in this article is American English: see the previous discussion in the talk page archive. This is not a "personal" matter; it relates to the form and content of the article. American English is permissible in Wikipedia in articles on subjects of wider than local interest. A Nobel laureate is a subject of wider than local notability. The academic society devoted to Pinter's work, the Harold Pinter Society, was founded by Americans and is based in the United States. Its website is designed by a member of the Harold Pinter Society who lives and works in the United Kingdom. The organization is international in scope, as is its subject, who is a native resident of the UK. But American English is entirely appropriate and consistently used in this article. There is no rational reason to change the spelling throughout the article. UK forms are followed in titles and quotations as needed. (Following WP:NPA, I've crossed out the personal aspersion and the quotation of my own words taken out of context from my talk page; they do not belong here. I did not and do not want them posted here. Different guidelines pertain to Wikipedia users' talk pages than to article talk pages: see W:Talk page guidelines and see also WP:NPA. I repeat: the matter of spelling is a formal issue pertaining to the content of the article; it is not a "personal" issue and I don't appreciate anyone's trying to make it appear misleadingly as if it were one.) --NYScholar 17:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Honors

[I wish to emphasize this information, and I have repeated it here for that reason'.--NYScholar 00:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)] Explanation: Please do not revert to "Honours."

"Honors" is the Am. spelling and acceptable. Wikipedia redirects "honors" to "honours"; but there is no Wikipedia link being used in the heading. The article uses American spelling consistently. Changing one spelling introduces an inconsistency. British spelling "honour" is followed for the actual titles of the honors conveyed, as for quotations of them. Use of capital letters for such honors indicates the name of the title or honor or prize. It is acceptable in Wikipedia to use American spelling. American editors (like me) use American spelling. The nationality of the subject does not govern the spelling to be used. Many articles in the English version of Wikipedia on subjects of various nationalities use American spelling. --NYScholar 18:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

For more information, see the following Wikipedia article American and British English differences, especially the sections relating to spelling or orthography. Please be careful not to introduce inconsistencies of spelling into this article; the text of this article currently attempts to conform consistently with conventions of American spelling, American punctuation and quotation, MLA (Modern Language Association of America) usage. See WP:Cite, and other Wikipedia policies and articles that I've already linked to in earlier comments and replies. If in doubt, please review the conventions. (I've already addressed some of these issues in earlier comments and replies to others' comments and changes above in this talk page; so please read those too.) Thanks. --NYScholar 18:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See also: English Wikipedia#Controversies for further perspective on the importance of consistency of conventions within the texts of Wikipedia articles: "The policy, however, is to prefer an appropriate form of English for articles of regional scope (e.g., Canadian English for subjects related to Canada) but otherwise to allow the use of any variety of English, as long as the variety of English is consistent throughout the text of an article" (English Wikipedia#National stylistic conventions). An article on a Nobel laureate and world-renowned subject like Harold Pinter is of international (not regional or national) scope, and this usage of American English (as long as "consistent throughout the text of an article") is thus allowed. --NYScholar 19:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC) .... How "someone started" the article is not the issue; as it stands, this article consistently uses American English and there is no rationale for changing all the American English usages consistently used in it to another usage. When a title of a work or an entity or a source or a quotation uses English spelling, it is consistently being followed in this article as it is. (Please go to the Wikipedia policy cited about English-language usage and read it in context. Please don't take it out of context to make some unrelated point.) It is violating the Wikipedia quoted policy to change consistencies within this article to inconsistencies by editing without concern for the prevailing and consistent English-language usage (American English). --NYScholar 05:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC) Source: Talk:Harold Pinter/archive1#Honors --NYScholar 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum

See tagged talkpage header: "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Harold Pinter article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject."--NYScholar 08:42, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Prior to making substantive major changes

Someone recently moved the "Works" section of this article to a separate article without any prior discussion on this talk page. Doing that violates talkpage guidelines. It turns out that the change may be a desirable way to shorten the article and that other editors might think it's a good idea, but making such a major change to an article is supposed to be discussed prior to making the change. One needs to ask others for their views about such changes. I think that the change may be okay; though it might be more convenient to have the Works listed in this (actual) main article on the subject (Harold Pinter); without such discussion, there is no way to know if other editors (not just the one who made the change) agree with it. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style for linked guidelines and policies and "help" with editing on the main page of Wikipedia. --NYScholar 08:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Pinter pause"

In response to someone's adding an unsourced sentence re: the "Pinter pause" in the section on literary allusions to Pinter in American culture (where I believe it was misplaced as well as undocumented), I did develop a subsection (after the one on the "two silences") called The "Pinter pause". The statement added by the other editor was not really accurate or in the right place and it needed to be documented with reliable and verifiable citations (sourced). I worked on developing it but, unfortunately, in the midst of doing that, before I could save the changes (while previewing and checking a source) lost my edits during a computer glitch encountered via a source's website. I may try to develop this or related material again later. There are many sources that document Pinter's "trademark" use of "pauses and silences" (the so-called "Pinter pause"), but the entry into "culture" is not just into American culture; it's worldwide culture, and it's not exactly "literary allusion to Pinter in American culture" (the heading); the "Pinter pause" is used in discourse (writing, conversation, criticism) in the domains of performance (theater) and life (mass culture). If I have the time, I will add the sourced material later. There were a number of other typographical, related format, and development changes that I lost while working on them, so those changes are not in the article either. They were not many substantial changes aside from some quotations re: the "Pinter pause" and its theatrical and cultural contexts, and some additional development of the Nobel section and typographical corrections. It was work that took a lot of time ,and it's a lot to have to reconstruct. I may work on it offline and come back later after I do other work that I have to do first. Or I may not be able to take the time to do that. I'll see. Sorry that I lost the material that I developed. --NYScholar 19:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I made the revisions. --NYScholar 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The undocumented addition referring to a quotation from "Cave Dwellers"

Here is the developed passage, but it still lacks a verifiable citation to a reliable source that is permissible in Wikipedia:

Early in Cave Dwellers, a re-titled and re-edited English version distributed by Film Ventures International of the 1984 Italian-made film Ator l'invincibile 2, which aired as episode 301 of the American television series Mystery Science Theater 3000 (MST3K) first on 1 June 1991, the robot character Crow [Or, is it Tom Servo? See note to Muppet Central Forum] observes metatheatrically, "This film has more pauses than a Pinter play."^{[citations needed][1][2]}

Note: The last source (not permissible) is the only citation that I can find online to document this quotation and it is not one considered a reliable source in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For that reason, until and unless a reliable source can be found and cited in proper format, I am moving this material to the talk page as per Wikipedia policy: delete on sight from biographies of living persons material that is not properly documented.

Note also: There are perhaps thousands of such references as this quotation in contemporary American (and British) culture--newspapers, tv shows, other plays, films, and so on. Some are more trivial than others and may not be considered "encyclopedic" enough to include. Given the lack of documentation with a reliable source citation for this one added originally by another user, I am moving it to the talk page. As the quotation purportedly comes from an episode that aired first on June 1, 1991, if included at all, it would be placed chronologically after the allusion in Stephen Sondheim's Broadway musical Company. [Note also that the Muppet Central Forum participant attributes the quotation to the character Tom Servo not to Crow, as the anon. IP user originally did. As there is no verifiable source, I don't know the accuracy or inaccuracy of either claim.] --NYScholar 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Notes

Width of infobox

Thank you to the editor who revised the width of the infobox. I did not really know what width is best. I provided the silver part (which I found in another article's infobox), but I wasn't sure about how to handle changing the width (without it being too wide, which it was; one wants to be able to see the photo easily but not to have it as large as it was). It seems that the width of the photo (jpg) governs the width of the whole column. In general: what are common alternatives for such infobox widths? (so we can know in the future)? Is there a specific link in Wikipedia to go to for such tech. guidance? Thanks. --NYScholar 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Infobox image

Wikipedia is currently in the process of attempting to acquire a GFDL image from Harold Pinter's assistant or his agent to use in the infobox for the article. See the editing history links to the user talk page w/ discussion. User Quadell posted a message in the Harold Pinter Community Discussion Forum (at haroldpinter.org) with his request. --NYScholar 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 19:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)]

Why is the image in, say, Phillip Glass being allowed, whereas similar kinds of images with similar kinds of rationales have been deleted from Harold Pinter (see editing history)? It would seem to me that a photography by famed photographer Annie Liebowitz is far more subject to copyright violations than some of the publicity photographs that have been uploaded to illustrate Harold Pinter; the one from the DVD cover that I uploaded I had permission from the publisher to feature in website relating to Harold Pinter, and it was not by Annie Liebowitz! --NYScholar 08:14, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination on 7-day hold: Fixes needed

This article is quite close to meeting all of the requirements of the GA standards, but there are a few nagging issues that need to be dealt with:

1. The lead does not adequately summarize the article. See WP:LEAD. A lead section should be an article in minature, and should summarize the entire article. This one does not come close to fully summarizing the article.
2. There are a few inconsistancies in the referencing. The article is VERY well referenced, but it uses a mix of styles. For example, in the Personal Life section, there is a parenthetical note (Harvard style) mixed in with some footnotes. Pick one style and stick to it. It looks like the rest of the article uses footnotes, so any parenthetical notes should be converted to the predominant style (footnotes).
3. There are places where the article uses "see also's" and "Cf" in the text; wikipedia has internal linking for a reason. Incorporate these words into the text and let them wikilink as normal. Especially the numerous Cf.'s in the awards and honors sections. These could be written out in prose to improve readibility.

Given the state of this article, I hope the nominator is watching and willing to make the required fixes. This hold will remain for 7 days, after which the article will fail its nomination. If you have any questions, please leave a note below, I will watch this talk page. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The "parenthetical" reference style is consistent with MLA Style Manual format (which is prevailing format of this article, adapted to Wikipedia's citation punctuation of titles and dates. Otherwise it is MLA not Harvard. MLA uses parenthetical references after first full citation. [MLA format uses content notes as well for additional points in notes; some of the notes are content notes.]

As far as the lead, it was mostly in place before I began editing this article; please see "earliest" version; the article has had a number of editors over a relatively long period of time.

External links are not supposed to be in the sentences of the articles. See WP:CITE. I will leave it to others to make these suggested changes. As far as I am concerned, "Cf." and "See also" are recognized scholarly abbreviations. "Cf." means "Confer" (refer to [compare with, consult: cf.); sometimes it can just be dropped, if one objects to its use; [or perhaps the above comment means one should add the Wikified link cf.?] [At the beginning of a note, the letter "c" needs to be a capital letter.] The citation would just begin after it. ... (I am not the "nominator" of the article.) [If one knows how to read citations in MLA format (used for articles on literary subjects), one can understand them.] There are not Wikipedia articles to link to in the cases where "see also" and "cf." are used (as far as I know). These are printed sources that are being referred to, not Wikipedia articles or internet sources. There are a number of print-accessible-only printed sources listed in References section. There is also a cross-linked piece of the article that another editor separated from this main article; it is on Pinter's "Works": it is already a Wikified link accessible via the template in the article.

I'll take a look at awards and honors section to see if I can understand what above editor is referring to. Just on basis of what he says, without looking at the section, I am not at all sure what he means. [updated in brackets] --NYScholar 04:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Let me restate this clearer. The parenthetical reference style is NOT a problem. The footnote references style is NOT a problem. Using BOTH parenthetical references AND footnoted references in the same article IS a problem. For example, footnotes # 2 and 3 are simply references. Meanwhile, the parenthetical style is used in the section "Art, Truth & Politics: The Nobel Lecture". The question is not that either style is better, the issue is that ONE style needs to be utilized consistantly.

Also, one more thing I caught, is that the article uses external links in the main body of the text. According to WP:EL, and I quote, "External links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include them in an "External links" section at the end or in the appropriate location within an infobox." This will need to be fixed as well.

And WRT the Cf. issue, it was in the "Main Career" section, not the awards and honors section. I know what Cf is about. You know what it is about, but we aren't writing for a scholarly audience. It's not hard to write why these terms are in the text and why they are being brought up, so that the average reader will understand the context. Right now, they look like random words thrown into the text with no reason. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I made some format changes throughout and expanded the lead somewhat. In my own view, the lead is an introduction to what follows, which is more detailed. Attempted not to go into details that are provide later in the lead. Again, many of the notes are to printed not internet sources. There is no way to use Wikified links to these sources unless Wikipedia articles are later provided on them or their authors (if deemed "notable" and/or "relevant" enough). Will leave such Wikipedia: Notability matters (whether some of those printed sources are notable enough for their own separate Wikipedia articles) to others. ISBN numbers are already appropriately provided for printed books. --NYScholar 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Please see my talk page re: academic documentation format: when there is a conflict between Wikipedia guidelines and academic scholarly conventions, I follow academic scholarly conventions. Wikipedia's documentation formats conflict with parenthetical citation format to books and articles in subsequent references to them at times; MLA is consistent. The References listed in the References list are referred to in the parenthetical citations; that is not a "mixture" of formats; that is MLA Style Manual format, and it is used consistently here. Some editors of Wikipedia are academic scholars (as I am); the average reader can follow a scholarly reference format if it is consistently used in the article. This format is consistently used in the article. Cf. is linked in Wikipedia to an explanation, as is N.B., which I removed from this article in my recent edit. There is no reason that a general reader will not understand "cf." since it is currently linked to the Wikipedia explanation of what it is. Others can work on improving the article further if they wish. --NYScholar 05:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

In the past, I had provided the parenthetical references to page numbers in the text and not in notes, and other editors came along and took them out at times. If someone else wants to do the work, they can move the short subsequent references back into the text (short separate notes). I have not got time to do more here. In my recent edit, after I took "see also" or "cf." out at times, the notes became shorter, and now they could be (re-)incorporated into the text as parenthetical citations. If a quotation is within a sentence, the period would follow the parenthetical citation; in a block quotation, the parenthetical citation would follow the final punctuation of the block quotation. Wikipedia:Manual of style. --NYScholar 05:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved some of the short citations into the text in parenthetical citations. Full citations are in notes. Also moved fuller citation of Lyall from References into note. --NYScholar 05:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: WP:EL: that is a "guideline" and not a policy; some of it is currently in dispute as it is inconsistent at times with WP:BLP#Reliable sources, which has been the subject of Wikipedia:Edit wars in the past few months and it is also in dispute. I do not find WP:EL currently a reliable reflection of WP:V#Sources. My comments in the discussion is in those other talk pages; I am trying to avoid those talk pages so as not to waste any more time re: them. Eventually, I hope that the contradictions between the statements in the guideline (which has been revised recently also and the subject of edit wars) will be resolved more satisfactorily than current status of these pages. Wikipedia's policy statement pertaining to WP:BLP and the guideline in WP:EL are not currently in sync, as I read them. At least the material in this article is well sourced and in keeping with WP:V#Sources. --NYScholar 05:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not in the interest in getting into a dispute of this nature. The phrase "it's a guideline not a policy" is not one meant to engender collaboration, it is meant to belittle my arguement by saying that my points are invalid and not to be respected. By placing this article up for GAN, you asked for an honest review of this article in regards to the good article criteria and in regards to wikipedia standards. I have done so, and asked for simple, short and easy fixes, and instead I get "it's not a policy, its a guideline." I stand by my review above; if you don't want to make this article more consistant and more readible, then find another reviewer. I will recuse myself from this review and return the hold. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 18:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I spent hours making the changes you asked for. I have no idea what more you want. (See my reply below. As far as "Wikipedia standards" go, I believe that the article meets them. There are policies and guidelines. What format one chooses for documenting citations is a guideline, not even a recommended guideline; it's a matter of editors' own choices from many possibilities. I made the "simple, short and easy fixes" already asked for; if you have others, perhaps advise people how to make them. I've done what I can and have the time and desire to do. --NYScholar 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Just chiming in here. I sympathize with wanting to use standard academic refs in MLA format. Still, the article needs to use one and only one referencing format. It is up to the author which one to use, but only one can be used. In order to reach GA, please use either all parenthetical or all Harvard or all anything you want, as long as it's consistent to the reader. It may make sense to the writer, but as a reader, I'm having trouble keeping track of the article's refs, and I'm familiar with MLA. One option would be to put ref tags around the parentheticals. This would be in line with MLA format, but would also take advantage of internet capabilities. However, it is up to the editors. Wrad 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article uses one format; MLA format enables both content notes and parenthetical citations to references listed [incorporating short titles, where useful]; one can combine them in MLA format, as I have done. [I've provided the URLs where useful as well, so that one does not have to hunt for them in the "References" list; the format is consistent with MLA Style format.] --NYScholar 18:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I already spent a lot of time correcting the article to include parenthetical references consistently; I moved the ref. tags (about which the previous writer (Jayron32) had complained, and I'm just not about to move them back. It takes a lot of time, readers are resourceful, they can see what the format is if they have an eye for formats. I never used Harvard referencing in this article and neither did any other editor. The format has been MLA format for over a year. If you (either one who has commented thus far) really are an expert on MLA format, you can make the changes yourself. As one who is an expert in the format, I've done what I can within the constrictions of Wikipedia's peculiar way of punctuating titles and dates, which are not consistent with MLA format. This is a very time-consuming matter, these are extremely "minor" changes (Wikipedia:Manual of Style), and they are not requirements of Wikipedia articles. The article just needs to be reliably and verifiably sourced according to a consistent format, and that it is. Nit-picking non-consequential details is not a matter required for "good article" status. --NYScholar 18:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC) As far as I'm concerned, I "fixed" the article as requested. If people keep coming along and changing the requests from one thing to another, and if the changes do not actually "improve" the article, those requests are not substantial enough to matter. If you have actual specific changes to make that will "improve" the article, why not discuss them and see whether other editors agree that they will "improve" the article. So far, as one who supplied most of the references for this article over a year's work, I think it's fine the way it is. I've done what I have time to do to it and must turn back to work outside of Wikipedia. This is voluntary work, and I wish that others would be more appreciative of the time that it has taken to do it. When dealing with printed-only sources, there are no relevant "internet capabilities" that pertain. Printed sources are either bought via booksellers or borrowed from libraries. To do otherwise with them is a violation of their copyrights. As far as I know, they are properly identified according to Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines, including WP:CITE. --NYScholar 18:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't request anything other than that they be standardized. I gave a suggestion on how that might be done, but made it very clear that it was up to you. This is not changing the request at all. You may have it all figured out in your head how you have standardized the refs, but to a new reader it is confusing and needs to be standardized further. If you don't have time, that's fine, just take your time. Wrad 18:59, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It is just not at all clear to me what you are requesting when you are saying "that they be standardized"; there is no "standard" citation format in Wikipedia; there are a great number of possible kinds of format that one can use, none is "recommended"; if "a new reader" is finding them "confusing", if that is actually the case, then the reader needs to specific precisely which notes are confusing throughout the entire article, so each one can be examined to see whether or not they are consistent with one another. As an editor, I do not have the problems that these other editors are noticing, so I am just not seeing what they see. These are highly-specific details. Please examine the editing history summaries and "diffs" if one wants to see the changes that I made in response to the earlier requests. Thanks. I will not have time to do any more. I'm logging off for work that I need to do outside of Wikipedia. --NYScholar 19:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

"Standardized" in this case means that all refs in the article use the same style of referencing, whether they be internet sources or paper sources. Again, I am leaving it up to the editors to decide what format to use to reach this goal, but it has to be this way, otherwise it is confusing. I am not doing the GA review, but am just clarifying what the old reviewer seems to have said. Wrad 19:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the changes that I have made to the format are consistent with MLA Style format (which allows for content notes and, in the case of multiple editions being cited--"Works Cited"="References" in Wikipedia--allows for identifying which ed. is being used, with subsequent references in parentheses appearing in the text), while still in keeping with guidelines for citations in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 07:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) (Keep in mind also that in Wikipedia, which does not have a "Works Cited" heading, but rather a "References" heading, sources listed in References can be both "works cited" and "works consulted" or "further reading" recommendations; it's a "rubric" that is less strict than MLA Style's "Works Cited," or multiple other options. There are both "content notes" and source citation notes used in MLA format [simultaneously]. When possible parenthetical references to authors and pages or authors, short titles (if needed for disambiguation) and pages are keyed to a list of "Works Cited." The use of parenthetical references in the text of this article is not "Harvard referencing"; it is MLA Style format. I've changed a couple of first uses of parenthetical citations in the text to a full citation in a note with a reference to "Subsequent references to this edition appear in parentheses in the text"--also an option in MLA Style; this is useful when more than one edition is cited (listed in "Works Cited" [here: "References"]) to distinguish which one is being used as a source in the text. For convenience, I've incorporated one parenthetical reference to Moss and Wark, which are in the "References" list that serves to include what in MLA Style format is a "Works Cited" list. Any reader should be able to follow those citations and know to look for the sources in "References"; it is common sense. (In MLA Style Format in "Works Cited" ["References" in Wikipedia], the word "accessed" [Wikipedia "Retrieved" or "accessed"] is not required; I used it for the convenience of readers in the notes citations. The second date given in MLA Style format is the date accessed.)

Again, I did not "nominate" this article for "good article" status; someone else did. That person has not done work in this article. I spent some additional time to make changes, especially after someone (and earlier editors) altered spellings from what was consistent American usage to inconsistencies. It is time-consuming to make such corrections. I hope that people do not come along and alter the consistent usage to inconsistent usage. --NYScholar 09:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

English

I edited this article to follow English spelling (OED as far as possible), rather than the mixed English/American-English usage found previously. Wikipedia convention seems to show that articles pertaining to a specific English speaking country or a citizen of a specific ENglish speaking country should follow the correct national variety of English (such as Bill Clinton obviously requiring American English). Harold Pinter is a British citizen. I've left the punctuation as it was (as there appear to be unresolved arguments on that issue). 81.129.46.56 14:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

That is not "Wikipedia convention"; see below and earlier discussion as linked throughout. --NYScholar 00:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

American English [and MLA format]

[Before that edit, except for inconsistencies that other editors introduced before I saw the above comment], the article appropriately followed [and still follows]] American English spelling, which is consistent in Wikipedia articles in English. This matter is thoroughly discussed already: see above and archived talk page. There is no need to revisit it. The article is about a playwright of international reputation considered by many to be the most important living contemporary English-language playwright. The person's citizenship does not dictate what kind of English is appropriate in Wikipedia. This article has been written and documented most actively by a Wikipedia editor who uses American English; the Harold Pinter Society [an international organization that is an Allied Organization of the Modern Language Association (Modern Language Association of America)] was founded by American scholars, and it uses American English in its articles [published in The Pinter Review: Collected Essays] about Harold Pinter; its recommended format is MLA Style Manual format.

The punctuation is MLA format with usage as required by Wikipedia title and date punctuation, given the MLA format of dates (day month year), and it is consistent in source and reference citations. See Wikipedia:Manual of style.

When punctuation (and spelling) is already consistent and correct, Wikipedia advises not to change it. [I've corrected the inconsistencies and discrepancies added by other editors, which I was not aware that they had added until today.] [Whatever other inconsistencies with American English spelling that I found later, I have also attempted to correct as well. (In some cases, the American-based spelling is actually the correct spelling: e.g., "honorary" as in "honorary degree".) --NYScholar 10:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

Harold Pinter's citizenship is not relevant to choice of English throughout. The above [anon. IP] user is just inventing restrictions that do not exist in Wikipedia and that are not "Wikipedia convention", despite the claim that it is. In the English version of Wikipedia, American English is an acceptable use. (The example given is not commensurate; Bill Clinton is a past President of the United States; Harold Pinter is a writer whose nationality does not require use of UK English. (FYI: The Oxford English Dictionary is published by Oxford University Press, which also has an office in the United States in New York. Use of that dictionary has no relevance to what version of English one chooses for this article. That dictionary illustrates the "evolution" of English from its beginnings and it is not confined to UK English (which the above user apparently advocates). In this article it is appropriate to use standard American English; Wikipedia simply requires that its use be consistent, and it is consistent. Articles and books, including titles, and other quotations are quoted exactly and references to them are standard MLA Style Manual format, as is one of the many recommended citation formats in Wikipedia. There is no reason to change it from what is consistent to inconsistencies. See the archived discussions (scroll up as well). --NYScholar 21:59, 19 August 2007 (UTC) --[Updated in brackets. --NYScholar 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC); --NYScholar 00:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)]

Scroll up and see #Honors and links to archived discussion (see archive box as well). --NYScholar 22:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

As linked there: Wikipedia:English#Controversies for further information, including link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English. As clearly stated, the English nationality of a subject that is of international notability (such as Harold Pinter) does not dictate that UK version of English be used in Wikipedia articles about the subject. The changes did not improve this article; they introduced inconsistencies in its documentation formats for citations. The choice of American English is consistent in the article and MLA Style Manual citation format is used for literary subjects written in a variety of English-speaking countries, including by many authors who originate in the UK and who publish work of international scope (as in work on Harold Pinter). UK English is more localized, less universal (see discussion of English as a global language) and less recognizable than American English to most readers of this encyclopedia; this is not a local UK subject (phenonenon). "Strong national ties" does not pertain in an article about a Nobel Laureate whose main notability is his international reputation as a writer. --NYScholar 22:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Related information: According to the source cited in the Wikipedia article American English, " It is estimated that approximately two thirds of native speakers of English live in the United States." The majority of native speakers of English (which pertains to the readers of the English version of Wikipedia) do not use British English. --NYScholar 23:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

The Oxford English Dictionary is not a dictionary of primarily current style usage; it is a dictionary showing the historical evolution of English usage (more than one dialect or version as well); it is used for academic purposes of showing the evolution of the definition and usage of words in varieties of English; e.g., I have already quoted it in documenting the evolving definitions of Pinteresque. That is an appropriate use of the OED in Wikipedia. ["The policy of the OED is to attempt recording a word's most known uses and variants in all varieties of English, worldwide, past, and present" Oxford English Dictionary.] [...]

One should be using a dictionary of current English usage in the version of English being used, in this case American English. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language is an appropriate dictionary to consult for spelling in this article. Relating to this article, both the AHD and Webster's will generally agree as to correct spelling of words. Spelling of words in exact quotations and in Wikipedia's own article links is consistently precise throughout. If a quoted word or phrase is from a source written in British English, the spelling is rendered exactly as it is in the quotation from the source; capitalization of titles is standardized according to MLA Style Manual standardization of capitalization in titles. --NYScholar 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC) [made some tc --NYScholar 09:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)]

Cf. American and British English differences if one needs more information about the differences. --NYScholar 23:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For comparison with the earliest version of this article (created 22 September 2002), see 306565 edit. Comparisons can be made via "diffs (e.g.) for further information. I added most of the sources, source citations, and references to the article in subsequent editing, which I began on 30 June 2006. (The date format in citations is MLA Style Manual format; it differs from Wikipedia date style in birth dates [in line 1 and infobox]; I have attempted to conform to Wikipedia style otherwise, wherever possible and clear; if there are ambiguities in Wikipedia's citation guidelines (as there are often), then I resolve them in favor of consistency of academic scholarly conventions (see my talk page re: that). It is not possible to change the birthdate format in the lead [line 1 or infobox]. MLA Style Manual format (MLA Style) does not use commas between the title of a publication and the day/month/year of its publication; Wikipedia introduces a comma after such titles and before dates. If just a month and a year in a monthly magazine (as opposed to a journal with volume and/or issue number), MLA Style format uses a comma between the title of the publication and the month, year. (E.g., Vogue, June 2007; but Time 11 Apr. 1980.) --NYScholar 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For "standardization" re: "usage and spelling", see Wikipedia:Manual of style#Usage and spelling and related links already cited above. (Note that the Wikipedia:Manual of style contains guidelines (not policies), and it is not always current and up-to-date with regard to the most recent versions of core policy project pages and other guideline pages in Wikipedia; frequently one will encounter contradictions and ambiguities in these Wikipedia pages as they can be the subject of content Wikipedia:Edit wars. WP:BLP is currently the site of some recent changes. --NYScholar 23:55, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

For related matters, see the Wikipedia articles on Standard English, Literary language#Literary English, and Standardization. As these articles are often heavily edited by Wikipedian's own editors, there may be discrepancies and problems of neutrality throughout them. --NYScholar 00:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.