Talk:Art, Truth & Politics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information. |
[edit] Split off section
This article is a section of the main article, Harold Pinter. For that article's discussion page, please see Talk:Harold Pinter. [That talk page currently has three archives of previous discussion, which also need to be consulted in relation to this controversial section of a controversial article.] (Added explanation. Updated.) --NYScholar 22:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [Updated. --NYScholar 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]
[edit] Unbalanced Criticism
I find it unfair that the various critics of the speech are only mentioned by quoting critics of the criticism, rather than letting those who disagree with Pinter's views speak for themselves.Armandtanzarian 20:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
- Not "unbalanced criticism" at all: see the links for the sources in Selected bibliography for Harold Pinter. One must also keep in mind that sources cited in articles relating to living persons WP:BLP must meet WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources (Self-published websites or other questionable sources (blogs) are not considered reliable sources.)
- If there is any "unbalance" it is in the primary sources; citing them without commenting on them leads to lack of neutrality without presenting other perspectives on them. (See archived talk pages in Talk:Harold Pinter.) Note 2 provides citations to the bibliography; you need to consult it for the full citations; the articles are accessible there.) This article is part of a larger article (it is a section of it). Please do not discuss it out of that context. (See Talk:Harold Pinter.) The sources cited by the secondary sources are already linked in Selected bibliography for Harold Pinter, where they "speak for themselves" via full citations; see Wikipedia:Guidelines for controversial articles (see links in template notices). [I just updated a link for Hari's article, which was originally published in The Independent. [Note well that one cannot cite self-published blogs and other self-published websites that do not meet the threshold of WP:V in biographies of living persons or other Wikipedia articles, talk pages, or other space in documenting sources of information about living persons: see WP:BLP, particularly WP:BLP#Sources.] [Updated. --NYScholar 01:14, 13 October 2007 (UTC)]
- All one needs to do is click on the links in the full citations to the articles to read what they have to say. They are properly cited. To quote from them without providing a context for them has in past versions of the article on Pinter led to lack of neutrality. (Hitchens' article is accessible via subscription; in Wikipedia one cannot link to blogs or other self-published sources for it.) If one wants to read the source in its original format, one needs to follow the instructions on the site of the source as cited. [In Wikipedia, one cannot link to blogs and other self-published websites or lists because they do not meet WP:V#Sources and WP:BLP#Sources criteria. See also: WP:NOR.]
- One must meet Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. With respect to sources cited that are "minority points of view," one must beware of the problems of emphasizing minority points of view in biographies of living persons who are well-known public figures and other Wikipedia articles. Keeping in mind the requirement of following WP:BLP#Sources, see also WP:BLP#Well known public figures and Wikipedia:Point of view.
- One has to be careful to avoid pushing partisan points of view moreover, especially when the points of view are not expressed by notable reliable authorities on the subject. One should not cite possibly unreliable opponents of the subject's political point of view who clearly are pushing their own points of view without providing a context for those (in this case) minority points of view. Citing a perspective on what they say (in sources who are directly quoting them) and linking to the primary sources in the bibliography provide adequate access to what they say. --NYScholar 21:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC) [clarified. --NYScholar 22:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)]
