Wikipedia:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive1

Harold Pinter

• A script has been used to generate a semi-automated review of the article for issues relating to grammar and house style; it can be found on the automated peer review page for May 2009.

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I would welcome review of this article, particularly concerning its length, detail, referencing style, prose and accessibility for Wikipedia readers. It would be good to get direction on ways to take it forward to featured artcile status. There has been disagreement amongst editors on the general style and tone of the article - in particular one editor's resistance to improvements suggested by others.

Thanks, Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments from Tim riley

The above request for review alludes to dissention behind the scenes, and I have therefore deliberately refrained from looking at any of the edit pages, so that my comments are made purely on the article as it is now presented. It is certainly a thorough and information-packed article, manifestly written by experts.

The first, overarching comment is on the annotation style, which I have not hitherto seen in a major Wikipedia article, and, I am sorry to say, I found made the article very tiring to read. The mixture of inline citations in the manner of an academic paper with normal WP footnotes constantly breaks flow to an extent that seems to me to leave the article falling short of FA criteria 1(a) and 2(c). The criteria allow for one or other referencing style but not both. I wonder what purpose is served by breaking up the running text with "Harvard referencing": would the whole piece not be easier to read with all references put in footnotes? Others may disagree, of course.

My second general point is that to my eye far too many phrases are in quotation marks: a random example – Significantly "inspired" by his English teacher. That example is presumably in quotes to show that it is from Billington's book, but the point would be as well made without the punctuation. There are many, many such instances. Again, they break the flow of the prose, and, in my view, make it a good deal less than "engaging", as required in FA criterion 1(a).

My third, and, you'll be pleased to know, last general point is that there is an awful lot of blue-linking in this article. The Homecoming, for instance, is blue-linked nine times, and The Birthday Party 11 times. This is surely excessive, and again makes the article harder to read. See Wikipedia:OVERLINK, para headed "Link density".

Structure: the layout in the ten sections seems to me just right. I was once reproved by another editor for making "biography" and "career" separate sections: his (undeniable) point was that the latter is part of the former, but I find your layout user-friendly.

I shall print off the article (it will probably be easier to read on paper) and go through it bit by bit. I hope to have detailed comments in a day or two. – Tim riley (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for these initial comments. The reference style used is MLA, there is much discussion about it on the article talk pages and archives. I will look at your other points and see what can be done to address them. I look forward to further pints in due course. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

First batch of detailed comments from Tim riley:

I have made a beginning at a detailed review. The article is certainly easier to read when printed out. As most of my comments below are to do with the profusion of quotation marks it may be helpful if I highlight those quite few comments on other points by italicising them. As I go through the article the impression grows that the information in it is absolutely first rate, well-paced and soundly structured, but that this is considerably vitiated by the constant hindrance of quotations and in-line citations that could be made into footnotes. Please be frank: if you think I am barking up the wrong tree, please say so and I'll abandon any further review, as it will doubtless be very similar in kind to this batch of comments.

Personal background

• "ladies' tailor,": Suggest removing quotation marks
• Correcting general knowledge about Pinter's family background: This reads oddly: perhaps something like "correcting a common misunderstanding"?
• "prime memories of evacuation": Suggest removing the quotation marks

Education

• "solitary": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "discovered his true potential": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "inspired" by his English teacher: Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "Pinter shone at English, wrote for the school magazine and discovered a gift for acting": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "Pinter continued to write poetry and short prose pieces; his poetry was first published [outside the school magazine] in Poetry London in [August] 1950 [under Harold Pinter and in November 1950] under the pseudonym Harold Pinta: Suggest removing the quotation marks

Sport and friendship

• Chairman of the Gaieties Cricket Club: Capital C in chairman?
• "lifetime support[er] of the Yorkshire Cricket Club": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• After Pinter's death, as part of the BBC Radio 4 tribute, his friend and fellow Gaieties team mate actor and director Harry Burton presented an essay on Pinter and cricket.: Slight ambiguity here; suggest: After Pinter's death, his friend and fellow Gaieties team mate actor and director Harry Burton presented an essay on Pinter and cricket as part of the BBC Radio 4 tribute.

Early theatrical training and stage experience

• "loathing" RADA: Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "called up for National Service": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "walk-on" role in Dick Whittington: Suggest removing the quotation marks (unless quotes are here meant to indicate a technical term – but even then?)
• "itemises all the performances Pinter gave in the [David] Baron years": Suggest removing the quotation marks:

Marriage and family life

• Vivien Merchant, a rep actress: Is "rep" a touch colloquial for encyclopaedic purposes?
• "conducted in clandestine secrecy": This quote is tautological; suggest replacing with: conducted in secrecy [not in quotes]
• "threatening all summer to sue Pinter for divorce, publicly citing Antonia if he did not return to her,": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "press fascination" with their break up,: Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "which had started in April around the time of No Man's Land" "two years": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "his time professionally [having been] taken up with directing and acting,": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "moved back into her Holland Park family home in August 1977,": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "to contemplate a new play": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "the first play Pinter wrote after the break-up of his marriage": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• After the Frasers' divorce had become final in 1977 and the Pinters' in 1980, in the third week of October 1980, Pinter married Antonia Fraser; however, because of a two-week delay in Merchant's signing the divorce papers, the reception had to precede the actual ceremony, originally scheduled "to coincide with Pinter's fiftieth birthday" on 10 October 1980.: This sentence is rather serpentine. Could it be broken up, along the lines of: After the Frasers' divorce had become final in 1977 and the Pinters' in 1980, Pinter married Antonia Fraser on [actual date] October 1980. Because of a two-week delay in Merchant's signing the divorce papers, the reception had to precede the ceremony, originally scheduled to coincide with Pinter's fiftieth birthday on 10 October 1980.
• "his maternal grandmother's maiden name,": Suggest removing the quotation marks
• "very happy" in his second: Suggest removing the quotation marks
• According to Lyall: We have not met Ms Lyall in the main text until this mention: ought her first name to be given here?
• she and Pinter travelled soon after they met.: This is an American quote: is "travelled" rather than "traveled" the spelling of the original? Tim riley (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

These are all very useful points, I shall initiate discussion on the article talk page. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:57, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Second lot of comments from Tim riley I have not listed all the words and phrases in the sections reviewed below where there are, to my eye, gratuitous and superfluous quotation marks, though will do so if wished. Hardly necessary to add that the mixture of inline citations and normal footnotes is still an obstacle to prolonged reading, though there are fewer of the former in these sections. Hardly any other points here. These sections are a pleasure to read. My very small gleaning of other points in them is as follows:

Civic activities and political activism

• Opposed to the politics of the Cold War, in the late 1940s, even though when he was eighteen, Pinter became a conscientious objector and refused to comply with National Service, he was not a pacifist; he told Billington and others that, if he had been old enough at the time, he would have fought against the Nazis in World War II. – This is a very long sentence and the main point is not easy to spot. Could it be broken up on the lines of "Pinter was not a pacifist. He told Billington and others that, if he had been old enough at the time, he would have fought against the Nazis in World War II. He was, however, opposed to the politics of the Cold War, in the late 1940s, and when he was eighteen, he became a conscientious objector and refused to comply with National Service." ("comply with" sounds a bit odd: perhaps "be called up for" or "perform" or "be conscripted for"?)
• the American people," who, Pinter noted, were increasingly protesting "their government's actions." – missing word here, perhaps? "protesting against" or similar? (or is this possibly an American usage, in which case, please ignore this.)
• led to indications for his desired departure – this could be in plainer English: "it was made clear that he should leave" or some such
• supports the government of Fidel Castro – past tense now, presumably

This comment is about the organisation, not Pinter, so should remain present tense. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

• In March 2007 Charlie Rose had "A Conversation with Harold Pinter" on Charlie Rose – a brief introductory phrase before the first Charlie Rose would be helpful, e,g, "the chat-show host" (blue-link notwithstanding).

As actor

• (written and dir. by Jez Butterworth, 1997) – here and throughout "dir." slightly breaks the flow and would, I suggest, be better if spelled out. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style section on Abbreviations)

I belive it has been stated that this abbreviation is MLA usage. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As director

• Pinter helmed 10 productions– this is a strange word to an English eye, though I see from the OED that Shakespeare used it in this sense (Meas. for M. III. ii. 151). Even so, a plainer word such as "directed" might be easier for readers.

I would agree, it is archaic in British English. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

As screenwriter

• Law also produced it. – is this information relevant to Pinter's career as a screenwriter? It brings the section to a rather lame conclusion, I feel. Tim riley (talk) 11:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, 7 producers listed at IMdB, Branagh amongst them, often given as a credit for deferred payment or some other investment in development. I have removed tyhose 3 words. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Some responses by NYScholar

Tim riley: Thanks very much for the detailed presentation of your peer review: Just a few crucial points (as I am traveling away from the U.S. [home] currently and unable to respond in detail; may do after I return): Please do not remove quotation marks from legitimate quotations; to do so will result in plagiarism. (Most of the suggestions to remove quotation marks will result in plagiarism from the sources.) The sentences with the quotations will need re-writing with paraphrases (words and phrases different from those used by the source or sources being cited) if one wants to use fewer quotation marks.

Again: One cannot omit quotation marks from quotations from sources; to do so will result in plagiarism from the sources; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for guidance. When using the words of the source, one uses quotation marks to indicate that. Otherwise, if one does not want to use quotation marks, one needs to choose different words and still to indicate a citation (see MLA style).

As the editor who supplied most of the sources and quoted from them in developing this article, I have had to correct past plagiarism from the sources when other editors removed quotation marks wily-nily; I provide the quotations with the sources in front of me as I do that. It is not proper simply to remove quotation marks because one thinks there are too many of them. See WP:MOS#Quotations. (If in doubt, please consult quotation marks information in The MLA Style Manual, which has more specific details regarding when and how to use quotations from sources.)

There is no use of so-called Harvard referencing in this article. The article uses MLA style; parenthetical referencing and content endnotes, which are both used in MLA style. Please consult the previous discussion of MLA style; it is permissible in Wikipedia, is consistently used in this article, and it is appropriate for articles about subjects relating to literature (authors of literature) and other humanities subjects. Harvard referencing is being avoided in this article; it is too close to APA style, which is not being used, because APA style is more appropriate for subjects in the social sciences, not subjects in the humanities.

The editor who posted this call for a peer review opposes the use of MLA style, but other editors have concluded that it is appropriate for this article and that it is consistent with guidelines in WP:CITE. According to Wikipedia's own guidelines, one does not undo an already-consistent citation format which passed a good article review just because one is unfamiliar with the style or doesn't like it.

Frequently, people in Wikipedia think that parenthetical referencing is only Harvard referencing, but that is incorrect; MLA style is a kind of parenthetical referencing, and so are both APA and ACS styles as well. Please see the links in the style sheet at top of the discussion page for more information. Thanks.

Use of the last name of an author (as in Lyall) is MLA style; the last name is keyed to the Works cited list (MLA style and other styles, including APA, Harvard, etc.); there is no need to use first name; the full name Sarah Lyall is used in this text, however, I believe (check it again); even if not, it's MLA style to use just the last name. [I checked later and added a Sarah earlier, by way of a transition. --NYScholar (talk) 00:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)]

If sentences are going to be split into separate sentences, then the source citations currently at the end of the longer sentence will need repetition earlier so that it is clear that all the information is coming from the source(s) cited. The documentation style is to provide the source citation as close to the end of a clause or sentence as possible to avoid breaking up the coherence. Frequently, editors who are not familiar with the sources do not realize that the material in a complex sentence (one with semi-colons and/or multiple clauses) is written that way in order to cite the source once, at the end of the sentence.

If one goes to the Wikilinked article on Sleuth (2007 film), one will find sources that show that it was Jude Law's idea both to make another film of the Shaffer play and also to invite Harold Pinter to write the script; his being the producer is relevant in that he initiated the production. please read the sources cited for more information documenting the relevance. More could be said about the relevance of Law's producing the film and inviting Pinter to script it perhaps.

Smaller points: repertory is used earlier in the article and rep refers back to it; it's a common term in writing about acting; but if repertory is preferred (which I had earlier), I have no problem with that.

Re: Chairman; usage in MLA style is the capital letter is used when the title directly precedes a person's name; otherwise, if it follows, or is used without a name following, the word is lower case.

Re: protesting: it is proper English idiomatic usage; to protest and to protest against are two different kinds of actions; the way it is used is what is intended.

Protest as a verb - Cambridge suggests that about or against, etc should be used in British English, it cites protesting research cuts as US usage. I would suggest that Tim Riley's comments are correct here. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The point is not ours (editors) but Pinter's own point; he is talking about Americans protesting their own government's actions (not protesting against their own government's actions); he knew what he intended to say; the sentence is about Pinter's point, not our point; please consult the source for the context. I will restore a quotation if necessary, as the phrase with against is not what he meant to say and not what he said. Omitting quotation marks from direct quotations can lead to confusions like this one. --NYScholar (talk) 19:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact the statement (and the use of the phrase increasingly protesting "their government's actions."in the article is not supported by the cited source. Please see Talk:Harold_Pinter#.22the_American_people.2C.22_who.2C_Pinter_noted.2C_were_increasingly_protesting_.22their_government.27s_actions..22 ---- Jezhotwells (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll find the source in my personal library of printed and online materials after I return home; Chrisafis and Tilden was published in 2003; Pinter said the comment about the Americans being horrified at the posture of their government in the Turin speech, given [in Nov. 2002], and quoted in an earlier paragraph; in Chrisafis and Tilden, he is quoted more than once as using forms of the word protest (as a verb) without against (see talk page where I added one of those quotations, fyi) and also The US population had to accept responsibility for allowing an unelected president to take power and the British were exhausted from protesting and being ignored by Tony Blair, a "deluded idiot" Pinter hoped would resign. (words of the British writers Chrisafis and Tilden). They themselves use the word 'protesting' without the word 'against' (as does Pinter in various places). --NYScholar (talk) 12:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my point is that the cited article by Chrisafis and Tilden did not support the statement: increasingly protesting "their government's actions.", even peripherally. Hence my placing the tag. With regards to the usage of protest / protesting as verb. The British usage is that where there is a subject, e.g. X protested against Y or A protested about B, whereas in US usage X protested Y or A protested B are often used. None of the contexts where this has been noted by Tim Riley and myself are quotations. However, where there is no subject, e.g. The Q were protesting, not sleeping or The R protested, rather than ignoring the action, obviously no preposition is required. In passing the statements above: he knew what he intended to say & is not what he meant to say are purely conjectural and have no place here. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Pinter is already quoted earlier in this Wikipedia article using protest without also using against (he uses the word as he intends to use it); I don't know why one cannot accept that. Please stop inventing reasons why to protest and protest must have against following; to protest against does not mean (denote) the same thing as to protest. Pinter omits against in using the word in several sources quoted in the Wikipedia article, and he was British. Nothing speculative here. I've already removed the whole sentence in question, and when I return home to my personal library, I will consult it and see if restoring or developing a full quotation from an additional source is warranted. My edit summary in the article history (yesterday) states that as well. --NYScholar (talk) 01:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not correct. The only instance of the use of protest in a quote is "The ban on the Stop The War Coalition march in protest at the visit of President Bush to this country [England] is a totalitarian act. In what is supposed to be a free country the Coalition has every right to express its views peacefully and openly. This ban is outrageous and makes the term "democracy" laughable" Here the preposition at is used. I would ask you to retract the statement Please stop inventing reasons why to protest and protest must have against following; It is factually incorrect; I have mentioned that British English uses a preposition in the case demonstrated. I did not specify that it had to be against. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[Re: The Charlie Rose Show: Charlie Rose is an American talk-show host; in America one does not refer to a talk show as chat show; the link defines the kind of show it is; Charlie Rose is very well known both in America and in England, but it is an American talk show, and I think the American term is more relevant to identifying him than the British term, in this case. But since Charlie Rose is more than merely a talk-show host, it would perhaps be more accurate and also avoid variety of English confusions to say: American television interviewer and journalist Charlie Rose. --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)]

Re: helmed: it is actually a common synonym for directed in articles and books about theatre. Used it to avoid the redundant use of directed (for variety of diction). It comes from at the helm of (ship metaphor or simile: the director of a theatrical production is (like) the captain of a ship). (added later. --NYScholar (talk) 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC))

This is not an archaic usage of Old English-derived word; this is a figurative (not literal) use of a word taken from the context of ship-steering and applied to the context of theatre; it is common usage in contemporary writing about theatre; for a definition, see helm (verb) in Wikipedia. Directed is already used in the previous sentence and the heading of the subsection makes clear what the context of the usage of the word is. It is being used only to avoid redundancy. --NYScholar (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am perfectly familiar with the word helm, I have a Boatmaster's Licence. I have never come across it in interference to direction of plays in the theatre, and I have acted in plays at the Bristol Old Vic and elsewhere. This is an encyclopaedia so I do not agree that "figurative" language should be used. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Figurative language is used throughout Wikipedia; because some editors are not familiar with the common use of helmed as a synonym for directed in performance reviews, articles and books about theatre and film directors does not mean that it is not common, their personal experience notwithstanding. It is common usage of the word and the word is not archaic. --NYScholar (talk) 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

One needs merely to do a Google search to find helm (in various forms of the verb) in common general usage: e.g., [1]; [2]. Other uses come up in any such search for two words together: helm and direct (or director) together. [In Wikipedia film articles, the synonym helm for direct is very common: e.g., [3]. [I am in currently in the UK and away from my home computer and cannot get further involved with pointing such things out. Please do such searches oneself before claiming that a word in common usage is archaic. Thank you. Sorry but I do have to log out now.] --NYScholar (talk) 21:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC) --NYScholar (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get my knickers in a twist about this - the usage on the web and in Wikipedia appears to be entirely an American usage. As this article is about a British playwright, its use here jars, in my opinion. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This statement that helm or helmed as a synonym for direct or directed is an entirely American usage in Wikipedia is incorrect; among the articles already listed in the link I give above to illustrate its usage in Wikipedia is an article on a British film and television director, Tom Hooper (director); I see no reason why it cannot also be used as a synonym for directed in this article (to avoid redundancy of language). [sorry, but I'm having a great deal of trouble w/ having this laptop enable Wikipedia links and page views, so if the link doesn't work, please seek it out via search. Thanks.] --NYScholar (talk) 11:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the context: 'He then directed episodes of the BBC One soap opera EastEnders and the ITV comedy drama Cold Feet before helming the revival of ITV's Prime Suspect serial, starring Helen Mirren. He directed Mirren again in the Company Pictures/HBO Films historical drama Elizabeth....' (italics added; q. cut off by my laptop). (No double q. key on [its] keyboard so using single where I intend double or using italics.) --NYScholar (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

[I'm having trouble with this unfamiliar laptop keyboard away from home computer; so I'm logging out. May respond later, after returning home. --NYScholar (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)] [Did come back later and also tonight to clarify a few things and to incorporate some minor changes (based on some of Tim riley's comments) in the text of the article. --NYScholar (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Afraid that I've run out of time to comment. Be back in about a week perhaps. --NYScholar (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)(updated.)--NYScholar (talk) 12:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)]

I returned to the U.S., checked my sources at home, and made some additional revisions and corrections based on them. The earlier phrases in the paragraph about Pinter's political public presentations and specifically a public reading cited by Chrisafis and Tilden had included some anticipatory transitional parenthetical quoted phrases from the source cited in full in the next paragraph (re: the 2005 Nobel Lecture; that is where "their government's actions" and some other phrases come from). I removed the redundant quoted phrases in the earlier paragraph and thus avoided the problem raised by protest and/or protest against (in the sentence that I had also previously removed when still in the UK); Wikipedia style guidelines pertaining to varieties of English advise using words and phrases that do not raise these problems. The material involving protest was a paraphrase anyway, not a direct quotation, and it could have been easily re-paraphrased; but it is no longer there. The phrase their government's actions is from the source already cited (the 2005 Nobel Lecture); it was originally intended as a transitional point. I've revised the paragraph considerably.

Note that the verb helm also appears (and is also used correctly) in a paragraph about Colgan's plans for 2010 Pinter festival in Dublin. (See sec. on memorial tributes). --NYScholar (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I am rather at a loss to know whether to persevere with comments in this peer review. I see I have stepped into the middle of a continuing impasse between editors with conflicting views. If the aim is to get the article to FA quality there are several suitable cognate FA articles to look to that manage very well without the rash of quotation marks for fragmentary phrases (where the notion of plagiarism is plainly spurious, it seems to me). In short, as long as this article is presented as though it were an undergraduate essay rather than an encylopedia article I doubt if it can survive FA scrutiny. That being said, I am more than happy to make suggestions on the rest of the article if desired, but have no wish to stir up an edit war. At your service - please advise. Tim riley (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your work on this review and I pretty much agree with the points raised so far. However, it seems that there is indeed an impasse - I too do not know how to proceed with improving this article as such common sense improvements as have been suggested are resisted by another editor. I fear that the article in its present state might fail a GA re-assessment. I would appreciate further peer review comments. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I really don't understand the "impasse" that you are both referring to. Clearly, if you want to reduce the use of quotation marks, then avoid using quoted words and phrases from sources and find your own words to use as substitutes (i.e., paraphrase the currently quoted words or phrases). [I.e., "Restate" the word or phrase "in different words" or phrases; not the same ones that the source uses. Using the same words or phrases is quotation and requires the use of quotation marks!](cont.)

[Further guidance about when and how to paraphrase is in the Wikipedia article on it (written by Wikipedians of course); for further guidance, one can consult the WP:MOS and other style guides, such as the style sheet for Harold Pinter, The MLA Style Manual [or the MLA Handbook (now out in a 7th ed. and accessible online as well to owners of it).] (cont.)

It is a simple matter. One does not remove quotation marks from quoted words and phrases from sources; that results in plagiarism from sources. One uses one's own different words and phrases, while maintaining the sense intended by the source and follows the paraphrase of the source with a source citation. There is nothing "spurious" about this point. The quotation marks indicate that the words and phrases quoted are from the source. (cont.)

To eliminate the quotation marks, while keeping the same words and phrases is to take the words of the source without indicating that one is quoting. This is basic. It takes more work to paraphrase than to quote; you are free to paraphrase, as long as you do not change the intended meaning of the source being cited. Other editors may come along and improve upon the paraphrases, but no one should be altering the point.(cont.)

When the words are the primary source (Pinter's), they are often quoted to indicate what he has said precisely (without paraphrase). For example, if he has said that he is "very happy" in his second marriage, the reason that those two words are quoted (rather than paraphrased) is because his own words about his feelings in his second marriage are more significant than some Wikipedia editor's (including mine) paraphrase of them could be. One needs to quote his own words when the point of them is significant.(cont.)

I've since changed the quotation "very happy" to content; Pinter uses the word "happy" as well as "very happy" in sources cited, and the subsequent sents. already quote him saying that he is "happy" and the amended endnote citing his comments to Lyall and her impressions contain the point. Content works okay there, I think. I've also been paraphrasing some other quotations; but one has to look at the editing history to see the discrete changes. Thanks again for your observations. (See further thanking of you below.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The objection to quotation needs to be justified with reference to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. (cont.)

There is no policy ruling out quotation in Wikipedia; the policy in Wikipedia rules out plagiarism. When deciding what to quote directly and what to paraphrase, one uses a case-by-case evaluation of the situation; one does not make a blanket decision to reduce quotations outright if the result would be plagiarism.(cont.)

Please feel free to attempt paraphrasing of relatively non-significant quotations (words and phrases) from Pinter and other sources, if you feel that you can improve upon the source's own words and phrases without losing the significance of the quotations. --NYScholar (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

In view of the above comments, I feel there is nothing more I can usefully add. There is a first-rate article bursting to get out of what is already there, were it Wikified and made accessible, but I see that this will not be allowed to happen. Tim riley (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is "Wikified", as I understand the term [linked in the "Glossary"]; it follows Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines, and it has already passed a Wikipedia "good article review" (with the currently prevailing MLA Style format for citations and bibliography). It contains Wikipedia links to other Wikipedia articles throughout it. What do you mean by "Wikified"? (Cont.)

Did you read the last bold printed paragraph of my previous comment? Anyone who wants to take the time is welcome to attempt paraphrasing the quotations that you feel are too many. (I have already since commenting above made several revisions attempting to incorporate some of your recommended changes. But there is nothing incorrect or improper or "non-Wikified" about the (MLA style) citation format, and it remains as it is consistent. [It is used in many other Wikipedia articles about subjects in literature and other humanities; see, e.g., their bibliography format, which is MLA style.] (Please see prior editors' comments responding to Jezhotwells about that; already on the article's talk page.)

Thank you for your time in doing your review. It may take some further time to go through and incorporate some of your individual recommendations; I have already incorporated some of them in edits today (from the U.S.) and earlier (from the UK). Thanks again. --NYScholar (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Comment. The introduction should not be bristling with footnotes. Except for the direct quotes, the information with full references should be contained in the body of the article below. The Lead should simply be an overview of the article. See WP:LEAD. As for the reduction in the number of fragmentary quotes by paraphrasing, I agree that this is an important exercise that you must attend to before you will have any chance of succeeding at FAC. It appears that you have discouraged a generous (and your only) reviewer by telling him to do it himself and by resisting simple changes, such as changing the American-centric term "helmed" (I am a New Yorker, like you, who uses this word in articles on American subjects). A word from an experienced FA warrior: When you are at the FA level, it is best to try to accommodate review comments if you possibly can, since you will need your reviewers to support the nomination at FAC. After all, one purpose of the peer review is to find out what will be a problem at FAC. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

After you have done the two things I mention above, let me know, and I will try to help review. I do note a few issues that are obvious just from glancing at the article. First: There are far too many red links. It is not necessary to link something unless you either intend to write an article about it soon, or you think that it is a subject that screams out for an important article that is obviously missing from the encylopedia. See WP:REDLINK. Second, there are too many short paragraphs. Paragraphs should have at least three or four sentences; otherwise the text has a choppy feel and won't flow. Third, there are some very long, unbroken sections. For example, the politics section is very long - is everything in it important? Make sure that only encyclopedic information is in the bio - that is, information of interest to general readers. A bio article should focus on what the person is most famous for - in this case his writing career. Finally, I see many very long footnotes, like an academic paper. You don't want encyclopedia readers to have to find important information in your footnotes. If the information is important, put it in the text. If it is not, then let the references/links speak for themselves. I wish you the best with this article: Pinter is a very important subject, and it would be wonderful to have an FA article on him. But I strongly suggest that you be flexible, accept comments and changes from others with as much grace as you can muster and try not to be be so insistent about style guidelines that you are comfortable with. There are customary style guidelines followed by most reviewers of FA articles, and you may need to change some of your style concepts to conform to their interpretation of WP:MOS. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: Further comments by NYScholar

[Thank you to Ssilvers above; I've added this "Arbitrary break" section, after it became lengthy, by way of further explanation. (added.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)]

I did not initiate this "peer review"; Jezhotwells did. I am not interested in becoming involved at this time in a FA review; Jezhotwells apparently is. (Some editors like to add notches to their "featured article" belt, so to speak; I do not know if Jezhotwells is one of those editors or not.) I have no interest in participating in any FA review process with this article or any other article [at this time or in the near future]. (cont.)

Thanks for clearing that up. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I initiated the peer review in an attempt (vain as it might seem) to get some fresh air into the thinking about this article. However, one editor exhibits extreme evidence of ownership of this article and refutes at length any attempt at improvement, despite having been advised by a former mentor and others to try and engage in constructive discussion with others. Pity, but this article is likely to degenerate into former good article status. And it would be welcome if that editor stop casting aspertions about the moptives of other editors with phrases such as (Some editors like to add notches to their "featured article" belt, so to speak; I do not know if Jezhotwells is one of those editors or not.) Jezhotwells (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: length of paragraphs; sometimes sections are meant to be read as lists of items. One can add bullets if one wishes. There is no rule in mechanics of writing or Wikipedia that a "paragraph" must be a certain number of sentences. If FA status requires that, that will become clear in any such review, for reasons given directly below. [Sometimes paragraphs are short for emphasis; sometimes for coherence/unity of topic: it depends on the nature of the section.] (cont.)

This isn't a novel or poetry. Good expository writing calls for paragraphs that have a topic sentence, content that covers the topic, a concluding sentence and maybe a transition sentence. That helps you organize your content and helps the flow of the writing. WP:MOS says: "Do not use lists if a passage reads easily using plain paragraphs". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

As a professor who teaches college and university students how to write "good expository writing" and who I believe engages in writing "good expository writing" in books and articles published through academic peer reviews, I think that I know what it may be. But I do observe to my students and colleagues that what is "good" is subject to interpretation and relative to the reader. There is no universally accepted or set policy or guideline for what is "good" (in Wikipedia or in the world of non-Wikipedia publishing). What is "good" is a matter of opinion and judgment. (cont.)

Some paragraphs are shorter than others because they are not being developed in detail. There is no "rule" that every paragraph should have a topic sentence, be developed with more than one sentence, and have a "concluding sentence" and "a transition sentence". Some paragraphs are justifiably shorter than others due to the nature of the material and the aims of the writer(s)--plural not singular in Wikipedia. (cont.)

[Since writing the above, in view of Ssilvers' comments re: some paras. seeming short (list-like), I have gone back into the article to see where I could combine some paragraphs and add additional transitions, and I have done some of that kind of minor revision, and I've also moved some material from endnotes into the text (also relatively minor format adaptations). That additional work provides a start. --NYScholar (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)]

If editors who come along believe that certain specific paragraphs can be combined for greater effectiveness, they will combine them. (Some of these sections may have evolved from earlier lists with asterisks (bullets) or been revised according to earlier editors' suggestions; one needs to examine the editing history for them.)

E.g., the section on "posthumous" events is still in the course of ongoing development in this particular article, as the subject died fewer than 6 months ago (unlike Coward or Beckett, e.g.). (cont.)

When the topic of a paragraph (e.g., a program, a play, a production, etc.) changes, a new paragraph is often called for (introduced by a new topic sentence): the paragraph could have been developed further earlier but reduced in size through editing; or it could still be developed further in the future (to be determined). This may not be a final version of the article. Thus, it is really not ready for FA review, due to the still relatively-recent death of the subject [December 24, 2008]. [I have felt all along that Jezhotwells jumps the gun with trying to move this article to FA review at this point. My sense is that the article needs more time to evolve and more time for consensus to develop regarding smaller issues, like paragraph length.] (cont.)

Again, one decides such things on a case-by-case basis, after reading the article and considering previous editing discussion. Sometimes material becomes a new paragraph for ease of reading online so that readers can easil perceive changes in topics of paragraphs. (Writing for an online audience, while keeping in mind that Wikipedia articles can also be printed out for reading as well, changes how one presents material in paragraphs.) I myself have already taken coherence and flow of paragraphs into account; but others may have a different take on a paragraph and paragraphing. Nevertheless, to assume that any and all use of short paragraphs necessarily results in incoherence or so-called lack of flow has no basis in Wikipedia editing policy. (The guidelines are guidelines and call for judgments by editors--"common sense".) One looks at a section and decides whether or not it is easier to read as a group of several paragraphs or not. That decision can change from editor to editor (reader to reader). Consensus evolves over time. If enough editors want to merge together short paragraphs, they will do so after scrutinizing them according to Ssilver's suggestion. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[Re: Endnotes in the lead: The should has no support in Wikipedia editing policies or guidelines; Wikipedia editing policy (core policy) requires verifiability and many leads to Wikipedia articles contain source citations; they are required by WP:V, which links to WP:CITE. Please support your use of should with some validating reference to Wikipedia editing policies and guidelines. Many of the articles that I read (and do not contribute to) in Wikipedia contain source citations throughout the leads; if they do not and make statements that do not have source citations (and if they have been carefully scrutinized), they contain top templates or templates following the unsourced statments such as {{fact|date=...}}. --NYScholar (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)]

[As Ssilvers mentions having only glanced at the article, s/he may not also have consulted the headings at the top of the talk page or read the talk page discussions or consulted its archived discussions; one of the templates at top lists it as a "controversial article" (dating back several years now), and that template requires that content added to the article be supported by verifiable reliable "full source citations" (notes) or, if not, removed. (added.) --NYScholar (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)]

OK, but what is currently controversial - is it just some minor points of grammar/usage? Or is there an actual disagreement about what Pinter wrote/stood for/did? The Arab/Israeli conflict is controversial. An article about a dead playwright ought to be fairly straightforward. See Noel Coward. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The past history of this article (long before December 24, 2008--date of Pinter's death) as well as after that is that it has been the subject of controversy due in large part to Pinter's political activism and the nature of his 2005 Nobel Lecture; familiarity with the subject and the talk page archive will clarify that. It is not "fairly straightforward" due to the very nature of the subject himself. His plays are considered highly ambiguous and he has been the subject of, as the article and its sources document, "voluminous" critical and scholarly debate and criticism. The comparison with Coward's article is not apt in my view (as a Pinter scholar); Coward has been far longer dead and not in any way as controversial as Harold Pinter. When Pinter won the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2005, a great deal of controversy in the mass media ensued. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:LEAD says: "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source". As a practical matter, since the cite is going to be given below, if the assertion in the Lead is non-controversial, the cite is generally not repeated in the lead. If you want to see good examples, just look at articles here: WP:Featured Article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The lead is documented as per Wikipedia criteria for what one documents. There is material in it that has been challenged (since the creation of the article--see editing history) and the citations document it. There is no way that leaving off the citations will go unchallenged, given the heated history of this article. Moreover, Pinter's life and work have been the subject of extensive critical argument and debate since he began writing plays in 1957 and it is still the subject of critical argument and debate. (Please see the sources cited for more information.) Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[Re: length of some content endnotes: (If one looks at WP:MOS#Notes, one will see the use of content endnotes there too.) I have taken the time to provide the information from a lot of printed sources that others who are not students or scholars of Pinter may not be familiar with, own, or read. The information serves as material to substantiate or document points made in the text. If, in the future, subsequent editors want to shorten these already-verified content notes, at least they have quotations in the notes to enable them to prepare shorter versions. That often happens as articles go through revising processes. The longer notes in this current form of the article give them the material that they need to understand how the article's text is supported by the source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 22:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)]

I understand from the "good article review" process, in which I participated for several weeks, that the FA review can become quite heated and full of controversy [meaning: contention--come on!], and I have no time to get involved in that process. (Just editing any article in Wikipedia becomes a very time-consuming task, given the kind of controversy that one can unintentionally become involved in.) (cont.)

No, not controversy, but maybe contentiousness. The reviewer suggests a change, and the editor does not wish to make it. It is natural to be defensive of one's writing. But the reviewers are actually trying to help the article get promoted to FA, and if the editors are flexible and try to be open-minded, the process can be very helpful. Sometimes, either an article is brought to FA prematurely, and sometimes editors can't bring themselves to make the changes, either because they don't want to make the changes or don't want to go back to the sources and do the research. In that case, the article fails, and a new application can be made at a future time. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, I did not seek for Tim riley, the Wikipedia peer editor who did the above "peer review" at Jezhotwell's initiated request, to be the sole (the only) editor making changes. My usage of you in the bolded paragraph to which I referred Tim riley, is intended to refer to Wikipedia editors reading this review (i.e., all and any of you), as well as to Tim riley. I do not think that Tim riley, in turn, intends for this one editor (me, NYScholar) to be the only editor attempting to consider and to incorporate the changes that Tr suggests (and they are only suggestions, not requirements). This is, indeed, a "peer review", which is an informal process, and which does not result in requirements of other editors that the suggestions be followed (if there is no consensus to follow them). We are, in fact, in the process of determining some consensus about this article. (cont.)

I agree, except that peer reviewers are asked to review and try to provide helpful comments, not to work on the article. The editors who are interested in the subject, generally the ones who initiated the peer review, are usually expected to respond to the comments. Of course one response is to disagree, which is fine, but it appeared to me that you were requesting the reviewer to respond. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Plus, I didn't realize that you had not called for the peer review. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I myself have already attempted to adopt several of Tim riley's recommendations, but I am unwilling to remove quotation marks from properly quoted sentences, words, and phrases when to do so would result in plagiarism from those sources. (One does not just lop off quotation marks from quotations.) (cont.)

I certainly have not suggested just lopping off the quotation marks, but the article does not read smoothly with all the quotations, and many of them can be paraphrased to smooth out the prose. You are certainly not required to do it yourself; we're all volunteers here, so if you want to take a rest, go right ahead. This article will be here in a month or year if you want to come back to it then. In the meantime, perhaps other editors will move forward with it. Still, if you had simply spent the time you are spending to argue on this page instead to do the paraphrasing, it would surely be done. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I have already spent many hours attempting to revise parts of the article in response to Timriley's suggestions (not all of them, but those that I can agree with). I've done that and I've responded here to explain that. I have already paraphrased some of the quotations (taken the time to do that: see editing history). (cont.)

Sorry you view my responses as "argu[ing"; I took the time to respond out of courtesy. The issue of when to use quotation marks and when to paraphrase is a main issue that needed/needs comment, to avoid changing what is currently properly quoted material to plagiarism in this article [which has happened in the past, when editors have lopped off quotation marks, as documented by editing history]; I feel strongly enough about this point to make it as clearly as I possibly can. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RE: red links mentioned others: For any red links that I myself have created: The red links are there in each case because I feel they are justified; some are repeated when used in source citations or later in the essay for convenience of readers. Most of them are works by Pinter which still can use articles (justifiably) and other writers or other people who are notable enough to have articles in Wikipedia (justifiably); if one does not know what or who these subjects are, one would not be able to recognize that. There are relatively few red-linked items in this article, in my experience with Wikipedia articles [since 2005]. If one removes the red links, there will be less likelihood that other editors will come along to create articles [which are needed].) --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If other editors (whether Tim riley or anyone else) want to take the time to paraphrase properly (without plagiarizing from sources), I simply pointed out that they (plural "you" intended) are free to do so. Not every article in Wikipedia has to go through a FA review or is better off for having done so (in my reading of them). I have provided the sources and the information, using a consistent documentation style format (consistently). It is really up to other editors to do further work on the article if they want to do so, and, if they want to do so, to bring it to a point when it meets the requirements for submission for a featured article review (if so wanted). I cannot spend any more time debating this article with Jezhotwells; I have found doing so to be counterproductive. (cont.)

As far as the usage of the (common) verb to helm goes: I have already pointed out that it appears in an article about a well-known British film director: see above. (It is linked.) If one doesn't mind redundancy, one can use directed for helmed: but to me the opposition to usage of helmed still seems to be a petty point and one that is not supported by a reliable third-party published source (like a dictionary). (cont.)

If in doubt of the ability of English Wikipedia readers to comprehend the usage of helmed (keeping in mind that many are not British, that many are American, and that many are neither British nor American and that many read articles throughout Wikipedia on other directors and films, both British and American), then one can simply link to Wiktionary (if one is really so concerned that it would not be understood as easily as directed would be). (cont.)

[I've Wikified a link to Wiktionary both here and in the article now, having returned to do so. See sense 3 (of "noun", which has been made into a verb in common usage), which is very clear; the section it appears in is Pinter "As director"; there cannot be any doubt of what the word signifies. There is no indication in this definition that the usage is explicitly "American". (Updated.) For more recent usage, one needs to consult a current dictionary (not just Wiktionary). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)]

[For usage of the noun helm[4] and verb forms of to helm by the BBC (British), see some selections via Google: "to helm BBC" (search terms); e.g., see a British media source summarizing BBC broadcast news in "Poliakoff to Helm …", etc.; [both the noun and the verb forms] are currently usage in both British and American discussions of directing (films, plays, festivals, corporations, companies, etc.). (updated). --NYScholar (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The verb to helm used in relation directing and directors of films and plays (and heading other work, like corporations), is not, in my understanding of the English language, specifically American. We live in a global culture, and this emphasis on disallowing (possibly or potentially) American usage in the text of an article when Wikipedia itself uses the verb in various forms throughout articles on both American and British directors and films and theater (theatre) is highly suspect ("spurious" in Tim riley's word). (cont.)

Directed - staged, was the director of. It's not a question of comprehension, it's a question of flow. The brits feel it is "jarring". Who are we to argue? For the article on Harold Prince, I'd use "helmed". -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are referring to "the brits" as if they are a large number of readers; these are 2 editors who happen to be from the UK (apparently); do these 2 readers also find the usage of to helm in the Wikipedia articles on British film directors and in the following British broadcast news site also "jarring"?[5]. 2 readers is not a consensus, and the claim that the term is both "American" and "archaic" is simply not correct. Apparently, current British usage has adopted the verb for the same context in which it is being used in Harold Pinter. Word usage evolves, and one needs to be willing to keep up with its evolution in a global society. Wikipedia articles on subjects who happen to be British are read by many more English-speaking readers than British readers; I still see no problem with using the word. It is common for someone to find a usage that they are not aware is common to be "jarring"; that does not mean that their response is universally the case for all British readers, especially for readers of Wikipedia who are already encountering the very same usage throughout Wikipedia articles on directors and films and theater (theatre). I see no consensus achieved in 2 readers' responses who are apparently unfamiliar with the usage of the verb (and the noun) in these contexts in the UK. --NYScholar (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Have just decided to shorten sent., eliminating need to repeat directing (helming) entirely and have also eliminated 2nd usage of form of to helm re: Colgan, moving curated up, and changed orig. use of curated to presented. This is done to avoid any kind of further argument about varieties of English from those in the UK posting here. --NYScholar (talk) 00:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest [when expedient and reasonable] in choosing words [not in quotations or standard Wikipedia headings] that editors avoid using all words requiring a specific variety of English then (travelled can be went; etc.), as the WP:MOS does recommend. (cont.)

It is my impression that the FA review process may be dominated by editors from the UK (several of whom tend to accumulate large numbers of FAs listed on their user pages) and that they appear to insert British style preferences (such as so-called Harvard referencing) into articles in Wikipedia; but that impression may be incorrect. [I've only gotten this impression in passing.] (cont.)

I don't think that's right. I haven't made a study of it, but both Sandy Georgia and Raul, who are the directors of the FA program are from the U.S. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed these directors' identities yesterday too, after I wrote my comment, Ssilvers. I was not referring to them (the directors of the project). By way of clarification: I was referring to "an impression" that I have gotten over the past several years (since 2005) that several individual editors who create and then nominate articles that they have themselves created or worked on considerably for FA status and who then list on their user pages the FAs that they have created and/or nominated and brought through the FA process seem to be from the UK and seem to prefer so-called Harvard referencing. (Just an "impression" encountered "in passing"; I myself do not in general read or follow featured articles in Wikipedia. I myself mostly just edit [contribute to] already-created articles and much less often create some new ones, leaving editing of those to others after doing so.) --NYScholar (talk) 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[Note well: (As already discussed above and at length in the archived and current talk pages of Harold Pinter:) Harvard referencing (mistakenly assumed to be the documentation style used for this article in Timriley's early comments above) is only one option according to the WP:MOS and WP:CITE (linked to in it). It is not "Wikipedia house style" (as argued by editors from the UK in past disputes that I have seen (about this article and other articles, for which they have been opposed by other editors). Yet many FAs seem to feature Harvard referencing. It is only one kind of parenthetical referencing, and the MLA style is another, more appropriate for subjects in literature (the humanities). The documentation style is one recommended for literature (the humanities). Use of quotation marks in the article follows MLA style format (and format in WP:MOS--some of which is under dispute in that project page: one needs to check the details in its talk pages). --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)]

In any case, at this time the FA review is not a process in which I choose to become involved. I've done considerable basic research and writing for the article, and I have spent enough time on it. The process goes from here, as Wikipedia can either improve the article or not, as the concept of "improvement" in Wikipedia tends to be highly subjective, as it is the result of value judgments (what is "better") made by individual Wikipedians and relies upon their consensus (which is subject to change over time). (cont.)

FA review has a stipulation that an article not be in dispute in order to be submitted. Due to the dispute by Jezhotwells and a few others of citation style after Pinter's death (beginning Dec. 25, 2008) [long after MLA style passed the "good article" review], the article had been subject to disputes. The article has not been submitted to a FA review; it has been submitted [by Jezhotwells] to a "peer review". Given Tim riley's suggestion that quotation marks be omitted from quotations (quotation) while keeping the exact same words [of the source's] in the quotations [thus resulting in plagiarism], and 2 other editors' now apparent acquiescence with doing so, I have concerns about the reliability of this peer review process and its conformance with WP:MOS. (updated.) --NYScholar (talk) 20:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I say: It was the best of articles; it was the worst of articles, I am using 80% Dickens' words, but it is not plagiarism, it's parody/fair use. There are grey areas, but generally three words strung together is not plagiarism. Still, I agree with you that quoted phrases of some length need to be paraphrased before dropping the quotes so that we don't misappropriate someone else's writing. But, generally, that is easy to accomplish. Then, when you do use a quote, the quote will have more impact, because the fact that you use the quotation marks will mean that the exact phrasing is important. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

[I understand Ssilvers' point about parody, when one is obviously trying to parallel a famous quotation; but that is not the case here at all. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2009 (UTC)]

There is no way in which dropping quotation marks from quoted key words, key phrases, or key sentences in Harold Pinter has been or is intended as or is anything like "parody/fair use" and I have no idea how Ssilvers comes to assume that. In critical and biographical books and discursive articles, including encyclopedia articles, when key words, key phrases, or key sentences are being quoted from sources in developing a point, "fair use" does not exempt writers from carefully employing quotation marks. (cont.)

An encyclopedia article is not a parody, and the doctrine of fair use in international copyright law (as upheld in Wikipedia's copyright policies and WP:V (core policy) requires using quotation marks when one is quoting and attributing quotations to sources. We are not talking about a the or an a or an of or writer or director or Harold Pinter or born or similar words in general usage that are unavoidable, but the specific words and phrases that are used by a source that that source has put together in making a point and that can be paraphrased. (cont.)

Example: A phrase from Billington such as "ladies' tailor" defining Pinter's father's occupation is clearly a quotation from the source. Using tailor to describe Pinter's father's occupation is unavoidable; most sources just identify him as a tailor. The specific fact that he was a tailor of specifically ladies' clothing ("ladies' tailor") in this encyclopedia article is taken from Billington (who does not generally supply footnotes or endnotes in his book and who has only a selected bibliography; his source for a good deal of his book is his interview/conversations with his subject, Harold Pinter, and Pinter's associates, friends, etc., whom he cites). I do not agree that one can simply delete the quotation marks from around "ladies' tailor" in this instance; it is Billington's phrase and documented by the source citation. Similarly: "kept what is called an immaculate house" [and was "a wonderful cook"] (otherwise, one would have to paraphrase and probably lose the point of the description, if one just says "homemaker"--or said that her house was "clean" (not the emphasis); there is a reason why those phrases are being quoted instead of paraphrased. If one wants more generality, instead of specificity, one would identify Pinter's father more generally as a tailor and his mother as a homemaker who was a good cook. (cont.)

Please note: in my comments above I am referring to several examples in Timriley's "suggestions" where he suggests dropping quotation marks from whole key sentences, key phrases, and key words that are quoted from sources, including Harold Pinter himself. If one wants to paraphrase them, one can continue doing so in a case-by-case manner: if one will check the recent editing history, one will see that, in several cases, I have already done that (paraphrased), adopting some of his suggestions (but not deleted quotation marks from quotations whose exact words are being kept). (cont.)

Others who want to do this work can aid by doing further work of paraphrasing when whole sentences, key phrases, and key words currently quoted from sources, including Pinter himself, are deemed more effectively changed to editors' own words. It is a task that I have done considerably all along, long before this "peer review" began, and that I continued to do after it. Others can aid in doing more of such editorial work, if they wish to do it. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

[Thank you (to Ssilvers) for getting my point (toward end of your comment, i.e.: "Still, I agree with you … .") I agree with your restatement of it in that part. --NYScholar (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Tim Riley's point was that single words or two word phrases do not need quotation marks. Some common sense is required here and the over-arching need is to make this article readable to the general reader. Pity that one editor's intransigence makes this impossible. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

That is not the case with all of the suggested key words, key phrases, and key sentences that he has suggested dropping quotation marks: please consult each example that he gave (which I have done); exerting "common sense", I have already substituted paraphrases for some of them. Please consult the editing history for which ones have already been changed. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

If editors who come along feel that they are knowledgeable enough and familiar enough with the subject (Harold Pinter and his life and work) and have the (many) printed sources already cited in hand and want to do the work of paraphrasing key words, key phrases, and key sentences that are currently in quotation marks (in ways that avoid engaging in plagiarism), any one of these editors is certainly free to help in doing that editorial work (as I clearly stated above). --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, gentlemen. I see that tempers are rising. I am sorry if I have fanned the flames. I have just looked more carefully at a couple of paragraphs of this article. I agree with Tim's comment that the combination of ref tags and (Billington cites in parens) makes it difficult to read. I am unwatching this page and will not participate further in the discussion. If the article changes very significantly and you want further input (but not for the next few months), feel free to let me know on my talk page, and as I said, I'd be willing to look again then. Best wishes, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. [Just for the record, it is not clear from all of our Wikipedia screen names whether or not we are male or female; some of us use gender-neutral names, and our gender is not specified.] --NYScholar (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Hard to read

After reading the article, I would like to offer some input. Much of this may have already been covered above, but the thought of trudging thru these endless comments is enough to spin the head and bulge the eyes! To state it simply and quickly, the article is hard to read, owing to far too many parentheticals, quotation marks, multiple references, lengthy notes, etc. I would suggest the editors take a look at the FA article on William Shakespeare. It's visually appealing due to the use of images, the references and bibliography are clean, and the notes are short and to the point. I certainly don't want to offend anyone involved with the creation of this article, as it is quite good. But it's simply very, very hard to read. Smatprt (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)