Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 3

message: Too bad that those reviewing the article failed to notice that. --NYScholar 18:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way you can force the toc to appear by using __FORCETOC__ Woodym555 18:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA status: Requested changes made

message: 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)
thread_title: [[WP:GA/R#Harold Pinter|Good article review]]

message: 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)
thread_title: New image

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Split off section

message: 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)
thread_title: See the review comments both in archive and review page please

message: alter to taste:
His work after the mid-1980s  increasingly expresses his political causes and beliefsGrimes 2005, p. 19. 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)
replies: text: ...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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  here's what I had... 

message: * 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)
replies: text: *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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  update 

message: 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)
thread_title: Dates format inconsistencies now

message: 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)
thread_title: Hyphens

message: 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)
thread_title: Dashes

message: Past discussion archived ... further discussion of GA nomination by various editors. Willow 18:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive 3