Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Text before October 2005

I've removed this section as I don't believe Sellers worked with Wilder or Polanski:

"Other directors Sellers worked with include Roman Polanski, Paul Mazursky and Billy Wilder."

he certainly worked with Polanski, on A Day at the Beach so I'll restore that jamesgibbon 28 June 2005 23:25 (UTC)

Polanski didn't direct A Day at the Beach so it would be misleading to say he was a director Sellers worked with. JW 15:29, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Wilder did some uncredited rewrites on the Casino Royale script, but it's probably stretching a point to say they worked togther. MK2 23:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed this list of actors, because anyone with a long film career will have worked with lots of other stars, so I'm not sure how relevant it is:

"He appeared with many stars, among them Shirley MacLaine, Sophia Loren, Maggie Smith, Goldie Hawn, Shelley Winters, Elke Sommer, Claudine Longet, and even Ringo Starr (The Beatles' drummer)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jay-W (talk • contribs) 13:44, 28 April 2005 (UTC)

Is the character "Henry Sellers" in an episode of "Father Ted" at all related ("Henry Sellers! I Made the BBC!")? EDIT: I think it was the episode "Competition Time" (Darien Shields 09:20, 13 August 2005 (UTC))

The Life and Death of Peter Sellers (film)

This is regularly cited as a great movie, but I can think of few more tacky ones. I love Geoffrey Rush, but this was not one of his better efforts. I was constantly aware that I was watching Rush, not Sellers. Besides, the title is misleading as the film contained virtually nothing about his death. It is somewhere near last on my personal list of movies from this decade. JackofOz 14:08, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Sellers/Van Fleet

What exactly was the big faux pas that Van Fleet made towards Sellers, and what did Sellers do? I've been searching all over the place for some kind of answer for that question.

Peter Sellers is reputed to have invited Jo Van Fleet to his house or for dinner while they were filming I Love You, Alice B. Toklas in 1968. She refused. She was married at the time and was probably worried about his reputation. Sellers is reputed to have said very unkind things about her on the set (after the incident). --JHvW (talk) 17:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Richard Henry vs. Peter

I've dug up some sources explaining where the Peter came from. Seems he had an older brother named Peter, who was still-born. When the actor came along, he was named Richard Henry, but at some stage his parents started calling him Peter in memory of his older dead sibling, and the name stuck. (see this and this).

However this and this say he was born "Peter Richard Henry Sellers". The latter source particularly is not known for getting these kinds of details wrong.

For now, I'm going with the majority. But if anybody can verify this, eg. with a published birth certificate showing exactly what his legal name was, that would be great.

Since the world knew him as Peter, I'm putting that name in the lead, and referring to his legal name in the body of the article. JackofOz 02:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Sellers as "King Kong"

This article sites an injury as the cause for his being replaced in the role of bomber pilot in Dr. Strangelove. However, I have heard from several sources, notably this one that he was recast because he couldn't master the southern drawl the role required. Of course TCM has been wrong before and I haven't read his biography but if someone has reliable information the article should be amended.

I recall a booklet included with the DVD of Strangelove stating that it was an injury. Next time I get a hold of the DVD, I will check.--SirNuke 19:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard that Kubrick pulled him from the role for not mastering the southern drawl, but covered it up by attributing the pull to an injury. I don't have a citation, though. Havardj Jack 20:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clare Quilty

I replaced "doppelganger" with "nemesis" in the description of Quilty's character, and then I read the article on Lolita and found "doppelganger" used again. I still believe "nemesis" is a better description of the relationship of Quilty to Humbert. Comments? Paul 21:18, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

They are, of course, each other's mutual nemesis. It is this mutuality and blending of characteristics that makes "doopelganger" appropriate. 193.164.126.35 18:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Graeme

But the fact that they look nothing alike makes "doppelganger" inappropriate. ThatGuamGuy 13:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)sean

Sellers' Filmography

I find the filmography here a little perplexing. Several of the films listed are ones I have never heard of associated with Sellers. Also unlisted in Allmovie.com or IMDB. The films I take issue with are:

Cold Comfort 1957 Dearth of a Salesman 1957 Climb Up the Wall 1960 Light of Day 1963 Birds Bees and Storks 1964 Simon Simon 1970

Most of these films don't even seem to exist. Can they be TV episodes or sketches Sellers did somewhere? Can anyone explain?

213.104.160.33 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Graeme

Google turned up this page by an AOL user that mentions three short films shown at the 2002 Cardiff Screen Festival:

"Insomnia is good for you, Dearth of a Salesman, and Cold Comfort. Containing the same cast, all three films haven't been screened in the UK in over forty years." Paul 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jewish

He is Jewish, you should add that to the article.--80.230.16.39 14:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's already there! The opening paragraph of the Biography section tells us his mother was Jewish and that would make him Jewish too wouldn't it? I think there would need to be some evidence that he was a practising Jew (I have never heard that he was) to justify saying anything stronger than that.

Biography

"His portrayal (or caricature) of Asian characters though, here and elsewhere, has caused some controversy in recent years."

Where's here? Why?

I imagine that "here" refers to the role he played in The Millionairess. This role and others like that in The Party passed without comment in their day. It is now considered unacceptable for white European actors to portray black and Asian characters, however "controversy" is putting it a little stongly.

For what is worth, during a visit to Bombay in 1981 I noticed a giant billboard advertising The Party. My Indian host told me this was a favourite film and had been running for years. 193.164.126.35 18:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC) Graeme

At least one of the Peter Sellers biographies I've read indicates that his portrayal of characters of different ethnic and cultural backgrounds was commonly respected by members of those groups, consider to be comedic while respectful. If there's any controversy, I'd think it'd be more about people of one race or culture portraying one in another, not Peter Sellers in particular. Aetern Null 10:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Muppets!

Can someone replace the lead photo with a better one please? I've got nothing against the Muppets, but its a very poor picture to introduce an article that's supposed to be about Sellers. JW 22:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Wanda Jackson?

From the Marriages section:

• Actress Anne Howe (1951–1961). This marriage ended after she claimed he was having affairs with Wanda Jackson and Sophia Loren.

Wanda Jackson the rockabilly singer? Really? Perodicticus 13:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That quote has been removed, probably because it could not be sourced. Sellers did make a couple of records with Sophia Loren around that time. Wanda Jackson was dating Wendell Goodman at that time, after having dated Elvis Presley for a while, so it is unlikely that she would be having an affair with Sellers. It could be speculated that Howe herself was having an affair, but as Sellers already had a reputation, she put the blame on him. --JHvW (talk) 17:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the use of this sentence?

From the article:

"Late in life, Sellers became a source of tedium for continuously visiting his aunt in the small civil parish, Clayton, West Yorkshire."

Besides having no citation to support it, the point of including such a sentence makes no sense and seems more likely to be an act of vandalism. I'll remove it, in the next few days, unless the writer can state reasons to do otherwise. W.C. 13:01, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you see any citations of this page? Cls14 22:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Biography

It strikes me this section is too unstructured. I would think that "Marriages" and "Premature death" should be subsections of Biography (compare eqivalent article of Spike Milligan, for example). Given the volume of his output, his radio & film career details may also need to be more clearly laid out rather than presented as one continuous passage of prose. (Perhaps they should be listed under a separate section entitled "Career" or "Radio and film appearances" or something similar?)

More on his radio career is also needed, incidentally - The Goon Show really was a seminal programme of its time and Sellers was instrumental in its' style and success with his versatile vocal performances and quick wit. - HTUK 02:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations needed

Really! What an awful article! A lot of it reads like a cheap nasty scandal-rag! It needs some of those prying long-distance paparazzi photos to set it off to perfection!

None of the sentences that describe Sellers as "cruel", as hitting people or having affairs cite their sources. An encyclopedia can't make claims like "for instance....(he was angry when his wife brought a child onto the set). Who says so? How do we know what horrible thing he told his child about the mother? Is the claim relevant to an encyclopedic article? Is the child that is mentioned now an adult who is likely to be cross about being quoted in this way? --Amandajm 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, you're right. It really makes all those unverified rumors sound like the truth. I would remove all of it, unless there are sources for it. By the way, the child, Michael Sellers, died this year at the age of 52. - Yannick Ouwehand 18:12, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
• There are two hardcopy biographies "The Life and Death of Peter Sellers" as well as "Mr Strangelove" (the latter by Ed Sikov) who give ample evidence to the claim that Sellers showed sometimes cruel and violent behaviours towards his wives and children. His son, Michael Sellers, published his experiences with his father (in "PS I love you"), which likewise does not seem to paint him in favourable colours. I have read Mr Strangelove and will try to include this as a reference--those with additional sources are encouraged to chip in. Malljaja 17:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Peter Sellers - A Celebration

This is a book by Adrian Rigelsford: given the information contained here [1] it might be better if wiki didn't direct people to it as a reliable source. Terrypin 12:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Monty Casino ad campaign

I agree that it should be merged in with the Peter Sellers article. But it needs a good bit of clarification, ie. when did barclay's approach peter sellers, when were the adds shot, and more. Jlmerrell 03:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, that may be so, but the bigger problem is that right at the top of the page is a big notice that says an AfD on August 15 found that the content of Monty Casino needs to be merged into Peter Sellers. There isn't really a choice about it. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Mandrake

I'm adding a link to Mandrake to correspond to the link to Merkin. Pittsburgh Poet 23:32, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you did not create a corresponding link. If you had clicked on the show preview button and then clicked on the link that you made you would see that it goes to a disambiguation page. Thus, a meaningless link has been created. You will need to find out, from a verifiable source, which definition of mandrake was being sent up by Kubrick and then create the link properly so that it goes to that page. MarnetteD | Talk 23:42, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Commented You Tube link

Clip is presumably of BBC footage, but the uploader appears not to be one of the official BBC profiles on You Tube. Comments? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

15 August 2007 - AFD merger - Monty Casino

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monty Casino closed to merge Monty Casino into Peter Sellers.

• Comment if this is merged, a DAB page should exist at Monty Casino or Monte Casino. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Muppets and reticence

I added mention of Peter Sellers' interview on the Muppet Show to the section on his professional and personal difficulties. More about the interview is in the section on his films, following from mention of Being There. How about merging these mentions in the first section, or making a new section about his reticence and that movie? That is such an important theme in the Peter Sellers story! --Una Smith (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Recorded a Beatles Album??

Does anyone know if this is the same Peter Sellers that recorded the obscure/rare Bealtes album "English Summer"? Which is alternately known as The Peter Sellers Session. If it is the same Peter Sellers something should be added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.169.226 (talk) 06:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sellers was good friends with both George Martin (he produced several of Sellers' albums) and The Beatles so presumably it is him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.254.51 (talk) 16:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. "English Summer" is a bootleg compilation of Beatles songs (from previous albums), the compilation is reputedly made from recordings given to Peter Sellers by Ringo Starr. There is also "The Peter Sellers Tape" which is a compilation of recording sessions with Peter Sellers talking to the Beatles. It is certain that he parodied some Beatles songs, famous examples being "She loves you", "Help", "A hard days night" and "Can't buy me love". If you want to listen to these you can probably find them on "YouTube" or on a Peter Sellers appreciation website like this one. I am not aware of any album by Peter Sellers containing just Beatles material, if it really exists it would be very rare indeed. --JHvW (talk) 16:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike Mendoza

"He was a cousin of Talksport presenter Mike Mendoza" - not his greatest claim to fame surely? 82.110.248.146 (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Corporal in the RAF?

I think there is no such rank in the Royal Air Force, but what do I know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.205.97 (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rank of corporal in the RAF 21st CENTURY GREENSTUFF 23:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The rank of Corporal in the Royal Air Force can be found here, within NATO the rank is designated NATO Rank Code OR-4. --JHvW (talk) 10:51, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

True Britt

Just to let people know, I found some good stuff on Sellers in Britt Ekland's autobiography and will be adding this in in the next little while. NorthLondoner (talk) 14:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Pic?

Could we add a more flattering picture? This one is rather ugly, and he did not usually look like that. The Doomsday Machine! (Blastoff!) 20:00, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about ugly, the picture shows him as a usual 'matinee idol' but it does seem quite dated. The one of him dressed as Clouseau would be more pertinent to being 'him' (as it were...) , or just a picture without a moustache! 92.24.128.245 (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Books LLC

I've removed the following reference: British People of Portuguese Descent. Books LLC. 24 May 2010. ISBN 1156804485. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_chapter= ignored (|trans-chapter= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: year (link) See: User:Fences and windows/Unreliable sources. °°Playmobilonhishorse (talk) 02:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

January 2011 - TCM star of the month

For fans and those who never got to see him in many films: Peter Sellers is the "Star of the Month" on Turner Classic Movies (TCM). A bunch of the Boulting films have already aired (there should be more about them here - they're great). Looking forward to Being There on the 27th, I think. There's an interesting little interviewlette with Blake Edwards about Sellers that they've been airing intermittently. All the best viewing - think of it as research for this article. Wordreader (talk) 07:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead section paragraph

The last paragraph in the lead seems out of place, as it's not directly related to anything in the article body, and has a cited quote which is almost abstract and without context. The lead should be used as a "summary" of the main article without seemingly off-topic quotations. Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I think the quotes in the section in question should be significantly shortened (the same may be true for some of the quotes in the main entry). However, I do like the "enigmatic figure" segue (in a commentary, Edwards had once called Sellers "The Enigma"), so I would not want to do away with the whole paragraph—it piques the reader's interest, which is what a good lede should do. Malljaja (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Childhood

It says - quite rightly - that Sellers was born in Southsea, Hants., but it does not explain his life in between being born in Southsea, and being schooled in London. Does anyone have any information on this period of his life? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.118.137 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Great great grandson of Daniel Mendoza OR his first cousin Mordecai Mendoza

I am a family historian who can prove through census and bmd data that Peter Sellers is the great great grandson of Daniel Mendoza's first cousin Mordecai Mendoza. The Peter Sellers biography on this website uses the biography by Roger Lewis as an alleged ‘reliable source’ (even though Roger does not reference his source) that supposedly claims that Peter Sellers is the great great grandson of Daniel Mendoza.

I personally have nothing to gain in this dispute because I am a descendant of Daniel Mendoza and therefore would have more to gain in proving that the Roger Lewis’ claim was the correct one. But as a family historian my desire is simply to restore the truth.

Does anyone know of a reliable source to verify that Peter Sellers is the great great grandson of Daniel’s cousin Mordecai? (British National archival records are simply not good enough apparently).

Thanks

Thanks for coming here and explaining this important issue. I have no reason to doubt your research, but you will indeed need to provide some supporting source, because even if you include this new angle on Sellers' ancestry, without a proper citation it's likely to be deleted or altered further down the road. A British National Archive Census record maybe very useful; however, the links you included did not contain any retrievable info on Sellers or his relatives. I do not have any other sources at hand, so unless you can find some workable links, let's hope that someone else some good pointers or citations to resolve this. I'd like to urge you to explain your future edits briefly in the edit summary, which helps develop some communication and trust with other contributors. Many thanks for your efforts and for your explanation. Malljaja (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Sellers bio by Ed Sikov has some more details. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Malljaja,

I noticed that the edits I made were undone again last night – and as this gave the appearance of being your final say on the matter - I thought it best to consult with mediation who provided sound advice.

I have since noticed that these edits were reverted again this morning - which has left me puzzled but very grateful indeed. I am aware that as you have not yet provided your final research decision (after consulting Sikov) that this might again change.

Also I have since received feedback from (and have provided more reference source information to) another editor, who has since modified my reference on the Daniel Mendoza page. In view of this more professional style of referencing, I have (in the interim) modified the referencing on the Peter Sellers page accordingly to match and maintain the professional look of Wikepedia referencing.

Regards

Pheadirean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 23:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Pheadirean, just to clarify, I did not revert your most recent edits — the reversion was done by an anonymous IP contributor, and I reverted it back to your version, as it now has an authoritative citation. As for what I view an uncertainty regarding Peter Sellers' ancestry, it is not unlikely that future contributors may re-insert the alternative ancestry scenario (i.e. that PS is the great-great grandson of D Mendoza), not because it may or may not be correct, but because this ancestry has been proposed by authors of Sellers' biographies like Ed Sikov. Therefore, should this happen, please be open for further discussion, bearing in mind that many such changes are done in good faith by individuals who may not have resources at their disposal to do an in-depth genealogy. I look forward to your future contributions and discussions. Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Malljaja

Thank you for taking the time to explain everthing to me - I feel I now have a better understanding of how Wikipedia works. Thanks again.

Kind regards

Pheadirean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 21:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The book Peter Sellers, by Alexander Walker (1981) seems to be a very credible source. It was written in collaboration with his last wife, Lynne, and included interviews with "scores" of his friends and acquaintances. I'll revise some of the text for consistency with that book and the other bios. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikiwatcher1, I notice that you've reverted the section about Sellers' ancestry again. To me the question now arises whether Alexander Walker really does make a compelling case that PS was the great-great grandson of Daniel Mendoza. You say that it "seems to be a very credible source"—could you qualify this a bit more? Did Mr Walker look up old family records, or did he solely follow Sellers' suggestion that he and D Mendoza were related by direct lineage? Sellers had a penchant for embellishing himself, so I would not put it past him that he made his blood relation with his family idol more direct than it was. It could be an interesting facet of Sellers' life, and worthwhile to explore the literature to see whether some evidence for this could be found there. For now I'd again suggest to change the section in question to say that some biographers believe that Sellers is a direct descendant of Mendoza, whereas family records indicate that they are only distant cousins. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've just did a Google Books search (which I should have done earlier), and when I search for "Peter Sellers" and "Daniel Mendoza" I get about a hundred results; searching for "Peter Sellers" and "Mordecai Mendoza" returns just one (1) match. This sole match is the "British People of Portuguese Descent" book, which is published by "Books LLC" and contains content pulled verbatim from Wikipedia articles—so we're dealing with a circular link here. "Mordecai" could conceivably have alternative spellings, but I do not want to embark on a wild goose chase at this point. Pheadirean, you will need to find an extremely credible and persuasive source that not only shows that Sellers great-great grandfather was a Mordecai Mendoza, but also rigorously debunks a lineage proposed by nearly 100 other sources. I take your word for it that your research has determined this alternative line of descent, but we cannot include it here as it would violate WP's no original research pillar. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I was also noting similar details but your conclusion is logical. BTW, the TV documentary "The Unknown Peter Sellers" has Alexander Walker discussing Sellers throughout and during the very beginning of the clip. His main biographers, Lewis, Walker, and Sikov all spend many pages discussing the same lineage to Daniel Mendoza. I trimmed the other family names and their birth-death dates as they seemed to give too much emphasis on his family tree. It's also interesting that one of the citations in the article states that "Sellers wanted more than anything else . . . to play the role of Chance" in Being There. Lewis speculates why: Who is Chance? Where has he come from? The reason Chance will make a good President of the United States is that he has no family background; there is no hidden past to be revealed which might ruin him. (His is like a virgin birth—and he walks on water in the last scene.) Sellers himself could see that ancestors . . . need to come and go if you are going to get born. So IMO, I don't think Sellers would have wanted all those ancestral dates listed. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Wikiwatcher1, thanks for your input and work on this entry. But I believe you removed the recently added contentious ancestry for the wrong reasons. Your explanation that "I don't think Sellers would have wanted all those ancestral dates listed" is in my opinion not a valid one. Our job is not to guess what Sellers would have or would not have wanted, our job is to include any available information that is backed by verifiable sources to make this entry as comprehensive as possible. Besides, if Sellers had the opportunity to take issue, the section on his ancestry would probably be the least of his concerns.Malljaja (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course. That POV comment was a slightly tongue-in-cheek conclusion from his role as "Chance the gardener." It was for Talk only. I gave the reason for trimming the dates that they "give too much emphasis on his family tree," which still seems reasonable, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Malljaja

First, I apologize for my message – I have now deleted it and the one relating to my reference. I am a family historian who keeps all my records in a filing cabinet - I am not a ‘Wikipedia’ or other website expert. Please know that I made no attempt to deceive with my reference as I believed it to be a genuine source, and I had no idea what a ‘circular link’ was. I could be accused of being ignorant of such matters, but never dishonest.

I have found another source called ‘Jewish Roots’ which includes ancestry for Richard Henry Sellers which shows his great great grandparents and earlier ancestors, and also includes links to Daniel Mendoza;

http://www.whippfamily.co.uk/FH%20Website3/fam629.html

In order to determine if this is a ‘source’ - someone would have to go to this webpage and click on Peter Sellers’ parents and continue to click on each set of parents (a total of three times) to locate Peter’s great great grandparents - Mordecai Mendoza and Zipporah Levy. There are sources /references listed on this website for this ancestral information. The main source /reference is also used regularly on a show on the BBC called ‘Who do you think you are?’ (also recorded on Wikipedia).

Again I provide this source ‘in good faith’, however due to my recent rebukes I believe that it will either simply be dismissed or theorized away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 08:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and for finally providing a workable link. I can follow Sellers' ancestry no problem, and I agree with you that according to this site Sellers' great-great grandfather is Mordecai Mendoza. That's good (and interesting) news. The not so good news is that this website may lack some authority, as it appears to be a private genealogy website (though I hasten to add that I do not mean to say that its genealogy is incorrect—rather it may not be an acceptable source here). Another problem I see is that one cannot track Sellers' ancestry at a glance, but rather has to click through the entries, which requires some prior knowledge (such as that Welcome Mendoza was his grandmother). A family tree, published by a reliable source would be the best solution. The real sticking point, however, is that all well-known authors of Sellers' bios have indicated that he is directly related to Daniel Mendoza. As I explained in my earlier post, WP is not a primary source of knowledge, it is a secondary source that relates knowledge gleaned from reputable sources, including published biographies. Biographers do make mistakes or may even embellish their subjects, and your own research seems to have unearthed a possible lapse on their part. But to make a strong case that the Mordecai-Sellers relation has some credence you will need to use a primary source, since WP does not allow original research. This is not to dismiss or theorise away your sources, this is just to describe what you are up against at this point. Again, WP entries are always in flux, and even if you succeed in inserting this newly discovered lineage now, it may be deleted again tomorrow, in a month or a year, unless you can provide a very solid reference that will help other editors to make a quick call whether or not the claim holds up. So my suggestion is to scour some WP entries that deal with genealogies to see what references are commonly used there, and whether you can find a similar one for Sellers. I have a good sense of what you're going through, and I find your new finding very intriguing, and the sole reason for being a pain in the rear about this is to make sure that we can bring this to a workable conclusion. By trying to tackle this somewhat complex issue in the absence of a good working knowledge of WP etiquette and requirements, you've quickly found yourself in a bit of a malaise. Talk about jumping into the deep end... Malljaja (talk) 16:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malljaja

Thank you for your detailed response. I found another source which links Peter Sellers back to his great grand parents Israel Mendoza and Elizabeth (aka Elizabeth Samuel and Betsy Leser, and hebrew names) which links the Sellers biography as a reference. I find it curious that the 'alleged' link to Daniel Mendoza is not present. Also not one of these 15 children either in the following or previous genealogical links I have provided bares the name Daniel. Please see link below and all refs on same page.

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jbkeene&id=I4017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Malljaja

At your suggestion, I have researched genealogical based articles on Wikipedia and have found a Wikipedia irony.

Under the following Wikipedia article on Sephardi Jews, it states that in Sephardi tradition the first born son is named after the paternal grandfather, so if Israel Mendoza is linked in Roger Lewis’ biography as the great grandfather of Peter Sellers, and Israel’s first born son is called Mordecai, (Mark is Anglo name for Mordecai - and my earlier Rootsweb link includes both Hebrew and Anglo names) then the natural conclusion that can be drawn is that Mordecai Mendoza must be the great great grandfather of Peter Sellers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sephardi_Jews

Is it therefore possible that the Roger Lewis biographical reference to Israel Mendoza, my reference to Rootsweb, and any reference to Sephardic Jewish naming traditions, could be deemed credible sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 01:27, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

My short answer is probably not. You've structured these references to support this new-found ancestry, but none of these references seem to spell out clearly and directly that Peter Sellers is the great-great grandson of Mordecai Mendoza. That's the challenge here. Again, after looking at the family websites I concur that Sellers was probably not related to Daniel Mendoza in a direct line, but so far we have not found a primary source that states it that way and that can be included here. My preference would be to qualify the Daniel Mendoza link such that there is an uncertainty regarding their relation—this takes gives due weight to his biographers who may have erred on this point. But I'm unsure how to do that without getting in hot water. I'd like to invite others who may be following this discussion to voice their opinions, or else seek input externally, ie. at an appropriate notice board. I'm tied up right now, but if nothing happens in the meantime, I'll try to get to this in a few days. Thanks. Malljaja (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Dear Malljaja

While this issue is mulled over, I would like to provide information that sheds some doubt on one of Peter Sellers’ biographies. On page 5 of Sikov’s biography ‘Mr Strangelove’, the author refers to Welcome Mendoza’s parents Isaac and “a woman named Lesser”. My references identify Welcome’s parents as ‘Israel’ Mendoza and Betsy ‘Leser’. Betsy Lesser is clearly cited as Welcome’s mother, however I believe I can shed some doubt on Daniel’s son Isaac as being Welcome’s father (as claimed by Sikov).

To do this, I wish to submit the following reference from Professor Lucy Frost and Professor Susan Ballyn, both Australian convict historians. This reference clearly places Daniel’s son Isaac Mendoza in Australia at the time of Welcome’s birth in 1855 in England. The reference (fortunately in link form) comes from Chapter 10 in ‘A few from afar: Sephardi convicts in Tasmania from 1804’ (dated 2003)(page 77 and endnotes page 247).

http://eprints.utas.edu.au/6428/1/Sephardi_convicts_in_Van_Diemens_La.pdf

I have also included links to the biographies of authors citing their credentials as both Australian convict historians.

http://fcms.its.utas.edu.au/arts/english/pagedetails.asp?lpersonId=2297

http://iccs.arts.utas.edu.au/ballyn.html

I have also found an earlier 6 page article from Brazil by Professor Faingold (dated 1995) about Daniel Mendoza and his descendants that discusses what they call the ‘Welcome Mendoza enigma’ (5th and 6th pages) explaining that the two versions of her parentage should be open to scrutiny. Please note that this article is in both English and Portuguese.

http://www.reuvenfaingold.com/artigos/mendoza.pdf

Please consider such elements of doubt when considering this issue.

I would keenly welcome any thoughts on these references.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 22:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC) 

Pheadirean, thanks for this additional information. However, I do not feel that they add compelling evidence for your preferred ancestry—in fact the article by Faingold indicates the same ancestry as by Sikov et al. The brief section on the "Welcome Mendoza enigma" is very speculative, and the whereabouts of Isaac Mendoza also do not help much, and again, this last reference may only indirectly support your claims. Your research has uncovered a number of interesting facets of Sellers' ancestry, but it is your research, not research that has been published. Therefore, before continuing this discussion I urge you to familiarise yourself thoroughly with WP's no original research policies. In addition, this article has some useful advice for researchers wanting to contribute to WP, which I trust will give you useful insight into how to contribute effectively to WP. Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

IMO, it also seems that his ancestral lineage, while interesting, has little relevance to his notability as a modern day actor. After all, he was not part of a dynasty or royal family, but only distantly related to a prizefighter. So why the extreme effort to prove a link with Daniel or Mordecai? Am I overlooking something? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

You're right of course. I agree that we're seriously in the realm of some orchid research here. However, the Mendoza-Sellers relationship features relatively prominently in some of his bios (and Sellers seems to have referred to his presumed ancestor at more than one time), and the recent editor feels quite strongly about this, so I do feel it deserves some attention. And what more fun can there be than chasing wild geese... Though I feel this should be wrapped soon. Malljaja (talk) 23:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Everyone

The biographical book on Australian Convict history ‘A few from afar: Sephardi convicts in Tasmania from 1804’ edited by Peter and Ann Elias states (ISBN-10: 0646422073)on page 77 that; three of Daniel Mendoza’s children including Isaac Mendoza were convicts in Australia. [And yes this is a 'PUBLISHED BOOK' - has been sold on Amazon just like Sikov's book] This in effect disputes the claim by Sikov (who stated in his book that Isaac Mendoza was great grandfather of Peter Sellers) as Isaac Mendoza was clearly in Australia at the time of Welcome Mendoza's birth. If both books are effectively biographical works then how is one classed as ‘original research’ while the other isn’t? Surely this book casts doubt on Sikov’s claims in his biography!

I thought to include original research would be to provide a link to Victorian Records for Births Deaths and Marriages which houses the following death record for Isaac Mendoza -

Surname: MENDOZA

Given Names: Isaac

Event: Death

Father: Daniel MENDOZA

Mother: Esther MENDOZA

Age: 73

Sex: Male

Birth Place: London, England

Death Place: Benevolent Asylum, Hotham North, Melbourne, Australia

Cause: Serous Apoplexy

Date: 23 October 1881

Reg Number: 7763

It appears that Wikipedia is not as interested in this type of information as I thought. Perhaps it was unwise to encourage me to seek more sources. Thank you for your time.

Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pheadirean (talk • contribs) 07:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, Gentlepersons:

I'm not a Peter Sellers expert, but I do know something about genealogy. A proponderance of claims does not mean the same thing as the proponderance of truths. In my background, there are many, many online references to a "Hattie Lord", who would have been a direct ancestor of mine. Unfortunately, she never existed - she was an early 20th century invention in a Lord family genealogy book. The woman in her place (my 7th-greatgrandmother) remains unknown. So, although it may feel like you're trying to hold back a hurricane with a bumbershoot, stick to what you know is true, but be open to new-found facts. If you haven't yet done so, Pheadirean, check the PERSI catalog. It lists all known articles published in scholarly genealogical journals. Perhaps you'll find an article on this family. Some genealogists specialize in researching the famous, so maybe somebody has already done Peter Sellers. Alternately, if you have the required research and some patience, perhaps you can get an article published in an appropriate journal. That won't help you here (creates a conflict), but it will allow other WP editors to cite your researched article, published in a prestigious journal, as a source.

I agree that your background shapes your future, just like it must have with Sellers. If this article is meant as a biography and his background was significant to Sellers, then the background is relavent. If the article is only about his career and films, then maybe not.

[PERSI = PERiodical Source Index. It's written and maintained by the Allen County (Indiana) Public Library - ACPL has an enormous collection of genealogical journals. The most current version of PERSI is available online at HeritageQuest (ask your research librarian how to access it). There's a version on Ancestry.com that's about 4 years old or so. It's also available on CD - your local library or historical/genealogical society may have a copy. You may be able to find a version at your local Family History Center (at your local Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints branch, the Mormons).

All the best, Wordreader (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Personal life trivia

The Personal life sections seem to have become overloaded with trivia, much of it so petty that even a supermarket tabloid would not pay a dime for it. I was starting to add some examples, but quickly realized I'd be rewriting most of the material, and I hate typing. Does anyone else feel that some of this should be condensed and rephrased, at least enough for a tabloid to use? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I guess you are referring to Peter Sellers#Personal life where we learn about arguments with actors and substance abuse and more. While much of it is trivial, a quick scan of the section did not show much that obviously should be removed. The items are not presented in a properly encyclopedic manner, but they are probably significant in his life. I imagine any bio of Sellers would spend significant time on each of the points. Johnuniq (talk) 00:41, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

One example that needs work would be the "Substance abuse" section. Starting the section with "It has been suggested that . . .", and then speculating later that "some behaviour may have been exacerbated by substance abuse" is a problem. Who suggested, who speculates on his behaviour? This is not to doubt that he took drugs, stars typically do, but it reads like original research. The source, without page numbers at least, and quotes and attribution ideally, is of little help here. An article should not carelessly label a person as a drug abuser without clear reliable sources.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, and the stuff about "his frail psyche" needs to go as, even if attributed, it is just speculation and not encyclopedic. However, it is probably true (from a bio I read) that the substance abuse was over the top even by the standards of stars. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's amazing that if he was "over the top," he was able to act the opposite of what we'd expect. Consider the Time cover came out just a few months before he died, showing his "straight" characters, and he played "Chance the gardener" a year earlier. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I took out the "frail psyche" bit and adjusted the wording to more neutral so to not second guess his behaviours. I do feel though that his various difficulties with drugs and relationships deserve some more detailed mention—he is surely not alone in taking drugs and engaging in selfish behaviour, but some of his traits are going beyond being mere peccadilloes and are well documented. Having said this, the "Substance abuse" section should be moved further down. Malljaja (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Before reading this talk page I had just removed most of the substance abuse section as it had no source and "see below" does not help the reader. -84user (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

That's reasonable although I am confident someone sufficiently motivated could find reasonable sources for some of the removed text. The "may or may not" is a bit of shocker, and should be removed if no one clarifies soon. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Good points all. I've rephrased, shortened, and moved the new "Difficulties" section and included more detailed refs drawing on Sikov's bio, and clarified the unresolved question about Sellers' relationship with Sophia Loren.Malljaja (talk) 15:46, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

The improvements are good. However I am again removing this unsourced text: "It is believed that his drug use, especially amyl nitrites, contributed to heart attacks in 1964 (see below)." -84user (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Mendoza

I appreciate that this was discussed at length above, but all without a final landing. I hope no one minds, but I've tweaked this a bit to show the lack of certainty. There are a awful lot of very good references that say Agnes was his grand daughter, and very little that says cousin, 3 times removed—and the reference we have to the latter is hardly a solid and reliable one (and it should probably be struck out for being WP:NRS! - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Filmography etc

It strikes me that the "Works" section is now fairly large (partly, I'll admit, because of the extra info I've put in there recently)! To ensure we get a decent balance in the article I've moved it to Peter Sellers on stage, screen and record, with a hatnote at the beginning of his career pointing that way: it makes the article easier to read and navigate through and ensures that the increasing number of tables etc is kept in one place. I hope this is OK with everyone, but please let me know otherwise! - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:22, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Excellent choice! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It is in no way copied from the Stanley Holloway set-up... honest guv! ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol, my rates are fairly reasonable. I hear this is a great service! -- Cassianto^Talk 19:52, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added a Filmography heading for readers looking for that in the table of contents. And, please be sure to give an explanation in edit summary especially when making such a huge deletion. Otherwise, good job. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

References & Article development

As I'm sure you'll have noticed, I've been scratching around updating a few of the refs over the past few days, trying to get them into the same format, getting rid of a few copyvios along the way and trying to ensure that all the sources used fall into the WP:RS bracket. I am hoping to help develop this article further over the next month or so, with the aim of getting it to the GA status I think Sellers deserves.

The one thing that sticks out for me in terms of the referencing is the use of the {{rp|xxx}} template for the Sikov (and Walker) works. I'm not sure who has done the work in putting the refs in, and I appreciate the reasons behind it, but would anyone mind if I changed them to be the straight sfn—{{sfn|Sikov|2002|p=xxx}}—format? The reasons behind it are fairly straightforward: the system has not been used consistently so we currently have the following footnotes:

2.^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w Sikov, Ed (2002). Mr. Strangelove: a biography of Peter Sellers. Pan MacMillan. ISBN 0-283-07297-0.

19.^ Sikov 2002, p. 352.

23.^ Sikov, Mr. Strangelove: A Biography of Peter Sellers, p. 172.

24.^ Sikov, p. 206.

28.^ Sikov, p. 146

Added to that, there are a number of the citations that do not have the {{rp|xxx}} template in place and so a page number is not known (refs a, c, e and f, for example).I know all these points could just be tidied up, but if there are 3 or 4 works which are referenced in such a way, then the result becomes very messy. Added to that, having the sfn system working throughout will add another layer of consistency and ensure a GA reviewer does not object too much.

I'm away for a week (30 June-7 July), but I'd be happy to chat about it further when I return, unless no-one objects! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello Schrodinger's Cat, very nice work on the entry and I salute your idea to get it to GA. I confess that I put a lot of the Sikov refs in (probably not all of them though), and I did neglect to include the page numbers in many cases — those were the simple days way back when, when one could still do that... I've become severely hamstrung in my ability to allocate enough time for substantive WP contributions, but I'll see what I can do. The Sikov book is on Google books, which may provide me with a better tool than leafing through by paper copy to locate the missing page numbers for filling in the page numbers with the use of of the sfn template. All the best, Malljaja (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2012 (UTC).

Hi Malljaja, Your efforts on the article are fantastic—and hugely appreciated too! I'm going to put in most of the spade work when I get back from holiday (and I manage to finish off reading Sikov), but the Google books version is much easier to work from for something like this. I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 21:35, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Either cite format is OK with me also. Maybe a list of what improvements are needed for GA would help. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi WW, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - a brief holiday intervened! I think the article is broadly OK, but it doesn't hang together well at the moment—I think because of the alterations of passing editors. The overall structure is also broadly OK, although we need a few tweaks ("Acting technique and preparation" is in the middle of the chronological run through of his life, for example). I suggest that most of what is already there remains and the following structure is used (please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion!)

1 Early life

1.1 Schooling

1.2 Early stage experience

2 World War II

3 Early career

3.1 The Goon Show

4 Film career

5 Acting technique and preparation

6 Personal life

6.1 Relationships

6.1.1 With parents

6.1.2 Marriages

6.2 Health problems

7 Death (and aftermath?)

8 Legacy and influence

9 Works

9.1 Radio broadcasts

9.2 Filmography

9.3 Television

9.4 Discography

As you can see, I've left out the focus on the four films in the film career, partly because with over fifty films to his name a reviewer will ask why these have been highlighted. A look at some of the GA and FA biographies do not show a similar focus on individual works. I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I like most of your changes which seems to help unify the article, especially the consistent cite formatting. But I'm not sure that abbreviating sections covering some of his leading films would be a good idea at this point, mainly because it could shift the bio to a focus on his "personal life" sections. As it is now, the numerous "personal life" sections and subsections are over 50% of the length of his "career"-related sections, which puts emphasis on his personal life and problems. His notability rests entirely on his career as an "actor and comedian," as stated in the lead, with his "personal life" mentioned there in a balanced way. This isn't in reference to FA issues, since I don't know that much about their criteria for balancing those areas in actor bios. I've always seen actors' "personal life" details, like their natural wealth-related eccentricities, and even their politics, as more relevant for keeping tabloids in business, than to give people valuable details about their careers.

As for the film sections, the ones given are among his most significant career-related ones, and the material included is mostly bio related, as opposed to details about the film itself which belongs in the film's article. Stanley Kubrick, although not FA, is centered around his career along with numerous bio-related film sections. His "personal life," while also detailed, is relatively much smaller than Sellers', but is also written in a way that connects his "personal life" and "career" as director, rather than splitting them up. So, FWIW, I'd leave the film sections but would lean to shortening "personal life" material. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I can certainly share your concerns around the focus on his private life and the current section is, I think, a shade too long. Having said that, his personality and behaviour is an important part of the overall picture. Just to clarify, I'm not talking about reducing the film information, it will probably increase: I'm talking about trying to ensure that the film section (and probable sub-sections) reflect his full career and range.

I like the focus provided in such articles as Stanley Holloway, or even Noël Coward and think that they have a good balance, which is to say that their professional works are well-covered by the article. I think what would be as important as trimming down the salacious side is to build up the film and radio side a little more. It may mean not having sections dedicated to specific films, but certainly to periods of his life and would ensure that his professional side was more complete than it is now. I've tweaked the framework slightly to try and show the emphasis a little more clearly. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section and this is now actually smaller than the previous version and a lot tighter than it was: I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before, but with the main points adequately addressed. The only thing I might change it to re-write the marriages section to put it into prose instead of the list format, as I think it would be more suitable. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The changes are all good, with the sections much more balanced. I recently watched Being There again, and it's funnier each time I see it. I think you've improved his bio quite a bit - thanks. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sellers' Personal life is part of his biography

I think creating a section for "Biography" and another for "Personal life" is strange, implying they are separate and distinct. Most people would assume his relationships, parents, marriages, health, and death are part of his biography. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right about the section regarding his marriages and his death, and I'll incorporate those into the main bulk of the bio when I get down to there. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with WW. The article will run in chrono order eventually. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The previous sections were set out under the premise that the article itself was a biography. Besides removing his "Personal life" from his bio, the section "Acting technique and preparation" is also no longer a part of his biography. However, since his notability is based on his being an "actor," removing that section also seems to confuse the natural order. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really: an examination of someone's professional technique can be looked at outside the scope of a chronology without too much of a stretch otherwise its impact is dissipated and diluted by being spread through an article. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

His influence on other stars worth finding?

Considering his unique style of acting, he obviously influenced others besides Sacha Baron Cohen. And since so much editing is being done to improve the details of his life, death, and legacy, some research into that subject would be valuable and interesting. According to SchroCat, he influenced others including "Steve Martin, Month Python, Peter Cooke Dudley Moore, etc etc." That might be enough for a small section. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I beefed up the section "Legacy and influence" earlier today to include a number of others and added a selection to the lead as well. I know there are others (Martin called him "the Maestro", or "the Master", I can't quite recall, but I can't find his quote anywhere now. Any more that can be found and added, especially those who had an international impact (such as Monty Python, Spinal Tap etc) would be great. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 22:22, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Structure - 1960s

WW I've reverted your attempt to sub-divide. Unfortunately your edits left a completely confusing and misleading structure in place, with the various sub-sections dealing not with the one film they signpost, but multiple films and info about the private life. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

1980s WP:OR issue

Reference added from Lewis -- Cassianto^Talk 17:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Singles released in character as Major Bloodnok?

I think there were Goon Show recordings released where Peter Sellers was singing in character as Major Blooknok. The one I see referenced online (and I believe referenced IN the Goon Show at least one time) was called "Bloodnok's Rock'n'Roll Call." I was surprised not see it as a part of the Seller's discography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.88.87.242 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 13 October 2010

An answer, some 18 months late. "Bloodnok's Rock'n'Roll Call" was released under the Goons name, not under Sellers as an individual artiste. (Just fyi, it was released in September 1956 and reached number 3 in the UK singles chart). - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Images

Hmm. On another note, something that would cause some potential problems for article advancement is the heavy use of FU images. I've found that in general, there is a movement to get rid of those whenever possible. And the images:

• File:Dr. Strangelove - Group Captain Lionel Mandrake.png
• File:Dr. Strangelove - President Merkin Muffley.png
• File:Dr. Strangelove.png
• File:Petersellers.jpg

have some mighty "shady" claims to being public domain images over on the Commons, and really should also have FU rationales. Does anyone seriously believe that the Dr. Strangelove images are not copyrighted, and were published without copyright notice? And the Petersellers.jpg seems to cite itself as the source for the image - not good. Doc talk 09:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Those images were published in the US between 1923 and 1963 and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. They are, therefore, free to use. They've been on WikiCommons for a couple of years and no-one has challenged that tag (which would certainly have happened in that time. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:53, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The source of the images is the "Dr. Strangelove trailer from 40th Anniversary Special Edition DVD, 2004". Do you think that, possibly, the copyright was "renewed" for that DVD? I do. Just because they've been unchallenged does not mean that they are appropriately tagged. And it really does not look like they are. Doc talk 09:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not a copyright expert, but I think that once the copyright lapsed on images then under certain conditions (having being published elsewhere etc) then those images are deemed in the public domain. As I said, I'm not an expert, but if you think there is a problem then why don't you tag the images and see what happens? - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll consult an expert. I'm not one, but I do know a good deal about it after years of putting up FU images here only to see them removed. At worst, the Strangelove images would be deleted from Commons because they are not actually public domain - but they could still be uploaded here under a FUR. Of course, that would add more FU images to the article, which would further derail article advancement. The trailer is copyrighted, the DVD is copyrighted, and I don't believe the copyright ever lapsed on this film (or images derived from it). It happened to films like Night of the Living Dead and Carnival of Souls, e.g., but I very seriously doubt that it happened to this film. I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade, but the image issue alone will cause most reviewers to turn their back on advancing the article way before an cluttered infobox will. Doc talk 10:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure you're right, especially about the trailer—see these guidelines which suggest a large loophole, which is probably how they were put onto commons in the first place. As I said, if you think otherwise, tag them and see what happens. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:18, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't just tag them willy-nilly. I'lll probably ask Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) her opinion, as she is the copyright expert. If the 2004 DVD is a copyrighted work, and I'm quite sure that it is, then all parts of it are copyrighted. This would include the trailer that came from the DVD: and since the source of the images is that copyrighted DVD, this is why I would doubt that the images taken from it are actually public domain. Doc talk 10:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

See the guidelines I linked to in the earlier posting, which explains why the trailers are probably not copyrighted. A number of companies didn't realise that the trailer is a separate film and didn't copyright it in the US, so while the films may be validly copyrighted, the copyright on the trailers lapsed. - SchroCat (^ • @) 10:31, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Hopefully you're right. This leaves the fourth image, sourced to Wikipedia from an "unknown" author. The caption in the article notes that the film was from 1964, and the article on the film says it began filming in 1963, so the image date of "circa 1960" is very dubious as well. You've done some Commons work, and I'm sure you know that we don't list ourselves as sources for images. It's very easy to upload an image on Commons and tag it as PD; and others making sure it is PD is a lot more troublesome, but quite necessary. Doc talk 10:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

After no response from the uploader concerning the provenance of the image, I have nominated File:Petersellers.jpg for deletion on the Commons. It's not because I don't think it's an excellent image (it is): it's because permission, source and date are all insufficient to establish true PD status, IMHO. This is a great candidate for a FUR image here on WP (hint, hint) Doc talk 06:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Shame. I've taken it out as I suspect that it would have been pulled anyway because of the number of images already in the article. There are enough FU images available to use without going too far outside that rationale. There are still three non-FU in there and I think it'll be a struggle to retain them at GAC or FAC. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:33, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sellers' children

On another note, I'm curious about something (this can be made into a separate section if need be). Peter Sellers was a very funny and talented man, but I have read that he was a lousy father to his children. Not only did he leave them a measly £800 apiece, I had read that he was physically and emotionally abusive. Articles like this and this come to mind, and there are more. Shouldn't there be some mention of at least the accusations from his children? I can't find anything at the moment... Doc talk 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doc, He could be a fairly unpleasant individual at times and some of this is shown in the article with the treatment of his wives. In terms of his children, the £800 legacy is in the Death section, but the rest of it is all rather complicated. He had a very complex relationship with his children and their reminiscences (in P.S. I Love You! and Sellers on Sellers) do have some similar anecdotes. Victoria's listed claim about losing her pony is also repeated in a couple of the heavyweight biographies. I could add a couple of such details in, but many of them do come across as whining rich kids! (Victoria complaining 35 years later about her dad taking away her pony, for example. A pony?! How many kids have ever been on a ride on one, let alone owned one!) The darker side of Sellers has already been shown in the article, but I could add in an anecdote or two, about his kids too, if you like? - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:24, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I actually agree. I am currently constructing this which deals with a similar subject (child cruelty). I have made reference to the fact Grimaldi was beaten as a child by his father who was of a similar character to Sellers. I have spoken about it as, later on in life, this cruelty shaped his later life. I have spoken about it, albeit briefly in the "Family background and early years" section. With Sellers, I think this kind of information helps us understand the true character behind the funny performances. -- Cassianto^Talk 17:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

(I hope no-one minds, but I've spolit the conversation.) OK, let me try and work something up this evening that can go in there. I'm not sure whereabouts it will go, but I guess that depends on the anecdote in question. - SchroCat (^ • @) 17:41, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

SchroCat are you litter traying it? Doc, would you suggest a separate section or a chronological entry? -- Cassianto^Talk 21:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a tough call - there's a lot on it out there. Man, he was at least reported to be pretty nasty to his son especially. Sending correspondence such as, "I never want to see you again. I disown you.", and "I no longer wish to be thought of as your father. The time has come for you to continue on your own way. My final suggestion is you change your surname."[2] - ouch! We'll see as it develops, I suppose. Doc talk 21:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added in two three anecdotes about his relations with his children—clearly labelled in the edit summary. Let me know what you both think. I'd be against going into a separate section, as we are not doing so for his relations with anyone else (his wives, other actors, directors etc). Although there is a good argument for having something separate to discuss it, I prefer the approach of the print biographies in showing the personal and private life together, which is how he lived his life. If either of you want a little more added, please let me know. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:23, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Sellers' fraud relationships with his children should be mentioned. IMO, it would be preferable to include brief examples of his behaviour rather than direct quotes, but that's just a preference. I think Sikov's bio and "The life and death of PS" and other authoritative bios would be better sources than newspaper clips. Having said this, it's a little difficult for the reader to locate these details in the large blocks of chronology. So it might be worthwhile breaking some of these out into separate sections for better accessibility, for example, under the heading "Private life". Malljaja (talk) 16:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on most of the discussions recently, maybe your recent edits deciding what "he is best known for," should be rephrased to "known for being a lousy and abusive father who also appeared on BBC radio . . . " It might even warrant mention in the infobox, assuming it's still there after I click "save."

On the other hand, it also occurred to me, as a resident of a colony thousands of miles away across shark-infested seas, who can only get the news weeks later, that what he is apparently "best known for" there was mostly an unknown show over here. Therefore, maybe a few token words recognizing that fact would be helpful, something like, "although some reviewers have also claimed he was very popular in a few other countries as an actor in moving pictures, including talkies." But please don't add that until I'm able to find a cite somewhere. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I'n not sure where you're coming from with this. Are we only to put into articles things for which an individual is notable, or should it be something more encyclopaedic that covers all aspects of Sellers' life? I'll point out that Doc replied to you in the section below and I think I'm right in saying that he is also one of the colonial types... - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Is infobox recommended for this bio?

Hi Musdan77, Sorry for the revert on the infobox, but it's not really a necessary addition, more an impediment. I'm slightly in two minds about them, but I think that here,

1. it gives trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article;
2. it is redundant (by duplicating the lead); and
3. it can become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

I hope you can agree with the move, but please let me know otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with its deletion. IMO, it has no benefit being here and offers very little to the reader. Everything is covered in the lede so it's appearance here is redundant. -- Cassianto^Talk 22:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

First of all, what should have been done is to leave a message here before making such a drastic removal -- with your explanation of why you think it needed to be done. While I see that I'm in the minority, I definitely disagree, and I'm not the only one. Here's a quote from WP:FILMBIO: "ensure that every article biography related to film uses Template:Infobox person and an image if possible. Please try to place the infobox in all film bio articles." And from MOS:INFOBOX "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize key facts in the article in which it appears. The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." And (re: message at my talk page) there are many featured articles that have infoboxes. But, if you insist on not having one, at the very least there should be notice on the editing page so that someone doesn't go through the trouble of adding one. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree, and restored. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, reverting whilst the discussion in place is not a terribly helpful step - whatever the rights or wrongs of deleting prior to a discussion, you should have let the discussion runs its course first. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the discussion was needed before the drastic removal, not after. Consensus is needed for doing something so untraditional to a bio article of a major star, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said above, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the first edit, reverting during a discussion isn't helpful. Regardless of that, do you have any differences with Musdan77's arguments? If not then I'll address them all together. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing, except his explanation of why an infobox is important is too brief. As they said, it "summarizes key facts," for those who aren't interested or have time to read the lead or body. For a large bio, it seems essential. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 16:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a few arguments against the infobox, not least the aesthetic (although I appreciate that is a matter of choice)

1. This article is shaping up well and will go to GAC in the next week or two. After that there is a possibility that it will go to FAC. It will be ripped out by the first reviewer and subsequent editors will agree with that decision
2. The information in the infobox is entirely redundant. Take the date of birth. It is in the article, where it should be as that is where it carries the citation. It's also in the lead (as per WP:OPENPARA) and it's now also in the infobox. Three references to the DoB? It's just overkill. (The same three references also relate to his birthplace, cause of death and year of death)
3. Much of the information is trivial. His list of marriages is duplicated from the article: are they (and the list of children) really needed in the infobox? Does it add anything to our understanding of Sellers? Does his final resting place add anything to our understanding?

Take out the triplicated information and the fluff and we're just left with two pics, one of which (the signature) adds nothing. In terms of your WP:FILMBIO ref, this is a goal of the project, not an absolute requirement. Other projects are already moving away from infoboxes (see WP:Wikiproject Composers#Biographical Infoboxes)

I'll quote from User:Wetman, as he's far more eloquent than I am on this matter: "A box aggressively attracts the marginally literate eye with apparent promises to contain a reductive summary of information; not all information can be so neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance. As a substitute for accuracy and complexity, a box trumps all discourse." - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:25, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Out of the current 41 FA Media biographies (where this would go if it were to make it), all but two make use of the infobox; sometimes with only basic information. So I wouldn't worry about it getting ripped out by a reviewer simply because it's there, unless there's a major movement against infoboxes that I'm unaware of. Taking out parameters that are felt to be redundant/trivial and trimming it might be a better solution than removing the infobox entirely. Just my 2p... Doc talk 08:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The fact it would go into a media section doesn't justify why this needs an info box. Just because others there have one, it doesn't mean Sellers has to conform to this unwritten "media biographies" rule which you quote. -- Cassianto^Talk 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Here here! I quote from WP:DISINFOBOX: "Infoboxes are strictly optional: no policy or guideline either requires or prohibits the inclusion of an infobox on any article. Not every Wikipedia article requires an infobox. In fact, most articles don't. Yes, an infobox can be useful in certain articles, but many of them are just unnecessary repetitions of facts already presented in the article's lead—or worse, an oversimplified mass of disconnected facts devoid of context and nuance. The result: A Wikipedia infested with disinfoboxes that waste space and result in miscommunication, ambiguity, inaccuracy and redundancy." -- everything which this infobox was. -- Cassianto^Talk 09:15, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

That's a nice essay, but the reality is that if you start looking at GA's and FA's, they pretty much all have an infobox, and not just articles on people. I don't think this is going to be a landmark case to reversing that trend. If it helps at all, I culled out the cause of death and resting place, as it's a good place to start. Doc talk 09:20, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

They most certainly do not! Look at some FAs. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc, where are you counting? You state that 99% of leading FA bio's include infoboxes. Not where I looked: here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here. Explain how these gained FA status without having an info box? -- Cassianto^Talk 20:11, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Brilliant, another user who ignores an active discussion and reverts to his/ her own personal preference. --Cassianto^Talk 09:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I find infoboxes to be very helpful. It's one thing that I liked when I first came to WP. It is not strictly redundant. To repeat the purpose: to summarize key facts, allowing readers to identify (those) key facts at a glance. Like it or not, we live in an age when people want info quickly, not having to read through paragraphs to find it. And one thing that is not found in the prose (or in other websites) is the age of the person. The lead has the date of birth and of death, but a lot of people (if not most) don't want to have to do the math. You can call them lazy if you want, but that's the way it is. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

So we keep it solely for the 3% of people who can't read the lead? I didn't think it could be worse than it was, but it's gone even further downhill than it had before:

• "Known for: Impressionism" - who would have thought Sellers was involved in the Parisian-originated 19th and 20th century art movement!
• "Occupation: Actor and comedian on stage, radio and film" Stage? Only a few times–and he hated it
• "Notable work(s)" - missing The Goon Show and I'm Alright Jack
• "Influenced" - Missing most of the comedians from the late 20th C, including Steve Martin, Month Python, Peter Cooke Dudley Moore, etc etc...
• "Awards" - Missing his BAFTA

And it's still good to see people editing and adding whilst the discussion about removing it is still ongoing. - SchroCat (^ • @) 18:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Still an abomonation, and still missing information which does not need sources, including notable works, which BAFTA and, hideously, Impressionism (ouch) . - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What's missing that doesn't need any source. Should we add The Goon Show as a "notable work? The Awards should be expanded, I assume most of the details are here. Also, since the infobox template reads "Known for," what's a better term than "impressionism" that reads well? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this right. Currently, SchroCat is the main editor. It is he who is putting in the effort and time to bring Sellers up to a good standard so it meets the criteria for a higher assessment. I chip in where I can and plan to support SchroCat in getting this article as far as it can go. As far as I can see, no other editor who has taken part in this discussion has made any signicant edits or constructions to Sellers for its quality to be this good so far. We have seen the infobox, have considered it, and have rejected it. We are both aware of the arguments in favor of it discussed above, but we do not see how it improves this article.

My own personal reason for opposing the infobox include the following, among others: All of the important points mentioned, like Peter Sellers dates and occupation, are mentioned very clearly in the first sentence of the article. The information about Sellers cause of death is not important enough for it to be the first thing that readers see. The name of his first wife, and in fact all his wives, and their dates are not, again, important enough to be among the first thing that a reader sees.

The box is very repetitive and does not emphasize the most important and prominent points, which the lead section does brilliantly. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which reduces its quality. The infobox also contains misleading information (for example "Impressionism" (when he wasn't BTW...since deleted as no reliable source was added in line with WP:RS). I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article as it comes accross as complicated and confusing when in the edit summary. Lets get one thing straight: Anyone can edit on WP. Editors are encouraged to improve articles which they do by adopting their own styles, techniques and preferences. Because of this, editors are allowed to add infoboxes if they like them. Similarly, It is also allowable for an editor who dislikes infoboxes to remove them. There is no existing WP policy that states either one should be added or deleted.

As I have said in a previous post, SchroCat and I plan to take this further and if the decision is made to delete the info box by the reviewer at peer review, GAC or even FAC, then we will not be standing in his or her way. It will stay for now as I can't be bothered to argue. There are far more important things to be concentrating on at the moment IMO. -- Cassianto^Talk 01:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the fact that 99% or more of leading bios include an infobox, is relevant. Of course it briefly repeats some details already in the lead, just as the lead repeats details that are in the body, and the body repeats details published elsewhere. The infobox, as explained by WPs MOS helps satisfy everyone.

On your deletion, if you don't like the word "impressionist," then please find a substitute to describe what he is "known for." His Time cover story in 1980 gives a few clues. I don't think "mime" would work. WPs definition of impressionist:

An impressionist or a mimic is a performer whose act consists of imitating the voice and mannerisms of others. The word usually refers to a professional comedian/entertainer who specializes in such performances and has developed a wide repertoire of impressions, including adding to them, often to keep pace with current events.

Prior to the last few weeks of Schro's multiple edits, User:Malljaja and I worked on and watched over the bio the past few years, more than other editors. I'm pretty sure I first added the material from books by Lewis, Sikov, LoBrutto, Dawson, Saunders and Walker, for example. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:19, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Without wanting to sound unhelpful, I am having nothing to do with adding contenet to the infobox other than to delete misleading information from within it. Sellers was not known primarily for his impressions. He played comedic parts in character form, with an emphasis being on race eg. (The Party), (Pink Panther), (Dr. Strangelove) etc. Although he could loosely be described as an impressionist in some form, he certainly wasn't known for it. IMO, Sellers was known for his acting and comic characterisation's over anything else. -- Cassianto^Talk 11:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

[Left] I do not think that the infobox is helpful in this article for the reasons stated at the top of this section by Webdings: Everything in the box is stated more appropriately elsewhere. The most important points mentioned in the box are stated very clearly in the article's WP:LEAD. Other information in the box should not be displayed so prominently, like information about his spouses. Also, the box limits the size of the first photo, which is a good photo. The infobox also has tended to contain errors and misleading information, as mentioned above by Cassianto. I also think that starting the article with the infobox template discourages new editors from editing the article. I would remove it from this article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely support the choice of local editors not to have an infobox without interference. Johnbod (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Also absolutely support the choice of local editors to have or not to have an infobox without interference. Why is such pressure being applied? Wetman (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I concur with the above two comments that the most active editor should be allowed to remove the infobox. I like infoboxes, but I think it is counterproductive to interfere with and sidetrack the dedicated efforts of one contributor to improve this entry, which for too long has languished in mediocrity.Malljaja (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone should define "local editors," now that it's being cloned, to see if it pertains here. The so-called "local editor" has been nonexistent up until a few weeks ago, before which they historically added just two minor spelling changes and a wikilink. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Local editor being SchroCat. It is he who has single handedly turned this article's fortunes around and made it a serious future contender for FAC for which he should be applauded not villified. If you were really bothered about it you would have done the same. -- Cassianto^Talk 20:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

It's wider than that - there are 11 editors with 15 or more edits (not all still active I expect), with Wikiwatcher1 at #3 with 77 certainly counting as one. But consensus (among the locals) seems to be against him, not that I've done a full analysis. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you inaccurately used the word "him," let me add to your quick analysis. User:Musdan77 was the first to argue against the unilateral, undiscussed, "drastic removal," of the infobox. After I restored it for the logical reasons they gave, its restoration was also supported by User:Doc9871. All of this is above in this section.

As for the apparent "consensus among the locals," besides SchroCat, a relatively new editor, and User:Cassianto, who first started editing this bio just 5 minutes after SchroCat, the consensus was to keep it in. Since then, User:Johnbod and User talk:Wetman supported deletion, coincidentally using the exact same verbatim rationale. Later, User:Malljaja supported deletion. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

"The most active editor" (also referred to above as "the main editor") has no special privileges, explicitly and as a matter of policy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes serve as a précis of an article. The vast majority of visitors to any article do not read the article. People are looking for a fact and the obvious ones are what belong in the box. This is also why articles have a TOC; so people can skip right to "1960s", for example. I know, you want them to all read the page. But that's not realistic. People browse the web, they skim, and when something catches their interest, then they might buckle down and read teh brilliant prose. Infoboxes are duplicative of the prose; that's intentional. This is about structure, usability, accessibility, and site design; it's also for metadata; infoboxes generate metadata that things like Google can read (other tools, too). Infoboxes should not be removed from articles merely because some don't like them or the information is repeated in the article. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 10:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

RFC comment: I think that Infobox should stay. Keeping sane amount of data in the infobox should be a separate discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Home survey

It's not necessary to travel over Wikipedia's zillion bios to cherry-pick some some lacking the infobox. Why not just stay here, in this article. Go through the names of people mentioned with links and save time. I barely made it beyond the 1960s section, and the following names with links all have infoboxes. Pull out your calculator and you'll discover that 99% is pretty close for those with infoboxes:

Goon Show

Michael Bentine; Spike Milligan; Harry Secombe;

Influences, friends, associates, costars, etc.

Peter Cook; David Schwimmer; Sacha Baron Cohen; Monty Python; Paul Scofield; Dashiell Hammett; Oscar Rabin; Henry Hall ; David Lodge; Dorothy Squires; Kenneth Horne; Ted Ray; Alfonso Bedoya; Alec Guinness; Herbert Lom; Cecil Parker; Michael Relph; George Martin; Boulting brothers; Terry-Thomas; Mario Fabriz; Leo McKern; Richard Lester; George Bernard Shaw; Sophia Loren; Marcel Pagnol; Stanley Kubrick; James Mason; Shelley Winters; Norman Granz; Peter Ustinov; David Niven; Slim Pickens; Adlai Stevenson II; Harry Kurnitz; Anatole Litvak; William Peter Blatty; Britt Ekland; Billy Wilder; Dean Martin; Kim Novak; Ray Walston; Peter O'Toole; Capucine; Woody Allen; Laurence Olivier; Vittorio De Sica;

Family

Daniel Mendoza ; Dickie Henderson; Michael Sellers (son)

Actually, if anyone can find the few without infoboxes, you get an award! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, this means nothing. The salient points here are that a lot of us think the infobox is reduntent, repetetive, misleading and ugly. So you have listed all of the names within this article who have info boxes. You might also note that most are of a lesser quality. Sellers, I'm sure, will be at FAC before the year is out. I am that confident of it making FA status without an info box that I would be happy to co-nom. Both I and Schrocat dislike infoboxes in bio's and so do the majority of people who have taken part in this discussion. Sellers infobox is, I feel, on borrowed time as the consensus to delete it is almost met. By the way, I had a count up on recent FA's and I bring to your attention the following articles without info boxes; all of which made it through FAC: here, here, here here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here here. By the way, what did happen to Dan Leno in your count up? -- Cassianto^Talk 15:40, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I note you've selectively left off Dan Leno, which is an FA without an infobox. I really can't be bothered to check, but how many of these are FA or GA standard? I still object to the fact that this 8,000 word bio, covering 54 years of the full life of a complex and complicated individual is dumbed down to eight small and misleading points, which is the first thing people see, and the first thing from which people will take a misleading impression. Some of the sections are incomplete or full of WP:POV: all of it gives an incomplete picture of the man. Infoboxes are fine for film or other articles, but not when summarising an indivudual and his life's work. - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is one of those instances where an infobox detracts from an article, misleading some readers into thinking they are reading the salient points in a subject's life. In this case I say the infobox should be deleted. Jack1956 (talk) 10:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

It would be great if there were fewer contradictions in some most of the above statements. The mini-consensus mentions supposed problems with the infobox like, "over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article," and an "abomination." Another claim is that an infobox "does not emphasize the most important and prominent points, which the lead section does brilliantly."

However, to this reader's eye, the reverse may be closer to the truth. Start with just the first paragraph of the so-called lead:

"Richard Henry Sellers, CBE (8 September 1925 – 24 July 1980), known as Peter Sellers, was a British comedian, singer and actor who was perhaps best known as Chief Inspector Clouseau in The Pink Panther series of films. He is also notable for his appearances in the BBC Radio comedy series The Goon Show and for the many comic songs which he performed frequently during his fifty-year career."

It makes him notable first as a "comedian, singer and actor," which is probably the reverse in terms of importance. So much so, that the word "singer" is only mentioned once in the article: in that very sentence. While he was obviously a comedy actor, the lead gives the impression that he was notable first as a comedian, mostly on the BBC (great for British readers,) and ending, incredibly, by emphasizing his notability for "the many comic songs which he performed frequently during his fifty-year career." Now that's an "abomination," IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:26, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Rather than complain about it, reword it. It's no biggie! Your edits on content would be much appreciated. If you see something that is wrong fix it. Simples! I would avoid adding stuff to the INFOBOX though as I wouldn't want you to waste your time. The article is undergoing a major revamp and these problems will be fixed before it goes to GAC. Any points which slip through will, im sure, be ironed out in a peer review anyway. -- Cassianto^Talk 04:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

He was a British star who only made a few, though important, international films; he was always bigger in the UK than the US. His many hit singles with comic songs probably never penetrated there; if these are not covered well in the article then they should be. The order is correct chronologically, and probably reflects how he appears to the British market. I wouldn't object to "actor" going first though. Johnbod (talk) 10:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added singer back in. His records are already covered in the article and the lead now reflects this. - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:40, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

How can I be "nonexistent up until a few weeks ago, before which"? Either I existed before and increased my editing recently, or I was non-existent and pre-edited before I came into existence... Or is this an existential thing, where I really don't exist, except in a parallel wiki-universe? ;) - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:42, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Infobox tweak

I've tweaked the infobox to realign some of the more glaring aspects of WP:POV and to complete the infomation that was lacking. In doing so I have also slimmed down some of the information that is truly superfluous or tangential. This is not an attempt to remove the infobox piecemeal, but to ensure that the infobox is now in line with the overall stated aim of infoboxes: "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose". We are at the point where this article will be listed either for a Peer Review or for GAC and I would rather a level of stability around this matter wehile that takes place. - SchroCat (^ • @) 12:08, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ditto. I removed the "cause of death" because I think this is unimportant. The fact that he is dead is the important part (I have reluctantly left this in place for those editors who cannot flick there eyes to the left). I have also removed the "Notable works" because again, if you blink your eyes to the left you will see them repeated in the lead. -- Cassianto^Talk 12:34, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the cause of death not being needed, but I don't think the awards should necessarily be removed. Doc talk 17:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

More extreme ownership edits

SchroCat, you are continuing to engage in ownership edits with no rationale and no discussion. These are not acceptable. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, I have asked you before not to throw ridiculous accusations around without basis. Your approach to the development of this article is not acceptable. What is it that I have done that you and you alone think is unacceptable? - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I already explained it. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't, until your reversions. Please see the Peer Review for further details. This part is being re-worked and is part of the article's development, based on the review. Do not keep petulently throwing around spurious accusations based purely on your own permanent biases. Everyone else is working together to try and get this article up to its best possible standard and all you have done to date is carp, revert and accuse: you have not done anything constructive in this process at all. - SchroCat (^ • @) 08:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

If you keep up this kind of ownership behavior, I'll take this to ANI. You will need to discuss drastic changes first, regardless of your personal interpretation of a peer reviewer's comments. And you must give a rationale. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Please grow up WW. If it were left up to you, Sellers would have still been languishing in the depths of C class or something. You have showed no interest in helping out; only to hinder. I don't know if you can't understand what we are trying to do or won't understand what we are trying to do. We are making Sellers the best article WP has to offer by getting it listed at FA. Only 1 in 843 articles are given this listing so it's not something that can happen overnight. It takes months. I have taken three articles through the process and have been successful. I know how difficult it can be. An FA is not achievable if we allow it to rot at C class and do silly "added links" or "punct" edit summaries every so often. I think that the big edits we are doing should be an indication to you how bad the article actually was, prior to the PR taking place. If I were you I would sit back and enjoys its progress and be thankful that two editors are willing to donate their time in making Sellers something that very few articles achieve. -- Cassianto^Talk,

One further point WW, stop the petulent accusations. Editors undertaking a major review and inviting outside criticism via a Peer Review prior to the GAC and FAC processes is not ownership. the comment was made about that section in the first review we had. It is being dealt with. Note the tense there "being": it's not finished, it's still being worked on, so your reversions of this, while work is being done are tantamount to vandalism. We don't have to come to Talk first to ask your permission - that is your ownership behaviour - it is a reaction to a comment from an independent peer reviewer. I am going to leave the section as it is for the next few hours whilst I work on working the reminaing information into something more suitable. - SchroCat (^ • @) 09:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Have to agree with Schrodinger's cat & Cassiano, mostly anyway. ANI won't get you anywhere. Johnbod (talk) 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sellers image

WW, Please do not continually accuse other editors of WP:OWN without first looking at the reasons behind actions (ie. I said in the edit summary why it was removed) and without first trying to view from the point of WP:GOODFAITH. The lead image was replaced following advice given here at Peer Review by a known images expert. In relation to that image they had noted "The source link is dead, and I can see no evidence of US publication, let alone US publication without a copyright notice". If the original uploader had archived the link we may have had a chance to point to it and save its free use status, but that now seems unlikely. - SchroCat (^ • @) 05:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I think if you were interested in keeping the more dignified image, you would have first asked me, the uploader, to fix the link or add missing details to comply with PR comments. I'm just a keystroke away. Instead, you speedily replaced it with a clearly inferior one.

I already told the reviewer that whatever problems it appeared to have, they were all fixable. This image was uploaded and carefully reviewed on the Commons back in April, and they felt it met the description. As for the dead link, it looks like the auction house moves their images to an archive each month when they start a new auction. However, their images are still available. The moved link is here, but the image I assume must be requested if they take it offline.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

WW, to be honest I didn't even notice you were the uploader of the image, or I would have done. As to it being "a more dignified image", I'm really not sure about that. The previous was more formmally posed, if that's what you mean, but both images are very good ones of Sellers. The one that is there now is more relaxed, but very, very high quality and WikiCommons are delighted that Allan Warren himself released a number of images to us for use and calling it "a clearly inferior one" is a rather bizzare statement, to say the least! (BTW, The reson that the auction house removed it is because their rights to publish the photo become questionable once the item has passed into someone else's hands). - SchroCat (^ • @) 06:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll also point out that there is a question over the "girl in my soup" picture: "This looks potentially OK, but are we certain that it was published? Also, the link could potentially go dead- perhaps look into archiving it?" Perhaps you could address that, as you are shown as the uploader? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In saying I thought it was "inferior," I was making an extreme understatement. As for the auction house re-publishing a photo of a PD image, the buyer is buying a print, not a copyright, even if it weren't PD. If it had a copyright, the copyright owner would still own the copyright. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: the auction house. It is standard practice for them to remove images (and not sell catalogues after sales etc) because of questionable copyright. If they sold an Old Master, the new owner would also be purchasing the rights to that, so it is removed. Most auction houses therefore routinely remove all information post-sale, even when the copyright question doesn't arise. please could you also comment on the 'Girl in soup' image question? - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

In response to your questions about that image, the answer to both is "yes." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - the FAC review will look closely at both the archiving and copyright/publishing aspect so we need to have it sorted. - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally I'm in favour of the new lead image. Allan Warren is a superb photographer and he has many featured pictures to his name like this for example. Your image was good but interms of clarity, this is far better IMO. If it can be fixed then we can still keep and put it somewhere in the body, as long as it offers something to the article and is relevent. If you want to see it back in the lede then we will have to go to a Rfc. I really do think we should adhere to the reviewer thoughts and comments unless a consensus can be found as a result of the Rfc. Otherwise it will have a detrimental effect on the future at FAC if we choose to ignore. -- Cassianto^Talk 08:56, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead image

Which image is better for this biography, the current one, File:Peter Sellers Allan Warren.jpg, or the previous one, File:Sellers-signed.jpg? 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

As uploader, I confirmed that the auction house source has the original photo of the "previous" image still available on their site, if you enter password and log in at no cost. In fact, they have numerous other publicity photos and personal letters with signatures of Sellers, going back over 12 years that I saw. They already told me via email and phone that, as a business and image source, they are more than happy to provide any additional images or descriptions for WP, including back of photo details, if requested. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor preference comments and choices:

• Previous. It's clearly more dignified for a great British film actor. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You are joking aren't you WW? A third RfC? For a start, as per the peer review, do you have "evidence of US publication, let alone US publication without a copyright notice"? I have no idea if you do or not, but if you do, then you must show it on the image's rationale or it faces being deleted. This practive of WP:OWNership is getting a little out of hand! - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The question should go to Cassianto, above, who said "to see it back in the lede then we will have to go to a Rfc." --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• Current. Should have obviously added that. Apart from the fact that it is less formal (not dignified, but formal) and shows the true man, not a false pose, it is of a higher quality, is free to use and is classed as a Valued Image at WikiCommons. The photographer, is the society-photographer and Wikiuser, Allan warren; there is an article about him Allan Warren. The image you would prefer is of poor quality, has writing on (I know it's Sellers' autograph, but that is an additional copyright nightmare in itself) and is a formal pose, which you could say is not appropriate for an iconoclastic British comedian. - SchroCat (^ • @) 19:38, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Will try to confirm, but I believe the previous photo was a candid taken immediately after he woke up one morning, still in his pajamas, and was merely staring at himself in the mirror. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Lol - That's actually funny, WW. (Or at least I hope you were trying to be funny!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate Sellers simply because he let us lighten up. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I am still wondering why you have been so obstructive throughout the course of this recent re-write. The article is in hugely better shape than it was when the process started, but at no stage have you been helpful, positive or encouraging. From the very start you have sought to obstuct the progress, you have reverted edits inappropriately and you have complained constantly. the fact that we have been recommended by the last reviewer not to bother with GAC but go straight to FAC should show you what progress has been made and you should be thankful for it, rather than mew and carp about every tiny little thing that you don't like. There are bits of this article I don't particularly like, but other people have suggested them and other people have changed my edits. I haven't thrown up an RfC at every instance, because that is not the way a collegiate approach to article development works and I fail to see how throwing toys out of a pram would improve anything. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:12, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

And you still have not answered the questions about this image's rationale, or that for the Girl in my Soup image. Should you fail to do that, the GIMS image will be removed from this article and both images will be tagged accordingly at WikiCommons. - SchroCat (^ • @) 20:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Current - without question. It is a perfect lede image and one that should not even be up for discussion. As for the "the above question should go to Cassianto" I'm afraid I don't know what question you mean. You need to quit with all these RfC's and start answering some questions; for instance SchroCat's above. Why are you being so obstructive? -- Cassianto^Talk 00:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Current - without question - a quality picture with clear commons license release. - Youreallycan 05:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Previous - I don't like either of them, frankly; but of the two, I prefer the black-and-white, aesthetically. The color one shows him as the man, probably long past his prime acting days, rather than as the actor, yet his notability is as the actor. I recognize him as Peter Sellers in the color photo, but it almost takes a second glance to do so. (He looks better in the Inspector Clouseau pic than in either of the two being considered.) The color photo also shows him with a rather puffy-looking face and tired eyes, not at his best. Besides, isn't there another image of him in that same outfit (ie, probably taken in the same sitting) further down the page already? (No comment on which is better from a right-to-publish standpoint.) Dezastru (talk) 07:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts Dezastru. Just fyi, the picture was taken in 1973, so not quite "long past his prime acting days". I also note that the pic you've voted for is tagged on WikiCommons as "circa 1975", two years later than the current one, although I appreciate your comment was based more on the aesthetics than anything else. Cheers - SchroCat (^ • @) 07:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)