This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Austria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles about Austria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project.AustriaWikipedia:WikiProject AustriaTemplate:WikiProject AustriaAustria articles
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Some people don't know how wikipedia works. I don't need to announce myself for adding a paragraph. There were no edits or expansions for Handke for months, extremely boring. No response or personal reaction by his were offered, just accusations. We don't have to agree with Handke, but let him talk or write. I am defending his literature. Osterluzei (talk) 08:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
You must have missed the fact that I gave a reason for the removal right in the beginning: "undue weight. We really don't need a full extra paragraph for a single critic's views and discussions". That remains true. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We do high-level summaries of issues here. Not tit-for-tat reporting of "he said this, and then he said that". Also, of course, the fact that we haven't seen major additions "for months" is of no relevance whatsoever. Wikipedia articles aren't meant to groww continually; otherwise we'd be swamped in unreadably large articles in no time. Incidentally, the new paragraph was also quite redundant, reintroducing and re-linking issues that were already covered above as if they were new. Very poor writing. Fut.Perf.☼06:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seems like whitewashing to not mention Handke's controversial writings about Serbia in the lead, especially considering the role they play in public discussion of his life and work (the 'controversy' section is nearly half the article). So I have added a sentence at the end of the lead to mention it. AtavisticPillow (talk) 15:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
