Pgrizzy

"Howard"

What is your source for "Howard"? Badagnani (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hanon himself and Judith Malina. He changed it to its Hebraic equivalent in college. Pgrizzy (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, just be aware that we should have actual sources for everything we include in any article. Badagnani (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure thing. It also bothered me that the NY Times called "Paradise Now" simply "Paradise." Did you get the email and file that I sent you of the Zero Method to the Kent State address I found on your personal homepage? Pgrizzy (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Their obit writers don't always get everything right. It's too bad, because they're the "paper of record." They also called it the Living "Theater" instead of "Theatre." Badagnani (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That email address isn't correct. Badagnani (talk) 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Even some company members still get it wrong to this day. As Judith explained it to me, and as a distinction which I use to this day, a "theater" is a building or facility whereas a "theatre" is a company of people and their aesthetic. Pgrizzy (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting! Just email me via my Discussion page; look on the left and you'll see "E-mail this user." Badagnani (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Gerald Thomas (playwright & director)

A tag has been placed on Gerald Thomas (playwright & director) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Bihco (talk) 16:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gerald Thomas & copyright

Hello Patrick. Thanks for asking questions rather than turning away in frustration. There are a couple of issues at play here. The first one of course is the copyright issue which led to the article's deletion. I'm not questioning your assertions that this was made upon Gerald Thomas' request but copyrights are something we try to be very careful about. So we usually require that the authorization to use material from other websites is confirmed through the Open-source Ticket Request System. In particular, releasing the material on Wikipedia implies a couple of things that you or Gerald Thomas may not be comfortable with. First, the release of the material under a GFDL compatible license cannot be restricted to Wikipedia: this means that anyone can henceforth use the material in any way they see fit. Secondly, the article on Wikipedia may not (in fact most certainly will not) remain in the state in which you created it. Others are free to edit it as they see fit (provided of course that changes are meaningful). The other important issues are related to conflict of interest and neutrality. Because you're a close friend of Gerald Thomas, it's reasonable to question your objectivity about him. This doesn't mean that you're in any way forbidden to write about him but it does mean that you'll face more scrutiny. I have to agree that the bio on the website is not a piece of glorification but it still has a problematic overall tone. Among other things, sentences like "Brazil had never seen such an effervescent uproar" need to go, references to other things on Thomas' website (e.g. "(see the New York Times press clipping of 11 November 2003 under "press")" have to be removed and the long long lists of projects make the article look like a resumé. The content should also be sourced through reliable third-party coverage. So while I have no objection to an article about Gerald Thomas, the text you proposed is not acceptable as is. Let me know if you have any further questions. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi Pascal,

OK then, I'll try posting it again and stripping it down to as bare boned as possible. The reason why Gerald asked me to do this in the first place is, besides the fact that I'm a bit more internet savvy than he, because WIKI has other posts about him that contain erroneous or incomplete information, a lot of it in other languages, and he simply wanted to create a reliable source of info on WIKI that he could send inquiries to instead of having to answer in detail every one. I myself am short on time too and simply wish to do this favor for him and move onto other things. Plus we wonder how his other friends and colleagues seem to be able to update their WIKI pages themselves without this kind of scrutiny. Anyway, I'll remove all adjectives that come from press quotes and streamline the quantity and descriptions of his voluminous output and cross our fingers that it can can remain as an entry. Thanks, Patrick Grant Pgrizzy (talk) 20:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I'd love to know who these friends and colleagues are! :-) Yes, it is true that some biographical articles on Wikipedia are puff pieces written and maintained by their subjects. There are in fact many of them because Wikipedia is too big to be thoroughly monitored. Bust most of them don't slip through the cracks (see the deletion log for those deleted outright or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard for articles where some obvious problems are tackled). But you should warn Gerald that sending enquiries to Wikipedia is not a good idea. For one, this is simply not what Wikipedia is supposed to be used for and in many ways, we'd rather have no article than an article which is used for public relations purposes. But using a wikipage for PR is not that great an idea anyways: the info is not always up to date, it isn't always in the form that you would like it, it may contain content that you're not particularly happy with (say links to a string of horrendous reviews for a bad show) and it is susceptible to vandalism despite some volunteers' best efforts to prevent this. Accordingly, most journalists don't trust Wikipedia info without cross-checking it anyways and, unless they are complete embarrassments to their profession, they should be specifically suspicious of biographical information about living persons. What Gerald needs is a regularly updated, sassy website of his own, not a Wikipedia article that he hopes to control. In fact, if he's unhappy about articles about him in other languages, there's every chance that he'll be unhappy with the English article down the road. So am I asking you to not re-create the article? Not really if you're prepared to make it purely factual. But you should tell Gerald that he may have serious misconceptions about what this accomplishes. (And he might want to tell his friends and colleagues!) In any case, let me know if you have other questions. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pascal,

Thank you, thank you, thank you for taking this kind of time. I have re-posted a cursory article about Gerald (i.e. the simplest bio possible that leads up to the formation of his company and a list of works and performance dates in reverse chronological order, I did the latter because entries for bands list their albums). I created links to his Official Web Site (yes, it's sassy) and his Blog (even sassier) with the most recent of interviews that fills in a lot of biographical detail. Hopefully, this entry (and I still want to clean it up some) will serve as an accurate point of departure should anybody try to find Gerald through WIKI. And even more hopefully, it won't get taken down without warning, I hope, I hope. Your response has been stellar and I thank you. Please let me know if there is anything beyond what I've said that could be cleared up but I hope that you feel that you've gotten us on a good tract here and can set your sights on other entries that need clarification. All my best, Patrick Grant Pgrizzy (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The URL for that entry is at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Thomas_(playwright_%26_director) Pgrizzy (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Just a few notes. First, I merged the duplicate entries to Gerald Thomas (theatre director) which is the simpler title and is the one that the disambiguation page points to. Second, I've cleaned the article a bit (to fix the unnecessary bold for example). Third, I've peppered the article with the tag {{fact}} to indicate places where I feel that the content should be sourced specifically or places where the tone is inappropriate. A Wikipedia article shouldn't sound like the bio on a personal website. It needs to be written with more distance, whereas Gerald's bio as written on his website is more concerned with outlining a narrative. Compare the tone in Gerald's entry with, say, that of Peter Brook (by no means a perfect article) or Antonin Artaud. The article is not supposed to get readers excited about Gerald's work, they're supposed to be informed. In some sense, this is easier to do with someone who's dead, which is why articles such as the one about Artaud do a better job of finding the right tone. In any case, I suggest you contact people in WikiProject Theatre for further help. I don't know how active the project is but when you ask for help around here, chances are you'll get help. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:57, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear Pascal,

We totally agree with you and are doing our best to clean it up. I did add the category of "Dramatists and playwrights" because, when this whole thing started, Gerald didn't feel it accurate that he was listed solely as an interpreter of other people's work. Also, he was born in New York City, not Brazil. That has always been a bit of a mystery to the public but since we have to be accurate, that is the fact. I removed the "highly questionable" comment in regards to Philip Glass but there are many pages on the internet regarding their piece "Mattogrosso" I'm not sure what more needs to be said. As far as other works, like those with Heiner Mueller, should I post a link to productions at La MaMa E.T.C. from the 80s that show this? As far as the formation of his Dry Opera Compnay, we thought that the extensive performance history listed in the works below would cover that. Also, there's so many links regarding this company on the web, where to start? As far as the Peter Brooks and Victor Garcia comments, it is agreed that they belong in an autobiography rather than WIKI because they are memoirs in quality and not quantifiable. Thanks again, it's evolving, slowly but surely. P.S. - Gerald says that if you dispute his place of birth, he can back it up to you personally if it comes down to that. -Patrick Pgrizzy (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as the article title is concerned, simpler is better. Were there no other Gerald Thomas with wiki articles (see Gerald Thomas (disambiguation)) the article title would be simply "Gerald Thomas". So "Theatre director" is just a means of disambiguation and "Brazilian theatre dude" would also do the trick. :-) Concerning third-party sources, ideally you'd tie specific references to specific statements using the <ref> tags. It's a bit of a pain to use at first but it's easier if you use refTools (see the "gadgets" tab in your preferences). Again, not that I want to get rid of you, but you'll find people with more specific expertise at the theatre wikiproject. One thing I suggest after you've worked out a few kinks in the the article is to ask for a review from them (use the WikiProject Theatre talk page). Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet another quicknote (and in fact shameful plug). Once your work on the article has made you more comfortable with the subtleties of editing Wikipedia, I hope you'll stick around and work on other theatre articles every now and then. If there's one thing Wikipedia always needs more of, it's editors with expertise. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 16:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)