Talk:Harold Pinter/Archive 8

In response to your more recent posts: You say that DVD image contains the name “Illuminations”, but it is not legible even at 500% magnification. Even if it were legible, the fact that Illuminations is the distributor could be stated in plain text, as could anything else the DVD image might convey; the image is not needed for readers' understanding. When you say an administrator removed the image from the infobox, I assume you mean this removal on 18 July 2007. As Quadell explained at

t c

05:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm used to be Sarcasticidealist, and I approve this message. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[Do not delete other editor's headings. Thank you.--

talk

) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)]

I do appreciate your taking so much of your time above, Ssilvers. But (1) I already understand the fair use doctrine of U.S. copyright law, and (2) what people here do not seem willing to accept is that the [copied image of the] photograph in question comes from Harold Pinter's personal archive which was placed on a copyright-protected webpage on his official website and then that archive was sold to the British Library (BL), where it is housed in the Modern Literary Manuscripts Division. I have already posted the copyright policy stated by the BL in its "Help for Researchers" section and placed that both in a content endnote and in the EL section for ease of finding. Harold Pinter had already placed a strict restriction forbidding the copying (including downloading digital files of them/uploading those files/scans) of any materials in his BL Archive without his permission and the estate has the same restriction. The BL fair use exception relates only to researchers (photo)copying a document for their own "individual" and personal research use (not publication on the internet) and, if the copyright owner (Pinter still and Pinter's estate as his personal representative) restricts copying, no one can (photo)copy anything even for personal research use without written permission from the estate, in this case Antonia Fraser, his widow. (cont.)

In addition to concerns of general human courtesy, from the perspective of Wikipedia as an entity, one does not want to involve Wikipedia in the kinds of legal actions or law suits that can result from violating such copyrights as those defined in the BL informaton. --

No, I'm afraid you are totally wrong (as everyone keeps trying to explain to you here and on every forum that you brought the David Baron photo to), and it strains the bounds of good faith for you to keep saying this. No one disputes that the images are under copyright. However, one can use them if one satisfies the exemption to the copyright law provided under 17 U.S.C. § 107 of the U.S. Code, a federal law that controls all claims of fair use to images in en.Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what the British Library, Harold Pinter's estate, you or anyone else says about it. It doesn't matter what they write on their website or how many (c) symbols they stick on it. The images can be used if one uses them within the boundaries of section 107 and the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. I'm afraid that even though you don't believe us, you are just dead wrong. There is no other way to put it. That doesn't mean that all the images satisfy the 10 criteria of the Wikipedia:Non-free content policy. But it does mean that your arguments about the BL and the estate are irrelevant. Also, *please* stop making new headings every time you post. Related discussions should be kept together under the same heading, unless the discussion gets long, and then a new heading is helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No, BL and Harold Pinter's copyrights *claim* to restrict our usage, but U.S. law says "too bad". I can write on my website: "NYScholar may not use the word 'hello'", but you don't have to obey my website. en.Wikipedia does not need to obey the BL or Pinter websites. It needs to obey U.S. law, which says that people can distribute images on the internet as long as they are fair use. Now, I'm tired of repeating this over and over. By the way, I must repeat what User:Shell Kinney tried to tell you many times: if you want people to read your talk page posts, you should keep them concise. Your extremely long and repetitive arguments are beyond the patience of most readers. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyright belongs to the creator of the work, not to the subject. So the Pinter estate may own the physical photograph but not the copyright. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Length of comments: I found Ssilvers' comments quite lengthy; the length of mine is proportional to the number of inaccuracies that I found in those comments. I'll use a "hide" (if I can find it) template to have them take up less space (later). --

Just a heads' up: Over the next few days, some editors will be attempting to change the referencing style in this article to a simpler system, eliminating the parenthetical referencing and using

Good stuff. I will look at this tomorrow. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

@Ssilvers: re "We hope that User:NYScholar will step back from the article for a few days and refrain from reverting this work while it is in progress" . . .

I note that on his talk page NYS now says (04.50, 28 June): "I will be stepping back (topic banned/community banned or not) and not editing articles in Wikipedia. I think that I devoted far more time and energy to Wikipedia than most people (though not everyone) seems to appreciate. I don't demand appreciation, but I also don't tolerate abuse." [emphasis added] Wingspeed (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Wingspeed, please also note this from NYS's talk page. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Update: I understand that a new version of this article, which is being worked on offline with the goals described above, will be ready about Wednesday. Please wait on further changes, everyone, until that is done. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Update - We are still on target to post the new version on Wednesday evening. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have added a search facility to the archive box, which may aid finding specific discussions where suggestions or comments may be found. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Have also archived older, now dead threads up until early May 2009. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

We have put up a new version of the page, but we are not finished converting the referencing style. Please, everyone, be patient while Tim riley, Jezhotwells and I work to complete the transition. Then, we will need to go back and replace more bibliographic detail in some references. We will give another update tomorrow night. Thanks for your patience! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Will hold off. Only just noticed this message. Wingspeed (talk) 15:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: Well, even though we are not finished converting the references, everyone should feel free to contribute. Just note that I will be simplifying the references, section-by-section, as I have done to the first couple of sections. If you are doing some major edits, put an 'in use' or 'wait' tag on the article, please. Happy editing, everyone! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking pretty good. I am wondering if we can split off the obituaries section and perhaps cull the ELs, which are rather too much IMHO. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that all the references should be combined, so that there is just one alphabetical list, and a reader can find the refs. Many are repeated in the footnotes and do not need to also be in the list of references. Also, we need to convert them to bullet points and delete all the unnecessary junk in them. Why don't you go ahead and cull the ELs (yes, too many!), but I'd say leave the obit list until I have time to alphabetize all the refs into one list? Sounds OK? ALSO, note that I have left hidden comments, mostly asking for page numbers. Can you chase any of them down? All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I've got Billington & Gussow so will do. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now converted the refs to bullet-points and begun alphabetizing them. The list of refs probably needs further weeding out. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Ssilvers asked me to stop by and the first thing I noticed was the notes/references/EL taking up half again as much space as the article. I noticed that the reflist is supposed to be a 2 column affair, but its not doing that for me - is that a me thing or does everyone only get one column?

Anyways, when thinking about how the bottom might be cleaned up a bit, I noticed there are some really fantastic external links but they're being drowned out by some that aren't as unique. Following is my take on what might be pruned out:

These links appear to contain brief biographies; though some are at important publishers or written by important people, they probably don't meet the criteria of significantly enhancing the article.

• Harold Pinter at the British Film Institute's Screenonline
• "Harold Pinter" at Faber and Faber
• "Harold Pinter" at Grove Press
• "Harold Pinter" in Books and Writers
• "Harold Pinter" in Contemporary Writers
• "Harold Pinter" in the Literary Encyclopedia
• Harold Pinter memorial and photographs at Findagrave.com.

Other's that might be trimmed out

• "Harold Pinter" at the Stop the War Coalition - links to search with three articles; not sure why this is here
• Harold Pinter in ZSpace - are these supposed to be articles written by Pinter? Is that verifiable?
• Harold Pinter portrait by artist Joe Hill - not certain that this adds anything to our understanding
• "Harold Pinter Tribute" Announcement of A Tribute to Harold Pinter - just as it says
• "Pinter Archive Saved for the Nation" Press release - should be moved to references if used, otherwise this fact should be in the article, not an external link
• Pinter at the BBC - this is a link to the internet archive; fine when we have to dig out a reference that went dead, but not appropriate here
• "Pinter on War". Red Pepper Feb. 2004 - brief glimpse at his poetry; not certain this adds a great deal
• Premio Europa Per Il Theatro – X Edizione - Symposium events, if this is used to verify his participation it should be used as a reference, not here

So that's my first pass. Are there any here that are significant for reasons I've missed? Just wanted to dip my toe in consensus before ripping a section apart wholesale :D Shell ^babelfish 15:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me Shell, refs show alright in 2 cols for me (Firefox on Windows XP). Jezhotwells (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I implemented most of these. I kept the findagrave and the image of the painting, since we don't have enough images in the article, but I got rid of some others that seemed redundant with the refs or otherwise unnecessary. Jez, Tim, Shell: please look at what I've done and adjust if you disagree with any of the changes. Shell, I use Internet Explorer, and I never see columns in reflists, so it seems to be an IE thing. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have now put the entire list of "Works cited and further reading" into one alphabetical list, combining all the little sections that were there before, but it needs to be split into two parts: the works cited (which I would call "References") and the Further Reading (then, we probably need to cut down the list of "further reading" to the best sources). I have been working steadily on this article for a week. Can someone else help with this task? Also there is still a lot of extranneous information and formatting in the refs. Can someone please help? Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be there butt probaly not for another 24 hrs or so. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. In the meantime, I've formatted them more consistently. I'll let you break the list into the two lists tomorrow: 1. References currently used in the article; and 2. Further reading. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can ascertain all page refs. in the above two works check out fine. I meant to complete this earlier. Basically I think the article is in pretty good shape. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have added the MiszaBot to archive this page, set at seven days with a minimum of five threads to remain. Please revert if you disagree. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just clear out that mess in the middle or at least have a single list of his plays? -114.91.67.188 (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia prefers narrative discussions to lists in articles. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, there is an adequate list in the Pinter navbox at the bottom also in the linked article

Works of Harold Pinter. Jezhotwells (talk

) 00:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I reverted these as an unnecessary addition, not bringing any further advantage to the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I am fairly new to editing but reading this, my immediate reaction is that a Wikipedia entry should be about the salient facts of someone's life, and an analysis of reasons for their marriage break-down, quotes about their love of cricket etc, are inappropriate.

I understand it's important to include "Pinteresque" quotes, of course. However, personal comments are used in a full biography to convey the spirit of the person and something of their personality - which is not the objective of an encyclopeadia entry.

Because too much space is spent exploring his personality, the important facts and figures, which is what most people come here for, get lost. I personally think this needs really stringent editing - although the other material is good and would have a place on another site.Marisa Wright (talk) 06:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Marisa, I am inclined to agree - BUT this artcile has for long suffered from the obsessive "ownership" of a now indefinitely blocked editor who resisted minor changes and and impor=sed an impenetrable citation style. (If you have time to spare try looking through teh archives of the past eighteen months!).

I think we need to move carefully to avoid the whole article falling apart. There probably is too much personal detail but some of the personal detail, eg the Bakewll affair, realtionship with son, Viv Merchant, Hackney downs School, cricket does strongly inform the context of Pinter's writing. It would be good if proposed chnages were discussed here before being implemneted. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit have split the lead into a large number of separate paragraphs. If you care to read

WP:MOS, four would be the maximum for this length of article and single sentence paragraphs are not acceptable. Jezhotwells (talk

) 09:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I disagree. Most high-quality Wikipedia bio articles contain information about the person's personal life that are of interest to general readers. If secondary sources focus on "an analysis of reasons for their marriage break-down, quotes about [his] love of cricket, etc." then we must report this in a balanced way. Please be careful with what you are doing, as many of us have worked hard to rescue this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

This needs to be added, and this reference contains other relevant material: [7]. Earthlyreason (talk) 10:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably not, the Bakewell play directly informed his writing, we don't need to catalogue every person he went to bed with. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 10:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent addition of unnecessary minutiae and over referencing by apparent sock-puppets of User:NYScholar. I am examining all of these edits to salvage any useful material, have also pruned the post death memorial section. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Over a period of one year, despite statements made on this current talk page and archived ones, the above editor (Jezhotwells) did not actually return to examine "all of these edits" mentioned above and to make still-needed corrections of errors (some involving living persons, such as

Have checked posting in Firefox as well as IE for legibility, which is now improved. See templates at top of this talk page. See archived talk pages (some material in them was improperly deleted). (cont.)

The editor mentioned above (NYScholar: [8]) was improperly banned without an actual consensus of "uninvolved" editors and that editor's editing privileges should be restored. The editor has explained many times that e-mail with Wikipedia is not an option, so directing the editor to use it is disingenuous. There is no way to appeal the ban otherwise. But the ban and the non-neutral description of it in the list of banned editors needs review. (cont.)

(Warning to all readers of this article:) Since Harold Pinter's death (24 December 2008), a handful of Wikipedia editors have made it impossible to correct errors of fact (content) and format in this article. If the changes are reverted, the article will revert back to incorrect information. (None of those editors is an expert on Harold Pinter and they are unable to recognize their own errors.) Wikipedia's editing policies require accurate information and fully verified citations in articles in which living persons are mentioned. If readers are new users of Wikipedia or newcomers to this article, please see BLP template above, and see

WP:LOP for further guidance before making changes. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk

) 00:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Recently an editor changed the numbers of columns for "Notes" from 2 to 3 and then from 3 to 4--see editing history: beginning with Diffs. (Butterflylk); select "previous" and "next" edits to scroll through the changes). Columns in "Notes" and "Works cited and further reading" sections do not seem to show up in Internet Explorer (version 7), at least on my desktop. (The use of the colon instead of the bullet makes the entries post more correctly when there are multiple column parameters.) (cont.)

Just yesterday, though I am an IE user, out of curiosity, I downloaded version 3.6 of Mozilla Firefox, to see how these features show up there, and I did some minor formatting editing changes while in Firefox, in keeping with the column parameters currently in the article. (cont.)

The 4 columns for "Notes" do show up okay in Firefox and the 2 almost even columns of "Works cited ..." show up okay in that browser too, so I kept those column numbers. (cont.)

But today I tried looking at this article using a wireless e-reader (Nook)--the same results might be applicable to Kindle and iPads, etc.: the 4 columns of "Notes" post very incompletely (words and letters are cut off) and post in an annoyingly skinny way (only one to a few incomplete words a line in some cases), whereas that would not be the case w/, say, 2 columns (as it used to be) before the above "Diffs." Similarly annoying distortions occur in these smaller e-reader screens for the 2-column "Works cited". (cont.)

I have not changed the settings in the columns, but I wonder what others who may not use Firefox but who use IE and who use e-readers may be experiencing, and what the consensus for columns (and what numbers) may be. Please let us know if there are problems for you in the 3 or 4 columns of "Notes" and 2 columns of "Works cited ..." if you are experiencing them, or whether you prefer having the numbers of columns defined as is or as they were earlier (2 for "Notes"). (The person who changed the column numbers from 2 to 4 may not have realized the effects on small e-reader screens.) I think the column parameter in "Notes" would probably be better as 2 instead of 3 or 4, and the column parameter in "Works cited" may still be okay as 2 (instead of single). Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk) 04:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed using flexible column widths, see {{reflist|colwidth=30em}}. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have listed the article for peer review, with the objective of taking this to FAC, comments welcome at WP:Peer review/Harold Pinter/archive2. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to clog the PR page with technical matters, so I report here that on my computer (a newish, moderately wide-screen affair) the quote box with the text from No Man's Land covers and almost obliterates the picture of the Duke of York's behind it. Tim riley (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will look at that. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Manual of Style is a guide applicable to all Wikipedia articles. It presents Wikipedia's house style, and is intended to help editors to produce articles with language, layout, and formatting that are consistent, clear, and precise. The goal is to make the whole encyclopedia easier and more intuitive to use.

Internal consistency

An overriding principle is that style and formatting choices should be consistent within a Wikipedia article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia as a whole. Consistency within an article promotes clarity and cohesion.

Stability of articles

The Arbitration Committee has ruled that editors should not change an article from one guideline-defined style to another without a substantial reason unrelated to mere choice of style, and that revert-warring over optional styles is unacceptable.^[1] Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. [Bold font added; for details, see 2007 "Good article" review; linked above. The "good article" icon relates to that particular review.]

Follow the sources

Many points of usage, such as the treatment of proper names, can be decided by observing the style adopted by high-quality sources. Unless there is a clear reason to do otherwise, follow the usage of reliable English-language secondary sources on the subject [bold font added]. If the sources can be shown to be unrepresentative of current English usage, follow current English usage instead—and consult more sources.

As [several] recent edits do, please do not continue to damage the internal consistency of the bibliographical entries or other citations (whose format was and is consistent with the format of current Elements of style template and the same template and format in a section of this article Harold Pinter bibliography). [E.g., please do not damage [what was] the current consistency of the article in those entries or other citations throughout by making unnecessary changes from <ref>/</ref> formatting for footnotes or bibliographical MLA style (see "Elements of Style" template above) to inconsistent use of other styles of citation templates (in the "Works cited ..." or the "Footnotes")]. [If the current formatting of the information is correct, as it is, there is no reason to change it.] (cont.)

The information in the reference citations was already correct (except possibly for inadvertent typographical errors, which are easily corrected as noticed) and consistent before the gratuitous changing to citation templates [in the "Works cited ..." list]. Those are inconsistent with the rest of the formatting of the citations. Please revert your own unnecessary changes. They violate the General principles" in these MOS guidelines just quoted. These have all been in existence between the "good article" review (2007) and the present. (

WP:LOP makes some of the same points.) Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk

) 04:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

[I realized after first posting these comments that the changes (so far; there is an editing summary saying that "more" will be following) are in the "Works cited ..." list; but the current list (until several were changed today to citation templates [which are "neither encouraged nor discouraged" in

Style guides and the template "Styles."] -- (Updated)--66.66.17.59 (talk

) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)]

From "Wikipedia:Citation templates":

The use of citation templates is neither encouraged nor discouraged. Templates may be used or removed at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with other editors on the article. Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus. (bold font added)

Please go to the page linked above, which is also linked in

WP:MOS, for further guidance. Thank you. --66.66.17.59 (talk

) 06:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the errors and inconsistencies introduced by the use of those citation templates; in part, they interfered with the templates already in the entries; also removed the gratuitous information inconsistent with normal bibliographical entries (and all the other ones) in those templates; all one needs is the links and the dates in the proper order, not after the author's or compiler's name. Entries for a compiler (abbreviated as "comp.") follow entries for an author; so the order was/is currently correct and internally consistent (with the other entries); one lists authored works before compiled and edited works. (For the last of the entries for Billington listed (where he is/was listed as "comp." (compiler), it appears that Billington recorded his conversation with Pinter; he compiled the quotations from his recorded tape and/or notes.) --66.66.17.59 (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Since these corrections, Jezhotwells has again added some incorrect citation templates, damaging the consistency of the format of citations. These citation templates still need to be made into the prevailing citation format; in one case, the source is already cited (see below). Also, in a recent edit, he has kept someone's adding of an external link to the official Nobel site's Nobel Lecture, which needs to be converted to the current citation format for consistency; it needs to be in <ref> or <ref name=></ref> format. The article already has a print version of the Nobel Lecture ("Art, Truth and Politics") listed as a full entry in the "Works cited"; if using a different version, it can be added to that entry. All notes and bibliographical entries end with a period (according to the current style sheet). Jezhotwells has changed some citations and left off the final periods at times; one may have to check to see if the final periods have been restored. Reminder: one cannot include a link in the "External links" section if it is already cited in Notes and/or "Works cited" sections. So please don't add the Nobel Lecture to the External links section, since Jezhotwells has a note linking to it. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

[See the section on citation templates above. Some recent changes since "peer review" need correction. (Updated.) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)]

Since changes made "as per" the "peer review" (mostly by Jezhotwells, but also by a few others), there are now multiple factual and source (citation) errors in the text and in quotations throughout this article. Clearly, those working on it do not perceive these errors. Each change needs verification with actual sources. Every change made since the beginning of the "peer review" needs scrutiny and verification. (cont.)

The semi-protection lock needs to be removed so that those who are able to perceive and to correct these errors are able to correct them as soon as possible. Otherwise, Wikipedia is promulgating false information about Harold Pinter and about cited sources. Semi-protection should be temporary, according to Wikipedia's own policies. Those who have taken over this article are preventing corrections of their own (multiple) errors (scroll up).(cont.)

Despite their premature self-congratulation in the "peer review", there is no guarantee that, if this article does become a "candidate" for featured status, feature-article reviewers will be able to identify the errors that these editors have introduced in this article or that the later reviewers will be able to correct them. (cont.) [(Update): See separate section below posted by another editor. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)]

These are just some of the many errors due to recent changes, mostly made by Jezhotwells:

(1) Pinter did not say that his mother was a "good cook"; as the source cited (Gussow) documents (check it), Pinter said that she was "a wonderful cook" [see both the source and the first "peer review"; the quotation marks were a typographical error; the phrase good cook was initially a paraphrase that occurred when, Timriley et al., during the first "peer review" (scroll up to top for link), objected to using quotation marks for quotations]; this odd aversion to using quotation marks according to the MOS has led to such errors, when the text gets farther and farther from the original source (as in the game of Telephone);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(2) Henry Woolf is not the source of the material [in the scholarly responses section] that someone has erroneously made into a block quotation and falsely attributed to him. That material is actually part of the text of the article, altered by that editor [who made it into a block quotation; perhaps the quote code is misplaced now, as there is an earlier code before that]. Henry Woolf did not say them. The source citation is the print citation given, not Henry Woolf (check editing history for that error; [please see what cf. means in the footnote to a different citation before that]) [Added: Here are the "diffs." in the erroneous changes made by Jezhotwells: [9]: please consult this one and others by going through the editing history. This is a violation of the Blpo template at top and needs immediate correction. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)] [Also: as correct earlier before Jezhotwells' et al.'s changes, the colon belongs after the superscript to the reference citation for Coppa, not before the superscript. Superscript numbers precede colons, not follow them; moreover, only the phrase "a great comic writer" is Coppa's and not the rest of the material; the block quotation is supposed to be cited as written by Jones and the source citation needs to include the citation to Woolf as quoted in "Talking about Pinter", as prevously indicated. When such changes are made by Wikipedians who are not checking the print sources directly and not verifying their changes, they do not recognize their own errors. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 16 June 2011 (UTC)];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(3) extended quotations from Sarah Lyall's article(s) published in the New York Times use American English spelling, not British English spelling, and Lyall should be quoted exactly; yet Jezhotwells, following changes proposed by Timriley without verifying the quotation in the source cited, silently changed the New York Times spelling and wording to spelling and word usage to follow Timriley; such changes violate Wikipedia's own MOS, which states that quotations should not be changed silently (consult the MOS). Lyall used the words "Lady Antonia" etc. and the rest of her quotation needs restoration exactly (check the source citation for the wording);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Still need to fix the double quotation marks within the passage to single quotation marks (quotation within quotation), as it initially was before you changed the passage; your summary says you fixed quotations, but actually you also restored words and the rest of the full quotation, which you had deleted earlier:

Here is the original passage from the source, with proper Wikipedia-MOS quotation marks (straight not curved or curly):

{{quotation="His latest work, a slim pamphlet called 'Six Poems for A.,' comprises poems written over 32 years, with 'A' of course being Lady Antonia. The first of the poems was written in Paris, where she and Mr. Pinter traveled soon after they met. More than three decades later the two are rarely apart, and Mr. Pinter turns soft, even cozy, when he talks about his wife."}} [moved up.] --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)(cont.)

(4) touts [adding the brackets here] is not [precisely] the same meaning as (the more generic) ticket resellers, as changed by Jezhotwells, in following (unverified) suggestion by Timriley in the "peer review (see the linked peer review, at top); the original wording used "scalpers" (which Tr objected to), changed to "ticket resellers", then changed to touts (slang); the linked definition tout [clarifies now] what the (British) slang term is in this particular context (the tickets were "scalped" (resold) on eBay); but, without the link, the word would be indecipherable to most readers of Wikipedia. "Ticket reseller" is not colloquial/slang [as are both "scalper" and "tout"], and it is more easily comprehended by general readers; moreover, the actual (British) sources cited at the end of the sentence do not mention "touts" or substantiate its use [Note that "scalp" or "scalpers" is a term also used in the linked Wikipedia article on ]Ticket resellers, so linking to (the more generic) Ticket resale (via piped "ticket resellers") may be helpful.] (the article re: "tout" was changed since I first noticed it yesterday, so I've updated this. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)] (updated: --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(5) the guest actors in Being Harold Pinter did not read "Pinter's letters" (which are held in the British Library and still unpublished, for the most part)--someone who does did not read the source given for that section recently added the word "Pinter's" (not supported by the source); but rather, as the topic sentence states, these guest actors read Belarusian prisoners' letters [which are part of the production Being Harold Pinter; Pinter's own letters are not; someone changed this section without even reading the first sentence or the sources];

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It should read "prisoners' letters" (plural) not singular; Jezhotwells' "correction" needs further correction; please examine your own earlier edits, where you changed this passage in the first place; it was initially correct before you edited it after the "peer review". --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(6) the name of the theater in New York City is the Public Theater (not the "Public Theatre", as changed by Jezhotwells, which leads to a redirect, due to this misspelling). Blindly following Timriley's "suggestions" to change American spelling to British English spelling has led to (apparently inadvertent) misspellings in quotations and names of organizations. For verification, check the Public Theater's own website (publictheater.org). One should not change the official name of the theater in New York (thus, the re-direct due to the misspelling of the name of the theater). It is neither necessary nor justifiable to change the actual name of an American theater to a British spelling because one prefers the spelling "theatre" otherwise. Some American theaters do actually use the word "Theatre" in their name, just as departments of "theatre" in American colleges and universities often use this British spelling. Yet, others use the word "Theater" in the names of American theaters, and in departments of "theater". One preserves the official spelling of an organization in naming it, even when British English is being used otherwise in the article. Apparently, Jezhotwells [made] many of his recent changes to this article very quickly (hastily?), without verification. But all of his (and others') changes need to be verified. If not verifiable or verified, the text needs to be reverted to actual, previously verified, correct forms and correct information;

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(7) Beckett wrote more than one one-act monologue; the original (lack of) punctuation was correct: Beckett's one-act monologue Krapp's Last Tape (Note: that's a restrictive phrase--use of no commas restricts its meaning);

• Fixed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

(8) The use of hyphens for compound adjective-and-noun phrases modifying a noun is not an "American" usage (as Timriley seems to believe); check (verify) guidelines in Wikipedia's own MOS and other current style manuals upon which it is based; for other guidelines, see the "Style sheet" for this article, linked at top ;(cont.)

• Specifics please. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

You will have to scrutinize wherever you deleted hyphens based on what Timriley erroneously told you. Some use of hyphens in units of adjectival-noun phrases is correct, not incorrect as he states. He advised some changes to grammar and typography that was already correct and that should not have been changed. Punctuation similarly has problems; one is supposed to follow Wikipedia's MOS, not Timriley's more idiosyncratic "British" punctuation preferences. In quotations of full sentences, the period comes before the end quotation mark; you have changed the previously correct punctuation of quotations in sentences to incorrect punctuation (incorrect, that is, according to Wikipedia's MOS; such earlier changes by a "copy editor" were actually incorrect and in conflict with the current Wikipedia MOS. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Timriley advocated changing the previously correct quotation format to: {{quotation="My grandfather introduced me to the mystery of life and I'm still in the middle of it. I can't find the door to get out. My grandfather got out of it. He got right out of it. He left it behind him and he didn't look back. He got that absolutely right. And I'd like to make one further interjection. [break] He stands still. Slow fade."[133]}}, so now it is incorrect.

As it used to be, the end quotation mark needs to come after interjection (end of the Waiter's last speech). Pinter's stage directions should be italicized (as they used to be before you/he changed them as part of the "peer review"; the stage directions are also part of the block quotation, and there should be no final quotation mark after them (because they are part of the block quotation, according to format.)

Also, you need to restore the quotation marks around Pinter's own phrase "power and powerlessness"; any direct statement that a playwright makes about his own plays is highly significant and the quotation marks indicate that they are his own choice of words; otherwise, a reader would not know that. In the context of criticism of Pinter's work, his use of the exact phrase is especially significant; you can also find a passage in Antonia Fraser's memoir Must You Go? My Life with Harold Pinter where she points to when he used that phrase in describing his own plays in a publication; for her, it was a notable occasion (you'll have to consult her book as a source directly; it's cited in this article). Timriley's personal predilection for removing quotation marks from quoted words and phrases conflicts with Wikipedia's current MOS and conventional writing practices acceptable throughout the world. When quoting an author, one uses quotation marks. Period. The quotation marks need to be restored from wherever you removed them. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(9) Watch out for other unnecessary national-variety-of-English changes (claims about grammar and usage going beyond spelling), especially when the words are not actually in quotations being quoted. (cont.)

• Specifics, please. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Already gave examples above; this was something for you to "watch out for" in general ("be wary of") because Timriley's changes tended to do this. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 00:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

(10) Be wary of falling prey to nationalistic biases going beyond spelling, so as not to violate Wikipedia's specific editing policies and guidelines relating to varieties of English. When in doubt, first check (verify claims about) the MOS for the actual (frequently changing; recently protected) guidelines on altering quotations when necessary (e.g., use brackets, ellipses, etc.); (cont.)

• Specifics, [;ease. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy (click on the lock icon at top of the article on which it appears), this particular article on Harold Pinter, the related Bibliography (cross-linked), and the also cross-linked article on Antonia Fraser (Pinter's second wife and widow) should not be either "semi-protected" or "protected" "indefinitely" (as they have been for some months). Registered users who are editing this article (and the others) have not recently consulted all the print and/or online sources cited in the article; thus, they do not perceive their own recent errors. Because they are unable to notice them, they are unable to correct them. Others also interested in maintaining the integrity of this article (who might be able to spot their errors but who may not want to register for a variety of reasons) should be able to make the necessary corrections. (cont.)

Contrary to its history since Pinter's death, after which it was taken over by a handful of Wikipedia editors, this article is not, in fact, "owned" by anyone (see Wikipedia's

WP:OWN and "Terms of Use"). Because the article has a "Common attribution Share alike" license, as it is not "owned" by anyone, it is also open to re-posting throughout the internet, and so these errors are being spread throughout the internet. These errors (and the others in these articles) need to be corrected. As Jimbo Wales (a founder of Wikipedia) states regarding the principles of editing Wikipedia: the main aim of Wikipedia editors should not be to protect their own turf or to rack up "good article" and "feature article" statistics. The main aim is to "get" articles "right". Making factual and citation corrections is not "vandalism" in Wikipedia; calling it "vandalism" does not make it vandalism. -- 66.66.27.196 (talk

) 01:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, actually editors have been careful to not remove cites, but it is possible mistakes have been made. Perhaps you could could point out specific errors, one by one, so that corrections can be made, [...] Of course, if you wish to rationally discuss the future of this artcile you could appeal your ban. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I already did that [pointed out specific errors]; see the numbered items and check your own earlier changes. I've pointed you to some of the problems. Otherwise, you need to ask an administrator to remove the lock (semi-protection), as should have been done long ago, so that others can make these necessary corrections. Clearly, you and the others posting in the "peer review" don't perceive them. Perhaps if you go over each of your own and others' changes more carefully, and consult the related guidelines in the MOS, you will be able to correct the problems. (Don't just take what someone says about the MOS at face value, as the person may just be citing his or her memory of it; e.g., one is not supposed to change quotation marks within quotations to italics (as Timriley told you); one changes old-style typed underlinings to italics, according to the MOS). The exact punctuation of the original quotations needs to be restored (from your changes). --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, you yourself removed citations that were keyed to the Works cited (apparently without realizing it)--leaving orphans in the "Notes" section; some of those citations had resulted from work by several previous editors. You are not verifying your own changes. [Please do not alter my signature.] --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

???? Where did that happen? Thanks for the specifics which have been addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As already stated clearly above, the still-existing errors of fact and/or format-citation problems are in your own changes where you deleted full entries from the "Works cited" list which are cited in the notes as short references, according to the current style sheet. You need to restore the full citations. If you go over your own changes since the "peer review" began, you will find them. There are no full entries for some of the print references cited in the notes only now because you yourself deleted the full entries for those sources in the "Works cited." (cont.)

See, e.g., note 153: you deleted the full entries in the "Works cited" to which these short references were keyed (so now they are "orphans" in the Notes); you'll have to find when you did that; it was among your first revisions after the "peer review" following Timriley's comments about some sources. As you know, some of his comments still need to be brought to the attention of Oversight so they can be expunged from editing history. [You can find the original sources if you go back to an earlier version of the "Works cited" when it was still called "Works cited and further reading". [I think your ultimate splitting of that into two sections does work; with the cross-ref. to Harold Pinter bibliography.] (cont.) (Updated.) --66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You also added citation templates inconsistently in places, when citation templates are not the prevaling citation format for this article. In one case (examine the diffs.), you added a citation template right before the same source's full citation already appears (in the very next note citation now); you just needed to code the citations properly (e.g., using the prevailing citation format: <ref name=></ref>. (You need to restore the proper source citation format and remove the out-of-place citation templates.) These are your own edits, so you should be able to find them by scrolling through your edits post the "peer review". (cont.)

Someone more recently added a comma after a date (1996?) that is not needed there; the very next sentence uses the same "In [year]" syntax with no comma. You cannot assume that every editor who comes along and changes something is doing so correctly or consistently. You need to scrutinize their changes immediately after they make them, so that they do not introduce errors in the articles. Moreover, you need to do that work before submitting a request for the article to be a FAC! (cont.)

More recently, someone else removed italics from the title of a website for

The Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine, claiming that it is a "service," etc.; however, the current prevailing style sheet format calls for italicizing the titles of such websites, and The Internet Archive: The Wayback Machine *is* the title of a website; for that reason is also already italicized elsewhere in the article's notes. Such a change damages the consistency of the article. The change needs to be reverted and consistency double checked. If, down the road, a review for Featured Article status changes the article to a different format and/or style sheet, which could happen, that particular style format will have to be applied consistently too, as Wikipedia's MOS calls first and foremost for "consistency"; see earlier comments quoted from the MOS. --66.66.27.196 (talk

) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Please call for removing the semi-protection of this article and its bibliography Harold Pinter bibliography, and the related article Antonia Fraser, so that all Wikipedia editors can help to improve them. One is not supposed to have to register in Wikipedia to edit articles in it, so advising people to do so is not within Wikipedia editing policies or guidelines. If people don't want to register to edit, they do not have to do so (if articles are not semi-protected). Given how you yourself and your friends have treated previously registered users, no wonder people don't want to register! (cont.)

No article is ready to be a FAC if it still contains errors of fact and format (whether or not you, as the editor who introduced those errors, can perceive them). I still urge you to ask to remove the semi-protection status, so that all users of Wikipedia can edit these articles. Indeed, the attempts to protect the article from editing by everyone is preventing it from being improved further. It is the mark of extreme hubris to assume that only you and your co-"peer review" editors are capable of improving and "maintaining" this article. There is information about the subjects and the sources cited that you may not be aware of, because you are not experts on the topics and really do not have access to the majority of the sources cited in these articles. According to the most recent New York Times "Times Topics" section on Wikipedia, Wikipedia is currently trying to increase the role of expert editors in improving the quality of articles in Wikipeda, not the opposite.

Finally, as you yourself and your colleagues know that the banned editor(s) cannot contact Wikipedia directly to ask for the removal of the bans, you can do so on their behalf. --66.66.27.196 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

...if you wish to contribute here then you can appeal the ban yourself, learn to work with other editors and drop your, frankly, ridiculous stance of not engaging with Wikipedia processes. If you can't accept them then perhaps it would be best to stay away. --Jezhotwells (talk) 01:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I am an anonymous IP address user; you asked user 66.66.27.196 for further "specifics", and I supplied them (above).

Why is this article protected? Is this some kind of censorship??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if you have suggestions, please post them here. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected because (Changed protection level of Harold Pinter: regularly accessed by banned user ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))). If you get an account you will be able to edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Moondyne (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am sure that this image (HaroldPinter.jpg) is surely better than this (Pinterfoto cropped2.jpg)

46.12.16.226 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a free image and so it falls foul of the FAC criteria, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1. --Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: as above See

WP:NFC#UUI - Happysailor ^(Talk)

08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

This has been changed to standard WP templates following the banning of User:NYScholar and susequent discussion, which may be viewed in the talk page archives. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to look this word up in a dictionary - I've never even heard it before. It currently appears in a quote. Can I suggest its presence indicates the quote is less than suitable for an accessable encyclopedia? Can someone suggest a truncation of the quote or its replacement altogether with original text? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a perfectly proper English word. Just beacuse some readers may have to look it up in a dictionary, I don't see any problem with its use. I often have to look up military tedchnical terms when reviewing military history artciles or even baseball or basketball artciles for that matter. Discovering new words and their meanings is one of the joys of reading. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree in general, I just wasn't sure if this wasn't a bit...extreme. If no other editor has raised it, then I agree that it is one of the joys of reading! hamiltonstone (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, this article has very few images. Can anyone do anything about this before it goes on the main page? Most of the images were deleted at FAC because of, IMO, overzealous and misinformed enforcement of

Do you have any specific instances where another image would aid the encyclopaedic content of the article? Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Sure. For starters, I would replace the images of Pinter as a young actor and in his last role, or from the Nobel Prize broadcast. It would be a great aid if there were images depicting performances (or just programme covers) of his most famous works. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:09, 17 May 2012 (UTC) [archived manually since the archive bot has not been functioning for well over a year apparently. --208.125.67.1 (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)]

Why is this article protected? Is this some kind of censorship??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 11:15, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if you have suggestions, please post them here. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Unprotect the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.19.184 (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected because (Changed protection level of Harold Pinter: regularly accessed by banned user ([edit=autoconfirmed] (indefinite) [move=sysop] (indefinite))). If you get an account you will be able to edit. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Moondyne (talk) 02:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments from banned user User:NYScholar removed. Jezhotwells (talk) 07:08, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am sure that this image (HaroldPinter.jpg) is surely better than this (Pinterfoto cropped2.jpg)

46.12.16.226 (talk) 13:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is not a free image and so it falls foul of the FAC criteria, please see the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Harold Pinter/archive1. --Jezhotwells (talk) 19:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Not done: as above See

WP:NFC#UUI - Happysailor ^(Talk)

08:26, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Harold Pinter was a Patron to UK charity the Environmental Justice Foundation from 2003 to 2008.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tori395 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

There is an image on the Commons of a house with a blue plaque where Harold Pinter lived but no description. Does anyone recognise it? The Geolocation suggests it's in Sussex, near

A source at The Argus [10] gives full details and further states that the house in photo is located at Ambrose Place in Worthing. Someone can add the street now to the edited caption as well. (re-formatted this comment by adding two new sections in talk page) 66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Some recent edits to punctuation and syntax are errors that need correction, as do some earlier long-standing errors. See archived discussion for some lists of errors and consult hidden current talk page history not archived (deleted by others). E.g., some recently added single quotation marks should be changed to double as they are not supposed to be apostrophes. Earlier changes introduced errors in quotations within quotations too. E.g., another so-called "flow" edit is confusing; not an improvement. Please fix these and other longer standing problems. (re-formatted comment by adding two new sections in talk page) 66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Please remove protection; it is not warranted. It has been (over)protected for years (since 2009). While there have been many improvements, in some aspects (e.g., currency of content, accuracy of punctuation and use of sources, accessibility of links, mechanics, and grammar), the article has deteriorated. Keeping it protected continues to violate Wikipeda's own official editing policies. (updated signature) 66.66.27.196 (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As you are a banned user (NYScholar sockpuppet), you should understand that this article is protected because of your past actions. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Unprotection request declined. see IP talk page. Moondyne (talk) 14:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, reading through the Talk Page archives for this article is eye-opening. The transition in article styles sounds like it was a helluva lot of work and almost traumatic for some users. This piece ought to be used as a textbook example of what happens when one person has too much control over an article. Please don't let this happen again!

Given recent attempts (up to April 2013) to STILL find ways to edit this piece, it seems like some sort of protection is still necessary. I admire persistence but it this case, it's something that they just have to completely let go of.

talk

) 22:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Remove: Category:Alumni of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art. He never graduated from RADA and is therefor not an alumni of RADA. Only studied there briefly.

Attribs101 (talk) 02:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Done — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 02:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Would it be all right to have this mentioned in the article?

From a news article: "When ill health prevented Pinter from keeping this engagement he enlisted the aid of actor Sands to stand in his stead with the proviso being that Sands had to spend time with Pinter rehearsing the works. After that Sands continued to read the poetry at fund-raising events and has done a series of readings at the Odyssey Theatre to help out a theatre that has found itself suffering from the recession."

The show's been performed in the Edinburgh Festival, and even in Spain (I believe). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.142.37.169 (talk) 01:47, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably not. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

??? No basis for such out-of-hand rejection??? Points of information: This tribute, called "A Celebration of Harold Pinter," has subsequently been performed at Yale University, at the Irish Repertory Theatre and then, after fall 2012, back on tour and in various venues throughout Los Angeles and elsewhere in California. The Irish Repertory Theatre has a separate webpage describing the production, with some history,[11]. Any search engine such as Google will turn up many (additional) reliable sources relating to it. Constructing some mention of it with appropriate citations needs reconsideration as part of updating this article. (One of the earlier LA performances is available for anyone to view on Vimeo.) (updated.) 66.66.27.196 (talk) 02:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: Recent related changes have created plagiarism from a source (see Dec. 2014 edit)

Please fix this problem: Quotation marks were removed (should actually be quotation marks within quotation marks): see section on Pinter's civic and political activities. Source link (not given in note 85) is: http://www.economist.com/node/21526301. Source does not say that Pinter. "earned a reputation for being notoriously pugnacious"; all the rest of the adjectives are probably Pinter's own words and in quotation marks in this source (about Julian Sands's reading being reviewed) and introduced by "...Harold Pinter knew that he was" described as '.....'" Please remove "notoriously pugnacious" (not in the source) and restore "/" before and after all the rest of the sentence (" '/ ' ") as in source (see link and please add link to the endnote). 66.66.27.196 (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

['Updated request first made on 19 Feb. 2015] Please see request added to top section (on Julian Sands program); an edit made by someone else on 24 Dec. 2014 created plagiarism from a source (current note 85). It removed quotation marks and added words ("notoriously pugnacious") not in the source ; the source uses all the other adjectives and puts them within quotation marks. Before these quoted words the source States that Pinter "knew" he was considered to be " 'enigmatic .....' " etc. Please delete the editor's added "notoriously pugnacious" and restore the quotation marks around the rest of the adjectives as per the source article as explained above (quotation within quotation marks). These are not Wikipedia's words; they seem to be Pinter's as quoted in the Economist (http://www.economist.com/node/21526301). The Economist's writer does not clearly identify the source of the quotation. Check Pinter's acceptance speech for his David Cohen British Literature Prize as a possibility. 66.66.27.196 (talk) 04:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Updated by adding proper SPER template. 66.66.27.196 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Thus, requesting that one replace current sentence preceding source citation #85: Harold Pinter earned a reputation for being notoriously pugnacious, enigmatic, taciturn, terse, prickly, explosive and forbidding. (In which an edit added the unsourced words "notoriously pugnacious" and removed subsequent necessary internal quotation marks and quotation wthin quotation marks) with the following sentence: As Harold Pinter himself acknowledged, he "had earned a reputation for being 'enigmatic, taciturn, terse, prickly, explosive and forbidding'."[85] Also please add the URL in the Economist source citation 85 (as given above). Thank you. (Updated as per template.) 66.66.27.196 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/3949227/Harold-Pinter-the-most-original-stylish-and-enigmatic-writer-in-the-post-war-revival-of-British-theatre.html 

Here's a link to a Telegraph obituary quoting Pinter's own use of the quoted words placed within his own quotation marks (suggesting some sense of self-irony). 66.66.27.196 (talk) 04:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Not done: As you are a banned user (NYScholar sockpuppet), you should understand that this article is protected because of your past actions. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Support decline. Banned means banned. I have zero tolerance of this banned user and arguing with a good faith contributor as she has just done [12] is outrageous. Moondyne (talk) 07:11, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Harold Pinter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

223.236.239.125 (talk) 16:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 17:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit request to Harold Pinter has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please add the below season information to the page under Posthumous Events Pinter at the Pinter^[2]

In September 2018, the Jamie Lloyd Company will present a season of Harold Pinter's one-act plays on the tenth anniversary of the Nobel Prize winner’s death, performed in the theatre that bears his name - the Harold Pinter Theatre - and running until February 2019. This unique event will feature all twenty short plays written by Harold Pinter and have never before been performed together in a season of this kind.

The twenty plays will be presented in repertoire by a company of actors and directors, many of whom were Harold Pinter’s friends and collaborators. The cast currently includes Keith Allen, Ron Cook, Phil Davis, Danny Dyer, Paapa Essiedu, Martin Freeman, Rupert Graves, Tamsin Greig, Jane Horrocks, Celia Imrie, Gary Kemp, John Macmillan, Emma Naomi, Tracy-Ann Oberman, Abraham Popoola, John Simm, Maggie Steed, David Suchet and Nicholas Woodeson.

The plays will be directed by Jamie Lloyd, Patrick Marber, Ed Stambollouian, Lyndsey Turner, and Lia Williams. Season design will be by Soutra Gilmour.

The short plays featuring in the season are One for the Road, The New World Order, Mountain Language, Ashes to Ashes, The Lover, The Collection, Landscape, A Kind of Alaska, Moonlight, Night School, The Room, Victoria Station, Family Voices, Party Time, Celebration, A Slight Ache and The Dumb Waiter. Special rehearsed readings of Tea Party, The Basement and Silence will complete the season. 92.207.251.34 (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide

reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Danski454 (talk

) 11:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sources here: [3]

92.207.251.34 (talk) 15:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide

talk

) 03:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)