Talk:William Monahan/Archive 1

Blood Meridian adaptation Rumor
It's a rumor from 2004... so I removed the paragraph. See the origin of the rumor here: []

and the removed paragraph here: There have been rumors that Scott and Monahan will also be teaming on the movie version of the Cormac McCarthy novel Blood Meridian, for Paramount Pictures. The rumors were published in the Hollywood Reporter, and on, the official website of The Cormac McCarthy Appreciation Society.
 * In 2005 Variety [] says:"Monahan is adapting the Cormac McCarthy novel 'Blood Meridian' for Scott to direct, with Scott Rudin producing. The project is one that Rudin might bring to Disney when he switches his first-look deal from Paramount to that studio."
 * So with 2 references I've included Blood Meridian amongst Monahan's works to be.-BillDeanCarter (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Grasping for Information

 * 1) Variety [] has some comment from Monahan on how he felt about The Departed script and that he would've probably written it into a novel if the job hadn't come along.
 * 2) The Kingdom of Heaven DVD has an Audio Commentary by Ridley Scott, Writer William Monahan, and Orlando Bloom – Detailing how they came to be involved with the film and giving some background on Tripoli, the failed film project that paved the way for Kingdom of Heaven.
 * 3) [] has Monahan's book The Lighthouse being optioned by Warner Brothers for producer Billy Gerber and director Gore Verbinski (The Mexican).
 * 4) [] has Monahan and Ridley Scott having breakfast discussing the Tripoli Script during the moment 9/11 happened.
 * 5) [] on working on a Afghanistan invasion pic "Mazar i Sharrif" for producer Mace Neufeld at Sony's Columbia Pictures.
 * 6) [] on Tripoli and a Crusades movie. Monahan was supposed to write 2 back-to-back Ridley Scott films.
 * 7) [] on being hired to adapt the Louis Begley WWII novel "Wartime Lies", which had at one time been in development with helmer Stanley Kubrick as a project called "Aryan Papers."
 * 8) [] on William Monahan adapting David Ignatius' Middle East espionage novel "Penetration,'' for Warner Bros. with Ridley Scott to direct.
 * 9) [] on Monahan writing "Marco Polo," a historical epic based on Polo's autobiography "Travels" for Warner Bros. that will be a star vehicle for Matt Damon.
 * 10) [] on Reston claiming the pic draws heavily from his 2001 tome "Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade."

How he broke
Was it the adaptation of his novel, or the Tripoli script? See

Missing Facts

 * 1) What did Monahan study at UMass-Amherst? According to The Boston Globe, he studied The Bard.  Which means what?  That he studied english literature?
 * 2) Lighthouse, a trifle was optioned by Warner Bros. in 1998 but only published as a novel in June 2000.  What's that all about?  Monahan adapted his novel as well, and had Verbinski set to direct as of January 1999.  Anyone know more details?

Further work that could be done

 * Mention how critics approved of the Director's cut version of Kingdom of Heaven and disapproved of the theatrical release. Some points there to be made.
 * Mention how The Departed was something Monahan had been thinking about for a long time, the Boston take he introduced, and would've gotten around to in some form or other eventually.
 * Mention how he reviewed Oliver Stone's one and only novel -BillDeanCarter 06:28, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Mention of an article in the New York Press he wrote about heroin.

GA review
The article is quite comprehensive and well referenced. A few suggestions to make GA:


 * 1) There are a few run-on sentences, such as:
 * "He regularly visited his father at his place in West Roxbury which had an extensive library from which Monahan enjoyed reading Shakespeare particularly". ("Early years")
 * "In 2004 Monahan was hired to write a police thriller for Martin Scorsese based on the Hong Kong gangster film Infernal Affairs respun in Boston's Southie district as a battle between Irish-American gangsters and cops, released in 2006 as The Departed". ("Screenwriting career")
 * 1) Can the first paragraph of "Early years" be expanded a little? For instance, you could explain that Dorchester is a neighborhood of Boston. It's close to Roslindale, isn't it? Perhaps note that, something like "the adjacent/nearby Roslindale" etc.
 * 2) Please check film and publication names for proper italicization, as per MoS:T.
 * 3) "In 1998 Monahan broke into Hollywood when Warner Bros. optioned his satirical novel Light House: A Trifle and was hired to adapt it with Gore Verbinski to direct." What does "optioned" mean? Who was hired, WB or Monahan? It sounds confusing right now. Thanks, satisfactorily handled. :)
 * 4) "Monahan was having breakfast with Ridley Scott to discuss "Tripoli" on the day the 9/11 attacks took place of all times"—sound pretty unencyclopedic.
 * 5) Still in "Screenwriting career", all sentences seem to begin "In year x Monahan was hired by y to do z". Is there any way to rephrase some of them a little more creatively?
 * 6) Unless he's been involved in any other imbroglios, I'd rename "Controversies" to "Controversy".
 * 7) "Personal life" is somewhat stubby, if it can be expanded a little without compromising referencing, that would be nice. If not, leave it as is—not a major issue.

I'm putting the article on hold momentarily, so these issues can be addressed. After they are done, I don't see any reason this article shouldn't be listed. Fvasconcellos 00:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 25, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Needs improvement [[Image:Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg|20px]]
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Meets criteria [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]]
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Could use improvement [[Image:Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg|20px]]
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Meets criteria [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]]
 * 5. Article stability? Meets criteria [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]]
 * 6. Images?: Meets criteria [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|20px]]

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. —Fvasconcellos 23:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

What prevented Monahan from making "a beeline into the film industry as a younger man"?
He mentions the "collaborative nature" in one article and then says this here What were your childhood dreams/ambitions? To make motion pictures, and to write them with the energy and individual vision that one wold bring to a novel or a poem.

He wants films to be authored, not a collaboration of many screenwriters.-BillDeanCarter 17:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Second GA review
The article has come a long way since I last reviewed it. Accordingly, I have some fresh criticism:
 * Thanks for the speedy review and the copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) "Joining an elite circle of producers"—doesn't sound very encyclopedic, particularly as a section heading.
 * I'm aiming for a sequence of sections that go: Screenwriting career, finished products, and producer land. It shows his first steps into screenwriting, then the result of those screenplays, and finally a next step into actually producing some of what he's doing.  I'm hoping that by looking at those three headings you'll be able to take away a sense of his progress in the film industry.  I'm currently stuck on those section headings.  This is a good idea with terrible execution.-BillDeanCarter 23:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I retitled the sections. I'm still not happy with the section heading 'Becoming a producer' because it's more of a side job.  It's also that he has a circle of producers he'll work with now.  But the section heading is definitely more encyclopedic.-BillDeanCarter 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I like the section headings now.  They make sense.-BillDeanCarter 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) "Monahan had originally written Jack Nicholson's character..."—doesn't give much context on the character. Not all our readers have seen the movie :)
 * Done. Yet it could still do with a copyedit.-BillDeanCarter 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I'd like to see more emphasis on his Academy Award/WGA Award wins. Perhaps noting them earlier on, something like
 * "Monahan respun Infernal Affairs...and Martin Scorsese directed the completed screenplay under the title The Departed for Warner Bros. Monahan's work on the film would later earn him two Best Adapted Screenplay awards, from the Writers Guild of America and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences."
 * Done.-BillDeanCarter 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Several sentences still sound a bit too informal to me, such as "mid-six figures", "inked a...producing deal" and "has reached a level where he has a good enough handle on his craft..." This isn't a major issue, but the tone of an article is important, particularly if you'd like to take it to FA level eventually.
 * Okay. I'll tackle this.  Mid-six figures is important because it's his first major sale, but some of these statements sound too much like they are straight out of Variety.  Inked as well is a verb I picked up reading the Variety articles.  And the craft sentence is important, but there is definitely a more encyclopedic way of phrasing it.  I'm on it.-BillDeanCarter 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done.


 * 1) "Monahan believes that writing should be authored..."—a citation is of the essence here, and the WGA article (cite 5, which I initially thought referred to this sentence) doesn't support this statement. Thank you.
 * I cited the USA Today article where he says, "I've always like Robert Bolt's work with David Lean. I don't like films that are made with seven writers. I like movies to be authored."-BillDeanCarter 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) I think the "Marriage and children" section would be best renamed to "Personal life".
 * I disagree because I use the same section in the Aaron Sorkin article, and have an additional "Personal life" section in Controversy. I guess that split worked best in the Aaron Sorkin article, and I would consider the change if there was more information to pull together a "Personal life" section.-BillDeanCarter 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem.


 * 1) A thorough copyedit, preferably from an editor uninvolved in the article's progress, would be a good idea.
 * I agree.-BillDeanCarter 23:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I am placing the article on hold again, momentarily; it's nearly there. I have no doubt these issues will be addressed, and if you disagree with any of the above, feel free to let me know. Best, Fvasconcellos 23:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * OKay, I have tackled all your comments. What do you think is missing for this to be an FA?  I know the lead needs improvement.  A copyedit by a few people would help.  But is it at a point where I could move it to FA soon?-BillDeanCarter 15:14, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * For starters, the article is much improved. The lead could indeed use a rewrite, but for now all my concerns have been addressed, and I am therefore passing it as a Good article.

The first and main thing it needs before you consider FAC is a thorough copyedit, probably from more than one editor. Abbas Kiarostami (which I reviewed for GA status before it passed FA late last month) was worked on by several editors, both before and during its candidacy. The lead could indeed use a rewrite—right now, it doesn't give an "outline", which is exactly what a lead should do; it could also be expanded a bit. I'll keep an eye on the article, and if and when you decide to take it to FA, I'll comment. Best wishes, Fvasconcellos 15:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments
I've had a first look at the article and I had a go at copyediting the lead. I haven't delved too deep into the article quite yet, but there are two things that I think could use amending:


 * There are no fewer than five instances of describing how Monahan sees himself as a "man of letters". I'm not all to familiar with the term, but from the description given at the link, it strikes me as being a bit archaic, and I already removed mention of it in the lead. I believe Monahan's self-description as one is relevant, but I have doubts about how neutral it is to feature it over and over in the article. I think the quote from the interview and perhaps the section heading should be kept, but not the others.
 * I agree with your copyedit of the lead. The only remaining mention of "man of letters" is in the section heading Man of letters, the quote, and the very beginning of the Screenwriting career section.  He has talked at length about how it was his ambition, and after researching what a "man of letters" is he very aptly fits the description.  As it is now I think it is neutral.-BillDeanCarter 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Controversy"-sections are never really satisfying, or indeed necessary (unless we're talking Wal-Mart or Opus Dei). They just look awkward and out of place, as if the prose they contain is put in quarantine. I think it should be integrated with the chronology like the rest of the prose.
 * No, it's perfect in controversy. This is something that most screenwriters are accused of.  It doesn't belong anywhere else.  I did the same in the article on Aaron Sorkin.-BillDeanCarter 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll see if I have any more pointers once I've read the article thoroughly. Peter Isotalo 20:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thanks.-BillDeanCarter 22:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Lead image
The lead image in this article (Image:WilliamMonahan at LowesBostonCommon cropped higherquality.jpg) is CC-BY-SA. It is not a fair use image, and does not warrant removal. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like the poster for The Departed has been removed. I thought User:ShadowHalo had worked out a fair use rationale that was accepted?-BillDeanCarter 03:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the image. If the image in the infobox were copyrighted, then that would be appropriate to remove since it would fail the first criterion at WP:NFCC.  But illustrating Monahan's best-known work is not replaceable, not decorative, and doesn't violate any of the other criteria.  ShadowHalo 09:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I dont mean to be nitpicky, but the lead photo (Image:WilliamMonahan at LowesBostonCommon cropped higherquality.jpg) is really unflattering. Seriously, it looks like someone just stumbled upon him in a bathroom stall.  Someone should find a better picture and change it.  Having a mildly flattering picture of the subject of a biographical encyclopedia article is the least Wikipedia can do. MrPMonday 13:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Pretty much, we'll take whatever free content we can get. It took enough to find this picture and convince the copyright holder to release it freely; if you can find a better free picture, more power to you.  ShadowHalo 19:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

A few comments
Interesting read, fascinating topic. I did find, however, that the text is very dense, with long sections and little to break it up (images, quotes). Take for instance the biographical FA Roman Vishniac, which has shorter sections, lots of images, and some information in tabular format. Now I know that - since Mr Vishniac was a photographer, it's a different type of bio - but I think nevertheless that breaking up the narrative a bit, however it's done, would make the article more attractive as a whole and more readable. Also, the blue quote boxes? Not sold on them. Anchoress 01:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I had maybe overdone it with the quotes. The blue quote boxes are simply the template I've seen User:Yannismarou use, whose excellent FAs I modeled this one, and my other one, after.-BillDeanCarter 03:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Images are very hard to find given all the fair use rules here from I understand. Aaron Bowen 12:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep. That's exactly it.  It took me a while to find a photo of David Mamet that could be made CC-by-SA (public domain).-BillDeanCarter 12:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It really is a shame, from what I nunderstand some articles are almost FA quality but their editors just can't find pics. Also, some of the ones that editors do find are amateurish and poor. Aaron Bowen 12:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Scabrous
Isn't this a little too obscure of a word? Especially for the second sentence of an article? I linked it to Wikitionary but this looks like an intellectual indulgence. Aaron Bowen 03:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's an awesome word and not too obscure, but if it was used appropriately, the topic wasn't given enough context. Anchoress 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's used appropriately, and the topic's context is in the works (in the process) at the List of the writings of William Monahan. Supposedly Monahan wrote about 50 articles at the New York Press that were scabrous and excellent, and as author Dawn Eden says "I remember Bill from 10 years ago as charming, libertarian-leaning, with a razor-sharp wit that he used in print to anger as many people as possible. Monahan's most notorious New York Press piece, "Dr. Rosenthal, I Presume" (6/21/95), was a devil's-advocate response to a New York Times op-ed by A.M. Rosenthal that had recommended the United States spend $100 million to eradicate female genital mutilation in Africa."-BillDeanCarter 03:17, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer erotic, or some other alternative. It really is obscure. I'll give anyone out there $1,000 if I ever hear it used in conversation in my lifetime. Just leave me a message on my talkpage and I'll make a list. Trevor GH5 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I've heard it several times. Anchoress 03:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the two definitions in the wiktionary link are 'rough' and 'sexual'. If the use of the word in this article is meant to connote 'rough', then I don't think the examples you gave fit; if it's meant to connote sexuality, I think that needs to be more fleshed-out. I mean, picture the alternatives; saying that his writing for the NYP was 'rough', or 'prurient'. Do either of those fit? Anchoress 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Prurient is not too well circulated, but at least I've heard of it. Aaron Bowen 03:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I picked up the word from Jon Fine of BusinessWeek (see ). I like the word, and I find it's very intuitive.  Sounds piratey!  It also seems to be appropriate, but the clincher for me was that Jon Fine has read all of Monahan's stuff at the New York Press and thought it was the right characterization.-BillDeanCarter 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I think it should be replaced, form follows function and the whole bit. The funniest part is when it first appeared it wasn't even linked apparently; like anybody is gonna know what that word is. I mean seriously. That word aside though the article is pretty interesting. Nice work to whoever wrote it. Trevor GH5 03:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wrote it.  Scabrous is a difficult word, and I appreciate the wiktionary link to the definition.-BillDeanCarter 04:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggested merge of List of the writings of William Monahan into this article
Based on the recent AfD discussions (here and here), it seems some people wish to have List of the writings of William Monahan merged into this article. This is a procedural posting and I have no opinion on the matter. Please discuss this issue here, come to a consensus, and then follow through on that consensus. Please remember to be nice to each other as we are all here to build an encyclopedia. Thanks! ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihon joe 22:48, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on possible merge

 * 1) Oppose merge - Keep separate as per WP:SIZE and for aesthetic reasons. I believe having a comprehensive bibliography such as this one is important for a screen-writer (or any other notable writer), but it seems very sensible to split off into another article due to the size of the William Monahan article (43.1kB at the moment, well above 32kB, and will probably be over 50kB if merged). - Shudda   talk  23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per Shudda. If the content was merged back here, it would likely make up a significant portion of the article; IMHO, the "Credits" section and snippets already present throughout are more than enough for a main article; WP:SS. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose merge - the article is sufficiently long so that daughter articles should be created, and the list of writings is the most obvious candidate. A Musing 16:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional comment - the reason for a separate list is that the total bibliography is sufficiently long to be cumbersome in the parent article; thus, in each of the cases of Bach, Priestly, Sherwood, and Thomspon cited in the discussion below, the subject is sufficiently prolific that it makes sense to separate out and list the works. A list would be far less appropriate for someone with only one or two works in all, however prominent. In Monahan's case, we have an author with a well-reviewed novel, an Oscar-winning screenplay, short stories that include a Pushcart Prize winner, a quirky little series with its own interest, and a journalistic career - the guy is no slouch, but is a recognized, first rate writer.  I would suggest that those contributing here take care to read the article and list before weighing in.A Musing 20:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose merge - The bibliography will only get longer and thus a merge will create an unsightly article. It is right to separate the list such as has been done with List of works by Joseph Priestley, List of works by Mary Martha Sherwood, and List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. WP:LOW emphasizes that bibliographies should be aesthetic and easy to read; that is what the editors of the William Monahan list are trying to do. Furthermore, wikipedia should not make a judgment regarding the "worth" of an artist's or writer's work - it should not say, Bach is worthy of a second page but Monahan is not. Who on wikipedia is going to decide that? On what grounds will that decision be made? Simply that some random set of editors happens to have heard of the subject? Wikipedia claims to follow reliable sources (WP:RS); well, in literary criticism, it is no longer acceptable to say that there is a canon of great writers and only those writers are worthy of inclusion or discussion in something like an encyclopedia. If wikipedia is going to list works for Bach, Priestley and Sherwood, it should list works for Monahan, too. Awadewit Talk 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong Support for Merge as disproportionate weight.  -- 2 articles for one guy is undue emphasis on his minor works. It would no more make a disproportionate weight, as its a fairly short article and a fairly short list. The list also goes into perhaps disproportionate weight, listing individual newspaper contributions. Is there anywhere else that this has been done?It would be shorter if at the normal level of detail.
 * See Bibliography of Hunter S. Thompson. As well note criteria 1(a)3 for featured lists, which states: "The list contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items that naturally fit together to form a significant topic of study, and where the set's members are not notable enough to have individual articles." and 1(b) which states: ""Comprehensive" means that the list covers the defined scope by including every member of a set..."-BillDeanCarter 22:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * ExamplesIt is very easy to see why Bach needs a separate page: count the number of his major works. Now count Monahan's. (major works, remember) How many are there which justify a separate article? How many of Bach's? There are whole books devoted merely to listing  --just listing, not commenting on, Bach's work. Is this true of Monahan?DGG 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for Priestley and Sherwood, they should be merged back into the articles also, and as soon as we're done here I will suggest it there.  DGG 19:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you looked at those lists? They are actually quite long and would make the article ridiculously long? This is exactly the reason that I became involved in this debate. Why do you want to merge Priestley and Sherwood and not Bach? Simply because you have not heard of them? Awadewit Talk 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You are making a value judgment - wikipedia has shied away from doing so and rightfully. Also, there are many, many non-major works on the Bach list. Awadewit Talk 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Those lists are way too long to be merged back. For the sake of clarity the bibliography should remain its own article.  I would suggest that Awadewit try to get those two lists through WP:FLC when they are complete.-BillDeanCarter 20:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment--WP:LOW describes how a list in an article should be formatted, not that it should be a separate article DGG 19:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * But as I keep reiterating, the criteria that it emphasizes are readability and usefulness - that is why separate articles are better. Awadewit Talk 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Oppose merge Would be a blight on the main article.-BillDeanCarter 17:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Do Not Merge list continues to grow, and precedent has been established for forking bibliographies from authors pages. Black Harry (T|C) 20:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) oppose merge This looks like consensus, I'm going to be bold and remove the tag. If I'm wrong revert me. Aaron Bowen 01:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Tag removed. Aaron Bowen 01:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The previous AfD was closed merge, as an escape from the decision of keeping or deleting the article. Are you guys quite sure you want to risk another AfD? Your choice entirely. Even if I don't nominate it, wanting some peace for other topics (smile), someone else very likely will. It wasn't I who started that AfD. DGG 02:34, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither AfD closed merge. Both said a merge should be discussed though, and now it has. I think the point was a merge discussion should have occurred before an AfD - which was a good point and makes sense. It's been discussed here and everyone has had the opportunity to express their thoughts, and a consensus for merge has not been found. Obviously another attempt at a merge or AfD will not reach a consensus at the moment so it's entirely a waste of time for anyone to bother - at least in the immediate future anyway. - Shudda   talk  03:13, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is my math off or was it 7–1 against merge? I would say clear consensus is against it. If you want to put the merge tag back on top of the article go ahead. Aaron Bowen 05:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that there is no point in putting up a merge tag again. Rightly or wrongly, opinion here is clear. What AfD will do in any repeated nomination is always totally unpredictable. I've always said its wrong to repeatedly renominate an article at short intervals until the balance chances to swing the way you want it, and I think so still. DGG 06:21, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on bibliographies
(See Category:Bibliographies by author, the new suggested way of dealing with writers who have lengthy bibliographies) The more I think about it the more sense it makes, if an editor is willing to take the time to research a writer's complete bibliography, to have a separate article. The list would have to be of sufficient length. They are a duo: an article on the writer, an article on his bibliography. You can glean: It seems to me to be the proper way to characterize a writer. These aren't lists of awards, or homes the writer lived in, or famous friends. This is a legitimate article on a writer's bibliography. These bibliographies aren't going to sprout up because they take time to compile, but if someone has the energy to do it then Wikipedia should accept that list. I'd like to see a complete list of Mark Twain's writings from his beginnings up until his death. Or Bob Woodward. Or Sy Hersh. What do you think?-BillDeanCarter 20:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * the amount he or she wrote
 * the publishers
 * the years
 * the geographical places
 * the kind of writings
 * I note that it is difficult to write an article on a writer without first surveying what he or she wrote - a bibliography is a great place to start. Also, where a subject is notable, we generally take an interest in their life as a whole, and a work that may not be remembered on its own merit may be quite remarkable for the impact it had on their life or the development of their writing.  But let's not forget a good bibliography for Charles Lamb while we're at it. A Musing 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Wikipedia is the perfect place for something like this. The bibliographies that I have recently made into lists (which DGG has promised to merge into my nicely designed articles) are currently not available anywhere else on the web. Only wikipedia has them. Awadewit Talk 20:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I started a talk at Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style_%28lists of works%29 about what should be done.-BillDeanCarter 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (response here for the sake of continuity, but will continue on the MOC page)
 * Certainly it is necessary to have a working bibliography. A good one belongs in every article. A full bibliography in the scholarly sense, like scholarly material generally, is not appropriate for Wikipedia. We don't have a single one. Preparing one is OR. We are a general encyclopedia. DGG 04:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, we do have full bibliographies. And I would say that wikipedia can enable scholarly work - there is nothing wrong with that. Furthermore, if you want to say that no scholarly material belongs on wikipedia, you are going to have eliminate a huge number of science pages that no one can understand but highly-educated scientists. I think that there is a place for pages like that. They should have general introductions for the lay reader (like me) or be split into two (like introduction to quantum mechanics). Since wikipedia is not paper, the possibilities are greater than for a boring-old encyclopedia. I don't think that we should think of ourselves as "britannica on the web." We should think of ourselves as something better - more expansive - than that. Something that can appeal to several different audiences. We can be innovative! Awadewit Talk 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Awadewit. Aaron Bowen 13:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Kindly tell me an article that you think has a full bibliography, and I'll either send you a critique explaining what else it would need, or tell you that you caught me out and found an exception.. As a guide, full means a listing of all published works, in all editions & languages & media, either published by the subject of dealing with the subject.  Anything less is a selective bibliography. Selective bibliographies are appropriate for WP. We're not really talking about bibliographies--we're talking about lists of works. These are useful, and WP can provide them. I know of no fully reliable list of works on Wikipedia, because I can not rely on knowing the quality & comprehensiveness, since I cannot know who wrote it, & what thats person's qualifications are. Show me one you can prove is complete and trustworthy, and tell me how you know it is. If it's non-trivial, I'll show it isn't, or admit I was wrong & that you found an exception.
 * WP can enable scholarly work, within the limits of what the editors are prepared to do and provided the scholars don't need to show much confidence in accuracy or completeness. It is not a place to publish scholarly work, because scholarship means attribution to a known author with a known identity who takes responsibility for the work, and that is impossible in WP, because anyone can edit. Please don't confuse undergraduate level physics with scholarship. If you want to write a scholarly article on, say, Monahan, publish it under your name in a peer-reviewed journal. DGG 05:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, under those conditions, you are right, wikipedia does not have any full bibliographies, but then there probably aren't any anywhere. For example, I just consulted a scholarly bibliography for my dissertation on Locke's Some Thoughts Concerning Education but since it only listed all of the French, Spanish, English, Dutch and Italian editions from the 18th and 19th centuries, it is not scholarly enough for you. All bibliographies assembled by scholars are selective; each bibliographic project chooses a particular area to cover and deals with that area only. Hopefully another scholar will come along and cover another area that hasn't been covered. Let's not be silly in our definitions. We were using the word "bibliography" here to refer to a list of works by the author, artist or musician; no one is or was proposing a complete annotated bibliography listing all of the scholarship on the figures and their works. Now, it just looks like you are being disingenuous in the debate. If you want everyone in the discussion to use the phrase "list of works" because it is more precise, that is fine, but don't start erecting strawmen arguments. No one has suggested that wikipedia should contain extensive bilbiographies of secondary materials.
 * Let me give some examples of what I mean by enabling work. The lists of works that I posted on Mary Martha Sherwood is only available in one specific book. Only 96 libraries in the entire world (according to WorldCat) own that book. Now the basics of that information is available for millions of people (including many scholars), not just those who have access to the 96 copies of the book. I can also envision a second way. Scholars may go to list of works compiled by a wikipedian and see a work they are unfamiliar with; they may wonder, "is that really by so-and-so?" They may check on up on it. They may then publish something on it, not necessarily citing wikipedia as a source but they would have been made aware of its existence because of wikipedia.
 * I'm not sure why you have accused me of confusing scholarship with undergraduate physics. I most certainly did not that and would never do that. What I was trying to point out was that many of the science pages on wikipedia are not general and far too specific for the lay reader. The quantum mechanics page is like this, thus they forked it and created an introduction to quantum mechanics page for the general reader. Would you suggest deleting the quantum mechanics page, even though only people with a strong math and science education can understand it (you did claim that wikipedia is a general encyclopedia)? I would not - I think that wikipedia is a unique position to appeal to a multiplicity of readerships.
 * Again, I'm not sure what you really mean by your last comment about publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. I think that you simply mistook my meaning of "enable." I meant that wikipedia can "enable" scholars in their own work outside of wikipedia - it can be a tool. (Since I know nothing about Monahan, I would never write on him, anyway.)
 * Finally, as I stated at the MOS page, I just do not understand the harm done by these pages; to me, they provide nothing but helpful information. Please explain why they are detrimental to wikipedia and inhibit understanding of the subject of the article. I believe that they promote understanding of the subject. Awadewit Talk 05:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
 * unnecessary multiplication of pages detracts from navigation of the encyclopedia, and the apparent consistency of the articles. Disproportionate coverage indicates amateurism in the worst sense. DGG 07:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Man of letters/Continental plan
The statements:
 * 1) in the Los Angeles Times he says: "I wanted to be an old-fashioned man of letters, so I essentially prepared myself very carefully through my 20s for a job that doesn't exist anymore; you may be able to find a man of letters in Syria or the Horn of Africa, but you could work Manhattan or London with dogs for a year and never find one. Anthony Burgess is dead, Vidal is the last lion, and at any rate belles-lettres aren't where they were left. Anyway, I'm making movies now. Just before all this happened, I thought, 'Out of everything you can do or think you can do, pick one thing and be it.' What I picked was to be the screenwriter."
 * 2) in a Collider.com interview he says: "I was always a dramatist, or screenwriter, as well as a novelist, but journalism and editing became the way I first made a living by writing. And that was all right, because I then saw myself working on the continental plan, where if you’re a literary writer you do journalism, criticism, whatever you can do to make sure that you’re living one hundred percent as a writer, rather than following the American plan of being a teacher. I got pretty entangled in journalism and editing, because even in a field that ultimately will not be your own, you become competitive in it. I’d made headway as a literary novelist, but I decided even as I was publishing my first novel that I was going to ditch it all for film. I really hated the experience of publishing a novel, to the extent that I bought “Light House” back from Penguin Putnam and took it off the market while we were shooting Kingdom of Heaven. It was demoralizing to write a really good book and to realize how little the rewards were, even though the book did quite well, as far as first novels are concerned. The only positive benefit from publishing “Light House” was that I got hired to write the screenplay and then shifted my attention to screenwriting exclusively. Nothing I’ve done in film has been less personal than a novel, or less literary, so I’m not missing out on anything.  I made a decision to carry the war into a bigger and better art form."
 * 3) in an interview with the WGA he says: "I really was educated as the classical ink-stained wretch. By about the age of 25, I had learned that I could do anything in writing with some degree of success. I made a mark in journalism, had a career there if I wanted it, made a mark in fiction. I was a decent scholar and could have gone that way too, on what you might call the Anthony Burgess plan -- a novel here, an article here, a screenplay there, on the continental model. I thought that was what I was going to do, but it chilled me a little bit, because it was obviously an anachronistic model of operations."

This is all an effort to create a more accurate Early years section.-BillDeanCarter 03:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I, Claudius
Is it true? The Hollywood Reporter reports that Leonardo DiCaprio and screenwriter William Monahan, who worked together on "The Departed," are circling the project, though no offers have been made. on Sep. 6 2007, and then a month later Variety further reports that Rudin is developing Robert Graves' "I, Claudius," with Leonardo DiCaprio and William Monahan attached.. If there is contradictory evidence please let know. For the moment it will be fact.-BillDeanCarter 21:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Incorporate into producers section. Monahan and DiCaprio put in a bid, lost to Rudin, and are now attached as writer and actor.-BillDeanCarter 22:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)