Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"Information" about his personality and desires

The material below, which seemed to be offering some valuable insight into Sellers' mindset, has been deleted twice, claiming Sellers never got the part, and suggest discussing instead. However, whether he got the part is less important than that he wanted it "most of all." As it is, IMO, the article is overloaded with minutia and trivia, and more general details about Sellers such as these are useful. Feedback requested.

Sellers tried to play the part of Orde Charles Wingate, which he described in 1962 as "the film part I should like to play most of all." Sellers went to Israel and did his own research into Wingate's career. Lewis states a number of reasons why Sellers was attracted to Wingate, adding that he saw direct similarities between Wingate and Sellers:

"The enigma of Wingate, and the anger and questing which inspired him, make explicit the two strands of Sellers I've been drawing out: the reflectiveness (which was moody and mystical) and the rashness—Wingate had an impetuosity which must have seemed almost crazy. Sellers responded to the drama of a heroic career . . . and felt an affinity, too, with Wingate's maverick nature."

--Light show (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

References

This is beyond trivia really. It's the opinion of a man who didn't meet Sellers, and comparing him to Wingate, another man neither he nor Sellers met! (BTW, if you add material,in future, please use the {{sfn}} template to ensure consistency). - SchroCat (talk) 22:29, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Lewis is one of the most cited sources in the article. Why would his "opinion" be invalid now? --Light show (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

His outline of facts is cited: his opinion of Sellers's character is not. - SchroCat (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Seriously Light show??♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

These[1][2] seem like worthwhile edits to me. We should be concerned with the personality of Sellers. Insights into his personality provided by biographer Roger Lewis would seem worthy of our consideration for inclusion in this article. Bus stop (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not really: Lewis didn't meet either Sellers or Wingate, so his comparing the second hand opinions of others to force a third hand opinion doesn't add anything to our understanding. - SchroCat (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah it doesn't make sense if he didn't meet him.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Can any of the editors who consider a cited author/biographer's "opinions" as invalid, please support it with guidelines? It seems that an "opinion" from a reliable source is an acceptable secondary source. Otherwise, we may have a few hundred thousand biographies that should be deleted. Maybe an RfC related to biographies and policies would be helpful. BTW, Lewis goes into more factual details about both Sellers and Wingate in his book, which is heavily relied on for the article. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

If you think that the above is a good thing to put into a featured article, then you have no idea what quality content actually is. Despite the overlong quote, it focuses on a film that he didn't make: we've left out information about films he did make for reasons of clarity, and keeping the article readable, and you want to bloat it out with guesswork about Sellers's character from someone who never met him? If it had been one of Sellers's family or colleagues that made the connection then it would be a good post to raise, but from a total stranger? It's just not a very valid point to make. - SchroCat (talk) 09:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

For a 10,000-word bio with facts and quotes by everyone else but Sellers, a direct quote from him mentioning "the film part I should like to play most of all," is of value. But the quote needs context to have any meaning, therefore comments about that statement from one of his key biographers are logical to include. --Light show (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A quote about a film he didn't make is borderline boring and trivial (especially given the amount of his work we don't cover), but the over bloated nonsense that accompanies it? If you think that is a good way to approach quality articles, then it's no surprise you've never written and FA or GA. We've kept large block quotes from Sellers himself and one from Milligan, who probably knew and understood him better than anyone else. We certainly do not need trivial bollocks from someone who never met him, comparing him to someone else he never met. - SchroCat (talk) 23:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

A biographer is not a "total stranger". Roger Lewis seems to have reasonably good credentials in the area of writing biographies. There might seem to be traction in the reasoning that "he didn't meet him" but we need not omit reliably sourced material from a biography based on such reasoning. I think this material serves an encyclopedic purpose. The opinion that an acting role is "the film part I should like to play most of all" would seem to be potentially of interest to a reader. Perhaps some questions are left unanswered but I don't think this is "trivia". The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. But we are not responsible or answering all questions. The subject of this biography is an actor. The inclusion of the material under consideration can serve the valuable role of providing the reader with a jumping-off point for further research. In my opinion that purpose intrinsically would be of encyclopedic value. Bus stop (talk) 00:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lewis never met Sellers; he never met Wingate. He may well have an idea of Sellers's personality from others, buts it's still a second hand opinion. He has even less of a grasp of Wingate, and has never written about him, as far as I can see, so he is basing his opinion on rather shaky third hand gossip. The only truly factual and encyclopaedic information here is a) Sellers wanted to make a film about Wingate (and a quote about that); and b) He didn't make it. The rest is unencyclopaedic. Does the fact about Sellers not making a film need to go into an article which (by design) doesn't cover all the roles he did actually play? Not so much, no: it dips down to the levels of trivia in comparison. - SchroCat (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe Sellers was aware that Winston Churchill called Wingate "A man of genius who might well have become also a man of destiny." There was also a BBC movie about him. But I doubt if the film Sellers was thinking about would have been a comedy. --Light show (talk) 02:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Maybe"? "I doubt"? Your opinion on the facts is as irrelevant as mine or anyone else's here, as it's POV and utterly unconnected to any material that will get near the article. I have no idea why the BBC film also has any relevance: Sellers was unconnected to it and Lewis didn't mention it, so why is that of relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 08:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

It was in response to the reasonable question from Bus Stop: The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. This is a "talk" page, not a PA club. Not all of us are afraid of discussing such things. --Light show (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

? I have no idea what you're on about. As always your comments seem to drift away from the point into a nonsensical and irrelevant place far too readily. - SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"The reader may want to know why Sellers was attracted to playing the role of Wingate." -- Then again, they may not give a toss. Now move along, there is nothing to see here! Cassianto^talk 17:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Then again, Bus stop, maybe Sellers was hoping to counter the erroneous impression others may have had: "To quote Spike Milligan," wrote SchroCat, "Sellers's portrayals of Jews were 'less than adulatory. He never did a refined Jew; we even got letters from listeners saying that The Goon Show was anti-Semitic.'" --Light show (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Although he did make his attitude and ambitions clear to Kenneth Tynan, as the article states. --Light show (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is fuck all to do with him not playing Wingate in a film. - SchroCat (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Yet it's more relevant to who Sellers was, IMO, than the massive, 2-week long, 40,000-word argument, started after someone dug up some nugget of real trivia. It created a frenzy about whether some Monty Casino TV character was Jewish or not. Now that's trivia. --Light show (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If you haven't got anything sensible to add, perhaps it's best if you look at other articles to work on: your opinions on this are tainted beyond any constructive point. I didn't start the thread about Monty Casino, I didn't want to waste time or energy over it, and look, at the end of the day then consensus was that it remains, so you'll have to ask those who fanned the flames why they kept banging on. Still, neither that, nor the last few of your posts here have advanced any sensible or rational arguments as to why we should add information about a film Sellers didn't make (s opposed to the ad, which he did make). If you've nothing sensible to say, or must use childish links to images to make your message, then move on to something more constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Once again, the subject is not about a film, but about Sellers, the person, as noted in this section's heading. --Light show (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

And, once again, it's trivial shit by someone who never met or knew either man. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why the hell are you dragging that old chestnut up again? Cassianto^talk 18:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

We're getting in slightly nonsensical information again here. He wouldn't have portrayed a jew of any description: he would have portrayed a friend of the Jews, which is what Wingate was, being a solid Christian, but a supporter of Zionism. I'll also add once again, just to make it clear, this is also about a film that was never made, which means we have to put its notability under the spotlight to see if it's a valid point, or moving into trivia. A quick look at the literature shows that of Sellers's biographers, Evans, Rigelsford, Michael Sellers, Sikov, Starr and Walker all don't bother to blether on about this film that wasn't made (a not uncommon ocurrance in Sellers's career), or try and draw any parallels between Sellers and Wingate. There's no consensus to add this trivia to the article, so it's best to drop the stick and move on. Over four million articles on Wiki need attention to bring them up to a half-decent standard, and arguing the toss over this trivial nonsense isn't improving any of them. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Wartime pranks

He 'developed a fine ability to impersonate military officers during this period'.

Is it true he was meant to be jailed for pretending to be an officer, but he persuaded them to let him put on entertainments in the officers' mess? Valetude (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anything in any of the biographies that mentioned it, and I went through five or six of them while updating the article. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Milligan's comments to the press

EEng, you are edit warring: stop immediately and use the talk page to discuss and try and reach a consensus. As per WP:BRD, you should have done this some time ago, rather than try and force your preferred version on the page. Before you edit that phrase again (and I'll be happy to report your warring if you do), please outline why you consider your deletion to be improving the article in some way. I will also point out that leaving edit summaries like "angry tag-team ownership" is unlikely to put other editors in good humour, so try and keep a civil tongue in the discussion; similarly, when you accuse editors (me) of "cursing and swearing", please try and keep a little closer to the truth, rather than dip into falsehood to smaer by innuendo. - SchroCat (talk) 08:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Innuendo is what we do best SchroCat seeing as we are a "music-hall comedy duo" [sic]. The editor is nothing but troublesome and should really go and find something else to do. Cassianto^talk 09:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that personal attack, or the title of the sub-thread "157.1 A visit from an editor both angry and clueless -- always a dangerous combination". It seems that incivility is the standard modus operandi here, rather than than something that has been reached through frustration. It's a shame this may have to go to AN - the dramah boards are always something to be avoided wherever possible. - SchroCat (talk) 09:15, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

My concern is that this passage --

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death, but he later stated that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

-- strongly implies that Milligan made this statement to the press. In fact, the source cited [3] gives no context at all for Milligan's statement. I suggested two alternatives -- one [4] which preserves both points but makes it clear they're not necessarily related:

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death, but he later told someone that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

-- and another with edit summary [5] one possibility is to just omit the initially-too-upset bit -- I'm sure that's true of many around PS and not sure what it adds:

Fellow Goon Spike Milligan later said "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."

These changes have been reverted several times, but unfortunately with only unhelpful edit summaries such as [6]:

• You're obviously a stranger to BRD (as well as good grammar, good writing, precision and manners, but heigh ho
• ce - too awful to remain a blot here any longer
• Not an improvement
• boring

A recent message on my talk page read [7]

• You clearly love a joke judging by your user page, so take a look at these; Did you hear about the deluded and seriously unfunny editor who thought they improved a featured article by writing like a drunk three year old? These are bloody hilarious!

It's not hard to see why I characterized this series of unexplained reversions as [8] merely angry tag-team ownership. Nonetheless I still hope a substantive discussion can be had about which version is best, or to arrive at some fourth version which is better still. EEng (talk) 05:36, 8 July 2014 (UTC) P.S. As for ANI, watch out for that boomerang!

If, as you claim, you are interested in getting the phrase right, why the muck-raking and pointy insults? Why not try and be constructive from the start and just deal with the issue in hand? Why didn't you come to the talk page instead of edit warring, and why didn't you take on board the comments about aspects of your edits not being an improvement? You may not like the one sentence in question, but it's a bloody big song and dance over nothing which could have been settled eons ago if you had discussed first and left the pointy comments out of the equation. Heigh ho. On to the matter at hand.

I'm not sure that it does suggest that what he was later talking to the press, but if you are reading it that way, then what would you suggest as an alternative? "he later told someone that", is poor, and I'm not sure we need to remove the preceding sentence about Milligan not speaking to the press—as I said in my edit summary: it's not an improvement. Two suggestions are below, which separate the two a little more and tweaks the language to be a little less suggestive.

1. Fellow Goon Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death; he later said that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."'

2. Director Blake Edwards thought that "Peter was brilliant. He had an enormous facility for finding really unusual, unique facets of the character he was playing".[281] Sellers's friend and Goon Show colleague Spike Milligan was too upset to speak to the press at the time of Sellers's death,[284] Fellow Goon Harry Secombe said "I'm shattered. Peter was such a tremendous artist. He had so much talent, it just oozed out of him";[282] in dark humour, referring to the missed dinner the Goons had planned, he added, "Anything to avoid paying for dinner".[280] Secombe later declared to journalists "Bluebottle is deaded now".[283] Milligan later said that "it's hard to say this, but he died at the right time."[280]

My preference is for the first, as it stops the chopping back and forth between the two Goons. - SchroCat (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a one-way edit-war. There is nothing here to excuse the recent reverting, either. You both were edit-warring, and I almost reported it the other day. Don't edit war. Real simple. Doc talk 06:03, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Edits don't have to be discussed first. You (I'm speaking to both of you collectively) simply mass-reverted, without explanation, my initial changes, including such obviously appropriate ones as supplying a missing quote mark, and making a non-sentence into a sentence [9]. The pointiness began with your summary For the hard of understanding[10] so skip the lectures about civility, pointiness, and ANI. I have no worries along those line.

I think your version (2) is best. You could have just done that instead of repeatedly reverting to the original text which, I had said over and over, I felt was misleading. That would have resolved this immediately. EEng (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

You're right: they don't have to be discussed first, but once your first edit was reverted, you should have come to the talk page, rather than try and force it, or a variant, back in. If you had come to the talk page at that point, there would have been no further reverting, and a possible change could have been discussed at that point, without all the brouhaha that followed. Your example above about a "non-sentence" is about adding a comma only (the "he" isn't needed in BrEng), and the remainder of the constructive edits were the addition of a closing speech mark. That's it. There were errors you introduced as well, and much of what you did was not an improvement.

You should have worries about incivility: your behaviour will lead you to ANI in future, I am sure of it (viz. this thread title, and this one, and your constant comments towards other editors in a derogatory manner. Referring to others as "angry tag-team ownership" just because they disagree with you is not helpful, nor is calling others a "music-hall comedy duo" [sic]. De-personalise your comments of someone will drag you to ANI – very happily I am sure. Hopefully our paths will not cross again, as I have not enjoyed the encounters so far.

I will tweak the text to version 2, but I am not sure it will stand the test of time: switching from Milligan to Secombe and back to Milligan is pointless, and avoids something that isn't really an issue (I still disagree with your misunderstanding of it here), and I suspect it will be changed back by a future editor. – SchroCat (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

New York Times obituary

The New York Times obituary as a reference was removed as "not needed". Is there a valid Wikipedia rule that demands it not be included? Are 319 references the maximal number, and 320 references excessive? Are book references preferred to newspaper references? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

1. See WP:BRD and don't re-revert: go to the talk page INSTEAD. I have put this back to the stable state before your warring.

2. See WP:LEAD. Citations are not needed in the lead, which summarises all the well-sourced information in the body. The additional citations are superfluous and, as per my edit summary, "not needed". - SchroCat (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Being bold is your rationale? Everyone is bold in every edit. You really should not cite essays as your reason for doing things. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, no references in the lede ... err, except when others put them there. There are already two references in the lede. As a compromise I will remove the one from the lede and restore the other uses. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

RAN, references in the lead are required for direct quotations, so those must include them. Otherwise, I agree that they shouldn't be included. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, that is edit warring: discuss FIRST. The additional refs are pointless and not needed. The information in the article is already well-sourced and additional refs are not needed. - SchroCat (talk) 21:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

FFS, why the fuck are you edit warring, rather than discussing? You do know the edit warring policies also refer to you as well, and that you are it some higher form of editor? - SchroCat (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wrong citation format, wrong date format, unnecessary and overlong quote, cutting across an existing citation. I could go on, but you've shown little interest in the collegiate approach to editing so far. Your last (partial) revert was outside policy, as well as being poor and not necessary. - SchroCat (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, look in the mirror. I am sorry you find it tiresome to remove my reference. BTW, I am not edit warring, I am compromising. You are citing an essay as to why you are removing it. I understand the feelings of article ownership and the feeling that something you have worked on is blemished when someone else adds to it. I am not adding an extra dab of paint onto the Mona Lisa, I am adding a good reference for his death, a reference from one of the most highly cited reference works used in Wikipedia. The only reason I can see for you removing a high quality reference, is that you did not add it, or you think references from books, specifically books you have read and cherished, are more reliable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And there is no reason for you to say: "why the fuck", keep it polite. Everyone thinks they are being reasonable and the other person is doing the edit-warring whenever they add or delete something they do not like. Collaborative editing requires compromises, not complete reversals. Writing not necessary as your rationale is subjective and not policy based, you feel it is not needed even if you cannot cite a policy. We need to find objective reasons for removing it such as: the source is not reliable, the source has incorrect information, sources farther away the date of the event are more reliable, etc. Otherwise it gives the appearance you are removing it because you did not add it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Cut it how you like, you are edit warring: I asked you not to add a pointless reference (especially one done so bloody awfully). You didn't bother to discuss, you added without comment, and it's not a compromise: it's still a poor addition forced in by your edit warring. Your slide into uncivil, unfounded and frankly ridiculous accusations of OWN are noted, laughed at and dismissed for the the pathetic rubbish they are. The information you added one of the citations to is already supported by a more reliable source than a newspaper, and the other by a widely-reviewed biography. Pointless and poor addition. - SchroCat (talk) 22:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You are not trying for collaboration or compromise, you are fucking edit warring. Don't tell me to be polite when you can't be bothered to discuss things prior to you edit warring and forcing in something that isn't needed, is STILL poorly formatted, and just about falls into CITE CLUTTER territory. There is no need for the addition, except that you want it, rather than any good policy based reason. It is not more reliable than the biography, probably a lot less so, and it is certainly well short of have standards of the DNB, whose information you cut across in the first use. It's still a pointless piece of edit warring, and for absolutely no reason, except because you wanted it. - SchroCat (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said before: "I am not edit warring, I am compromising." The person refusing to compromise is warring. The person saying "fuck" is being rude. I adjusted the date format, I trimmed the headline and removed the quote, and I removed the reference from the lede, despite there being two other references in the lede. Those are compromises. I did it without being rude. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We are not the DNB, we have our own style guide. If people want the DNB, they can use the DNB and not use Wikipedia. Please note that I have not changed a single word in the biography that would spoil the perfection that it is. I just added an additional reference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you edit warred, not compromised, that much is so obvious that only you seen to be unable to see the reality, or you are being deliberately disingenuous about it. Edit warring is rude, and I don't give a fuck if you don't like me saying that or not. You were arrogant enough to force your piss-poor version back in without bothering to discuss first: that's rude. - SchroCat (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

???WTF are you on about??? It's not about style, it's about standards and reliability, which is where the DNB will win hands down against a US newspaper, writing an obituary the day after a death, simply so you can add in a citation that isn't needed. The addition is stupid, pointless, unnecessary (STILL poorly formatted, and causes cite clutter. - SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I've taken out the first citation. Not only is the DNB a superior source, the NYT obit does not support the information it purports to. Why you thought it suitable to add a citation to material that isn't in the source, and then edit war to try and keep it in there is beyond me. - SchroCat (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "without bothering to discuss". I was the one who started this thread, did I not? OK, think I understand your complaint now: UK reference works for British subjects ... US reference works for American subjects. Maybe that would be a good Wikipedia policy. Or if we have two references for a fact, we have to delete the US/UK one based on nativity or citizenship at death. Dual nationals can have references from either. Québécois biographies must have a French language reference and a English reference balance of roughly 50/50. Why don't you lobby for that to be a Wikipedia rule. Just like the European date style and British spelling conventions and the native language diacriticals in names. If you start a campaign, I will support it. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You wrote: "I've taken out the first citation". No problem, excellent compromise. BTW, I really enjoy your articles and your writing style. You bring a professional quality to Wikipedia. Unrelated, isn't that image in the infobox amazing? All the photos he adds are the highest quality. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter. I think SchroCat is right, the reference you are trying to add to the lede is not needed in the slightest. Sorry for my lateness on this and I hope things are now sorted. Cassianto^talk 01:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Was Peter Sellers English?

Despite Peter Sellers being born in England to English parents and there being no suggesting outside of Wikipedia that he wasn't English, there are editors suggesting he wasn't - yet somehow describing him as British (also without reference) is fine.

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Instead of instantly reverting my edits to re-instate your preference option (I notice you desribe yourself as British on your user page and edit Arthur Conan Doyle where there is no reference for him to be described as Scottish and came from an Irish background. Interesting...), engage in conversation. There's no justifiable argument against describing him as what he was. I assume you aren't taking the racist view that because his English mother had a Jewish background, that he wasn't English?

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Stop edit warring: the stable consensus remains until that consensus changes, not when your narrow nationalistic interpretation decides it. - SchroCat (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no stable consensus, don't talk nonsense. There is no narrow nationalist interpretation involved, apart from perhaps yours. Perhaps you should go across the whole of Wikipedia and change every description to suit your own view (your view isn't in the majority btw).

92.8.22.63 (talk) 16:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Of course there is a stable consensus: this article, with the "British" label has been through a peer review and FAC process, which means the eyes of the community have gone over it, looked into it, pulled it apart, put it back together again, and not questioned the term: that's a consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 16:58, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

92.8.22.63 - I'm not reporting you yet, as you have, in fact, just touched your 3-revert limit. But if you revert one more time, I will certainly file a report if another editor doesn't beat me to it. It is strict policy at Wikipedia that an editor, no matter how right they believe their version to be, will be blocked if they revert an article more than three times within 24 hours.

Considering I have not breached any limits, there is nothing to report here... - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

The way forward is to present your case here, and discuss it with other editors here before you even think of editing in your preferred version of Sellers' identity. Can you find reliable published sources which identify him as English? Alfietucker (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :As to his nationality, he carried a British passport and didn't (as far as the sources tell us) self-identify as English. - SchroCat (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sellers has been described as British and as English. Was he an English nationalist? No.

• Shilp S. Dave says "British actor Peter Sellers" in the book Indian Accents: Brown Voice and Racial Performance in American Television and Film, page 165. Published by the University of Illinois Press.
• Horace Newcomb in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Television calls Sellers British; see page 2048.
• Mitzi M. Brunsdale says "British actor Peter Sellers" in the book Icons of Mystery and Crime Detection: From Sleuths to Superheroes, page 177, published by ABC-CLIO.
• Alistair Lawrence lists "Peter Sellers, Comedian, British" in his book about Abbey Road.
• Sarah Street writes in British National Cinema, page 111, "British comedian Peter Sellers"; a Taylor & Francis book.

So these reliable sources say British. I also looked for ones that say English, but they are far fewer and less authoritative. Binksternet (talk) 17:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no consensus. What a surprise there isn't an online reference from someone who's been dead several decades explicitly stating they were English. LOL. That you arrogantly announce that he didn't self-identify as English just shows that you shouldn't be editing on here. Everyone else knows he was English. You don't have to be an "English nationalist" to see yourself as English. What utter nonsense. Do you accuse all people who identify as something else or in addition to British as nationalists? lol You can cite as many articles as you want that describe him as British - you do realise that English, Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish people are all British? Carry on lads anyway.

92.8.22.63 (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that there is a consensus, it just happens to be one you don't like. As per WP:OPENPARA: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable". As I've already pointed out, he was a British citizen, who didn't self-identify as "English" (as opposed to people like Sean Connery and Conan Doyle, who self-identified as Scottish). There is nothing arrogant about this, so please try and remain civil: it's the way we do things on Wiki: stick to the guidelines and discuss to reach a consensus, not edit war against consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 17:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That's right, there is a longstanding consensus for "British', formed over the years that this article was improved to the point of attaining Featured status. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

There is consensus for British. Why must so many niggling ips fuss about trivialities?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Last paragraph confusion

Greetings. I find the following comments in the last paragraph in the article to be confusing:

. . .Although the film [ The Life and Death of Peter Sellers ] was widely praised by critics, both Lord Snowdon and Britt Ekland were highly critical of the film and the enactment of Sellers;[176] Ekland believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all".[194]

• Presumably, this Lord Snowdon is the same man, the "Close friend Lord Snowdon [who] read the twenty-third Psalm [at Seller's memorial service, St Martin-in-the-Fields ]. . ." Snowdon's objection to the film isn't spelled out, but the close association with Britt Ekland's quotation invites a similar comparison. If Snowdon was equally negative about Seller's personality, as the wording of the paragraph hints at, why did he fill such a notable place at the memorial? If Snowdon's objection to the film was materially different than Ekland's, then please say what that objection was [ADDED: or dissociate the two persons from the implied agreement].

• Why does Britt Ekland get the final word in the article? I realize that the marriage was highly discordant and that she may have excellent reasons for saying what she did, but is her insight more significant than anyone else's? Did she know him longer than anyone else, was his closest confidant, continued to exchange frequent telephone calls and letters after they divorced until his death? This sure ends the article on a bummer of a downbeat! I'm not saying that her words (taken from a inflammatory source, the Daily Mail) shouldn't be incorporated elsewhere in the article at an appropriate place (if there are more reliable sources for them - perhaps are they also appear in her autobiography?), but placed as the quote is, it gains enormous weight, even undue weight. Seller's true legacy to history isn't going to be the "monster" with "no saving graces", but the highly talented and creative comedian/actor whose death was a loss to culture. I question the order of the various quotes. Ending with a quote that reflects his true legacy as an artist would have been appropriate.

Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wordreader:, you need to read here (and look at the article) before you complain your comment hasn't been dealt with: SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Wordreader. You are right on this, and I've added a quote from Snowdon that clarifies his position, separates him out from Ekland, and ensures the article finishes on a more positive personal note. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a previous editor, I pointed out similar issues in another talk page discussion. --Light show (talk) 07:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's probably worth repairing another similar misleading ending quote in another paragraph: Wilder was unsympathetic about the heart attacks, saying that "you have to have a heart before you can have an attack".[168] That quote was strangely tacked on to the end of the paragraph describing Sellers' eight heart attacks in the U.S. However, the quote was not, as implied, in response to that specific event. Sikov simply stated that the comment was something Wilders "once remarked about Peter." Wilders could have made that half-joking comment at any time after the heart attacks, so attaching it as an ending, gratuitous quote to what was a life-changing event in Sellers' career, is both out of place and misleading. --Light show (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about it, and the only thing "confused" is your editing ability, or the ability to see any of this article without looking at it through toxic-tinted spectacles. – SchroCat (talk) 17:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Very misleading: Your edit says "Wilders was unsympathetic about the heart attacks," when that was not in the source.

The entire paragraph, in fact, is really just a tabloidish bedroom and sex description of Sellers, which the paragraph concludes caused his heart attacks. However, according to Alexander Walker, who is cited 39 times in the article, that's doubtful, writing that it was in fact Sellers' weeks of "slaving away at building up his muscles for one of the most macho roles of the screen—James Bond," that "was probably a far more likely reason." But I'll admit, that portraying Sellers as a jealous, sex-crazed, drug-taking "monster" is more sensational to some than seeing him as a heroic figure, such as James Bond or Orde Wingate. --Light show (talk) 19:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we couldn't give a toss about your opinion. Cassianto^talk 19:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Who's "we"? --Light show (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

The rest of the community who dismissed your numerous RfCs, went through PR without complaining about it, and agreed that that article, as it substantively is at the moment, is good enough for featured status, regardless of your input. - SchroCat (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Light show, for acknowledging my query. To tell the truth, I haven't tried to wade through this whole article yet as it looks like heavy sledding. The other posters have not addressed my query.

I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude. Examples: "the only thing "confused" is your editing ability", "toxic-tinted spectacles", and last, but not least, "Fortunately, we couldn't give a toss about your opinion." I hope such remarks made to another WP editor don't become a habit. Unless there has been an egregious violation that has gotten one banned from the site, we are all of equal value here, so, yes, you should "give a toss". "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct and one of Wikipedia's five pillars." - even if you disagree with another editor's opinion. Especially if you disagree!

So, can we get down to fixing the problems with that last paragraph? Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment has been dealt with (here and in the article) if you'd looked properly. I've highlighted the comment above so you can see it. As to the other editor, you can drop the lecture: I have not come across someone so bitter, so lacking in ability and someone who made the editing process so unpleasant. Go back through the archives to see his ownership issues, sniping, moaning, endless RfCs and constant trolling. - SchroCat (talk) 05:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you need to get out more if you find our comments offensive. Frankly, SchroCat and I are thoroughly pissed off with Lightshow keep coming here every time someone opens up a new thread with a legitimate question. You can almost set your watch by him/her turning up with his/her "disparaging and rude" comments. So the next time you drive by an article and draw an inference on something said, do some research first. Thank you. Cassianto^talk 09:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wordreader: It's actually much worse than a habit, Wordreader. Do go back over some of the archives, as suggested, to see for yourself how a famous British comedian can be transformed into a "monster" on WP.--Light show (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

... And to see how Lightshow has turned the editing experience so horribly toxic. He seems to miss the point that we do not write hagiographies, but we report what sources tell us: he would rather lie about Sellers than give a truthful reflection of the sources, which makes him a rather despicable form of editor. – SchroCat (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Several things:

• I find it difficult to follow a thread when it has so many non-chronological interjections, especially when indentation isn't utilized.

• SchroCat wrote: "Your comment has been dealt with (here and in the article) if you'd looked properly." --- "...if you'd looked properly"? That comment feels dismissive. Since you hadn't mentioned any changes made in this talk thread about the proposed changes, I wasn't aware that you'd done so. Thank you for the changes. That new quote by Snowdon is charming. That the earlier version so strongly implied that his opinion of the Seller's portrayal in the film was aligned with Ekland's was a disservice to both Snowdon and Sellers. Perhaps the previous author didn't realize the anti-Sellers bias s/he created.

• I find the continued attacks of other editors to be very troubling: "someone so bitter, so lacking in ability and someone who made the editing process so unpleasant"; "Frankly, SchroCat and I are thoroughly pissed off with Lightshow keep [sic] coming here every time someone opens up a new thread with a legitimate question." [Is that not his right to do so?]; "So the next time you drive by an article and draw an inference on something said, do some research first." [Why are "drive-by"s intrinsically bad, as we all contribute in our own ways? Why is someone new to an article labelled a "drive-by" anyhow? I don't have to "do some research first" to recognize incivility when I read it.]; "I think you need to get out more if you find our comments offensive." Again, I hope that Ms/Mr SchroCat and Ms/Mr Cassianto will restrain themselves as editing is not meant to be a contact sport. Personal attacks are rude, distracting, and non-productive.

• Another editor privately e-mailed me to excuse SchroCat and Cassianto's behavior. I am not authorized to provide information about that person or her/his post, but since I like to keep things open and public, I am posting my 6 September 2014 reply here:

I see no reason for anyone to be so uncivil even if they dislike another editor. You offer an excuse for SchroCat and Cassianto instead of contacting them to ask them for the tolerance and the good behavior you'd expect of any adult.

And who gets to define another editor as a "troll", anyway? You seem to me to be exaggerating:

"Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/What_is_a_troll%3F

I saw nothing of disruption in Lightshow's comment.

You would do better to contact "the twins" to ask them to put their energies into addressing the weaknesses I noted in that last paragraph instead of using their energies to reactionarily belittle another Wikipedian. [Written before I came here to discover that changes had been made.]

I see no reason for us to e-mail covertly and prefer to keep conversations publicly entered into the Talk page space.

Thank you for your cooperation.

I truly don't want to engage in confrontation. I just want to have fun at Wikipedia working with other people who want the same. Sincerely, Wordreader (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1. "Your comment has been dealt with": My point is that a comment was left on this talk page thread an hour after yours, so when you next say "The other posters have not addressed my query" was not true, and my comment was aimed at highlighting the fact you had not read either my response, or the edit on the article which addressed it.

2. "continued attacks" I find the continued attacks by Light show on this article to be troubling. Thos attacks started over two years ago, and he has continued them on this page, and on the talk page of other articles. I suggest you go back through the archives of the last two years to see just what others have had to put up with from him.

3. I have no idea who emailed you, but perhaps they already know the definition of trolling? Certainly it would fit in with the two years of attacks by Lightshow, which have had the effect of "deliberate and intentional attempt[s] to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors"; those attacks have been both here and on the talk pages of other articles

4. You may have seen nothing disruptive in Lightshow's comments, but taken as a two-year campaign, they are. There is nothing constructive about them, and they are aimed at causing problems.

5. I hate confrontation on Wikipedia, and elsewhere, and have avoided editing articles because of the actions of people like Lightshow. He managed to turn the re-write of this article into a horrible mess because of his continual attacks, both on editors and the article, and way too much time and effort was wasted having to defend or comment on every attack. That situation was preposterous and ridiculous, and I sincerely hope that I never have to face such problems ever again on Wikipedia. - SchroCat (talk) 04:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (HBO Film)

Any comments regarding this film should be in the HBO film page. Details unnecessary for this page.

I have copied the para to that page (Refs fixed btw!). Readers can see whatever comments, in the "Reception” section of that page, where they rightly belong.

SchroCat You are being a little too overprotective. This is a common sense edit. Be grateful if you agree to reduce the detail on the 'Peter Sellesr" page.

If not, please explain why? MrBalham2 (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not being overprotective (and in future, please comment on issues, not editors), and yours is not a common sense edit. This article is about Sellers, and rightly mentions the film. As the film is also about Sellers, and provides a controversial interpretation of his character, it is right to reflect that here. It is also right to reflect that in the article on the film, but as I've already told you, in future please do not cut and paste between articles: it is against one of our guidelines or policies. – SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, the page should have a brief mention of the film. The reference or link to the film was not removed.

But the film has it’s own page. Readers will be able to see the detail there. This page is about Peter Sellers, not his portrayal. It is not a cut and paste. It is a transfer of all the detail (nothing is lost) regarding the comments on the film. Thus avoiding any duplication.

All detail does not have to exist on one page. However, awareness is maintained. That is the nature of Wikis.

For example, the “Kenneth Williams” page links to his portrayal and comments on interpretation. If readers want more they will seek it out. Similarly, the "Peter Sellers on stage, radio, screen and record” links to his body of work in detail.

A solution to reduce the detail here would be a one line summary, for example:

“There was controversy over the portrayal, where individuals close to Sellers (e.g. Britt Ekland and Lord Snowdon giving opposing views), did not feel the film was an honest appraisal.”

If people want more detail regarding those comments then they can go to the film’s page.

Do you object to this change? --MrBalham2 (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I find merit in the inclusion of the information here. The reviewers at PR and FAC also thought so, which is why it is here. And, despite your protests to the contrary, it was a cut and paste job you undertook, which is a no-no: see WP:CWW. – SchroCat (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to Balham's edits too. The content of the film is relevant, especially the quotes from Ekland and the other. Based on your criteria Balham we wouldn't discuss any films in actor articles because "it is covered in the film article".♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:07, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Anything about Peter Sellers the actor remains here. Any comments and detail on his film portrayal should be on the HBO biopic page. Nothing is lost. I have suggested a one line summary to reduce the detail here. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 16:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No I'm not. The summary is perfectly reasonable and not in the slightest bit excessive. Clearly you have very little experience of article writing and what is required.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Dr. Blofeld. Compliment accepted! MrBalham2 (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• "For example, the “Kenneth Williams” page links to his portrayal and comments on interpretation. If readers want more they will seek it out." – the idea is to keep readers on our page, not to force them off to another. Cassianto^talk 17:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No one is being forced. The one line summary will suffice if they wish to stay. If they want to find out more about the portrayal then all the information is on the HBO biopic page. Nothing is lost. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Cor, you like you copy-and-pasting don't you? Did the inspiration for that last comment come from the plucked air, or was it taken from a couple of lines up? ;) They are being forced with your alternative. What is there currently leaves no question in the reader's head; a cut down version would. This would make readers more prone to clicking off the page I'm afraid. Cassianto^talk 17:21, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It's all one Wiki. We're all one family! Clicking to another page doesn't mean they won't return. The comments deserve to be in the correct place. I'll repeat the line again. Are you content with the solution and change? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not. Cassianto^talk 17:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I've offered a reasonable solution. You haven't really countered the argument with a reasonable alternative. No information will be be lost. You're refusing the change simply because you don't want to? MrBalham2 (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBalham, Three other editors have raised doubts about your suggested edit. It may be time for you to think that these three very experienced people with a pile of FAs and GAs behind them, may actually know what they are talking about. As I've said before: the current version (or very close to it) went through a peer review and FAC process. It has, therefore the consensus of the community to remain, and you have not provided any good arguments to remove it, so it may be time to move on to something more constructive. As you seem to be quite interested in it, have you thought about trying to take the Sellers film up to GA status? - SchroCat (talk) 19:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if you could bring the FAs and GAs to this page. I have suggested a summary that will suffice. None of the above editors have objected to the summary. They just don't like the change. It is too much detail for the mention of one film whereas others in the article barely get a sentence. I think the "fanboys" are ganging up on me for what is a perfectly reasonable solution. The language towards "newbies" is unacceptable and unsupportive. I'll make the change with your permission and guidance. If not, it will need some independent and objective scrutiny from people who haven't been so heavily involved in the article. I'll return this later. Speak soon. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 20:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Three editors have objected to the summary, and given you good reasons for including the information here, and not removing it. I'm not sure that starting to throw names around about others is a constructive way to go, especially when they have given you good reasons to keep it. MrBalham, I think it's time to accept that others may know how and why to do things better than you, and also know what is beneficial for an article. It may be time for you to move to more productive areas and stop flogging this particular dead horse. – SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with MrBalham2. It's wrong to flood a third of his so-called "Legacy" with such negative criticism from some Irish paper about a single film in which he was not even involved with. The text below does not belong either in his legacy or anywhere else, as it gives undue weight to non-legacy material, relying on critical commentary and other disparaging comments, and is far from presenting a neutral POV. This is very similar to some of the earlier discussions above.

In 2004, the book was turned into an HBO film with the same title, starring Geoffrey Rush.[319] The Belfast Telegraph notes how the film captured Sellers's "life of drugs, drink, fast cars and lots and lots of beautiful women".[320] Although the film was widely praised by critics, both Lord Snowdon and Britt Ekland were highly critical of the film and the enactment of Sellers;[176] Ekland believed that the film left the audiences with the wrong impression, saying "the film leaves you with the impression that Peter Sellers was essentially a likeable man when in reality he was a monster. He may have been a brilliant actor, but as a human being he had no saving graces at all".[194] Snowden disagreed with Ekland's verdict, and with the film, and stated that Sellers"had a light touch, a sense of humour, I can't bear to see him portrayed as somebody who was apparently without either ... The man on the screen is charmless, humourless and boring - the one thing you could never say about Peter."[194] --Light show (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you disagree Lightshow. Unfortunately you've managed to get your facts rather badly mangled. "Some Irish paper" provided one quote here, which isn't negative. The quotes, one positive and one negative, are beneficial to provide and come from two people who knew him well. There is nothing to do with undue weight here – that's just a straw argument, as is suggesting it isn't neutral (providing quotes for opposite opinions is hardly that), and your discussions above have all ended up the same way: with the consensus of the rest of the community coming down heavily against you. – SchroCat (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely my point at ANI, which, may I remind you Light show , you are involved in. Maybe you could get your friend here to post there in your favour, or maybe you could log off as Light show and log back on again as MrBalham2 to support? Cassianto^talk 21:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Explain why any of those details belong as part of his Legacy? Do you know what a "legacy" is? Is it right to include a quote by his hot-tempered ex-wife, calling him a "monster," as part of his legacy? It's interesting how you glorify James Bond, a fictional character, yet put Sellers, a real human star, into the bio cellar. Just an observation. If you're able to reply without a PA, you may earn a barnstar.--Light show (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the benefit of all, the link is The Life and Death of Peter Sellers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jack of Oz

No, I am not Light show logging in as MrBalham2. However, it appears SchroCat & Cassianto have picked a fight with Light show. I don't wish to be dragged into any mudslinging.

Please try and look at exemplars, such as the Kenneth Williams page. It is not perfect, but It is constantly changing and maintains the spirit of a Wiki being well laid out and informative....and concise.

The Sellers page is not a fansite. Therefore the minutiae of Sellers's career or personal life is not required.

This whole article needs to be reduced into something readable. It is too dense. Can someone explain to me why the following paragraph cannot be reduced, and is it really necessary or notable?

"Sellers's difficulties in getting his film career to take off, and increasing problems in his personal life, prompted him to seek periodic consultations with astrologer Maurice Woodruff, who held considerable sway over his later career. After a chance meeting with a North American Indian spirit guide in the 1950s, Sellers became convinced that the music hall comedian Dan Leno, who died in 1904, haunted him and guided his career and life-decisions."

MrBalham2 (talk) 09:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Kenneth Williams is not a featured article, that is why it is always changing. This article is fine as it is and your continual comments desiring otherwise are completely wasted here. Cassianto^talk 09:32, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

"...a chance meeting with North American indian spirit guide in the 1950s." doesn't seem to be useful or informative for this article. I'm not sure why you want to retain this line? MrBalham2 (talk) 09:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

In your opinion, I might add. It helps to explain what a quasi and bohemian person Sellers was as a person at this point in his life. You really must stop thinking that you are speaking on behalf of the reader. Cassianto^talk 09:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Try reading the last part, which says that Sellers believed that Leno "guided his career and life-decisions." It also puts Sellers into context as part of the generation that linked the traditions of music hall to modern day variety, which, among others things, helped develop the Goons, the,Pink Panther characterisations and a lot more beside. MrBalham, you are new here, and it's clear that you do not seem to know what constitutes a good biographical article. The information on Leno is referred to in a couple of the sources, and so is included here. Finally, no-one (except you) is claiming this is a fan site. Lightshow seems to think it's entirely the reverse and would like to see all negative traits removed: if the complaints are equalling each other out then I think we're on the right lines here. Time to move on MrBalham to something more constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Lighshow is entitled to their opinions. I have no truck with yours either.

I have no objections to what constitutes a good biography. I'm fine with any connections with the past. However the paragraph is far too tenuous with unnecessary references like the North American indian. It is those types of extraneous lines that make me want to stop reading. I'm looking at it from a new reader perspective.

Just look at the article visually. It's awful. Large swathes of text. It's impenetrable. The John Wayne article reads really well, regardless of whether it is FA or not. Try and follow that page's good practice. You need to review this with your fellow editors and make the article more accessible. If you ignore my suggestion then I'll just put that down to stubbornness. It looks like it's been written by a bunch of middle-aged fanboys, regardless of the balance. There is a generation who are unfamiliar with the subject and you've given them less of a reason to read it.

I'll sign off in the meantime. Good luck. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors, and you still seem intent in going down that path. Please keep your comments to the article or specific edits, not just insults to others. I have read your comments and, while of interest, they go against the consensus of the page: this is serious article that examines Sellers as a person and as a performer. It is complete, and covers all relevant aspects of his life: Wayne's does not, which is why it isn't actually very good. I am sorry that you do not understand what a quality biography actually is, but it certainly isn't the John Wayne article. As to your suggestion that we follow the Wayne format, I'm afraid that just isn't good advice in developing or strengthening this page. - SchroCat (talk) 13:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies. The comment was not aimed at you or your editor friends. My complaint is about the appearance of the article and how it come across as a "fanboy article" i.e obsessed with detail and not considering the audience. Have a look at the Maya Angelou or Frank Zappa articles . They are in "easy-to read chunks" and well laid out and no tenuous paragraphs which aren't really saying anything...I'm afraid that article that mentions the North American indian needs to be redrafted if not removed. Your Terry-Thomas article does not "meander" like this one. Even the "Sellers" contents box is unreadable. Compare that to the "Terry-Thomas" contents box and you will understand. I think you need a serious review of the article to make it accessible to your readers. MrBalham2 (talk) 19:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You are entitled to your opinion on the article, of course, but I am afraid that goes against the consensus of the community, and you do not help your cause when you come up with statements that it is a "fanboy article". It obviously isn't, and is a fair reflection of what we are told by the reliable sources. Sellers was a complex individual with a complex and hectic life: Terry-Thomas was not, and it's a little like comparing apples and oranges. – SchroCat (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

...and Maya Angelou and Frank Zappa don't matter? They are well written articles. I'm talking about the layout of the article and best practice.

I'll return to my original suggestion. We can condense the Ekland and Snowden comments into one sentence. No cites references will be removed. Do you agree this a fair summary for change? The wording as follows:

“There was controversy over the portrayal, where individuals close to Sellers (e.g. Britt Ekland and Lord Snowdon giving opposing views), did not feel the film was an honest appraisal.”

Please be objective and not refuse the change because it might invalidate the FA. I'm not a sock puppet for Light show and I'll ignore DrBlofeld and Cassianto for time being or any uncivil comments from them.

I'm trying to uphold a principle that fair and reasonable changes can be made to this article. through discussion not "brtibats" MrBalham2 (talk) 23:01, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I personally do not see the need to take this information out of the article, as the quotes are quite suitable. I am making this from an objective standpoint, and not just a knee-jerk response not to change anything. Yes, you are right that fair and reasonable changes can be made, but only if they improve the article, and I do not see this as an improvement. – SchroCat (talk) 23:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is... but I won't challenge this further. That took a page and a half to come to this conclusion. Where I also endured disparaging comments from your colleagues. Your silence also condoned their behaviour. I'd be grateful if you avoid this tactical "ganging up" approach in future to new edits and discussions especially from new editors who are trying to find their way. I admire your other articles... just not the "Peter Sellers" one. Please also remember to be more supportive to "newbies" who edit FAs.. They have every right as much as you. That's why Wikipedia exists and the overriding principle you must uphold. Good luck MrBalham2 (talk) 00:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBalham, you have to realise that on Wikippedia people will step in to discussions to agree and disagree: it's not tactical ganging up, it's people all having their say on matters that interest them; sometimes you will be on the "right" side of the consensus, sometimes on the "wrong" side. That's just the way it goes. – SchroCat (talk) 05:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that MrBalham2's comments have a lot of merit when he (self-identified as such) wrote: "All detail does not have to exist on one page. However, awareness is maintained. That is the nature of Wikis." and "Just look at the article visually. It's awful. Large swathes of text. It's impenetrable." As charming as that Snowdon quote is, and as sweet an ending it makes to the text, editing out extraneous material is a good thing. As he points out, information can easily go into the film's own article. It's just a matter of deciding, in a thoughtful manner, what's extraneous.

Bringing up the article's "Featured" status does not signify:

• Wikipedia not only allows you to create, revise, and edit articles, but it wants you to do it. Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia

• Wikipedia is a continuous process with no end. If you write something good, it could be around for centuries and read all over the world. It might also be improved or incorporated into new revisions by other editors. Part of the fun and challenge of editing here is watching what happens to your contributions over time. Wikipedia:Plain and simple [my emphasis]

• Our best articles are highlighted in the list of featured articles. These articles were granted "featured" status because they were judged to be of high quality by other editors. (If later edits reduce the quality of a featured article, a user can nominate an article for removal from the list.) [In other words, WP does not expect even a FA article to remain static. This is analogous to a Pulitzer Prize-winning book that comes out in revised editions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Who_writes_Wikipedia

I am pleased to see SchroCat write such things as: "(and in future, please comment on issues, not editors)" and "I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors. . .Please keep your comments to the article or specific edits, not just insults to others." The change of heart is....heartening! Other Talk page contributors here should follow that leaf-turning example.

I think that Cassianto misunderstands the core nature of Wikipedia when s/he wrote: ". .. the idea is to keep readers on our page, not to force them off to another". This would be true if this were a commercial webpage where you wouldn't want a customer to leave your page to even look at a map for directions. But there's no competition here; WP is one big interwoven Internet site where we all work together, at least in theory. That's what a net is - one string that will connect with many others before it reaches the end of it's run and they, in their turn, connect with many more. Think of WP as a virtual 3-D web of information. It's entirely possible that one day, a reader can seamlessly move from one article through every other one on the site through helpful and appropriate connections. 3-D degrees of separation? ;^) Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 04:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

1. "The change of heart is....heartening": I find this hugely patronising. You know nothing about me or my approach to editing, or about how I conduct myself, outside defending myself from a two-year spite campaign from Lightshow. Perhaps you could also take heed of the advice I wrote: "Please keep your comments to the article or specific edits, not just insults to others".

2. Yes, of course people should be free to edit FAs, but only if it is an improvement

3. I really do not have any issues with you Wordreader, and would prefer not to have to continue either of these discussions, but my advice would be to most people at some point or other: try writing an FA sometime, or even a few GAs. It's an interesting process that enables you to learn not just about a subject, but will change your approach to articles, how they develop and how the whole process works. It's an instructive process and I strongly advise you try it sometime. - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wordreader, I understand perfectly the core nature of Wikipedia. I also understand how to write articles which achieve FA status, something which you know very little about. Where is the sense in forcing someone off "our" article to go and find information elsewhere, if it is entirely appropriate to include within the prose in this one. I suggest if you want to go and "have fun" on Wikipedia, then you go and do so. Thank you. Cassianto^talk 13:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

legacy section - title

not a big deal in any way, but Isnt it a bit of a strange and slightly inaccurate title - the section, judging from the content, would be better titled something like 'Posthumous critical and personal reputation' - a legacy seems like something directly handed on and over to others but the coments seem very contained within and by the person of sellers. also its a rather tired overused word imo, but that's just me maybe - my suggestion is not very snappy I can see that. Sayerslle (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of the information there is about his influence on other entertainers: that's his professional legacy to others. I'm not sure the word is the wrong one, but if you've got a better idea it would be worth hearing it. - SchroCat (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I did suggest another title - the second half is about the Geoffrey rush film - and to put it under the rather grandiose title 'legacy' seems a bit lame to me. ( its not a big deal I accept that - the top half needs a bit of a ce too maybe - the tenses read awkward imo) Sayerslle (talk) 16:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it'a about what has happened after his death - entirely acceptable definition of the word legacy, to be honest. The title "Posthumous critical and personal reputation" is too much - and would be most misleading. - SchroCat (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

disagree - what about 'influence and reputation' then as a section title , and move the film stuff to its own section, legacy is what is handed dwon and selelrs himself hardly handed the film down personally as he was dead -

this 'legacy' section is very clumsy anyhow imo -it has - 'Irv Slifkin said that the most prominent albeit ever-changing face in comedies of the sixties was Sellers who "changed like a chameleon throughout the era, dazzling audiences".[305] In a 2005 poll to find "The Comedian's Comedian", Sellers was voted 14 in the list of the top 20 greatest comedians by fellow comedians and comedy insiders.[306] Sellers and The Goon Show were a strong influence on the Monty Python performers,[307] as well as on Peter Cook,[308] who described Sellers as "the best comic actor in the world".[279] The British actor Stephen Mangan stated that Sellers was a large influence,[309] as did comedians Alan Carr[310] and Rob Brydon.[311] Sacha Baron Cohen referred to Peter Sellers as "the most seminal force in shaping [his] early ideas on comedy". Cohen was considered for the role of Sellers in the biographical film The Life and Death of Peter Sellers.[312] The three members of Spinal Tap—Michael McKean, Christopher Guest and Harry Shearer—have also cited Sellers as being an influence on them,[313] as has American talk-show host Conan O'Brien.[314] David Schwimmer is another whose approach was influenced by Sellers: "he could do anything, from Dr Strangelove to Inspector Clouseau. He was just amazing."'

Irv Slivkin is introduced very abruptly, - who the heck is he ? - shouldn't it at least introduce the reader to his 'weight' as why we should give two hoots what he thinks about sellers legacy - then there follows what he thinks and it just says he was good in the 1960s - how is that exactly about his 'legacy' anyhow - it belongs more obviously in a section on his performances in that decade imo - then there's a poll result - adds nothing interesting to our understanding imo, all these 'polls' - who cares - monty python,/peter cook - fine , the influence on them , but again hardly 'legacy' exactly because this was an influence of the living upon the living kind of thing, - 'British actor Stephen Mangan stated that Sellers was a large influence,[309] as did comedians Alan Carr[310] and Rob Brydon.' - reads awkwardly and very bluntly, - 'Cohen was considered for the role of Sellers in the biographical film The Life and Death of Peter Sellers.' , is irrelevant to the subject entirely imo , belongs in cohens article, - and conan O'Brien and schwimmer - just seem so random - neither are comic giants , so their views seem utterly marginal - I maybe entirely out of order saying that however as I have never heard of the former, and never watched 'friends' so perhaps underestimate his reputation. Sayerslle (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with most of what you have written here, which I find illogical, possibly because you are confused by the word legacy. Someone's influence on those that come after them is their legacy, so Sellers's influence on a series of entertainers is entirely appropriate to consider here (regardless of whether you have heard of them or not – that's really not any issue for this page at all) – SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

monty python and peter cook didn't exactly come after him though did they - concurrent - agree to disagree anyhow - like I said ,I find the word 'legacy' overused and pompous really - and the whole film stuff UNDUE as part of his great 'legacy' anyhow - also I think it is dumb to have the boulting brothers quote repeated twice in the article whatever the rules say about this , especially as you removed the peter hall quote I added way back ( a much more interesting quote ) , and put the boulting brothers quote in - that's how I remember it anyhow - not that i'm bitter - if schwimmer likes sellers fine , it just seems utterly trivial to me , are you going to add every actors opinion who has ever said they enjotyed sellers performances? absurd. because if any actor or celebrity has ever said they enjoyed sellers's acting , since he has died, that is part of his 'legacy'. Sayerslle (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

hmmm... So not bitter, that was what you led with in the edit summary to remove it? You may think having the quote in two places, but I've already explained why; this is based upon MOS:LEAD, so I'm not sure I—or the community consensus—are being "dumb" over this. I'm also not sure you've read what has been written (and what you cut and pasted). The quotes are certainly not from people who say they liked him: they are from people who have said they were influenced by him, which is part of his legacy. - SchroCat (talk) 17:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

hmmm, so 'he could do anything, from Dr Strangelove to Inspector Clouseau. He was just amazing' - is not just gush , it is actually very revealing in explaining how Sellers has influenced his whole approach to acting. rubbish imo. anyhow agree to disagree. the section is o.k - Sayerslle (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Balham, Gateway to the South

Please elucidate your revision SchroCat. Where would you like the source? MrBalham2 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There are two things that are problematic. Firstly the source there doesn't cover it; secondly it's trivial. Because Sellers led a full life, which is reflected in this article, we have had to miss out lots of his work – films, television shows, etc, so to include just one song gives it WP: UNDUE weight in the scheme of things. - SchroCat (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not a song. Furthermore, where and when I grew up, it was basically the main way I first became aware of Sellers. HiLo48 (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Song/skit: same difference. It's still too trivial to mention when you consider what we don't have space for here. There is nothing particularly special about the skit in terms of Sellers's life or career: it didn't start a new direction in his life, launch a phase in his career, or be awarded prizes for anything. It's just notable enough for this article. - SchroCat (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes the source (Sikov 2002) does cover it. I don't disagree with what you what you have had to leave out on this bio. However, I think this is a sketch which has had a wider impact (entered into the British lexicon} but also points out Sellers's desire to repeat the sketch for his LP. It obviously resonated with him and was the stand out track on a very popular record. Those curious of the "phrase" would wish to know why a particular "non-Goon" sketch is synonymous with Sellers. I don't expect that information to be on this page but I do expect the link. Those who have become familiar need be aware of where the sketch came from but also that it was at important junctures in Sellers's career. I'm not giving this undue weight because of the "Balham" aspect. Some sketches transcend a body of work and catch the zeitgeist. Also The "Four Yorkshireman" sketch is always considered a "Python" creation when actually it started with the At Last The 1948 Show. In addition to Chapman & Cleese always get the credit omitting Brooke-Taylor & Feldman. Similarly there is no mention of Muir & Norden with regard to the "Third Divison" on this bio page. Their work was certainly influential on Sellers's career. P.S. Why give the Sophia Loren novelty records weight then? MrBalham2 (talk) 21:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's of minuscule importance in Sellers's career, and much of what you have written ("obviously resonated with him", "stand out track") is your POV only, not backed up by any of the sources. Too minor and too trivial to be mentioned. The Loren records were mentioned for the rather obvious reason that a) he was possibly having an affair with her at the time, and (more importantly) those are the titles of records (not individual track within a record) that went into the UK charts. They are notable for that reason. Just because he happened to mention Balham, doesn't mean we have to have it here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So conjecture and tittle-tattle is trivia worthy of a bio. However, leaving out Muir & Norden (reliably sourced) is? MrBalham2 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be ridiculous: there is no conjecture or tittle tattle here, so try and keep to the point. Muir & Norden are a minor possibility, but he was only in one series, and it's borderline mention at best, otherwise we would end up with five names associated with it, which is overkill. - SchroCat (talk) 22:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's worth the mention because it's a recognisable sketch/phrase associated with Sellers. The sketch came at an important career point when he was starting out and repeated it during a high point in his ascendency and popularity. “...Sellers performed a hilarious sketch - so hilarious, in fact, that Sellers kept it alive for many years thereafter’” (Sikov, 2002). Another editor has acknowledged their awareness and reason for inclusion. My feeling is that you should revert the six words to resolve the matter. I have provided the source on the linked page. If you want the cite added to the Sellers page, then please let me know. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a minor and trivial part of his life and to put it in gives too much WP:WEIGHT to the trivial shite that it is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, MrBalham2 that is trivial clap-trap and should not go in this article. Why are you insistent on a "Balham" mention going in? Please tell me it's got nothing to do with your user name? Cassianto^talk 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not part of my user name. I think it should be included. HiLo48 (talk) 18:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. Cassianto^talk 18:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that. Just pointing out that one doesn't have to have Balham in one's user name to have a different opinion from you. That you have somewhat personalised your argument somewhat weakens it. HiLo48 (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you are not making any sense; "it's not part of my username" suggests to me that you responded to my earlier comment as you thought that it was aimed at you. It wasn't as your name is not MrBalham2. So are you saying that this was a coincidence that someone with "Balham" in their user name wants to include a "Balham" related fact? Cassianto^talk 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Balham, please desist from trying to promote this trivia and move on. We don't agree with you.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm always entertained when Cassianto & Blofeld turn up. Welcome to the debate!

Balham doesn't need to raise its profile here, so don't knock it. It has the world's first "intelligent" pedestrian crossing. A contentious issue, I might add, because "stupid" pedestrians are outraged at this form of apartheid!

I don't want my name or an earlier BLPVIO slip distract from the conversation. Let's leave this one open as other editors may wish to air their views. MrBalham2 (talk) 19:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you want this included, maybe you can enlighten us further? As far as I'm aware, this sketch was nothing important. Cassianto^talk 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's your POV. I've said enough for the time being. I'll let other editors air their views. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the sketch was important. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be POV night tonight. I can counter that with "I don't believe the sketch was important", with all the lack of weight that any personal opinion carries. As I've stressed before, we have left out much more important things in Sellers's professional career—films, TV programmes, radio series, etc—to include a tiny pissing sketch. – SchroCat (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to the POV game SchroCat! ;) Cassianto^talk 21:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that personal opinions don't count for everything, but the opinion of someone who thought it was a song must count for nothing. HiLo48 (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be so ridiculous Hilo: a minor mistake when typing in a rush isn't something to be singled out unless you really do have no other straws to clasp at here. - SchroCat (talk) 22:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a typing mistake. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a typing mistake: it's a mistake when typing. If you're really going to drag out something this fucking petty it's going to be even more of a long, slow and tedious conversation than it already is. "No, I've heard of it, so it must be included" is possibly the most inane and pointless thing I've seen in a while. - SchroCat (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I said, way back near the start of this thread. Misrepresenting another is confrontational and provocative. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Picking up on minor errors of others is uncivil, confrontational and provocative, and this was just a rather silly thing to say, being uncivil, confrontational and provocative, so perhaps next time it may be best to just try and be a bit less confrontational yourself and focus on the issue in hand, rather than a slip by others? You may find that it pisses people off a lot less than trying to snipe at them. (Especially when your justification for inclusion is No, I've heard of it, so it must be included) - SchroCat (talk) 23:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's no fucking mistake. You are deliberately trying to make it look like I said something different from what I actually said. FUCK OFF!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice. Thanks for that. - SchroCat (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk about "somewhat personalising your argument ..." -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a shame you have chosen to plunge to this level HiLo. Conversation over as far as I'm concerned. Cassianto^talk 00:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. That at least means you won't be lying about what I said any more. (It's always interesting to see the effect of that strategy. Seems to have achieved something here.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo, yes, SchroCat has twice attributed a statement to you which you didn't make, namely "No, I've heard of it, so it must be included" and it's plain to see why you are infuriated. Both of you need to settle down and pull your heads in or you will be heading for admin attention. Cassianto, you knock it off too. Telling HiLo that he has "chosen to plunge to this level" and leaving the edit summary "We certainly will fuck off, I suggest you now do the same) " is as good an example of naked hypocrisy I have seen in years. (I am an uninvolved lurker, ambivalent about inclusion of the Balham sketch) Moriori (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC).

Ah, ok, so you're only here to stoke the fire while not actually offering anything to the point of this discussion. Cheers for coming, your input has been invaluable! Cassianto^talk 09:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Moriori, considering this was Hilo's first comment in the thread, it's not exactly a stretch to make, and certainly doesn't warrant anyone telling me to fuck off. No-one else has dipped into telling others to fuck off, and there was no basis for Hilo to do so here. - SchroCat (talk) 09:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing at what I really said, although an honest person would actually quote it to prove how wrong they had been in what they alleged I had said. There was no similarity between what I actually said and what you claimed I said. That, to me, means you are either deliberately misrepresenting me, or you are stupid. If it's the latter, I apologise. I should not have told you to fuck off. If you're not stupid, I have nothing to apologise for. HiLo48 (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

More incivility? Perhaps you could take Moriori's advice and settle down and pull your head in. - SchroCat (talk) 10:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Incivility? LOL. Dare you to take it further. You've already had one non-involved observer agree that you had misrepresented me. Twice. That is where any incivility began. And you're still trying to claim you didn't! Sad. Now, I know that I should try to avoid talking about you. So I'll stop now. I hope have the sense to as well. HiLo48 (talk) 10:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm.... lectures from the person who has told people to fuck off. Not really on the moral high ground there, are you. I've already explained that your first comment is not a stretch away from what I have said, and I stand by that, regardless of you throwing further insults at people, now settle down and pull your head back in please. - SchroCat (talk) 10:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully SchroCat, if we continue to thread this exchange some more, HiLo's comments will disappear off the screen... Cassianto^talk 15:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Strange comment. All of our comments will remain for as long as this thread remains active. (And after that until it is archived.)

I was referring to the fact that the threading looks like it will soon fall off the right hand side of the screen...doh, never mind! Cassianto^talk 21:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let’s pull this back a little.

From an etymology (not entomology because that’s about insects…but don’t let that bug you) perspective it is quite important. As I’ve said before it is part of the British lexicon due to it’s popularity and cultural impact. It’s how the sketch struck a cord with the wider post-war public still rationing in the mid 1950s.. It’s a joke phrase that is always attributed to Sellers. The sketch is about giving weight to something that others don’t think is important and trivial. Strangely ironic conversation where certain editors fail to see the irony.

Again, let’s leave this one open for other editors, rather than get the views of the usual contributors. MrBalham2 (talk) 23:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Which is all good information for it's own article, but still doesn't make it as important as a stack of other stuff not included on the page. If we are forced to add every tiny sketch, song and even joke that Sellers was involved with, then we can scrap the idea of having a page and just go straight to having a book. There are other, much, much more important things than this than deserve better consideration than this one tiny, trivial sketch. - SchroCat (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBalham2 is NOT asking that "every tiny sketch, song and even joke that Sellers was involved with" be included. That's two of us you have blatantly misrepresented in just a few minutes. Your behaviour is very poor. And your strategy will never win debates. HiLo48 (talk) 23:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not suggested he is, so perhaps you knock of the misrepresentation. - SchroCat (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I ask the question: Why is someone with the user name "Balham" trying to enforce a "Balham" related piece of information into this article? Cassianto^talk 23:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don’t want my name to be a distraction. I refer the honourable editor to a similar answer I gave earlier about my name. If you think I’m biased or have an agenda, then so be it. I’m trying to give you as much information as possible as to why this deserves a mention with the original edit. It’s certainly part of his “Legacy”, though I’m not even asking for that. Other editors may argue it should be.

You have to understand how ground-breaking the sketch was at the time. This type comedy format or social satire had never been experienced before. This was arguably the first british “mockumentary” before the word had even been coined. It’s historically significant for that reason alone. However, it went on to be even more significant at the height of Sellers’s popularity when he repeated it. It chimed with a wider audience. It also illustrated Sellers as a singular talent without the support of his comedy friends. The legacy of his sketch still resonates today in the british language and the self deprecating; ironic; humour that defines it. Sellers made that type of impact in his day.

Other editors (not the usual contributors) will argue regarding the weight and its inclusion. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And all that needs to be in the article about the skit: there are more important and more significant things in Sellers's life that are not included here already. It's also a long wasy from being the first mockumentary: they date back much earlier (at least the 20s, and probably earlier), so not as historically significant as you may think. - SchroCat (talk) 11:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What MrBalham2 says is precisely the perspective I have on the sketch. It stood out dramatically from the conventional comedy of its time. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

for both of you. I'm reading your opinions, but seeing nothing from either of you to prove the point, and nothing that makes it stand out from much more important events not already covered. You POV on its importance stands for little and can be countered by someone saying the opposite. Do you have anything that does on about just how earth-shatteringly original it was? As mockumentaries preceeded this sketch by some distance, I doubt it, but I will ask anyway... - SchroCat (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I know its blog type sources, 'In 1982 Mickey Dolenz of the Monkees directed a short film based on the famous sketch Balham – Gateway to the South, written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden and most famously performed by Peter Sellers [11] - 'It was only later more famously performed by Peter Sellers in a parody of an American newsreel travelogue' gateway to the south - but the point is the writers confirm how famous a bit of sellers work this is for british audiences . - it takes just the first sentence , imo, for british audiences to fall about [12] - I would argue along with others here that it is not just any old skit - it has a niche in the british memory bank of comedy and could certainly stand to being picked out for mention as the record is mentioned - - 'including his celebrated version of bal-ham, gateway to the south' with a link to the wp article - why ever not? Sayerslle (talk) 16:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As you say, it's a blog. This is all fine info, but fuck all use anywhere on wiki, let alone a quality article. - SchroCat (talk) 17:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

heres simon louvish, celebrated biographer - in the guardian, so not a blog - 'I used to have in my possession a gramophone record entitled "Songs for Swinging Sellers". Issued in 1959, it included some of the master's most primal acts: "Balham - Gateway to the South",' - so you know, highlighting it , simon louvish biography - as for your language it is quite uncalled for and I join others in deploring your high and mighty, haughty, uncivil and mandarin attitude - no need for it . I hope you grow out of the unnecessary sweariness. as for 'let alone a quality article' - having read the 'legacy' section it makes me wonder how these quality stars are handed out - it is just o.k. - (that's my haughtiness in return for yours I guess)Sayerslle (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And we still' come back to the point that more important things have been left out rather than one sketch. It's a fucking sketch: unnecessary, unneeded and pointless in the grand scheme of Sellers. If you are going to tell people off for their language, please address them to the editor who thinks it acceptable to tell others to fuck off. As to the FA star, perhaps you should try writing a quality article to educate yourself to the process, rather than sniping at others? Thanks also for your personal attack. It's much appreciated and says an awful lot. - SchroCat (talk) 17:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

well in the 'grand scheme of sellers' I would have thought one of his most famous sketches had its place. its not a bigdeal really is it, either way, I think a half sentence mentioning it would be fine, you think it is absolutely de trop - its a minor disagreement - my personal attack - ? - you mean deploring your haughtiness. well that's how you come across to me, and 'This is all fine info, but fuck all use anywhere on wiki let alone a quality article' - its offensive, it reads very dismissive - it 'says an awful lot' in its way also. if others swear and you berate them for it, why on earth do you then reply to others with sweariness. and this is straying from the point rather so I shall finish there. Sayerslle (talk) 17:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And you repeat the personal attack? Nice. Thanks for that. I stand by saying that a blog is fuck all use anywhere on wiki, because I understand what a reliable source is, and it isn't a blog. That's not offensive in the slightest: your name calling is. And it's a long step from saying a source is "fuck all use", compared to directly telling another editor to fuck off. I note that you have not condemned someone telling another editor to fuck off, but you are happy to pick up on a source being described as fuck all use. I'll read into that what is fairly obvious, but it's hardly an objective view from you. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@schrocat - your edit summary saying - 'incivility and a defence of an editor telling someone to fuck off? Good grief!' - is unhinged -I did no such thing -why on earth would I defend an editor unnecessarily telling someone to f***off' - please don't misrepresent me, -meanwhile, the guardian is not a blog source -and Simon louvish who highlights this sketch is a noted biographer - I have the wcfields biography he wrote, and read it, and its excellent . like I say its not a big deal, I apologise if I denigrated the gold star for the article - is that why you are so irate? - I have not read the article in its entirety i'm sure it is very good - imo, it was wrong of the editor to tell you to f*** off and I never defended it, o.k? Sayerslle (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Unhinged"? Good grief, yet again! - SchroCat (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

you keep ignoring the guardian and louvish point -that's not a blog, - Simon Louvish has a wp article, - to say something you have said is unhinged - it was, you accused me of something outrageous I hadn't done, - is not the same as calling you unhinged - blimey, yet again! -you have a habit of ignoring points you don't want to address, if you dismiss something as no fucking use its just a blog, and then someone delivers a RS from the guardian ,you ignore it,louvish calls the sketch one of the masters most primal acts - if you say someone defends an editor for telling you to fuck off and they say they did no such thing you ignore that, and then pretend that calling something someone said unhinged is the same thing as calling them unhinged - in the meantime I've noticed the w c fields article doesn't have a gold star so maybe I'll have a go at that article and then I'll learn what it takes to get the gold star, if I can help achieve that, and perhaps gain an insight into the mentality required Sayerslle (talk) 19:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you not have somewhere to be Sayerslle; this is frightfully tedious now! Cassianto^talk 19:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

again ignoring the point, good at that - I don't believe I was addressing you. - 'Do you not have somewhere to be Sayerslle' -well, really, you are a rude obnoxious little clique here aren't you Sayerslle (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh good, more incivility and personal attacks, and now you are also swearing, despite lecturing me about it earlier. Can you see how that comes across? As to Louvish, so what? Just because a "fact" (actually, in this case an opinion) exists does not mean it has to be included in an article. We are still back to the fact that this is one tiny skit in his career, and bigger, more important things than this didn't make the cut. - SchroCat (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

ps. W.C. Fields? Good idea work on that, it would be a great subject, and yes, it gives you an entirely different approach on Wikipedia to create an FA level article. - SchroCat (talk) 19:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

the incivility and snide-ness was from your pal, cassianto, but, one can't expect you to notice that I suppose, - I don't know about 'make the cut' - ,is the article all closed up now - that does sound like OWN ership mentality. its not perfect , I can tell that from just reading the legacy section. Sayerslle (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership? Oh for fucks sake, the petty, uncivil, unfounded snide ness just keeps on coming doesn't it? - SchroCat (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

complaining that the 'incivility keeps coming' - from someone who writes like this - 'Too many oxygen thieves flocking round what has turned out to be an idiot magnet of an article...? – SchroCat (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

A bottle of wine, The Party and I'm Alright Jack! tonight chaps. I'm going to raise a glass a bottle and see the Sellers article off on its way back to C-Class and the depths of obscurity. The numpties won the day; if he wasn't banned, I dare say Light show would be dancing with delight that the article will be shit again! ' - - wow, if you hypocrites ever complain about incivility again you've got a bit of a nerve really. - demented egotistical misanthropic lot - how will the article survive without your genius! - oh no, the greatest writers in history are leaving ! - rubbishSayerslle (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And you are less of any sort of editor than you think you are. I suspect you are incapable of putting together anything scraping a decent level of article, and you are good for little more than slinging insults and bitching about others. Grow up, get over yourself, and stop being such a monumental bitchy little hypocrite. - SchroCat (talk) 21:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The cite for the original edit will be Sikov, 2002 p. 38 (please correct page no. if I’ve got it wrong).

I’ve said enough on the matter. Other editors (not the usual contributors) need to air their views. It will be quite refreshing to get different opinions. So we need to keep this open and see how it goes. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Again, I ask the question: Why is someone with the user name "Balham" trying to enforce a "Balham" related piece of information into this article? Cassianto^talk 18:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with MrBalham2, HiLo48 and Sayerslle on this. The sketch was groundbreaking and should be included. Caden ^cool 20:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, your POV which counts for nothing I'm afraid! Cassianto^talk 21:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor does yours, of course. Cassianto and SchroCat - please stick to discussing precisely what others say, not your misrepresentation of it. (Because that's where the bad form in this thread began. If you keep mentioning my swearing - which was very deliberate, to highlight your bad faith editing - I will keep mentioning your "paraphrasing". A straw man argument will never convince an opponent they are wrong.) And drop the put down language. I was perfectly ready to agree that what I had expressed was my opinion. That's obvious. Obviously others agree with me, and not you two. We don't have to rush a decision here. It can be done rationally and with time to find writings on this. So let's be nice to each other. And no more "paraphrasing". Argue against EXACTLY what people say, not something else. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Listen, I couldn't care less if 10,000 people agree with you, so far all we have is people saying that it was "groundbreaking" and a sketch which "they grew up with", blah, blah, blah... What nobody has thought of is explaining why this small, skit should be included, when there other things that we could mention which are more notable which we haven't included. Balham has also yet to explain the coincidence in his name and wanting this piece of Balham information in the article. Cassianto^talk 21:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Blah, blah, blah" is a put down. Please don't do it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

why does it have to be proven 'groundbreaking' - guys and dolls was not groundbreaking but merits a mention in the jean simmons article - it just has to be a popular or significant piece of work remarked upon in the actors career , surely? - and as ive said 'ad nauseam you'll agree, louvish has called it 'primal' in his career - further, as the personal testimony here proves it has endured , and , here are a couple of pieces, culled from recent articles -it goes on being referred to, -The terrific 1958 Peter Sellers skit ‘Balham, Gateway to the South’, propertylondonhomes- now these are not important RS articles about the actor - but that is itself also significant, - its escaped into the general conversation kind of thing. -(now please don't be rude to me cassianto- even if I have ocd you should keep your remarks to the points raised and not attack me personally or be snide.) Sayerslle (talk) 22:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you don't prove that it was groundbreaking, then it becomes your own point of view. To cite "property homes" in relation to Sellers is laughable. Just because someone has called it "primal" and some obscure website likes the sketch, doesn't mean it should be included. Cassianto^talk 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Laughable" is a put down. Please don't do it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto it would be wise of you to take the good advice from HiLo48. Caden ^cool 22:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cassianto, I could care less about what you think. Your POV is of no interest to me. Caden ^cool 22:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Good. Cassianto^talk 22:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This [13] sort of attack is unacceptable. Your behavior is disgusting and immature. Grow up. Caden ^cool 23:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And calling someone's behaviour "disgusting and immature" and telling them to grow up is also a personal attack, so please also stop. I'm taking this off my watchlist as I'm sickened by the lack of objectivity shown by a group of people who have such a lack of understanding about article development that they think this is somehow a positive step. I've had enough of having to deal with such pettiness and abuse here. I expect at least one or two will try to justify their actions, but they are unjustifiable and you'll be utterly hypocritical if you try and defend your approaches. (Mr Balham, I exempt you from such petty behaviour. Although I strongly disagree with the inclusion of the information here, at least you have behaved appropriately.) – SchroCat (talk) 06:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how denigrating other editors for having no understanding about article development is very helpful - I also believe that slagging things off as just 'a fucking sketch' and 'trivial s****', even if accurate, serves to antagonize and raise the temperature needlessly - you may know all about producing gold starred articles but you seem to believe your language on talk pages has no effect on creating a certain mood and environment. it does imo. same as cassiantos snidiness and arrogant 'run along now, ' attitude - just awful - Pre-emptively calling anyone a hypocrite whatever they may say to 'defend their approaches' - what does that mean - what approaches? thinking a popular sellers sketch, written by comedy legends muir and norden is not just 'a f****** sketch' ,- is a dastardly approach ? absurd. this issue is really so minor its astonishing to me it seems so divisive - its a clash of personalities I suppose - Sayerslle (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thought so. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Returning to the debate.  

Regarding how influential Muir & Norden were on Sellers’s career:

Frank Muir, its writer, said to me, "Denis Norden and I employed Sellers first on radio in any meaningful way,  Before he’d just be doing variety spots.”

Lewis, Roger (1995). The Life and Death of Peter Sellers.

Regarding whether the sketch from the show was attempting to be ground breaking or not:

The Third Division, recorded towards the end of 1948 and transmitted in January and February 1949.  Describing itself as ‘an experimental series of six humorous programmes produced by Pat Dixon’

Carpenter, Humphrey (2003). Spike Milligan: The Biography.

What other editors are refusing to acknowledge is a british cultural phenomenon. What they regard as a tiny trivial sketch is being given too much attention. They feel there are more worthy items in Seller's body of work that have been left out of the FA.   I couldn't agree more. However, my POV or their POV does not matter.  

This feels a bit like Michael Bentine of the Goons having his involvement slowly being rubbed/air-brushed out of BBC history.

Other editors also appear to feel this sketch is an annoying "meme" that should not be acknowledged.  Which is why it's not even being mentioned in the controversial "Legacy" section.  I think it should really be placed there because, as a string of articles from respected journalists from reputable news outlets (1 2 3 4) point out, by quoting the sketch, is that this still resonates today and is always associated with Sellers.  More than some fine Goon sketches or songs, I'm afraid. 

This "lesser" sketch is continually referenced in the wider public's affection.  Opposing views seem to be frustrated because it's a phenomenon beyond their control.  Seller's legacy lives on through the evolution of the british language via a vague part of London.  It's a silly stupid epitaph etched on a nondescript geographical location...but that was the point of the original sketch and one Sellers might have approved. As I've tried to show, with examples/evidence above, is that the sketch now has a life of its own; was influential in Seller's life; and is part of a wider culture whether you like it not.

I'm just asking to reinstate a brief mention in brackets/parentheses.  I've made my case, as best I can. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 20:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Despite trying to avoid this page, a third party has pointed out to me the comments above that they find disheartening and misleading. So did I, and I asked MrBalham to remove the untruths he has included. He has not responded on his talk page, and I am forced to comment to point out that comments in his statement about my thoughts and feelings on this issue are unfounded. I'll ignore the misleading SYNTHESIS in the sources that he mentions, but merely point out the untruths. – SchroCat (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good job MrBallham2 on stating your case. I totally agree with you. Here's how I see it, the sketch is a British cultural phenomenon and therefore it should be acknowledged in the article. Why not add just at a few sentences regarding it in the Legacy section? That's where it should go. As for SchroCat's rant above, I don't give a rats ass. Caden ^cool 22:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Rant? A straight statement that points out lies about me is not a rant, but from what I have seen of your input so far, including your delightful contribution above, I would expect no less from you. Hilo still continues his petty (and false) accusations, and I find both of your inane, despicable and frankly childish posts here to be morally bankrupt. I am again leaving this article, and again I have no doubt that further lies and incivility will follow from the pack of you, because you just don't seem to be able to stop yourselves. - SchroCat (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I should add that the sketch has recognition beyond Britain. I'm in Australia. Never been to Britain. Heard the sketch on the wireless at a young age. Never forgotten it. It was my introduction to Sellers in a time and place where little else was likely to do that. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I find this thread ever more bizarre as the days rumble on: On one hand, we have two editors (SchroCat and I) who brought this article to FA level over a six month period, undertaking extensive research at a cost to themselves, and on the other, a bunch of drive by's who know nothing about Sellers or how to create Featured Articles and who have contributed nothing to this article other than to create a mood of dissapointment, and an air of bad faith and ill-feeling. Their edits are shit too. With clever, witty and intelligent lines like "As for SchroCat's rant above, I don't give a rats ass", how on earth can we compete? Hi-Lo seems to not understand WP:POV and continues to justify its inclusion based on what he liked as a child; Balham STILL won't answer my question as to why he wants to add a piece of information based on his username, and Caden? well, the less said about him the better. He runs to his admin pals when someone makes observations on him based on the USERBOXES on his talk page. This fucking pantomime finished a long time ago. Troll away, add what you like, I couldn't give a toss anymore. I'm removing this from my watchlist and from my achievements table. Let the article slip back into obscurity, see if I care. Cassianto^talk 04:38, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I see signs of ownership. Cassianto - please drop the personal attacks. You can disagree with people, but "know nothing about Sellers", and other unjustifiable put downs of editors aren't acceptable. I don't care about your "fucking", but "lunatics" in the Edit summary is OTT. Like SchroCat, you are misrepresenting me, and can't even get my Username right.

• I'm not trying to personalise the debate. I have changed the earlier statement after concerns expressed to me. The intention was to focus the opposing argument and the impression I got from earlier comments. Apologies if I was too focussed.

Just because my name is MrBalham2 is why I'm trying to stay out of the conversation as this seems to bother Cassianto.  He originally thought I was a "sock puppet" for another editor.  As SchroCat will hopefully testify is that I'm a separate editor.  I came here via Sellers's association with Balham and his legacy. If Cassianto has a conspiracy theory about me, please let everyone know.

I appreciate a lot of hard work has gone into this FA, but it still remains open to scrutiny. I would be grateful if you could focus on the argument; on this "legacy" and the merits and validity. Please give evidence/examples that are contrary to what I have expressed regarding the sketch. I've given my examples for this sketch of having a wider impact i.e. what is the lasting impact of Sellers's work and the wider culture, not just the influence on creative people in the industry and their work. Not glittering or negative or balanced eulogies. Just a cogent response please. MrBalham2 (talk) 12:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know Light show had a brother..♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• REVIEW REQUEST

I think the discussion here might be at cross-purposes:

1. The FA editors, who have worked hard on this article, are maintaining its integrity and are discussing what makes a good article;

2. Other editors are trying to point out "that's all well and good", but when you put in a section called "Legacy" what exactly does that mean?

My inclusion of "Balham, Gateway etc..." is hopefully an illustration and example of what this "legacy" should be.  FA editors might argue that this inclusion has undue weight, and not worth mentioning,  when distilling a complex individual like Sellers.

However, when you look at the subject closer, regarding its significance, the impact is undeniable.  That impact is one that is lasting and continues today. I’m stating facts and there is no WP:SYNTHESIS where the conclusion is amalgamated from disparate sources to assert a specific POV. Legacy does not have to exist just in "showbiz" terms.  It has an impact on the wider culture as I've tried to explain.

Please focus on the debate, with evidence, and not on editors and/or making provocative comments that is likely to distract.

I would therefore be grateful for an editor to review the following paragraph for inclusion in the Peter Sellers Legacy section.  I have drafted it so that it follows the article's style and maintains the integrity:

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”.  Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden, it was produced by the self-styled "experimental" BBC radio comedy series The Third Division starting in the late 1940s.  The sketch was one of the earliest UK “ mockumentaries”, and compared the area (in postwar austerity) similarly to faraway exotic locations shown in travelogues of the day. It became more popular when repeated towards the height of Sellers’s success to a larger audience, in the late 1950s, and still resonates today within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and is always associated with Sellers.

• {{cite book | last1 = Dalzell | first1 = Tom | last2 = Victor | first2 = Terry | title = The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English | year = 2007 | publisher = Routledge | authorlink = Tom Dalzell | location = New York | isbn = 978-0415-21259-5 |

References

Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 10:00, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The paragraph looks good. It should be included. Caden ^cool 21:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the most stupid suggestion I've seen in a while, as it's more a legacy of Muir, etc. it certainly belongs on the sketch's page, but equally certainly, it gives way too much weight to add it here. If such amateur rubbish is to be slammed in, then I look forward to ignoring this when the inevitable FAR comes around. "Looks good"? That's just plain dumb! - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Schrocat. I'm not interested in your rude behavior or your childish attacks. Infact I'm so fed up with your bullshit. Caden ^cool 22:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Boo hoo. Get over yourself. If you think that's a good addition, your standards are lower than I thought. - SchroCat (talk) 22:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Whatever mister sock. Caden ^cool 23:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

That's possibly the most WP:DICKish thing I've heard since .... last time I read one of your posts. Exactly who am I supposed to be a sock for, genius? - SchroCat (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's a good proposal too MrBalham2. HiLo48 (talk) 23:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem is that it's got too much synthesis, and isn't actually supported by the sources.... Apart from that, the fact it's too long and too far off topic.... I look forward to FAR. - SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought you were going away. Please do. HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Fuck off and don't ever tell me what to do. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat please leave. You said you would so take a hike. Caden ^cool 23:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I refer you to the post above. If you really want me to go, then I'll just stay here. Now you can answer the question about your childish slur above: who is my sock, or who do I sock for? You know you've lied in trying to allege it, but sadly it says a lot more about you than me. - SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

This is absolutely ridiculous. What a waste of time. Clearly it's too long and offtrack. DO you have any experience of FA writing??♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems with the proposed inclusion

The problems with the text are manifold, and I've dropped in tags to the specific places in the text. That doesn't detract from the considerable WEIGHT and off-topic problems if you bloat out the legacy section with this. Other issues (for which I can't be bothered to look up the tags, but most people will already know are issues, despite their championing of the section are inter alia: poor formatting, use of scare quotes, overlinking, incorrect reference formatting, etc. Staggeringly no-one has bothered to put this into the Balham, Gateway to the South article, which is where it belongs. If you want to add a passing reference to the sketch in with the reference to The Third Division, that would be more realistic (although still too much, IMO), but this is just poor. I note those on a personal crusade against others may find it better to spend their time trying to create something, rather than just trying to vote-stack on something so riddled with problems: you make yourselves look less competent with each attack. Either way, you crack on with low-standard additions and feel proud that you've made the project take a step backwards. - SchroCat (talk) 09:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden, it was produced by the self-styled "experimental" BBC radio comedy series The Third Division starting in the late 1940s. The sketch was one of the earliest UK “ mockumentaries”, and compared the area (in postwar austerity) similarly to faraway exotic locations shown in travelogues of the day. It became more popular when repeated towards the height of Sellers’s success to a larger audience, in the late 1950s, and still resonates today within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and is always associated with Sellers.

As much as it kills me to admit this, but I think Schrocat might have a point. I'm concerned about undue weight. I think a paragraph is a little too much. Maybe a brief sentence or two would be better. Does this sound fair?

Redrafted inclusion

I’ve addressed your concerns with the following edit:

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden , it was produced by the self-styled "experimental" BBC radio comedy series , for the aforementioned The Third Division starting in the late 1940s;. The sketch was one of the earliest UK “ mockumentaries”, and compared the area (in postwar austerity) similarly to faraway exotic locations shown in travelogues of the day. It became more popular when repeated towards the height of Sellers’s success to a larger audience, in the late 1950s and , its impact still remains resonates today within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and is always retains its associatedion with Sellers.

This becomes:

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden, for the aforementioned The Third Division starting in the late 1940s; its impact still remains within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and retains its association with Sellers.

Content with the inclusion? This remains in “Legacy”. Thanks.MrBalham2 (talk) 20:26, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Sources

• Dalzell, Tom; Victor, Terry (2007). The Concise New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0415-21259-5. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Invalid |ref=harv (help)

just a thought on this - maybe 'The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch -' lays too much stress on the sketch - the 'problem' is to interweave mention of the sketch in a way that makes it emblematic of his resonance and popularity maybe, without overemphasising its place in his oeuvre . My solution would be to introduce in an emblematic way to let it suggest his enduring iconic status and popularity - and weave in another example or two to mesh it into manifestations of his lasting status - something like - "since his death sellers popularity and influence has endured - whether that has been made variously manifest in phenomena such as the interst the discovery of 'new' material excited in 2013,two early sellers, or the way in which an area of London continues to be marked by its association with a Sellers performance, - “Balham, Gateway to the South”, - written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden, for The Third Division, - its impact perdures within the British lexicon."- then the legacy section can mention his influence on performers etc - to make room for the balham material I would cut some of the paragraph on the film 'the life and death of sellers' which was none of his work in any case or cut the influence on schwimmer and O'Brien stuff maybe )Sayerslle (talk) 10:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Terrible. The legacy isn't as much Sellers's, as it is the sketch's and that of the writers. Asn you decide to include this in his legacy section on the grounds it's so massive - and yet it doesn't even warrant a mention in the body? Awful. One line in the body about the sketch is sufficient (still too much, but there you go), and the legacy of the sketch is attached to the bios of the writers who came up with it, and the sketch's own article. (Major hint: if it's not good enough to add to the sketch's own article, where it still makes none of these claims, then it's hardly fitting for inclusion here). Either way, what you have above is poorly written and is veering into hagiography, rather than encyclopaedic writing. And there is certainly no reason to remove Sellers's influence on other entertainers, unless from some bizzare and perverse reasoning (I "never watched 'friends' so perhaps underestimate his reputation", kind of silliness). - SchroCat (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

oh well, - keep schwimmer in , and frank muir out then, that shows good understanding of comedic weight in world of peter sellers, kind of thing - Major hint - stop condescending so badly - what I had above was not poorly written - ask dr blofeld if its terribly written - i'll listen to his opinion - not like it was intended as a final draft anyhow. Sayerslle (talk) 12:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Except we already mention Muir higher up the article, when we mention The Third Division, so we're not keeping him out (the comment I made above about overlinking is about Muir and a couple of others). Major hint: read the article properly next time. And yes, what you have written is not encyclopaedic: it is too poor for that. - SchroCat (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Capping an unproductive and increasingly insulting thread - SchroCat (talk) 18:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I haven't read the article at all - I found the legacy section pretty leaden - " so and so said , - and so and so stated that -and in a poll - and so and so also noted - as did - and schwimmer said he was a major influence - 'he was brilliant ' etc - clunk , clunk, clunk. - I shant argue further over this - I found as you know, your and casaintos awful talk of 'oxygen thieves' and idiots, - so vile, that I'll leave you to your masterpieces without further comment, tnanks. Sayerslle (talk) 12:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Good thing a whole stack of peer reviewers and FAC reviewers thought differently to you. Coming from someone who said we shouldn't include Schwimmer because they never saw Friends, then your criticism comes across as a bit shallow to be honest. It certainly doesn't strike me as an objective view of matters, and your standard of writing in talk threads is so poor that I find it it bit difficult to take the critical comments with much weight, "tnanks". - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC) its better to write slack than write utterly inhumane and vile comments on talk pages as you did imo - wp talk pages are just talk pages , i'm not trying to write high standard - your criticism that my draft wasnt encyclopedic enough maybe right , - it was just an idea - i think i said schwimmers words were not illuminating enough - they didn't explain any influence, they were just gush, hagiography? - btw - forget I wrote anything here, I think mrbalham2 might be annoyed that my addition has diverted the point of this segment of talk. adios. Sayerslle (talk) 13:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I think I understand what you've written here, but it's moving towards the levels of gibberish, unfortunately. If you wrote properly on talk pages, people may take you more sensibly; if you write like you don't give a toss, with a lack of punctuation, capitals, sentence structure, spelling etc, then apart from being as insulting to other readers as you claim I have been, your words will be ignored by others who just don't have the energy to try and de-cypher what you're trying to say. – SchroCat (talk) 13:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC) What I wrote was perfectly intelligible. I don't 'claim' you have been insulting - you have been. Is it sensible to call other editors oxygen thieves, just because they have the temerity to disagree with you? that sounds worse than gibberish to me. and pretty fascist. Sayerslle (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2014 (UTC) I had to read it through several times to get the grasp, so it was about all I have come to expect from you. As to your claims of the incivility of others, it's always nice to say someone has been insulting, and then insult them at the same time. Not hypocritical at all, oh no, not at all... (ps. please learn to use capitals. ee cummings could get away with it: you can't). - SchroCat (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC) not 'claims', - you were, and are, insulting. and vauntingly arrogant. I thought you and cassianto were going to leave the article anyhow, leave it to the numpties - to let it sink into the mire. Sayerslle (talk) 15:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) And yet more insults. Do you not think it a tad hypocritical to berate others for perceived insults, and yet happily throw them round yourself? - SchroCat (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Sayerslle, calling it "pretty fascist" and "sinking into mire" is far more insulting. Haven't you got anything better to do?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC) Not really, no - I think saying editors who disagree with schrocat are 'oxygen thieves' is far worse, and is pretty fascist. its inhumane. It offends the Catholic in me. Sayerslle (talk) 17:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC) And we're back into you complaining about perceived insults while you throw yet more mud at people: can see the hypocrisy yet? That offends the human in me. - SchroCat (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Further Trim

From::

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden, for the aforementioned The Third Division starting in the late 1940s; its impact still remains within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and retains its association with Sellers.

This becomes:

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden in the late 1940s; its impact still remains within the British lexicon.. It also continues to be referenced in news and feature items in the UK, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and retains its association with Sellers.

References

The redrafted inclusion above should be added between the showbiz tributes and the biopic paragraph. Other articles will be updated when this is approved. Alternative changes have been suggested further up this section (e.g. where mentions should be placed in the early part of Sellers's career). Please put these drafts forward for scrutiny. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay it seems fine. Go ahead and add it. Caden ^cool 20:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not fine at all: it's not well written, with rather clumsy phrasing, and it's a rather spurious part if Sellers's legacy. It's certainly part of Muir and Norden's, and probably of the sketch itself, but it's too much of a stretch to say it's Sellers's too. I also hardly think there is anything approaching a consensus to add it to the legacy section. - SchroCat (talk) 23:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I've made the offer to redraft. This has not been forthcoming. General consensus is that the edit should go ahead after much discussion. I've also requested that other editors should not be upset. This appears to have been ignored by editors who have taken too much "ownership" of the article. Please make a useful contribution for the inclusion rather than be contrary. Legacy is also about the impact on the wider culture and not just on a small group individuals. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

We do have consensus to add it to the article, so let's do it already. This whole ownership issue that some have is getting old. Schrocat acts like he owns it and so does Blofeld. Caden ^cool 20:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Fuck off the pair of you: if you cant't discuss this without being so stupid as to throw round crass and unfounded ownership accusations, then it's best to just shut up and not say anything. 2. There isn't a consensus, that much must be obvious, even to the most blinkered and one-sided editors. My argument above is valid, and it's fucking arrogant of you to ignore it so blindly 3. I have already pointed out to you that what has been suggested is poorly written. On that basis alone it should give pause for thought, let alone the fact that it's misguided of you to try and crowbar it into the legacy section, where it does not belong. It belongs on other articles not here. - SchroCat (talk) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Schrocat. 1. Watch that filthy dirty mouth of yours. 2. If you can't behave in a civil mature manner then it's best for you to leave this discussion. 3. There is consensus so deal with it. 4. Your non stop personal attacks, horrible behavior, and your arrogance is disgusting. 5. You said you were leaving so why are you still here abusing editors? Caden ^cool 16:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Don't throw fucking stupid and unfounded insults at me, I won't reply to you in base Anglo-Saxon. 2. Don't try and bully me off this page, it will not work. 3. There is not a consensus. The last independent to comment was GrahamColm, who did not agree with you, so please don't lie about having. Consensus. 4. You are being hypocritical, stop. 5. I will not be bullied off any page, especially by people who are unable to recognise poor English, or who don't understand the quality thresholds we have here. - SchroCat (talk) 16:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed very poorly written, verging on unintelligible. What on earth are "news and feature items"? I'm British but it is not in my lexicon or anyone else's I know. I'm not convinced it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It was left for redrafting to something others find acceptable. I'm OK with it, but if you would like to help with the wording then the reliably sourced links will help you. Wikipedia is designed to illuminate, so we're on the right course to open up the legacy section. There's no crowbar here. It's about Sellers's wider cultural impact. Please focus on this aspect and be grateful for your help. If not... it goes in. MrBalham2 (talk) 13:22, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Mr Balham, it doesn't just "go in" because you want it to. There has to be a consensus for that to happen, and there certainly isn't the case here. - SchroCat (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr Balham, Considering the last comments on this have pointed out that not only is your proposed addition in sub-standard English, but that there is no consensus to include it, I am struggling to retain my good faith with edits such as this. It is extremely poor practice to ignore the comments of others, against consensus, and to go ahead with putting in your preferred version. Do not do so again, and next time, let the consensus develop. - SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat It would help if you let it develop in a civil manner. I'm a little fed up of your language on these threads towards other editors. Telling me to F**k off does not help your cause either. Kindly refrain from using confrontational language, with whoever, even if you think it is personal. It makes the atmosphere hostile rather than collegial. This is my second request. Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And it would be helpful if you and Caden hadn't lied and insulted me by the ownership claim. You do something tht stupid and I will tell you to fuck off again and again and again. I'm sick and tired of hearing you two claim a consensus that doesn't exist. I also pissed off with you forcing the text in, when there is no consensus and while the discussion still ongoing: THAT is confrontational, not collegiate. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Another redraft

The wider cultural impact of the Sellers’s legacy can be illustrated with his performance of the sketch “Balham, Gateway to the South”. Written by Frank Muir and Denis Norden in the late 1940s; its impact still remains when referenced in the UK. . It also continues to be mentioned in articles, when discussing the format; or that particular area of London; and retains its association with Sellers.

References

Is this an improvement? Please give me you views MrBalham2 (talk) 17:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

FFS, you still don't get it. it's not just. The piss-poor English: it's the fact that it shouldn't be there at all. It may belong elsewhere on Wikipedia (a moot point), bit it's not part of Sellers's legacy. - SchroCat (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's fine. You are content to open up the legacy section regarding the wider cultural impact? Correct? This is a start. It's had an impact. You can't deny it. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a poor inclusion. It's not Sellers's legacy, it's Muir and Norden's, or the sketch itself. To say this is part of Sellers's legacy just isn't right: it drops into the area of trivia, nothing else. - SchroCat (talk) 17:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's fine.. Elvis has impersonators, Sellers has this. The legacy section does not have to be a lofty homage. You need to illustrate what happens in the real world and the impact on a wider culture. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Balham it seems fine. Lets have some input from other editors though. That would be good. It would also be really helpful if Schrocat behaved because he makes things rather toxic. Caden ^cool 18:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, kettle... As I've pointed out, the last independent to comment thought it unworthy of inclusion. - SchroCat (talk) 18:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Schrocat please stop edit warring. You've reverted three times already in a day. Knock it off before you get blocked by an admin. Caden ^cool 18:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Pot, kettle... - SchroCat (talk) 18:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me? The only one who reverted three times was you Schrocat. Stop with the lies and stop edit warring. Caden ^cool 18:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Caden, I'll take your advice. Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Lies? Considering you two have been lying through your teeth to try and claim a non-existent consensus, that's fucking rich! I have not lied at all, so don’t try and tar others with the same brush that is applied to you. As I am sure you know, we have Wikipedia:STATUSQUO that says "during a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns", so you want to push the point on edit warring? Or Lying? Pot, kettle... Both of you, leave the article as it is until the discussion has finished, and stop edit warring. – SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Caden, why don't you go away and haunt somewhere else. You add nothing to these discussions and instead, relish in playing the civil card when editors disagree with you. Cassianto^talk 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey Cass, I don't take orders from bullies like you. Caden ^cool 22:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And yet you've told me several times to go away and leave the talk page? Anything there strike you as being a tad hypocritical? I've told you before that editors like you won't bully me off any page. - SchroCat (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

@Schrocat. Pot, kettle...Caden ^cool 22:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, grow up - I've not tried to bully anyone off the talk page: you have, so take it on the chin and try and be constructive for a change. - SchroCat (talk) 22:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather be a bully Caden than a troll like you Cassianto^talk 04:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, please act your age and not your shoe size. Caden ^cool 15:46, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you learn that today in the playground? Cassianto^talk 18:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Caden and Balham, even GrahamColm, one of the most competent editors on the site who is responsible for passing featured articles says it is "very poorly written, verging on unintelligible". We don't own the article, true, but we also have a responsibility to block out shoddy edits and additions (which this is). It's terrible writing, awful misuse of semi colons and arguing something which I'm frankly clueless what you're trying to say. I'm tired of the childish behaviour here. It's about time something was introduced banning editors from discussing this article as this talk page has been one of the worst examples of time wasting I've ever seen on here and it's not stopping either even without Lightshow. Enough.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld No. Your job is to maintain the integrity of the article and assist other editors who wish to change/improve it. If indeed, you are not the "owners", your position should be neutral, helpful, and not hostile. If the writing is "not up to scratch" then help improve it, not deride it. Not all editors are English, or have your talent, or eloquence. So it's quite an elitist and bigoted comment. I'm embarrassed for you at the way some of you have spoken to other editors.

You're welcome to change the wording for this edit. Remember, it's about Sellers and impact on the wider culture.

I'm not sure how to take GrahamColm/Beards[insert another new name here]'s comment. I didn't find them very supportive: "I'm not convinced it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia". Seems harsh. Even SchroCat, who's vehemently against the inclusion here, thinks there is some value (moot point for Schro) in the edit.

Besides, Graham's own FA scrutiny... is up for scrutiny regarding this whole article. He may have slightly "dropped the ball" on this one.

You're demanding banning of editors for discussing changes? So we all write articles with your POV and no talk pages? You're obsessed with Lightshow aren't you DrBlo? I'm not that individual. If you're waking up in the middle of the night, in a cold sweat, shouting out Lightshow's name, I suggest you take a well earned break.

I also see hubris got the better of Cassianto here Thank you for your 30 mins of support ...very entertaining!

Anyway all that doesn't matter. This will go out to a wider consensus. If the inclusion does or doesn't go in, then it still the leaves the point I've been trying to make all along:

What is the impact of Sellers's work in the wider culture and how do you illustrate it?

It seems to be missing in the "Legacy" section. In the meantime, I'll look down the back of the sofa/couch and see if I can find it. I might find some coins, but probably not your support.

Peace/love MrBalham2 (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

MrBalham2, we may not own the article but we wrote it and therefore act as its guardians. We are not going to spend months writing an article only to have a bunch of nobodies come along and insert their badly written POV. You moan that we are not "assist[ing] other editors who wish to change/improve it", that's because your addition is not a improvement. How many more times do you have to be told? Oh...and cheers for the diff, it's funny how little things please small minds. Cassianto^talk 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

So, now Graham's judgement is off? And mine? And Cassianto? And Dr. Blofeld? All that knowledge and experience of featured content on wiki, and we're all calling this wrong? And you, with 78 edits on articles spread over five weeks, know better than all of us...? That fact that that doesn't even give you pause for thought speaks volumes. You have again asked other people to re-write the poor text. No-one has so far, because the main problem is not that it is poorly written (although it undoubtedly is), but because it doesn't belong here. It's trivial nonsense at best; it's also not part of Sellers's legacy – it's more the legacy or Muir and Norden, if anyone. I note it still hasn't been deemed important enough to go into the sketch's own page, and that speaks volumes about how trivial it really is. - SchroCat (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

You missed the point again folks:

Q: What is the impact of Sellers's work in the wider culture and how do you illustrate it?

A: [missing]

Cheers. MrBalham2 (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

See the comment below from John, another long-time, highly experienced editor who knows about quality articles, what goes into them and what should be left out. He, along with the rest of us, is not the one who is missing the point. Guess who is missing the point here...? - SchroCat (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I dare you to accuse John, one of the best copy editors on here, of the same Balham. Cassianto^talk 09:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:3

I have created a new page for editors to use and I have alerted Wikipedia:Third opinion on the scuffle.RandomLittleHelpertalk 18:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

And I have protected the article for three days pending the outcome. Graham Beards (talk) 18:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a regular volunteer at Third Opinion. The request there has been removed/declined because there are more than two editors involved in this dispute. 3O is only for disputes with exactly two editors involved. If dispute resolution is desired, consider Dispute resolution noticeboard or Formal mediation. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

That was quick. I'm impressed. MrBalham2 (talk) 18:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The conflict isn't over. But since there are three editors involved, we need to go to a different venue.--RandomLittleHelpertalk 19:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Message understood. If that means discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, objective and as nice as possible. I'm content. MrBalham2 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) RLH, Not quite three: there have been seven or eight editors who have commented on this. Fine to throw it open to a wider audience now that the article is back at the STATUSQUO, and the information cannot be forced back in against the current consensus. - SchroCat (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

After consulting TransporterMan, I will gladly assist in creating a WP:RFC with all involved parties.--RandomLittleHelpertalk 19:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

RLH if you want to file an RFC then I have no problem with you doing that. Caden ^cool 22:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Discussion continues

I just saw this. The proposed addition is badly sourced, badly written, and irredeemably trivial. It does not belong on this article. --John (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John,

1. I guess you’re right if you think things affected by an artist’s work directly in the real world are trivial. If it hasn’t impacted on you, then it’s not worth mentioning, because you consider it minuscule and obscure. Also if I can’t articualte it then it's not worth noting. If that phenomena continues after the artist’s death then it doesn’t belong to the artist's legacy. If a celebrity gives a dead man a namecheck then it’s legacy. I'm presuming these are your views.

2. I'm using the same biography sources as the article. Since you disagree with the inclusion, that still leaves the question: "What is the impact of Sellers's work in the wider culture and how do you illustrate it?” It hasn’t been addressed in the "Legacy" section.

3. Also, whilst you're here, on a separate matter, if you look at the same section, I've also offered to summarise two quotes from Snowden & Ekland into one sentence. Note that the same quotes in their entirety can be accessed in a separate article.

“There was controversy over the portrayal, where individuals close to Sellers (e.g. Britt Ekland and Lord Snowdon giving opposing views), did not feel the film was an honest appraisal.”

Is this a reasonably written summary? This got "shouted off" as well. If you side with the “gatekeepers” of the article, I won’t be surprised, but please let me know what you think. Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

'If a celebrity gives a dead man a namecheck then it’s legacy' - that's funny - I do empathise with your frustration mrbalham2 - I think there is a disequilibrium between the reverence afforded a celebrity piece of nothing speak that mentions sellers and a piece of an artists actual work that has resonance in the popular imagination decades after - as what is noteworthy as 'legacy' - Sayerslle (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's as funny as cholera, and as misleading and wrong as a snake oil seller's words. Thankfully this wasn't written by biased and twisted POV-pushers deciding which of their fave celebs they want to force into the article. Firstly, not one of those mentioned in the legacy section are "a celebrity piece of nothing", so you can both knock off the silliness. They are all comedians, well-known and relatively high profile in their own right—and all notable enough to have their own articles here. Secondly they are not "namechecked": the entertainers in question have all directly stated that Sellers was an influence on their comedy (rather than a journalist "seeing" a connection). Thirdly all the references were in reliable sources. We have not editorialised, or decided that we don't want to know about it because of our POV on the individuals concerned, but simply reflected what the sources tell us. Part of Sellers's legacy is the fact that his comedy lives on in the work if others, so it's entirely appropriate that they are listed here. I might have a tiny amount of respect for either of you if you stopped being quite so disingenuous, misleading and pointy in your comments. As to the Balham sketch: it's possibly more appropriate for Muir and Norden's articles, as they wrote it; I see the sketch doesn't even appear in Muir's article, and the supposed "legacy" doesn't appear in the sketch's own article. (Mind you, it doesn't cover the fact that the sketch was written for, and performed by Robert Beatty either, possibly because that further distances it from any rationale for considering it Sellers's legacy). – SchroCat (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't saying anyone was 'a celebrity piece of nothing ' - i was saying the quote was a piece of nothing quote - there is really nothing in the schwimmer quote that says anything about influence - its just a fannish quote. this issue remains a minor disagreement and I don't understand your 'oxygen thieves' vitriol , - ' funny as cholera' - blimey - its over the top - I don't think who things are written for is crucial either - its sometimes a particular performance that makes the writing stick in the consciousness that counts - was streetcar written for brando? - Sayerslle (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, but aside from the fact that Brando was the first to play the role on stage and then in the film, his isn't the portrayal that springs to my mind first or sticks in my consciousness: that goes to another actor who I saw play him on stage. But that's just my POV: it has no place here, any more than much of the POV I've seen on this subject. There was no "reverence" when the section was written, just an honest reflection of the information the sources provided us with, so to try and twist and demean that with comments like "If a celebrity gives a dead man a namecheck then it’s legacy" or "a celebrity piece of nothing speak" is not helpful, mature, or constructive. Just so you get the full Schwimmer quote, so you can understand it's not just namechecking: "But I'm really a character actor. I'm very influenced by Peter Sellers, " he says. "He could do anything, from Dr Strangelove to Inspector Clouseau. He was just amazing." - SchroCat (talk) 16:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the Streetcar/Brando analogy Sayerslle. That was cool! A lot of talented people can be involved in a work, but it may be identified initially with one individual, in the “public’s” consciousness. Pink Panther was a David Niven vehicle but look who owns it. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The pink panther? Or the pink panther? But to my mind, the real pink panther. It all depends on your POV. And yes, "cool" is exactly the right encyclopaedic note we're trying to strike... - SchroCat (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat The celebrity thing is turning into a distraction, so don’t dwell on that. BTW a couple of the reliable sources in “Legacy” have dead links. Also where are the women? Are you telling me female artists haven't been influenced? As I've said before, a section with tributes, eulogies and a whole paragraph devoted to one biopic doesn't make a "Legacy" section. It needs to be opened up, I will update the related articles you’ve mentioned once we’ve concluded the discussion in this section.

Unable to find any useful reference to Beatty, therefore had used the Sikov biog. Muir himself confirms in his autobiography it was Sellers. Also Carpenter and Lewis single out the sketch and Sellers. Beatty was in Third Division, but no information confirming he did it other than Norden’s wiki article which you’ve edited but haven't asked for a citation (so I’ve done it for you). I’m presuming you have the info. If so, where/what is it?

The sketch was a collaborative piece that utilised Sellers’s talents. It is as much Muir and Norden’s as it is Sellers's. Sellers made the sketch popular as the performer and it retains it’s association with him. That’s why we’re having the discussion. It exists today because of him, not in spite. MrBalham2 (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's a distraction, why did you start it with a question to John? I don't know why women haven't been influenced by Sellers: you'll have to ask them. The searches of the reliable sources we did showed no references. If you do some research and can find reliable sources to back up his influence on female comedians, please use it. Don't try and lecture me on what a legacy second ion is: try and build some quality content yourself, although given your suggested text, I think that may be a bit of a long shot for you. You certainly don't need to wait to conclude the discussion here to update the relevant information elsewhere. As a number of people have expressed serious doubts about the validity of the information here, I suspect this will not reach a consensus to include. Whether it does or does not, it has no bearing on other articles.

Muir doesn't say he created it for Sellers, he says they used his talents in a sketch: that's certainly not the same thing, especially when you know Sellers wasn't the first. Do some research to find the reliable sources about Beatty: I've wasted enough time here to have to baby feed you information as well as try and explain what constitutes featured content, and if you'd have listened at some point to the five editors experienced in FAs who have cast doubt on your inclusion then perhaps I may have done, but my well of goodwill ran dry some time ago. This is a great case of newbie WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT, and I suggest you stop flogging this particular horse carcass and move on. - SchroCat (talk) 17:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh my lord, this thread is beyond boring. MrBalham, why don't you just admit defeat gracefully and accept that the Balham related nod (still not sure why you built your username around this talk page discussion) is not happening here. It's very kind of you to pay so much attention to this one and only talk page discussion, but there are millions of other discussions happening elsewhere and I think they may benefit from you more than this topic. Take the inspiration to leave from your pal Caden who has, it seems, crawled back underneath the stone that he came from. Cassianto^talk 18:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cass! Conversation has moved back to Sellers and the wider cultural impact. Beatty's out of the equation. Thank Schro for the semantics demo. If you folks don't want to be part of the discussion, that's fine. Don't forget the housekeeping on the dead links btw. I think it's about half a dozen overall. Cheers MrBalham2 (talk) 18:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Beatty's out of the equation? And a semantics demo? What on earth are you on about? And the two links in the legacy section have been dealt with: try to keep up and stay with the conversation, without becoming even more disruptive with the IDIDNTHEARTHAT continuing of the thread into trolling territory. - SchroCat (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Balham, this ceased being a conversation a long time ago. It has developed into an obsession for you, a chance to troll for Sayerslle, Caden and HiLo, and a pain in the fucking arse for the rest of us. Cassianto^talk 19:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cass again! That's ok. I guess your role as a neutral observer means some conversations can be excruciating. Let Schro know Semantics demo is here. Very amusing. Also I was being helpful regarding the links. However, since he's been such a sourpuss with me, I'll let you guys find the rest of them on your own. Cheers MrBalham2 (talk) 19:37, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Quit with your patronising greetings Balham, and concentrate on the matter in hand. I am neither neutral nor an observer. My position is clear, your edits are shite, the POV is laughable and I think you should walk away with at least some remaining dignity. Cassianto^talk 19:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How bizzare, although I think you may need to use a dictionary to see what "semantics" actually is: there was nothing semantically related in the comment I made, so I have no idea what you're talking about. There are no other dead links in the legacy section, but if you're going to be childish about it, I'll guess you have now crossed the line into being a disruptive troll. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Cass! Just saw your diffs on the Sellers article. Very funny. Is common sense prevailing? If I did the same edits they would have been reverted straight away. That's the problem. Legacy section needs to be more substantial. Forget about me or Balham. That's not the point I'm making. Ignoring my inclusion, there's other subjects that it could open up to. You seem to be ruling out that argument. The discussion remains. @Schro Not being childish. Have a look at ALL the ref links. Good luck MrBalham2 (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

My diffs show prose tweaks, not content concerns, which is the fuel in this arguement. Cassianto^talk 20:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you wouldn't have been reverted, so stop being so fucking pointy—yes, and childish too. We're trying desperately to forget about you, but sadly you keep flogging various dead horses like a demented and petulant troll. If you see dead links: fix them. I've seen the others, but you've only mentioned the legacy section before, which I have concentrated on, so go ahead, fix the links and stop being such a tedious bore. - SchroCat (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm here to discuss Legacy and the wider cultural impact of Sellers's work. Thanks. Your job is to maintain the integrity of the article you spent so much time on. More sections than just Legacy. I'll "tweak" elsewhere. I'm sure you'll find the broken links. Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you bother reading things people write? I've told you already that I know where they are, so it's not a question of finding them. If you want to be mindly constructive, fix the links. If not, I'll just carry on thinking you're here to throw stones and pointy comments and trolling for the pure hell of it. - SchroCat (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Q: What is the impact of Sellers's work in the wider culture and how do you illustrate it?

A: [missing]

Just making the point clear. Thanks MrBalham2 (talk) 21:15, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Five editors experienced in the standards required for FA level work, who have extensive experience in this area, have all cast strong doubts on the inclusion of the Balham material into the legacy section. Time to stop being a disruption here and move on to something else. Just making the answer clear. - SchroCat (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

For example: Sellers's impact can be seen with the TV show Goodness Gracious Me (BBC) which had the working title of "Peter Sellers is Dead". South asian/indian minority actors changing mainstream media depictions of that community to more representative versions. Sellers was rightly/wrongly attributed to that mainstream representation along with other actors.[14][15] MrBalham2 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Or you could do something useful, like sort out the dead links you've pointed out. That would be so much more constructive than continuing to beat a dead equine... - SchroCat (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That's your job, Schro mate!. It's your FA. So please keep up your standards. This one's a glaring omission in your fine Legacy section. Not trivial or shite I'm afraid. I'd be grateful if you do not censor me again. Go to bed it's midnight! MrBalham2 (talk) 23:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

1. I am not your "mate"; 2. It's not "my" anything; 3. I did not censor you at all, so don't try to smear me by lying again; 4. Don't tell me what to do. - SchroCat (talk) 23:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Cass removed a comment which was out of order. If you block/frustrate this TV show's inclusion then that's blatant censorship.You've got no excuse on this one. MrBalham2 (talk) 23:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• So you admit that I censored nothing? Great: dont fucking accuse me of it again. I have made no comment on the GGM information, so dont be so obnoxious as to accuse me of censorship: you have no excuse to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 23:39, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Don't keep breaking the header every time you make comment. That didn't seem like an accidental obfuscation. That's appears like an indication you want to frustrate the GGM inclusion! MrBalham2 (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oh fuck off and stop being so obnoxious. A typo like that frustrates nothing at all: it was accidental, not deliberate, and your continued bad faith is toxic, unconstructive, and all I've come to expect from you. - SchroCat (talk) 23:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

User:MrBalham2 your activity here is tantamount to trolling and disruptive editing. I will block you if you continue this behaviour. You are deliberately goading other editors because you have failed to convince them of the value of your views. I suggest you find other articles to constructively contribute to as you are giving us a strong impression that you are operating as a single purpose account. I will archive this discussion in a few minutes and will monitor your contributions closely. Furthermore, I will extend the recent page protection if needs be. Graham Beards (talk) 20:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a very disappointing and one-sided post from an Admin. I guess I should be used to it, but I keep hoping for better. I withdrew from this discussion, because it wasn't one. One side, SchroCat and Cassianto, have repeatedly and persistently bullied and sworn at those who disagreed with them. They both said they were leaving the discussion, and didn't. In condemning MrBalham2 you have supported and encouraged the bullies, effectively becoming one yourself. I don't care who is "right" in this discussion, but an Admin should do better than that. Our Admin system is stuffed. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 16 October 2014 (UTC)