Talk:Night of January 16th

Comment

This book is highly entertaining and I would love to see it as a play. A bit of information not already on here is that Night of January 16th was formerly titled as Penthouse Legend, it was changed when the published version was out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.84.192 (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2005‎

More details

We recently did this show at our community theater, so I will try to fill in what I can. Unfortunately, we only have one version of the script. We know there were at least two of them, with slightly differing witnesses. I'll fill in more later. -Fuzzy 15:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The characterization of the attorneys...

...seems a little off. They weren't necessarily sympathetic to their causes. They were just doing a JOB. Attorneys don't normally choose their clients. Trial lawyers are actors. 68.223.95.118 (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

There is that. I think I wrote the original words for those bits, and it was with the intention that that was the tack they were taking in their "acting" as trial lawyers based on their scripted lines. As it is, the current phrasing does sound more like it's their base feelings rather than their dialogue. -Fuzzy (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Good article?

I've been doing a lot of work on the article recently trying to get it ready for a good article nomination. I don't think there are many watchers for this page, so I've solicited for input at Talk:Ayn Rand and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Theatre. If anyone is watching, or has come here because of my posts elsewhere, feel free to comment on whether you think the article is ready or could use further improvement. Thanks. --RL0919 (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Night of January 16th/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC) I'll take this. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Good Article Checklist

• Well-written -the prose is clear and concise, respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
• Verifiable with no original research: it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline; it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines; and it contains no original research.
• Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
• Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each.
• Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
• Illustrated, if possible, by images: images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

Good Article review progress box Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

• Disambig links: OK
• Reference check: OK

Comments: This article has always been a bit of a pain because AWB is always trying to fix false issues with it, I keep seeing this article and it was always a stand out over the last year or so because of that very reason. Which is why I am going to ask: Where is the international coverage of the work? The title was swapped for formatting I think in the EU, but I think it would be a good starting point to add some of that international reception as well. There is another issue. The article is lacking some cites:

• This play gave Rand the idea to write a drama about a trial, but one where the ending would not be fixed. - cite
  • The information in this paragraph is all supported by the source that is cited at the end of the paragraph. I thought one refnote was the more common approach in such cases, rather than repeating it throughout the paragraph. But I'm flexible if you think it should be cited directly after this sentence.
• Rand wrote the play in 1933 under the title Penthouse Legend. - cite
  •  Done Citation added.
• . Rand finally accepted an offer from E.E. Clive to produce the play at the Hollywood Playhouse in Los Angeles. It opened in October 1934 under the title Woman on Trial. - cite
  • Similar situation here to the paragraph discussed above: the sources cited at the end support all four sentences preceding.
• " In the amateur version, after either verdict the judge berates the jurors for their bad judgment and declares that they cannot serve again.[16]" - Which amateur version, be specific, please.
  •  Done To my knowledge the only version sources call the "amateur version" is the one edited by Nathaniel Edward Reeid. I added his name just to be clear.
• The Broadway production received a negative review from Brooks Atkinson in The New York Times, who called it "the usual brew of hokum" - cite.
  •  Done This review and the one below are both described and quoted in the Baker 1987 source that was cited later, but I found the originals and cited them also.
• A review from Theatre Arts magazine was similarly dismissive. - cite
  •  Done as discussed above.
• The movie rights to the play were initially purchased by Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) in October 1934. - cite
  • The Heller 2009 cite at the end of the paragraph covers this and the rest of the info in the paragraph, except the names of the writers brought in to complete the screenplay. I moved up the Weiler 1941 cite to cover that.

After doing some fixes and tinkering it should be fine to pass. Placing on hold for now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe in all the citation cases the sources already cited cover these items and simply aren't noted next to these sentences. I will verify for each case and update as needed. International coverage is limited to my knowledge, but I will look further. There should at least be reviews for the London production. Should be updated within the next few days. --RL0919 (talk) 00:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Adding inline replies above as I go; will update this sentence when I'm done. @ChrisGualtieri: you should be able to continue now; I've updated the items listed above and added info about a Canadian production and more on the reception of the London production. --RL0919 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I was too picky before when I looked at this, it meets the GA criteria now, but the GA is a "decent" article, not a perfect article. So I'll pass this, and apologizes for the delay. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Feedback from Curly Turkey

I'm giving the article another copyedit. Feel free to undo any edits you disagree with.

• Rand's husband, an actor—I assume he had a name?
• Shoshana Milgram saw elements ... Ronald Merrill went further ...—who?
• Merrill dismissed this explanation as a cover-up for the play's promotion of Nietzschean ideas that Rand later rejected.—what idea is that? Nietsche believed criminals were heroes or something?
• Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:38, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Undid one simply because it changed a direct quote; otherwise no problem. Regarding the bullets above:

• Husband: Added the name, a little reluctantly because he was an actor named Frank O'Connor, but he isn't Frank O'Connor (actor), so using his name can draw bad links. Easy enough to revert, I suppose.

  A bunch of ways to handle it that I can think of:

  • Leave a hidden comment that this Frank O'Connor isn't that Frank O'Connor (actor)
  • If there's any possibility of making a stub out of Rand's Frank, make one
  • Leave a footnote explaining they're not the same person. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Hidden comment was a good suggestion. If anyone doesn't like that, it could be made into a visible note. I don't believe he is notable enough for an article. --RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

• Milgram and Merrill: Added brief descriptions.
• Nietzsche: I'm not going to claim to be a Nietzsche expert (although I know one if it comes to that), but the basic idea is he thought there were different moralities for different kinds of people, so just because something is immoral in the code of everyday folks, doesn't mean it is immoral for everyone. I mention some of what Merrill attributed to Rand earlier in the paragraph. Should I move the two passages about Merrill's interpretation closer together? Or perhaps some other type of clarification is needed? I like the flow of it now, but I'm open to suggestions if it is confusing.

  Well, it leaves this reader wondering what's being implied. If the sources don't delve into it, it's not a good idea to conduct your own research into it, though.

I put the passages about Merrill together; hopefully that makes it a bit more clear. --RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Keep 'em coming until you're out. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

I think I'm out. I supported last time, and I still think the article's above the threshold. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:30, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Great. Assuming those last two tweaks are acceptable, I will give it one last check-over for final details (image licenses, links, etc.), then start a nomination page. Will ping you for your input on that also, if you don't mind. --RL0919 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Character name spelling

Just noticed that the last name of a minor character, the gangster's wife that was added to the play against Rand's wishes, is spelled differently in various sources. So far I've found at least five variations: Renssalear, Rensallear, Rensselaer, Rensallaer, and Renssalaer. For the moment I've made it consistently Rensselaer, which is how it appears in Reeid's amateur playbook. The Broadway program (see here) gives Rensallear, which is also in the New York Times review. Is this worth an explanatory note? Or just pick one and cite a source for it? --RL0919 (talk) 21:20, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Church theatre group production

An IP editor is currently edit warring to include a paragraph about a church-based theatre group's production in 2017, along with several external links. The recommendations of WikiProject Theatre, found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Theatre/Article Structure#Productions are quite clear: Only professional productions should be included in articles about plays. It's easy to see why, since an older play that is popular among community theatres and/or student groups could have hundreds or even thousands of productions over the decades. That is exactly the case with Night of January 16th. I'm starting this discussion to give the IP editor a chance to justify themselves if they want to try. --RL0919 (talk) 20:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Lack of definite article in the title

An IP editor has recently been edit warring to insert "The" at the beginning of the play's title throughout the article. The justification for this is that the poster used as the image in the infobox says "The Night of January 16th" at the top. The inconsistency in the advertising notwithstanding, the title of the play is well established as Night of January 16th. That is the title used on the published text of the play, including both the amateur version first published in 1936 (listed in the article's sources from a later printing as Reeid 1964) and the later "official" revision from Ayn Rand (listed in the sources as Rand 1971). She also uses that title in her letters, published in Letters of Ayn Rand. It also goes without "The" in most biographies of Rand. A few examples from ones cited in the article (see the "Works cited" section for full bibliographical details):

• Baker 1987, p. 9: "Its name was changed again, this time to Night of January 16th"
• Branden 1986, p. 121: "Ayn grudgingly agreed to change the title to Night of January 16th"
• Burns 2009, p. 28: "When her play Night of January 16th was first produced"
• Gladstein 1999, p. 34: "Night of January 16th is a courtroom drama"

Based on these sources, it should be clear what is the correct title of the play. Advertisements are generally not reliable sources and should not be used to determine what we call it. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)