Talk:Alan Bennett

message: This series was formerly described as "largely" erased. In fact, all six episodes still seem to be missing according to online sources. Philip Cross 19:20, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''On the Margin'' (1966)

message: :Image:Alan Bennett.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Alan Bennett.jpg

message: :Image:Beyond the Fringe.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 01:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Beyond the Fringe.jpg

message: I went to what I thought was a new play by Bennett, Feb 2007, at Watford Palace Theatre. Yet checking the article here I see Enjoy is referenced as being written in 1980. Was the play unperformed for 27 years, or was I mistaken in believing the play was new?--Dr Finkbottle (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A reply almost a year later... You were mistaken in thinking it was new. The play you saw is indeed a revival. And, yes, sadly the play has not been mounted much in major theatres since it bombed in 1980. AB's diaries 1980-1990 (published in "Writing Home" ) cover the critical reaction to the original staging and the play coming off. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enjoy 

message: I've excised a load of Youtube links, as they are copyright violations  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Youtube 

message: Does not seem fair to me.
--Stagiran (talk) 04:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point - that whole section ("Themes and characters in his work") is a mess. Much of it reads like a school essay - assertions such as "he is celebrated for his acute observations of vernacular northern speech" and "the hilarious facts-of-life talk" are quite clearly the writer's personal opinion, and the entire paragraph is unsourced and therefore reads like original research. I've tagged the section, and deleted the slightly bizarre and irrelevent coda about spies.  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Good piece of detective work! I've deleted that entire section, as it is, as you say, clearly lifted from the Telegraph article  ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:   slightly chippy Old Labour tone to his writing. 

message: In Personal Life, it says: "...has lived in Camden Town in London for thirty one years...". If one were really interested to know how long or since when he's lived there, one would have to figure out when that section was written, and possibly do some mental arithmetic (a là "that was written two years ago, so he's lived there thirty-three years now, since 19XX"). Much easier and less ambiguous to re-write it as "...has lived in Camden Town in London since 19XX" in the first place; then this sentence won't need to be updated every year. --CRConrad (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In a short section of Untold Stories prefatory to Diaries 1996–2004 (p. 179 of my HB edition) published in 2005, he writes of Camden Town as "where I have lived for the last forty years". Something like "since the mid-sixties" might be acceptable, or is it original research? According to this NYT article it was 'two decades' in 1989, referring specifically to his current address. William Avery (talk) 15:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thirty one years since when? 

message: This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement.  Text entered in   duplicated at least in part material from . 
Compare the article's:
With Telegraph's
Compare the article's:
With Telegraph's
Such material cuts far too close for us to use. 
Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright problem

message: I removed several passages listing literary, dramatic and film prizes as these have nothing to do with Bennett's work and nothing to do with merit.Keith-264 (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Adverts

message: I may be mistaken but it looks to me as though the image is reversed (i.e. flipped horizontally). Bennett's hair is normally parted on the left and, as the image stands, his shirt buttons are not on the usual side.
Simon Coward (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Both points highly persuasive. See also the image on the right. William Avery (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Image:Alan Bennett.jpg

message: Well, this is a splendid start.  But why do these pathetic Wikipedia articles, once initially posted, remain un-edited & unimproved for decades?
-  Don't incompetently provide a hyperlink to another Wikipedia article (Little Dorrit) without checking to see whether it mentions the subject in question.  Because guess what; it doesn't.  Search bennett turns up nothing.  Oh sure, search alan succeeds.  In the word nonchalant.  Either edit that article and add treatment of his role thereto, or nix the link.
-  Don't give a list of plays and films, excellently naming Bennett's role in each, but stop short of naming his role in every entry (Little Dorritt again).0
-  Call me a perfectionist, call me persnickety, call me collect, but I thought a "bibliography" is a listing of sources on which an article or monograph has drawn, or a list of items for further reading.  So I presume your section Bibliography is a list of works about Bennett.  If it were a list of works by him, the section heading would be knocked down a level and it would be under general heading Work.  But it isn't.  It's on the same hierarchical level as "Work", so it's not a list works by him.
But if that were true, and if this is a bibliography, where are the authors' names?  And why are so many entries the name of a play or film by Bennett?  And what are those names following each title?  Oh, I see; they're publishers' names.  Moreover, you have another section farther down, "Further reading".  Well then, knock "Bibliography" down a level and change it to "Books by".
-  A bibliography is a technical section which comes at the end of an article or monograph.  But here it's embedded in the middle of the article.  You've got main text—section "Awards and honours"— following it.  Its being narrative text, and the topic being vital and integral to the main article, shunt it up thereto.  Moreover, the content being of a public and general nature, I'd say it should precede section "Personal life".
***
"But life, life is like a tin of sardines...
Jimlue (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So fix it then. Moaning won't change anything. --Ef80 (talk) 10:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Details