Talk:Waiting for Godot

Template:Vital article

Comment

This user is Waiting for Godot, who will surely be arriving on January 8.

Do you really like Waiting for Godot? Userbox this interest with: {{User:Scepia/Godot}}, which displays as the left.

"Why Godot Never Came" section removal

I removed the "Why Godot Never Came" section as it lacked any notability or credibility in the literary community. Both links in the section pointed offsite (one to a personal webpage) and the other to a youtube animated video. Webmaster961 (talk) 04:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Interpertations for discussion" Reads like nothing more then personal conjecture, like a highschool english essay. Not Wikipedia standard even in an interpretive section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.77.202 (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Performance with Edmonson/Mayall

Am I right in thinking that Adrian Edmonson and Rik Mayall once performed this play as the main protagonists? Someone saw their "Bottom" performances and thought their tramp-like, surreal comedy was perfect for it? 91.195.83.3 (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)Milly

Yes, it was on in the West End, in a theatre on Shaftsbury Avenue, in the early 1990s. Don't have a source to add to the article though. DionysosProteus (talk) 15:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I wish I'd seen it! I've done some research and apparently Bottom came after their performance in Godot, not the other way round. Interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.195.83.3 (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I came across my programme to that production today, so I've added its details into the production history. DionysosProteus (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Plot Summary

This plot summary is laden with interpretative snippets and quotes by Beckett. Shouldn't those items go under interpretation and leave the plot summary as...well...just a plot summary? 207.237.199.62 (talk) 03:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yup. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The whole thing reads like an essay some first year english lit major wrote about the play. Arguably interesting but not very encyclopedic. Not having looked at the edit history and just based on glancing through this discussion page it certainly does seem that someone simply wikified an essay- which now that I think about it is rather funny since that's often the opposite of how these things go. The plot summary section, at the very least, needs a rewrite. 140.182.134.151 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:07, 24 March 2009 (UTC).

And a poor essay at that. The section of the Characters should be shortened, and all the unnecessary quotes, while interesting, should be removed, or at least modified. Half of the section of "Who is Godot?" consists of quotes. I wish I could change it, but will leave it to someone else. Ykerzner (talk) 02:45, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The Synopsis is not a Synopsis. It's not a synopsis if it's several pages long. seriously, lookup the word Synopsis in a dictionary.70.79.146.225 (talk) 23:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation given for Godot -- /gɑdo/ -- is US specific, and the use of /ɑ/ assumes the cot-caught merger. Wikipedia mandates a more generic transcription, which should use the phenome /ɒ/, instead, which may be realized as an [ɑ] in cot-caught accents. Also, the /o/ is wrong, as this only appears as a monophthong in certain English dialects; the correct generic transcription of this diphthong is /oʊ/ (again, see this page), a sound which in GA is realized as [oʊ], in RP is as [əʊ], and is monophthongised to [o] in Canadian English. I have therefore replaced the transcription with the generic /gɒdoʊ/. --Che Gannarelli (talk) 23:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

Currently, this article reads more like a (rather well-written, admittedly) English term paper than an encylopedia article. My main concern is the style, although there might be some NPOV (synthesis) issues as well. It might not be too difficult to turn the relevant sections into something more like the Pulp Fiction article, for example -- just quoting with more context and sticking to NPOV should do the trick. I'd happily do it myself, but I've got academic obligations for the next few weeks that preclude my digging up the references and rewriting a good portion of a fairly long article. 143.215.110.207 (talk) 09:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenic telepathic interpretation

Godot is a false name, it is taken from an incomplete phrase heard in the mind of more than one person, in another language, then assumed to be a specific person. It refers to a group of people actually, were god (from English) or godo (gode, from Spanish), would indicate people from the church or an ethnic group. The characters all assume the message is personal or particular but it is not, it is impersonal and out of context. But they make sense by assuming they have an appointment in a particular place, the place where they heard the word mentioned and/or implied by other words similarly heard. None of them understand the mechanics of the communication channel, so they follow a very standard behaviour when the character(s) are not central to the original communication. The story narrates a real life event in the life of the author, either personally lived or observed. Godot never arrives because the source of the communication is unaware of having been heard and the assumptions of the schizophrenics who heard! If they were addressed, they assume they will be attended personally, eventually, so they establish a senseless wait for the person who talked to them and must be a person of power. The mechanic of the channel is such that from the story it is possible to know that Godot refers actually to the gode ethnia, that they are expected to leave and be sent elsewhere, that the person who posed as Godot is a woman, that she is akin to one or all the characters implied in the story, that the place was already known by the relevant woman, that all characters are invading a place probably owned by the woman who wants godes to leave, and that nobody will arrive because other attendants are intercepted and killed, including the woman who knows the place, and several other people will not concurr because they are aware of the place as a source in the communication channel, which makes the wait indefinite and very boring. It is an absurd story because all assumptions by the characters implied are wrong since they are not central to the people who was heard in the channel, but it makes perfect sense in mechanic terms in the situation itself and within the context of the channel evolution in the XXth and early XXIth century events and central characters and themes in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.68.171 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Sheep and Goats

Why is there no mention of the inversion of sheeps vs goats in the article? It was prominent enough to merit notice in the article of the Cake song "Sheep go to Heaven", and I (without much knowledge of Beckett) find the criticism of that particular parable interesting. Frohike14 (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

GOD-oh

The citation has Beckett putting the stress on the first syllable. Except that Beckett first wrote this play in French, where go-DOH is the natural way to say it. I will not be changing my pronunciation from go-DOH. Varlaam (talk) 02:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC) (Canada)

During my entire time in the UK I only ever heard it pronounced "God-oh", not - as said in the article - "Go-doh". That's odd.

What's odder is that in Act 1 of a French performance of En Attendant Godot, about 6m20s into the Act, Vladimir pronounces it "God-oh" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPuX_3LN1A8)

I rather feel that the weight of the author's pronunciation coupled with that of the French (as opposed to French Canadian) language pronunciation suggests what it ought to be.

It isn't the first time the same word has been pronounced in a language used in The New World unlike the pronunciation used in the language of the original country. And - whether in English or French - Godot certainly will not be the last.

2602:30A:2C4A:1CB0:A457:8732:29DF:179F (talk) 04:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

GOD-oh is the correct way. The source cited gives "GOD-dough", which is the same, of course, but the "-ough" is only likely to confuse non-native English speakers (bread dough, cough, etc.) Perhaps someone didn't like "God" appearing so explicitly?  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Irish Gaelic and Godot as "Geo Deo"

Beckett's first language was English. At the time he was growing up, Irish Gaelic was spoken almost exclusively by the older, rural Irish, and few enough of them. As a child of a wealthy Protestant family, he was very, very unlikely to have spoken any Gaelic. James Knowlson's exhaustive biography of Beckett makes no mention of any interest in Gaelic. Indeed, Beckett seems to have been rather dismissive of Irish Nationalist attempts to revive Gaelic. Additionally, the only citation provided in this section is a Google translation of "geo deo". It's basically a long bow to draw, and betrays a lack of understanding of 20th Century Irish cultural politics, so I will delete this section in a couple of days unless someone finds some sort of verification for these claims. Ourcatastrophe (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Ourcatastrophe. I have never heard of Beckett having the slightest interest in the Irish language either. It is implausible and unlikely in the extreme that 'go deo', pronounced incidentally, 'guh d-yu-oh', has anything whatsoever to do with Godot. As a matter of fact, I am going to delete this passage now. Nilachseall (talk) 11:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)nilachseall.

Interpretations - Christian

In the Christian subsection of the interpretation section, it says "Similarly, because The Bible describes God as having a white beard... " That is not true. The Bible does not describe God as having a white beard. I did not, however, delete that part because I'm really not an expert on the subject (only reading the article for fun) and also I'm new to editing wikipedia (just created an account 10 minutes ago). --I am jozi (talk) 04:54, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Can "Production History" Section be edited down?

As a whole, while this is a very long Wikipedia article, I think most of it is pretty strong. The synopsis of the play is long but I've never seen it before so the summary was entertaining to read.

But I think a lot of the Production History is superfluous and unnecessary. I haven't read a lot of Wiki pages on specific plays but the ones I have read have noted the initial staging of a play and then any major reinterpretations or revivals that occur (emphasis on the MAJOR). It's not noteworthy to take write about every time a play has premiered in a different location or every time a different theater company has put on the play. If this was the case, there could be hundreds of additions from every group that has staged this very popular play.

Since theater is not a primary interest of mine, I'm reluctant to trim this section down to what I think is most essential. So, I'll just post here and offer it as a suggestion and if I return later and no action has been taken, I'll take that as a sign that I should go ahead and do it myself. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I just realized that a compromise could be listing productions in the form of a chronological list (like a Filmography). It's just as a succeeding series of written paragraphs, it's deadly boring to read. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Major pruning ?

The history of this talk does not suggest many active editors, however I shall post in the hope that someone still has this on their watch list. The whole article seems ripe for major pruning. Occasionally sources seem not especially noteworthy, and since this is such a major 20th Century work, perhaps we should perhaps be a bit 'picky' about sources.

Especially in need of pruning, seems to be:- [1] , there seems to be no logic to the productions listed. I shall attempt to prune to NOTEWORTHY productions. ASAP.Pincrete (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with your wholesale pruning of an encyclopedic section of notable productions. If there are objections to some, they should be raised here, but pruning 30 minutes after your announcement here invites WP:BRD. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, the subject did seem to have been discussed before (above), and the absence of recent postings here, suggested no active editors. Do you agree though that some of the productions listed are not notable and that there is some 'fluff' within those that are? (eg Patrick Stewart seeing a ghost, unnecessary info about reviews etc. that doesn't say much that is specific).Pincrete (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The article's history certainly shows interest by a number of editors, including in the section "Production history", and it has 169 watchers. That section seems often used in newspaper articles of local productions, so I think it's largely useful. The sentence you mention certainly can be removed and there may be room to trim other entries. Which individual performances ought to be removed is a bit more difficult – they all, except one, seem to have supporting sources, and that one seems quite notable. A start might be those which don't sport any blue links – the very last entry from Iran would qualify. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Iran, wholly agree, ghosts agree. I would argue that generalised remarks about 'good reviews', (that don't say anything very specific or lead to an award for example), are not very useful to the reader, but I am happy to 'follow the flow' on these matters. Sorry if we 'got off on the wrong foot'.Pincrete (talk) 13:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed 'Iran' and 'Ghost story' and rephrased that entry slightly, hope OK. Pincrete (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead

Suggestion for inclusion in 'works inspired by' or 'related works' is Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead … in addition to the ref cited below, I know Martin Esslin has also made the comparison, but I don't have access to his texts at present. Suggested text :-

Waiting for Godot has been compared - thematically and stylistically - with Tom Stoppard's Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, parallels include the presence of two central characters who - at times - appear to be aspects of a single character and whose lives are dependent on outside forces over which they have little control. There are plot parallels as well, the act of waiting during which the characters pass time by playing Questions, impersonating other characters, at times repeatedly interrupting each other while at other times remaining silent for long periods. … Jim Hunter (2000). Tom Stoppard: Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are dead, Jumpers, Travesties, Arcadia. Macmillan..

nb there are also thematic parallels, but I don't have access to notable RSs at the moment.Pincrete (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As that argument is already presented at R&G Are Dead, I see no problem. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think 'related' rather than 'inspired by' is appropriate … since there is no evidence of direct inspiration. Someone else may well be able to improve my text, drawing on Esslin and others, I think the thematic parallels in my text could well be developed. I will insert in the article later today. Pincrete (talk) 06:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead's references to Godot are explicitly called out and added to the thematic comparison above, and that R&G is moved to the "Inspired by" from "Related". R&G is not a completely clear-cut case, since that work also takes obvious inspiration from Hamlet, but in addition to the sentiments voiced in the quote above:

• the first scene features two men alone on-stage talking with one another in an effort to establish basic, fundamental truths about their existence; they are then interrupted by a larger-than-life leader who commands a near-mute innocent;
• the first scene's only description of the set is that it's "a place without any visible character."
• Late in Act Two, the two title characters pull off their belts, tie them together, and "hold them taut between them. R[osencrantz]'s trousers slide slowly down."

It's clear to me that although it's not entirely correct to say that R&G was directly inspired by Godot, it still contains strong references to Godot. It feels to me that it's more correct to say that it was inspired by Godot than that it was related to Godot, especially as it's the only work in the related section that was written after Godot appeared. Personally, I expected to find it heading up the "Inspired by" section, as it's the most famous work I'm aware of that references Godot so prominently and directly. Thoughts? NewlandArcher (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

NewlandArcher, this is twofold, 1) we need reliable literary sources to have made the connections you suggest, even when these seem obvious to us. I personally don't have access currently to such sources (many of which would be '60s) ... 2)since this is the 'Godot' page, detailed commentary about the parallels would be more apt on the R+G page, here we just indicate that parallels do exist. I think 'related' is more apt given that a much stronger/clearer case would need to be made for 'inspired by'....ps it's probably true that too many of the 'related works' are unref'd, the connection possibly being WP:OR. Pincrete (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Further action from the Beckett Estate

Given the section regarding Beckett's objection to women in the portrayal of the play's character's, I'd thought I'd submit the following. Recently, the anime Shirobako contained a short sequence in which an all-female production of Waiting for Godot. The episode has been pulled from re-airings and possibly home video sales due to objections from the Beckett estate. The reason I have not already submitted it is because my source is in Japanese and there currently does not exist an english-language version of the source. Here is the page in question: http://yaraon.blog109.fc2.com/blog-entry-28616.html

I do not know what the protocol for this sort of thing is.173.70.162.8 (talk) 21:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Adult Swim network and The Eric Andre Show

Paul Bunyan, these are NOT legitimate sources, because self-sourced info is not RS for anything but basic biographical info, nor are sources from none experts (beer writer?) and btw the section is not about the effect on popular culture. WfG is widely regarded as one of the most influental works of the twentieth century, if everybody who feels they were influenced in some way were included, the article would be a mile long. This info would be reliable on the pages of the works influenced, but not the article page. For inclusion here, we need independent, notable commentators drawing the parallel. Not everything currently there completely fulfils that condition, but that is not a reason for adding more that doesn't. For that reason I am going to remove your material, if you don't agree please take this to the article talk page where others can voice their opinion. The onus is on you to prove that this material does meet RS and is relevant, not me to prove it doesn't. Pincrete (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work and diligence in editing the Waiting for Godot page! I see that we've had some disagreement about the addition of sources pertaining to works inspired by Godot. I understand your concern that the support sources are weak and that there isn't ample justification to add links to Adult Swim television programs' incorporation of Beckett/Godot themes. I feel strongly that these sources should remain intact, and I'll briefly elaborate my rationale. For one, the list of works inspired by Godot is quite good, but it does lack some connections to more current manifestations of Godot in popular culture. I teach courses in English, media, and popular culture at a state university in upstate New York-- whenever I've discussed Adult Swim programs' use of Beckett/Godot themes, I've had otherwise disinterested students flock to Godot to find deeper enjoyment in both Godot and its contemporary influence. This is important, as I can attest than a fraction of my students (including graduate students) had minimal familiarity with Godot, I'm sorry to say. These links, however cursory the sources may seem, nevertheless do serve the influence section's purpose well-- attaching greater interest in the work. On that point, I would also strongly argue that the primary source of the show's creator is satisfactory, interview or not. As someone who teaches segments of the program for media analysis, it is unquestionably modeled after Godot for substantial portions of the show's foundation. The Adult Swim article, although from a media blog, is well-written and points to many of the key aesthetic, structural, and conversational elements of Godot that manifest on several prominent Adult Swim shows. Collectively, I believe there is ample support for maintaining this bullet point as a means of further demonstrating the influential reach that Waiting for Godot continues to have, even in a venue as seemingly unrefined as Adult Swim. Thanks for your time. I hope that my justification provides some insight into my push to keep these sources intact. Paul Bunyan's Suspenders (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

nb both of the above were left on user talk pages, transferred here for clarity by Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul Bunyan's Suspenders Paul, there are probably innumerable works that you, I, your students or ANYONE with a few spare grey cells could intelligently conclude were influenced by WfG. I'm afraid your post shows a fundamental misunderstanding of WP criteria eg The Adult Swim article, although from a media blog, is well-written and points to many of the key aesthetic, structural, and conversational elements of Godot. I'm afraid we aren't marking student essays, its a media blog by an unknown 'beer writer', our subjective assessment of its merits is largely irrelevant to its inclusion or not. There is a place called WP:RSN if you feel the piece deserves to be treated as a RS, argue your case there. Self-sourced info is similarly doubtful. Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC) … … ps I think the 'list of works inspired by' is crap, but the antidote to that is adding properly sourced comment from notable commentators, not 'stuff that makes our students happy'.Pincrete (talk) 19:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't much care for the condescending, passive aggressive jabs in there, Pincrete. The argument is not about "making students happy," it's about adding legitimate examples of works inspired by Waiting for Godot that by extension point to the work's direct influence on other works, some of which inhabit contemporary popular culture and thus may connect with a wider readership than the article already may already attract. I understand your concern for RS content, but why not delete every entry in the section that doesn't contain a citation then? Could the Adult Swim/Eric Andre content remain WITHOUT RS attached? Paul Bunyan's Suspenders (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I like the split into the "In popular culture" section, but I see sources such as GoComics.com, YouTube, and a local newspaper used as citations for a few of the entries (and not all entries have citations). I'm not sure how these sources are any less valid than the sources attached to the Adult Swim and Eric Andre show mentions that have been deleted. Either they, too, should be deleted (for consistency, as they are not necessarily RS), or the deleted material should be restored. Paul Bunyan's Suspenders (talk) 21:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the deleted materials pending further discussion. Paul Bunyan's Suspenders (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul Bunyan,It wasn't meant to be condescending, it WAS meant to be blunt. I agree, sourcing is terrible in places, but that is what is known around here as an invalid argument. Personally I hate 'in popular culture' sections (as do many editors), because they fill up with trivia that don't inform about the main subject, but many articles have them. I can't give permission for your edit, but won't remove it, another editor may. This article is a bit unloved but defended from radical change.

There is certainly in the article room for more recent scholarship about the long term influence/impact of the play as a whole section, but I don't currently have access to that kind of material. … … btw you should learn to indent comments (indent from prev. person) and signing is usually done at end of line, not 'letter style'.Pincrete (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete-- Thank you. I certainly appreciate your expertise in navigating the editorial conventions of WP; I'm a longtime lurker and only recently began to become more involved in the community at the suggestion of some of my colleagues. Much obliged. I see your point about "in popular culture" sections becoming a dumping grounds for trivia and I absolutely hope to avoid cheapening this or any article with such content. I do, however, take the study of folk and popular culture very seriously as a scholar and think there is merit in curating a more substantive treatment of pop culture in the context of a given subject rather than mere trivia. While I still contend that the Adult Swim and Eric Andre material is adequate, I will try to identify additional sources or materials to further solidify their (and perhaps some of the other under-cited examples) value on this page. In the meantime, thanks again for your work, conversation, and insights. Now watch me sign correctly! Paul Bunyan's Suspenders (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Paul, sourcing (which no two editors will ever fully agree about), is not absolute, while there are sites (like blogs of non-experts), which are almost automatic no-no's, at other times it's a balance between the strength of a source and of the claim. Beckett didn't really write Godot? that would require extraordinarily strong sources. Godot is really a Marxist allegory? That would need very strong sourcing from a notable commentator and would need to be represented as an opinion, and so on. At present this article may not meet all proper criteria, but … … … Pincrete (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Theatre of the Absurd

I've removed bit in the lede that identifies the play as "absurdist". Of course, Esslin made that claim and a few critics have followed suit, but we shouldn't be weighing in one way or the other. In my experience, using the term "Theatre of the Absurd" isn't academically respectable any more, for the most part. I don't doubt there are still some lingering usages, but it's more appropriately dealt with in the Interpretations section. It would be good to include what Beckett himself thought about the label.  • DP •  ^{huh?} 14:24, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Free file vs. fair use

Hi Michael Bednarek, Why removing a free file and replacing it by a fair use one? Regards, Yann (talk) 16:06, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Because {{Infobox play}} and similar, e.g. {{Infobox book}}, recommend to use a 1st edition cover. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Waiting for Godot. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/english/people/academic/barrydrliz/berlinlecture/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130804122751/http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/OnStage/productions.aspx?id=20239&prodid=47015 to http://www.stratfordfestival.ca/OnStage/productions.aspx?id=20239&prodid=47015
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130626010717/http://www.mckellen.com/stage/godot/broadway-2013/index.htm to http://www.mckellen.com/stage/godot/broadway-2013/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible merger of characters' pages

I'm not particularly conversant with Beckett, so wouldn't feel comfortable carrying out a merger myself: however, the pages for the characters Estragon, Vladimir (Waiting for Godot), Pozzo (Waiting for Godot) and Lucky (Waiting for Godot) are all unsourced or very poorly-sourced, and appear to be Original Research. How do other editors feel about merging them into this page? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 14:31, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that those articles need work, but merging them into this article won't improve them, nor this article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 14:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Waiting for Godot deletion in Popular Culture section

Hello. I am modifying and moving a post from a user talk page at the suggestion of the user, who is much more experienced than I am at Wikipedia editing! I originally posted it there because the user deleted something I added to the Waiting for Godot Popular Culture section:

Re the concerns about lack of reviews: Again, as I noted in my previous post, in Los Angeles, many smaller productions go unnoticed in mainstream media sources — with dwindling resources, they only cover cover larger productions. But these smaller shows are reviewed by very reliable less mainstream media. Some of those reviews of "Waiting for Godomino's" are here:

1. https://thetvolution.com/2017/06/is-bono-and-the-edge-waiting-for-godominos-time-well-spent/
2. http://latheatrebites.com/hollywood-fringe-2017-bono-and-the-edge-waiting-for-godominos-sacred-fools-in-hollywood-review/
3. https://giaonthemove.com/2017/10/16/pizza-plus-beckett-equals-godominos/
4. http://nohoartsdistrict.com/theatres/theatre-reviews/item/5347-bono-and-the-edge-waiting-for-godomino-s

Re the concern about the lack of an article for its creator: Again, I just added the production to a section of the Waiting for Godot page, and the notability guidelines are different for content added within an article. I'm not sure if "lack of an article" refers to a Wikipedia article. If so, according to WP:NOTSOURCE, Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source even if one were available for the creator. Or if an outside article is required, there is one here. Forthearts (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

In popular culture on "The Late Show"

User:Michael Bednarek, in your recent edit summary, you claim that the content in this article’s ″In popular culture” section is properly “sourced” — I respectfully challenge that. Consider the content that suggests that Waiting for Godot was “spoofed” on The Late show with Stephen Colbert. I read the source — the subject of the “spoofing” is Donald Trump. The spoof was done by using tropes from both Star Wars and this play (that the actor happened to be promoting). This is an example of misrepresenting a source, even though done in good faith. The inaccurate reporting of a source, might might make it seem as if this content belongs in this article. But I don't think that’s proper.

You also claim, User:Michael Bednarek, that the content is “notable”. I challenge that also: WP:IPC states that “sources should establish their significance”. And WP:IPC gives an example to illustrate what they mean: if “the subject responds to it in a public fashion”. In this case that would be if the source were to report that Trump made an issue of the Late Show segment. The source does not do anything like that. But even if Trump responded to it, the content would be more appropriate on Donald Trump’s page. Except, of course, the Trump page doesn’t have a trivia section. WP:IPC also says “When poorly written … these sections can devolve into indiscriminate collections of trivia“ and “may attract trivial entries.” I think the content, though added in good faith, doesn’t merit the support you claim for it and should be removed.Oglathor (talk) 12:30, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the wording of the Colbert/Patrick Stewart entry needs to be improved (see proposal below), but I disagree that it amounts to misrepresentation. I also maintain that the sketch was notable and deserves to be mentioned here. It was reported widely in addition to the HuffPost cited here, including in respectable outlets like The Atlantic, in widely-read ones like USA Today, and in trade mags like Playbill and Entertainment Weekly, even in a foreign news magazine like Der Spiegel.

• Proposed rephrasing: A sketch in March 2017 on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, "Waiting for Godot's Obamacare Replacement", Colbert and Patrick Stewart satirised the Trump administration's failure to implement their announced "repeal and replace" of Obamacare.

Cheers, -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Michael Bednarek, rephrase the content and it still violates WP:IPC, which states that “sources should establish their significance”. And WP:IPC gives an example to illustrate: if “the subject responds to it in a public fashion”. The source does not do anything like that. If it has been mentioned by other sources not in the article — that isn’t acceptable, according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, they can’t be verified. Sources not in the article can’t be judged for how they support inclusion and notability. TV has PR people, and there are plenty of blurbs sent around to media outlets that are based on the PR material provided by the show. Your rephrasing doesn't contribute to an understanding or appreciation of Becket's play, but more to do with recent politics. Why not put it over on Donald Trump's page?

Also, User:Michael Bednarek, there is other content in the same section that says that Sesame Street had an episode titled “Waiting for Elmo” — but the content makes no attempt to indicate that it’s notable or significant, and the citation includes a link to a Youtube video, which appears to be a copyright violation. I assume that Sesame Street owns the copyright. Wikipedia:Video links says that videos of “television shows” should be considered to be copyright violations if not "obviously uploaded by the copyright holder.” It also says that editors “should not use a video as a citation to present their own interpretation of its content.” Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content says that content “should be verifiable and their sources should establish their significance” — this Sesame Street entry violates that guideline. The entry’s single citation contains jammed-together both the Youtube video, as well as a reference to an Arizona newspaper from 2013 — not to an article — just the newspaper, and there’s no indication in the footnote that the newspaper will have anything to say about anything. The trivial stuff needs to be removed out of respect for the copyright holder, for the WP guidelines and to maintain a quality article.Oglathor (talk) 14:51, 7 August 2018 (UTC)