This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theSamuel Beckett article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
Samuel Beckett is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited tojoin the project andcontribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to thedocumentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofFrance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofIreland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Poetry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofpoetry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoetryWikipedia:WikiProject PoetryTemplate:WikiProject PoetryPoetry
This article is within the scope of theMilitary history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see alist of open tasks. To use this banner, please see thefull instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article is part ofWikiProject Theatre, aWikiProject dedicated to coverage oftheatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at theproject page, or contribute to theproject discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Cricket, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofcricket articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit theproject page, where you can join thediscussion.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket
There is a toolserver basedWikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available inone big list and inCSV format)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):PatrickDQuinn1.
Born in Ireland. Irish parents. The fact that he lived much of his life in France does not make him French. Is James Joyce now Irish-Italian-Swiss? Is Oscar Wilde Irish-English? Edited to restore the facts of Beckett's nationality— Precedingunsigned comment added by109.255.194.208 (talk)22:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this the whole discussion about nationality vs ethnicity? I'm not disagreeing with you, just asking a question. Was Beckett ever granted French citizenship?Eldesierto9 (talk)17:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ihave removed a footnote stating "On his mother's side, he was descended from the Roe family." with a link to a PDF of "'My fortieth year had come and gone and I still throwing the javelin': Beckett’s athletics A paper given at the Beckett International Foundation Research Seminar, University of Reading, 18 June 2005" by Steven Connor. I don't know who the Roe family are; are they related to cricket? I couldn't find them in the linked paper in any case. A more user-friendly version of the article isthis PDF at londonconsortium.com; it may contain some information worth adding to the article.jnestorius(talk)16:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Images says "You may take a photograph with your digital camera, scanner, or integrated mobile phone, draw an image or graph digitally, perhaps with a graphics tablet, or scan drawings and photos taken with a camera and then upload the image." Anyone can draw and upload an image if appropriate, the artist doesn't need to be notable. There is no doubt that this is a fair and recognisable rendering of Beckett. It is a useful addition to the article, offering a different impression.Span (talk)09:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A photograph of Beckett as the main image serves the article better than the so-called "fair and recognisable" sketch of SB that is hardly reconizable to the majority of readers. (And just how many amateur sketches are going to be uploaded here if anyone can do so? Question of self-promotion.) The sketch in question may possibly be included in the body of the article but the decision to do so should await consensus. --Jumbolino (talk)11:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have a photo of Beckett as the main image. That was not the question. The artist's name was not included under the sketch. Maybe the editor was trying to be helpful, not self promoting. I wouldassume good faith and not be too quick to assume what is 'recognisable to a majority of readers'.Span (talk)11:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like self-promotion to me, as itwas initially placed as replacement in the lede for the photograph. I don't think it should stay...Modernist (talk)11:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Modernist: the sketch was first used to replace the photograph here and whoever made the sketch also has unsuccessfully tried to post it at Wikipedia français as the main image. You can assume good faith if you like but I'm not convinced. Moreover, I would not be too quick to assume that it is 'recognisable to a majority of readers'. But I'm happy to see it included in the body of the article as long as there's a consensus on this. --Jumbolino (talk)11:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The question of where in the article the image was first added is irrelevant to the discussion about whether or not it should appear in the article at all (of course a photograph is preferable in the lead). Span correctly cites the Wikipedia guidelines, which are clear on the matter. Jumbolino and Modernist, I'm confused as towhy you think it is an act of self-promotion. In what way? I tried to find out who the artist is and was unable to do so. The only link provided is to a Wikipedia/Commons username with no website link. It is effectively anonymous, therefore. I see no reason to suggest that it is not recognisable as Beckett, since it's a perfectly servicable likeness. When the article is overwhelmed with amateur sketches,then it may become a concern appropriately discussed here; the article is not exactly brimming with images as it is, in its present state. Consensus is only needed to remove the image rather than to include it--I haven't read any good arguments as to why it shouldn't be and the scarcity of images recommends inclusion.DionysosProteus (talk)13:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen multiple instances in which there have been self-promoting illustrations added to biographical articles - however I am in agreement that in this case in which there is an anonymous author and a reasonable article placement to the image that it does not seem to be overtly self-promotional. I object to its initial placement as the lede; however currently I am ambivalent as to its value and/or its removal, however if consensus keeps it, then I withdraw my objection...Modernist (talk)13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be precise. The sketch is signed by "F. Or". It was uploaded at WPenglish, WPfrançais, and WPdeutsch by editor Fewskulchor. Although no one can identify the artist, it nonetheless remains a signed work (drawn probably by Fewskulchor). Trying to replace (misguided or not) the main photograph of Beckett at three Wikipedia sites with a signed work is a form of promotion - which raised the problem of "self-promoting illustrations added to biographical articles". Like Modernist with whom I fully agree, my objection was to its initial placement as the lede and its pertinence (poor likeness of SB). So far, two editors find it's a good likeness while two more doubt its value. And since the crappy little drawing has now found a reasonable placement, it should be welcomed in the article according to WP rules on images -- until replaced by a worthy caricature. --Jumbolino (talk)20:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've made some changes, which I'm detailing here. Simplified the genres in infobox - can't assume that absurdism is the best way to describe him. Changed modernist literature to modernism--broader, given his theatre-making (awaiting an article on modernist theatre). AddedGilles Deleuze andTheodor W. Adorno as influenced ones (both use B as a model for their aesthetics. Added theatre director to occupations: article needs some material on this. Expanded the list of notable works to include the big novel trilogy and some of the later work. I couldn't understand "philosophically minimalist". What does that mean, exactly? It's not "as a student etc. of James Joyce" that he's considered a modernist--no causal link should be there (it's more like the two bits of information are in the same general area). The various categorisations are less important, I feel, than the summary "most influential in c20th". I've cleaned up the text of the rest of the article, often removing all those the year possessives. Still needs decent citations throughout.DionysosProteus (talk)15:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reading through this article recently I noticed the refutation of Beckett being mistakenly identified as an existentialist, and recalled the comments made by Adorno on this issue in his essay on Endgame. I think there is a passage to the effect of 'For existentialists, existentialism swallows history, but in Beckett, history swallows existentialism'. If we're to list Adorno in the 'influenced...' section, would it be worth finding the exact existentialism quote from the source and adding it to the text?jiesenxiaxue (talk)11:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was re-reading the introduction to the Samuel Beckett entry and wondered if it wouldn't make sense to switch "human culture" to "human existence" so that
His work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human culture, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humour.
would become
His work offers a bleak, tragicomic outlook on human existence, often coupled with black comedy and gallows humour.
My reason for proposing the change is that culture is simultaneously too vague and too specific. Are we speaking of culture in terms of high culture and low culture or are we speaking of material culture? Are we speaking about civilization? Western civilization? The phrase doesn't make much sense to me.
I recognize that the word "culture" might have been chosen to avoid the existentialist-sounding "condition" but it seems to me that, although Beckett himself was not an existentialist, he was very much concerned with human existence in general. Consider Beckett's early playEleuthéria:
Yesterday I set forth [...] the manner in which I view the problem of human existence, for a problem it is, in my opinion, despite the efforts being made to demonstrate the contrary (111).
or
It's clear. [...] Existence so weighs him down that he prefers to cancel himself out (119).
Likewise, inEndgame, Hamm is terribly distressed by the prospect "humanity might start [...] all over again" (33). His problem is not with culture (high/low, material, or any other) but with existence generally. I am only proposing a change to one word, but I think it is a significant one nevertheless.— Precedingunsigned comment added byFriesenmp (talk •contribs)22:24, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with this statement and the proposed change. I, too, was a bit confused by the use of the word "human culture." While Beckett is concerned with aspects of human culture, his main focus is concerning the existence of humans at all and what this existence means (while not being an existentialist in his writings or perspective).--Farah-baleine (talk)05:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The reference note regarding the quote from Peggy Guggenheim claims that Beckett was "looed by apathia." What does the verb "loo" mean?Lestrade (talk)00:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
Modern contemporary art is not concerned with naturalistic representation. This is fine, except when portraiture is attempted. The Irish commemorative coin and the painting by Reginald Gray appear crude and childish. If depictions of Beckett's face are made by artists, then the artists need to possess a certain level of skill. Reversion to pre-20th century quality is necessary. Otherwise, the depiction is almost comical.Lestrade (talk)16:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
I think the coin image has to be kept as it is significant that Beckett's face appears on a commemorative coin. However, I have not been happy withPortrait of Samuel Beckett by Reginald Gray since it was inserted. I reverted it twice (in June and July 2010) when it was particularly intrusive (seethis edit), but I left it for other editors to decide when it was re-added by an IP (diff). If there are no further comments here, the best method to gauge current feelings might be to remove the portrait and see what response follows. I see opinions in other articles where the same user has added similar portraits that the portrait did not assist the article.Johnuniq (talk)01:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reginald Gray is a notable portait artist. The portait is a notable interpretation of one artist by another. It is pertinent to the section in which it is included, there is no cogent reason for removal,Jezhotwells (talk)02:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Gray is a respected portrait artist - not an unknown amateur promoting his work. Removing his Beckett portrait for reasons based simply on personal aesthetics is against Wiki Guidelines onPOV. Nor should personal views be an issue regarding the coin portrait of Beckett: whatever its faults, it's there in the article as the official coin struck to commemorate his centenary. In the first case, one's dealing with an internationally recognized artist. In the second, the government minting of a coin. Provided their image sizes are non-obstrusive in the article, both cases are worthy of inclusion as relevantencyclopedic information. --Jumbolino (talk)10:32, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
InPlease Don't Eat the Daisies,David Niven cries, "I shall yell tripe when tripe is served." Let us retain the crude portrait because it was produced by an internationally "recognized" artist. If we see enough bad art, we'll eventually get used to it and it will become standard.Lestrade (talk)16:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Lestrade[reply]
Questions oftripe are not going to help here.
The comments preceding yours are hard to interpret as deciding whether or not to include a portrait in an article is nothing to do with POV, and articles definitely donot include things because they exist—as well as being encyclopedic, the material has to assist the article. The importance of an artist may be a factor in deciding whether to include their portrait, but I see nothing there in favor of this portrait in this article. Yes,Reginald Gray (artist) is notable, but obviously Beckett's status is not affected by the fact that the portrait was painted. Putting "samuel beckett painting" into a Google images search showslots of portraits—there needs to be a reason to include this one other than it is available. One possibility would be to replace the portrait with the coin image (that is, move the coin image), although the issue is not particularly important in my eyes.Johnuniq (talk)00:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The two arguments against Gray's portrait are based on the perception that it's a crude likeness (etc) that does not "assist" the article. In what way, precisely, does it hinder? Note well that I respect both your opinions. But I do think one ought to consider how other editors may feel about Gray's art; and since it concerns the well-documented significance of painting in Beckett's work (neglected in the article), the issueis important. Gray's primitive style belies genuine sophistication: this is not a personal judgement but one objectively stated (cf. artist’s profile at the Royal Hibernian Academy in Dublin, the National Gallery in London, etc). This deliberate naïveté goes hand in hand with Beckett’s pared down prose style after 1945 when he decided to write exclusively in French so as to be “ill-equipped” (cf. Craig, Fehsenfeld, Overbeck,Letters of SB: 1941-1956, 464), a technique that developed into his celebrated “syntax of weakness". While this view may or may not be shared by reliable third-party sources, it is a verifiable fact that Beckettrespected Gray's work as the portrait is drawn from life (something Beckett rarely granted); and this should be reason enough to include it in an article that lacks images by recognized artists (no doubt, for copyright reasons). If one uploaded Beckett portraits byAvigdor Arikha orLouis le Brocquy, along with illustrations of his work byBram van Velde,Jasper Johns, andEdward Gorey, the same arguments about crudity of likeness and assistance would perhaps be made. Yet Beckett was close friends with Arikha and van Velde; the latter was the brother in spirit who shared his struggle in art ("If there had to be for me a soul-mate, I make bold to say that it would be his soul and no other." Cf.Letters: 1941-56, 305). Beckett vigorously defended Bram's painting and, by consequence, his own writing. Any van Velde artwork executed between 1939-50 and a commentary would "assist" the article by contextualizing it within Beckett's dilemma based on "the rupture between subject and object", "ignorance and impotence", and the question of failure (cf. "Three Dialogues with Georges Duthuit" inDisjecta, Grove: NY, 145). If one had permission to upload images by these artists, then removing Gray's may be justified (ceding space to those who were part of Beckett's inner circle and creative process). Unfortunately, the claim that “Google images search shows lots of portraits” is misleading: Beckett portraits drawn from life by notable artists are extremely rare and obtaining permission to use them highly unlikely (ditto for those drawn from photographs). In short, my point is five-fold: Gray's portrait is Beckett-approved, drawn from life, and available; the artist notable. Without knowing the full circumstances behind its creation, we should be careful about suppressing a potentially informative image. Fellow editors have every right to condemn Beckett’s perceived poor taste (and cheers to Mr Niven on tripe and matters crude). But what do we gain by removing Gray except further impoverishment in an article that already suffers from a lack ofrigueur? --Jumbolino (talk)14:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and thanks for the careful explanation. I wondered if the portrait was from life but I had no idea and couldn't quickly find an answer, and as no one had mentioned it I assumed it wasn't. I agree that changes the significance entirely, and if there were a suitable reference I think a very brief mention should be made in the caption. I suspect that the words "from the collection of Ken White, Dublin" are contrary to a MOS guideline somewhere (no reason I can see for such a credit), and they should be replaced with a brief mention of the circumstances under which the portrait was painted. My attitude to the portrait was influenced by the intrusive manner in which it was (twice) inserted at the top of the article, as seen inthis version.Johnuniq (talk)00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One important thing is to be extra critical of any sources that appearedafter the information got put into Wikipedia, which seems to be 17 April 2006.[3]
There's also more details on an old version of this article:[5] "Actor Cary Elwes explains in his video diary of The Princess Bride that Beckett was a neighbour of the Roussimoff family, and used to give one of the Roussimoff sons, André René, a lift to school every day, since the boy was unable to take the school bus owing to his large size. André René Roussimoff would, in later years, go on to become professional wrestler André the Giant."
I've found the Cary Elwes video diary of the Princess Bride alluded to in the old version of this page referred to above, and sure enough he mentions that Andre told the story about Beckett in the first 50 seconds:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gkRTha6C3g. So it certainly seems true that Andre told the tale at least, but whether he was telling the whole truth is more difficult to establish.— Precedingunsigned comment added by83.244.194.132 (talk)09:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I added some links about for his one-act fragment,Human Wishes. I had no idea the work existed, and came to it while researching Samuel Johnson. However, I did include it in the list of "Dramatic Works" namely because I found it had just as good a reason to be there as Eleutheria, which is also technically a fragment. That, and there is a lot of commentary on the fragment as it relates to the tiny bits and pieces we can find about Beckett's development; namely Harold Bloom in the Western Canon as well as commentators in Grove's "Complete Works". I will add and source those later. If it is a big problem, let me know. --Artimaean (talk)04:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On the article as currently written: 1) Why did he fall out with his Mother? 2)Did something in particular happen to him in Ireland that he said he 'preferred Paris at war to Ireland at peace' and stayed in Paris throughout the Nazi occupation? 3) Did he have any children? 4) Is the article implying he had a 30-40 year long affair with Barbara Bray while being married to his wife Suzanne?79.97.154.238 (talk)15:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was unsubstantiated and, moreover, incorrect. The phrase Jung used was not "not being properly born." It was "never been born entirely." Jung, Carl Gustave.The Collected Works of Carl Gustave Jung, Vol. 18, trans. R.F.C.Hull, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1966-79, p.96. The talk was never on the topic of "not being properly born." It was on the topic of complexes. The phrase comes from the question and answer session following the talk, where Jung referred to one of his former patients to illustrate a point about chilren who are unable to escape living in archetypal dreams.
Perhaps more importantly, the off-hand mention of Jung's lecture seeks to mislead the reader into attributing a greater role that encounter had on Beckett than there is reason to believe. While there is scholarship that sees parallels to Jung's theory of complexes in Beckett's works, most psychoanalytic scholarship, especially those by psychoanalysts, find Bion's influence far more salient. Moreover, while Jung's lecture may have provided Beckett with an interesting phrase, Beckett had already had exposure to Jung from reading him long before attending the lecture. Beckett's attendance at the lecture is better placed in a separate article focusing on Beckett and Psychoanalysis than as a throwaway, unsubstantiated comment that implies a host of things that one simply cannot take for granted (and that scholarship does not take for granted).
While there are many writers whose internal struggles with religion define their growths as an independent thinker, there is no reason to believe Beckett is such a writer. The section on Christianity seems to be thrown in with the assumption that every writer, or every Irish writer of Beckett's time, must have had a defining relationship to Christianity. Yet the quote from Beckett that was supplied to illustrate that point clearly states that Beckett saw worship as irrelevant. There is simply no reason to include a section pondering whether Beckett was an atheist or an agnostic, or whether his not being a Christian came from Anglican or Catholic sources.
The dating of Beckett's works is tricky. Furthermore some dates given here are for when the work was written, rather than the date it was first published. With plays I'm presuming that the date of the first performance should be used, and the date the text was published used only if it was earlier (though this needs to be indicated)? If I can find the time I'll try and correct dates, and I'll indicate my sources. When a work was published long after it was written it would be useful to include the earlier date.Rwood128 (talk)14:30, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Further reading: Beckett editions --should it be deleted?
What is the criteria for the works selected for inclusion in the 'Beckett editions' section, and how does this section relate to the earlier 'Selected works'? Is it needed?Rwood128 (talk)16:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirected the page on "Worstword Ho" to this one since it does not seem to notable on its own and the article had almost no unique information.SarahTheEntwife (talk)14:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Beckett was stabbed in the chest and nearly killed when he refused the solicitations of a notorious pimp"
It's not known. Beckett never gave the details of their conversation, and ultimately declined to press charges even. SeeCronin's account, for example.
Thanks. That link doesn't work properly for me. The way my BrEng ears work, without specificity, the sentence currently implies that the pimp wanted to have sex with Beckett, which seems to go against the vague meaning you're saying it should have. --Dweller (talk)20:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links onSamuel Beckett. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I have just modified 3 external links onSamuel Beckett. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
It is good to see that this article mentions Beckett's collaboration withJames Joyce. I have heard that Beckett tried to translate part ofFinnegans Wake into French - if anybody knows anything about this, it could go in the article.Vorbee (talk)09:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
I’ve recently been trying, through some online research, to gain good ideas of the levels of reception for Beckett’s plays. I noticed thatLong Wharf TheatrelistsPlay as one of his well-known plays along withWaiting for Godot,Endgame,Krapp’s Last Tape, andHappy Days — but what I’ve read in some other sources about Beckett’s literary career does not lead me to think that this is a renowned work of his.AndrewOne (talk)20:11, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Samuel Beckett by Edmund S. Valtman ppmsc.07951.jpg in "works" was not displayed correctly and tried to fix it. But I could not. It works in the preview. But when published the image is not shown.--NisansaDdS (talk)11:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been classified asB-class. The list of issues is rather long beginning with the citation templates of December 2022 and May 2024. Wikipedia allows great latitude on layout and naming of article sections but there is an expected order.
TheEarly writings section is an option. The article also has a section on "Works", that is divided into "Early works", "Middle period", and "Late works" subsections. The Works section is actually presented as part of theappendices as it follows a "Later life and death" section, which is usually considered the end of thebody of an article. In simplified terms, the"Sequence of events". See:Story Sequence. The works section needs to be moved up into the body of the article and the "Early writings" section incorporated into this.
The "Further reading" section ("An optional bulleted list, usually alphabetized, of a reasonable number of publications"), stretches any definition of a"reasonable number of publications", with what appears to be forty entries. (See:WP:ELMIN).
Thesection is "subject to the guidelines described atWikipedia:External links and should not be presented as "references" or asembedded links. This means there should not be any added citation templates. The "External links" section has an additional twenty-five links. This was questioned in the "Further reading: Beckett editions --should it be deleted?" section above, dated 11 November 2013, but received no comments.
Some things just grow by incremental edits. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, had grown to 25 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to add for four links.
The problem is that none is needed for article promotion.
ELpoints #3) states:Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
LINKFARM states:There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
ELCITE:Do not use{{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
WP:ELBURDEN:Disputed links should be excluded by default unless and until there is a consensus to include them.
Trimmed excessive "External links" and moved here for any possible discussions.
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 will have to be a quick fail. The article is full of uncited text, including entire paragraphs and including uncited direct quotations. According toWP:V, these must be cited inline. SeeWP:QF number 3. —Kusma (talk)17:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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.
level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):PatrickDQuinn1.
