Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 6

Mediation

I have listed this article at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-01/Harold Pinter to see if we can get some pointers on how to go forward. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Very good. Thank you, I wouldn't have had a clue how to go about it. Wingspeed (talk) 01:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this matter to the attention of my mentor, Shell Kinney. I will be offline, resting and doing other things. --NYScholar (talk) 02:12, 6 January 2009 (UTC) [I changed "London" to "West London" in the lead, to match the recently-changed infobox for consistency, before going offline. --NYScholar (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2009 (UTC)][Later corrected ref. of location of the cemetery to "North West London" when back online doing some more work on the article and "Works cited". --NYScholar (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it is wonderful to see this much energy in trying to create the best possible article! I must confess that the talk page is a somewhat massive read for me, and it's kind of hard to get a grasp of the current situation; could someone possibly take the time to summarize the relevant points of contention? If there are particular sections of the talk page or article I should look at to understand better, I would very much appreciate links or references. Delaque (talk) 09:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, from my point of view this article is over-burdened with parenthetical references in a style more suited to the use of, to quote The MLA Style Manual:

academic scholars, professors, graduate students, and other advanced-level writers of scholarly books and articles in humanities disciplines such as English and other modern languages and literatures

This has been commented on by others, including User:Wingspeed and in fact in the good article review process as seen in the archives of this talk page. It has taken the combined weight of eight other editors to persuade User:NYScholar that as the subject of the article was British that standard, as opposed to American English, should be used. NYScholar had arbitrarily made the change to American English in 2006 without any evidence of consensus on this page. The style had been changed to MLA 2nd, edition, now 3rd edition again without any discussion on these pages. The general tone of NYScholar's responses has been that of "I know what I am talking about, I am a scholar of Pinter", dismissive to others, alongside a tone of "I'm tired - I've put in so much work - you don't appreciate me" and I am afraid that she/he has forgotten that this is an encyclopaedia, referenced and sourced of course, but not a scholarly paper in a learned journal. There is a fair bit of repetition and the citation style as used is confusing as readers will have to consult another page to get details of the reference works. In fact the majority of the references are to one book and the detailed level of sourcing and quoting is probably unneccessary, IMHO. I suspect that if put up for good article re-assessment now the page would fail, which would be a pity. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so from what I understand you feel that the style of references used in this article are unnecessarily scholar in character, and you would prefer that the text was rewritten in a way that is easier to read for the more casual wikipedia visitor? Also, it seems that you feel that there have been changes made on the page that doesn't reflect the consensus of the involved editors? Delaque (talk) 12:09, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I and other editors have commented above that the article is leaden, over-scholarly and the citation style used is confusing to non-academic readers. I see the problem at present is that User:NYScholar has taken it upon her/himself to dictate the style. Almost every day sections are split off an joined, eg Comedy of menace, an unnecessary 4 line article. It is all getting out of hand with 500 line essays written on the talk page every day. What we need is a plain English good article about Harold Pinter, not a series of turgid, scholarly essays. The tone adopetd by [[NYSCholar is in no way conciliatory or cooperative - it is confromtational and petty, cf the placing of the word consensus in inverted commas below, where NYScholar commentes on the chnage to English from american English. This grudging tone does not help and repeatedly this ediotr gives the impression that they and they alone know waht is best. This is not good practice. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to hear from any other editors involved in the writing of this article, so regardless of whether you agree with the above summary or not, please don't hesitate to add your own reflections or comments in a separate paragraph below. Delaque (talk) 12:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

• I myself changed the code in the Style Sheet to British English after various editors from the UK insisted on changing the language to British English and after it appeared that that was the "consensus" of several of them commenting after the death of the subject. I also tried to alter some of the American spelling that had been in this article since 2006 to British spelling, but said that others should help with that. (I was away from Dec. 27 at 3:30 a.m. EST to midnight on January 1.)
• Due to frequent comments and questions from others on this talk page and what appear to me to be misconceptions about factual matters relating to Harold Pinter and his work, I have taken a lot of time to respond to comments on this talk page. The fact that I took the time to respond and took the comments seriously in doing so explains the length of the talk page. Frequently, my responses led to lack of civility and innuendoes about my editing or my being an American scholar from others. I have tried to remain civil.
• The article followed the 2nd edition of The MLA Style Manual, which is used for articles in the humanities, including literary studies; prior to the death of the subject (announced on 25 Dec. 2008), the article (content and format) were stable and previously passed a "good article" review, with the Style Sheet provided at that time (see editing history, talk archive, etc.)
• After the death of Harold Pinter (24 Dec. 2008), which was announced by his widow to the press on 25 Dec. 2008, Christmas Day, before I left for the MLA convention early on 27 Dec., I tried to update the article with sources.
• As stated in my comments above, the lead should have stayed the same due to the only change being the death of the subject--acc. to WP:MOS, cited in above comments). I found, however, that it was being heavily edited, as was the rest of the content of the article, with editors removing and losing source citations and leaving off necessary quotation marks around what should have been quotations, resulting in (apparently unintentional) plagiarism from published sources.
• Then one of those editors changed the format of the previously-existing Bibliography for Harold Pinter to the 3rd ed. of The MLA Style Manual, removing all the previously formatted nowiki URLs from this version too, despite the editorial interpolated comment at the top of it saying that it was not yet necessary to do that and it could be done later. The edits being introduced were inconsistent and created inconsistencies in the format of the source citations and the "Works cited" in the section (long ago split off, as part of the "good article" review); that was contrary to the templated message in the Style Sheet about the importance of maintaining consistency.
• I have taken considerable time since returning on January 1, 2009, to convert the source citations and the Bibliography to the prevailing MLA Style format--which is acceptable in Wikipedia; Harvard author-date (closer to APA style) is unsuitable for articles in humanities/literature; it is for social sciences.
• It does not help that the citation project page guidelines are themselves in inconsistent format in Wikipedia. I had tried to edit the list of references for one of those pages yesterday but an intervening edit by someone else lost my edits and it was not possible for me to take the time to restore them.
• Nevertheless, the guidelines themselves state that there is no single recommended or preferred citation format in Wikipedia. MLA author[-title]-page parenthetical references (as per this Style Sheet template at top of this page) are suitable for the humanities, whereas Harvard author-date is suitable for social sciences (and/or sciences sometimes)--see ACS format, however, for the sciences. See parenthetical referencing for some mention of MLA Style format for subjects in the humanities. One will also note that medical articles in Wikipedia often use proper ACS format for citation. History articles often use APA or Harvard, which are similar.
• As this article has had such a long history of established source citations, passing the "good article" review with them, it should not be necessary to revisit this matter. Frequently, other editors new to the article (including anon. IP users) just stop in and toss in an external link here or there without using the prevailing citation format. I have converted one of them today to the proper format. The MLA bibliographical format is currently very similar to Wikipedia citation template format. Anyone who can understand a CITE template, can understand an MLA bibliographical entry or source citation. Editors simply need to make an effort to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
  • [Note: For subjects in the humanities (internationally), many book publishers require authors to use Chicago (The Chicago Manual of Style) format in final manuscripts; but for submission of articles and submission of book mss. for consideration, generally MLA Style format is required. Often book publishers have their own "house style" (which can be be an amalgam and more or less like either Chicago or MLA). Many of these book publishers publish various kinds of general and specialized encyclopedia, some of which are online or have online versions. Articles on literary subjects in such encyclopedia do follow MLA Style format. --NYScholar (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)]
• Also, between 1 Jan. and now, I have converted many of the parenthetical in-text citations to notes, which is proper. MLA Style format is used for subjects in the humanities and it is not used only by scholars, etc., as quoted above. The discussion in parenthetical referencing (see Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing) makes it clear that it is a suitable style format for subjects in the humanities; the subject of this article is the winner of the 2005 Nobel Prize in Literature; literature is a discipline in the humanities. Harvard author-date references are not suitable for this article. There are very few parenthetical source citations in the text; those that remain are easy to follow and keyed (properly) to the "Works cited" list, long ago split off from this article, as per the "good article" review. --NYScholar (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for sharing your point of view! I interpret your response as you don't see that there really is a problem with the references, and that indeed there has been a lot of work improving them. I also seem to hear that you too feel that consensus isn't always as well defined as it could be at all times? Delaque (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I really do not think that there is currently a problem with the references. They are in a consistent format suitable for the particular subject of this article; primarily known as being a major literary author. As I understand it, "consensus" in Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Consensus) operates over extended periods of time; "silence" (no changes) is one kind of consensus; stability is required for an article to go from "good article" status to any kind of higher status; it cannot undergo any kind of "featured article" review while unstable due to recent death of a subject, e.g. The article is being updated frequently, as per the template on it re: recent death of subject. Consistency of citation format is important according to templated Style Sheet message: That is what I have been attempting to achieve when inconsistencies are created in the article. It is not an issue relating to "ownership" of the article; it is simply a matter of maintaining consistency of format while updating it to take account of rapidly-changing events since 25 Dec. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 01:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I understand that you do not see any problem with the current style of references. Do you feel that there are any problems with the article or the process of working with the article at the moment that need to be addressed? Delaque (talk) 19:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, as a major contributor to this article who understands that I do not in any way "own" it, I find problems with repeated accusations by another editor/other editors of "ownership issues", which I feel are unwarranted, occasional incivility by some of the other editors toward me personally (as opposed to a focus on the actual edits, which is a breach of WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Etiquette), and I see problems with leaving on the two templates under the recently-deceased person template on the top of the article. I do not think that the article is unnecessarily "repetitious" (any longer if it was before; it has been edited after the templates were placed), and I also think that the citation format is consistent with the Style Sheet (as they have also been edited after the templates were placed, and that template should now be removed). Throughout this talk page, I have done my best to accommodate concerns of other editors posting here after the death of the subject, who do not appear to be assuming that I am editing in good faith, despite WP:AGF. I am editing the article in good faith to account for rapidly-changing events as per the top template on the article and trying to update it as needed, when new reliable verifiable sources become available. Thanks for asking. --NYScholar (talk) 20:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, any other editors who wish to make any comments on the current status of the article? Any and all input is appreciated and useful! Delaque (talk) 01:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the repetition and citation style templates as I agree that the article has been massively improved in the past week. I don't think that it needs much more work now. I wonder if the green Harold Pinter navigation box at the bottom should list novels, poetry, etc. I would be happy to add them from the works of ... article. It seems odd that they are omitted. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am so pleased at the first part of the above comment. Re: The editing of the navigation template: I have not worked on that template and have left it to others more familiar with its format or style to improve it. I was pleased to see some editing of it prior to the death of the subject. I leave it to others still to improve it if they think it can be improved further. Thanks again! --NYScholar (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Just for further consideration: I did notice what J refers to above but have some concern about the sheer size of the template if all the poems (a very large number and not that easy to find--it would require a great deal of research from published as opposed to online sources)--and the screenplays/filmscripts were to be individually listed/linked; there would also be a large number of red links. (The idea of the last editor of the template seems to be that the "Works" article contains the nec. info. and sources for further exploration). ??? --NYScholar (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC) (Note: Pinter published only one novel, entitled The Dwarfs, which has no article in Wikipedia at this time. Volumes of his collected poems are already listed in a section of already-cross-listed Works of Harold Pinter, which was added to the navig. template by the editor who added that list of featured links at the foot of it. [updated comment.] --NYScholar (talk) 00:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC))

First off, thank you both of you for taking the time to explain how you feel about the current situation! I have a few suggestions to offer; take them for what they are. I am just offering general suggestions from the view of an outsider.

First of all, I would suggest you archive the current talk page, and take that as a chance for a clean slate. Decide to put past differences in the archive as well, and try to get a fresh start in how you relate to one another. Remember the four tenants of the talk page, be polite, no personal attacks, assume good faith, and be welcoming! Try to solve any personal differences on the user talk pages, rather than here. And try to be as brief as possible, if nothing else large chunks of text can scare off newcomers, and makes it harder to offer input.

Also, even though it is great to have references to rules, policies and other official documents when settling an argument, try to remember that it can be frustrating to get a set of policies as a response when trying to communicate with someone about a certain issue. We're all real people, and sometimes talking heart to heart, rather than rule to rule is a good way to move forward. That being said, it is always good to have checked facts and policies on things, rather than having just a personal opinion to lean on.

Thirdly, remember that there are numerous ways to get assistance, for instance a Wikipedia:Third_opinion, if it is hard to agree on something. Getting an impartial pair of eyes on the text can avoid lengthy arguments. If you notice that the argument is heating up, pause, cool down, and seek outside help if needed. Wikipedia:Editor_assistance is available when you need it!

Also, focus on the knowledge that you have at least two common interests: Harold Pinter and Wikipedia! Try to avoid to talk about one another in the third person, instead, talk about things directly. You are after all, in a sense, colleagues, and it's easier to work together when one can throw ideas around in a relaxed manner.

Lastly, we can all improve our skills as editors. If you are open to it, I would encourage you to ask for an Wikipedia:Editor_review of yourself. It is a good way to get a set of fresh eyes on your wikipedia work so far, and to get friendly suggestions on how to improve.

And with that, I am out of suggestions for now, I hope you find at least some of them useful. It is clear to me that you both care about the subject matter a great deal, so there is definitely common ground to stand on here. I am copying this entire discussion to the mediation page, so that we have somewhere to continue this particular discussion. May I suggest a link under a Mediation heading on the new talk page, so that any other editors can read the discussion and add anything, should they feel like it?

I would ask that both of you think about what you personally can and will do to improve the current situation, and also find something about the other person's work on the article that you really enjoy, and share that with one another on the mediation page, if you are willing to? Delaque (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Archive 6

Archived content of current talk page dealing with "Mediation" also, following request/suggestion of Mediator Delaque, with note in section Talk:Harold Pinter/archive7#Mediation providing link to location of that material; it is also in archive page 6 of this talk page, through 12 Jan. 2009. Delaque has requested one to consult the Mediation link provided.--NYScholar (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)