Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The Writing of the Article

Rather than going off on tangents like discussing the nationality/ citizenship of rather-obscure people, it is better to write about improving the Wikipedia article as it now stands. It definitely needs a lot of improvement. Most of it now ready like a series of facts dropped randomly into ones ear like raindrops falling in a heavy rain. There is little or no overlying structure or "theme" to the exposition. Facts in an exposition need to be organized to support the structure of the ideas behind it. I would suggest as a start-up describing decade-by-decade how the rationales of choices for the Prize have evolved, and further, how the literature under consideration itself had evolved. Clearly, literature written in the 1910s is different from literature written in the 1990s, for example. Also, reasons could be given and supported as to why giants of literature who were widely published (such as Steinbeck and Hemmingway) were once chosen, but in the last several decades, the move has been to obscure and even unknown writers in languages that are not widely published, and whose works have not been widely translated and published, either. I personally don't see much point in giving the Prize to obscure writers in obscure languages whose works have not been widely published. Where does that lead? To a writer from some place like Zanzibar or Kazakhstan who has written one book of which 100 copies were printed??74.249.76.34 (talk) 11:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobody cares one bit about what you "personally see a point in" or not. Based on your other contributions, you're probably a troll. I've removed your mad supremacy theories as they have nothing to do with this article (not to mention reality). I'm leaving this comment in as it is related to the topic, but be aware that Wikipedia is not a discussion board for us to express our personal prejudices. JdeJ (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Henryk Sienkiewicz's Citizenship

79.126.22.44 (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Alex

I'm sorry, this Nobel prize winner was a citizen of the Russian empire, not Poland Off course, the Great Principality of Poland existed but it was a part of the Russian empire. That's why pan Sienkiewicz was a Polish-speaker Russian writer!!☺ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.22.44 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 1 April 2008

I've changed Henryk Sienkiewicz's nationality back to Poland for the same reason that Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson (1903 laureate) is listed with Norway instead of Sweden, even though Norway was a part of Sweden in 1903. Poland may have been part of the Russian empire in 1905 but it was also a personal union. –panda (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand, Norway was not part of Sweden, but both countries were forming a union. A current example would be: Northern Ireland is not part of England, but both are members of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. --Itub (talk) 13:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Norway was given to Sweden after Denmark-Norway lost the Napoleonic wars, via the Treaty of Kiel. There's more details in Norway in 1814 and 1814 in Norway. During 1814, when Norway was to be ceded to Sweden, Norway attempted to declare its independence but Sweden then attacked Norway. To avoid a continued war with Sweden, Norway agreed to form a union with Sweden and did not became independent from Sweden until 1905. Norway could not dissolved the union on its own, Sweden had to first acknowledge it, which in practical terms meant that Norway was a part of Sweden until Sweden agreed otherwise.

I'm unfamiliar with why Great Britain and Northern Ireland are in a union. This isn't any different from listing Austria instead of Austria-Hungary for Robert Bárány (1914 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine). If Poland should be replaced with "Russian Empire", then Norway should be replaced with "Union of Sweden and Norway" and Austria with "Austria-Hungary", but they're not currently so. The question of Henryk Sienkiewicz's nationality should also be taken up in his article with the editors who listed his nationality as Polish, not Russian.

On a side note to 79.126.xx.xx, Wikipedia should not be used as a reference for itself. –panda (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Sienkiewicz was born in Podlachia, could we use that? Otherwise his nationality is listed as Polish on his wikipage, he wrote in Polish, he called himself the 'son of Poland' in his Nobel acceptance speech, thought of himself as Polish, his ashes were repatriated to Poland, Congress Poland was a puppet state of Russia, but a puppet state is still not the main state (i.e. even though Russia ruled, it allowed Poland the political appearance of independence). Sienkiewicz was born into Congress Poland and died when it became the Kingdom of Poland, puppet state of Germany (going by the wikipages on history of Poland). So, I say Polish. Better yet would be a convention for things like this, anyone know of any guidelines in this area? WLU (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I support the entry for Poland (and the many good reasons why have been listed above). I'd like to remind everyone that editors of this page have largely agreed (after much discussion, recently deleted by WLU) to abide by the listing on the Nobel website for a final authority (in this case, he is listed under Poland). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irregulargalaxies (talk • contribs)

Do you mean deleted, or archived, linked to in the archive box at the top of the page (here)? I very, very briefly searched the previous page for guidance on this and couldn't find any, but if there was previous discussion we should link to it. No sense re-inventing the wheel. WLU (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah - archived, then. My mistake - thank you.

After soliciting opinions from a variety of sources in the Wikipedia community (moderated by panda), it was decided to go by the book (in this case, the Nobel foundation and the book Nobel: The Man and his Prizes). This is located in the archived talk page under RFC: Country data in Nobel lists and applies to all the Nobel sites, not just literature. I'll note that the site does not subscribe rigorously to those rules currently, as countries in which authors held/hold citizenship (as verified by a reliable source) are also currently listed in the same column. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 02:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The relevant links would be Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists and Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Closing comments. Looking at the closing comments, it wasn't really decided which countries to keep in the list, but it was decided to use the common name for all countries/nationalities. There have been other related discussions in the archive here for various laureates. –panda (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Non-laureates and controversies.

The author of the article states that in 1976 on Americans were awarded Prizes, in honor of the Bicentennial. This is not true, the Peace Prize in 1976 was awarded to two women from the UK for their work in Northern Ireland. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1976.html Scotty4536 (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Corrected the problem mentioned above (deleted unsourced parenthetical comment) and corrected some errors in related source citations. --NYScholar (talk) 23:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha07:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC) 194.116.199.218 (talk)

Criticism

I see that the criticism section doesn't feature the rather common criticism of how the prize mainly is reserved for European/ American/ Australian/ Canadian authors writing in English. Sweden alone has received more prizes than the whole Asian continent, offering a rather extreme case of how the Academy is only aware of authors close to their own culture. While German was the first foreign language in Sweden, the prize usually went to German authors. These days, with fewer and fewer Swedes able to understand any other language than English, the prize goes to authors writing in English at least every second year. The Academy's extreme focus on Sweden, Europe and the English language for a prize that is claimed to be truly "international" has been the subject of quite extensive criticism and I think a section on it would be appropriate. JdeJ (talk) 09:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Not only that but also notice how most Nobel prices were given to German and French speakers before the 2nd World War but afterwards there the biggest number of awards is given to Americans and British people especially of Jewish decend. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhiteMagick (talk • contribs) 21:04, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

this article does not say what are the eligible languages and problem with tagore entry

bold text'this article does not say what are the eligible languages for nobel in literature and does not describe how minor languages are equally considered for the prize, if they indeed are. this process needs to be explained in the article

and problem with tagore entry in list of winners: it says the language of his works is bengali, but in the description by the nobel commitee it says he wrote in english. can you reconcile this? —preceding unsigned comment added by 69.242.238.130 (talk) 16:59, 9 october 2008 (utc)

There are no language requirements for the Nobel; lack of suitable translations will mean less exposure to the judges of the Swedish Academy, but the original work may be in any language. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 19:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

What does this mean?

From the lead:

• "..whereas others contend that others, who are already well known, do not deserve it"

Apart from the simply ugly repetition of the word 'others', it's not at all clear. Does it mean:

• "..whereas other people think that some winners do not deserve it because they are already well known."

Or

• "..whereas other people think that some of the previously-famous winners do not deserve it."

Or just

• "..whereas other people think some winners do not deserve it."

I don't have an opinion on the subject: it's just pretty sloppy writing. 78.113.222.86 (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sod it, I've edited it. Please change if necessary. 78.113.222.86 (talk) 19:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The will of Alfred Nobel

...in the words from the will of Alfred Nobel, produced "the most outstanding work of an idealistic tendency" (original Swedish: den som inom litteraturen har producerat det utmärktaste i idealisk riktning)

'Idealisk' in Swedish translates into Ideal, not Idealistic. The proper translation is found at http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/laureate_reading.html and states: '...one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction.'

Rhthomsen (talk) 08:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't true at all. The translation has recently been disputed, as trends in literature have shifted I should say, to "ideal" over "idealistic." It should be changed back to idealistic with a note on modern interpretation.--J.Dayton (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Nobel Prize FOR Literature

Prize IN literature is unidiomatic - a lazy reflection of the 'i' in the Swedish "Nobelpriset i litteratur", but perhaps it is the official form used by the Swedish Academy. Ironic that they should get language wrong. Don't all normal people talk about the Nobel Prize for Literature? Tsinfandel (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be pretty mixed; a quick Google search suggests that a lot of people do use "in," although "for" is more popular. At any rate, you're correct is that "in literature" is the official form, or at least the form their English-language web-site uses.Deadlyhair (talk) 03:51, 11 October 2009 (UTC)