Talk:David Graeber bibliography
Add topic | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
A start
[edit]This is a rough draft of the WP:SPLIT I proposed earlier this month at Talk:David Graeber. Pinging Scenography and Joe Roe as a major contributor to the current list and an interested party, respectively. Feel free to edit in my userspace if you like and to ping others who might be interested. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Posthumous books
[edit]I don't think we should be listing posthumous books on the basis that they were listed as forthcoming on Graeber's CV before his death. While books that were completed or nearing completion are likely to be published, there's no reason to believe that books that were not so far along won't be published, or won't be published in the same form. As such we ought to only include those supported by additional sources. Whose Creative Energy? is a particularly odd case, as Graeber cites an essay by Terence Turner as part of that forthcoming volume in Possibilities (2007, pp. 83 and 154). Even by the standards of academic publishing that would be an extraordinarily long gestation period. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- For now, I changed the heading to "Posthumous books and unfinished books." Later, after some of the books are published, the unpublished books can go under a separate heading for "Unfinished books." – Scenography (talk) 19:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is better, but I still think better sourcing is needed, especially for Whose Creative Energy?, where the CV seems to be very outdated or just incorrect. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Bibliography layout
[edit]I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography:
- Cite templates will continue to be used.
- I prefer capitalization and punctuation to follow the standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, rather than "title case".
- Links (either direct or indirect) to potentially unreliable or incomplete digitised copies and to booksellers (including Wikipedia's ISBN links) may be removed.
- A "Critical studies and reviews" section may be created instead of using inline references to book reviews.
This is a work in progress; feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)