Talk:2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Template:Community article probation

He's not African American

Black maybe, but one cannot have a white parent and be "African American". —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcCapa (talk • contribs) 23:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Photo

Note that the photo on the Nobel website [1] is a cropped version of the one I inserted from Wikipedia File:Obama portrait crop.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallbones (talk • contribs)

Wow! Never expected the Nobel committee to get their Obama pic from Wikipedia. Abecedare (talk) 15:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Go Wikipedia! Vishnu2011 (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nobel folks seem to be using a lot of those lately. I frankly don't know why more large organizations don't use commons for media; it's like a catalogue of "please take me and use me for free" quality works, which should get anyone who spends a large amount of money worked up. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the most recent Signpost, they did the same thing for a couple of the science prize winners. Smallbones (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Umm, sorry but, isn't that his official portrait?? It is also CC'd so what did you expect? The photo being on Wikipedia had nothing to with it. Pristino (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Just though I should try and head things off at the pass here. Given the surprising nature of the award (it being awarded so soon into his presidency among other reasons), it's not surprising that some people may feel that the award is controversial. (The Taliban seems to disagree , but that's hardly worth noting I think). So perhaps we can work toward achieving a consensus on what does or does not belong. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the edit summary about the "caterwauling" of Norwegian opposition parties, but the Times is different. Also they said what many people are probably thinking "Rarely has an award had such an obvious political and partisan intent. It was clearly seen by the Norwegian Nobel committee as a way of expressing European gratitude for an end to the Bush Administration, approval for the election of America’s first black president and hope that Washington will honour its promise to re-engage with the world." which I'll insert. Smallbones (talk) 14:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we need to differentiate between the rote disagreement of opposing political parties and figures and the true, around-the-world "WTF did they give it to him for?" criticisms, e.g. Yassir Arafat. As for the Times, as I noted, it was an opinion column, not a news article. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the second largest political party of Norway as "fringe" is simply hilarious, at least at this article, which concerns a Norwegian (political) award. Usually the political parties do not criticize the Nobel Peace Prize awards. GVU (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

So far the two main citations against seem to be the Times of London, and a quote from a Norwegian opposition party (although they keep flitting in and out). I'd lean towards including a major editorial page over an opposition party from somewhere, but not in a strong manner. (I'd also be happy with omitting both and wait for either: a) a head of state, b) a major swedish figure with some role in the award doh, peace prize is from Norway, unlike the rest). (E/C Given that it's an opinion column, I'd pull it, and wait for an actual editorial page). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 14:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that the decision was "met with surprise by observers," as the decision was made only two weeks into his presidency. That's they way that CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are describing it, anyway. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 14:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The nomination was two weeks into the presidency (and tons of people get nominated). The decision was made only recently. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

According to the committee, the decision was made on October 5th and the speech in Cairo this summer played a role in the decision-making. - Hordaland (talk) 12:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think nomination two weeks after swearing in. Agreed we should keep names of individuals critics out of top and include prominent ones in Reaction.lyonspen | (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I put the Times quote in the reaction section, saying they "editorialized" (does this verb apply to Brits? Maybe "commented" would have been better). I'm not married to the quotes inclusion, but think it respresents many peoples reactions. BTW, my personal belief is that these folks will be shown to be wrong, but let tham have their say. Smallbones (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not a Times editorial. It is a comment column by Michael Binyon, which I think is undue on this page since we have enough better known opinions to cite. Does anyone object to removing that quote ? Abecedare (talk) 15:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I pulled it out, as I think it gives undue weight to a columnist. (Every other reaction is from a head of state, or major party leader, it's a bit odd to lump a columnist in with that crowd). That said, if there's a consensus to include it, I've got no problems. I think it raises valid points, but we want those points to come from someone of repute. --Bfigura ^(talk) 15:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How about using the quote from former polish president and 1983 peace prize nobel winner as "counterpoint" view? It's already in the article, and seems to sum up the most popular reasons this would be controversial (too soon, etc). The quote reads:

“Who, Obama? So fast? Too fast — he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet....For the time being Obama’s just making proposals. But sometimes the Nobel committee awards the prize to encourage responsible action,” he said. “Let’s give Obama a chance.”

For what it's worth, this seems to be the approach adopted by the NYTimes, in their reaction article [2]. Thoughts?--Bfigura ^(talk) 15:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know this would not deserve RS status, but I was just listening to Rush Limbaugh's radio program and they played the sound bite of the announcement by the Nobel committee chairman that Obama was the winner of the Peace Prize. The audience that heard the announcement was immediately derisive - there was no applause, and a few boos. Is there any information that has been reported in more mainstream sources on the immediate reaction to the announcement? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 16:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Four different Post columnists? Maybe we should let someone else speak too? Lampman (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama never said he " did not deserve it", as the article states. Even the footnote for that states that "Obama told reporters in the White House Rose Garden that he wasn't sure he had done enough to earn the award, or deserved to be in the company of the "transformative figures" who had won it before him." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanging monkey (talk • contribs) 23:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Norway's Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg is quoted in Bergens Tidende, 10/10-09, page 22, as saying: "Surprising, exciting and important. It can really contribute to attaining the president's visions." My translation.

I've just added a paragraph to the Norway reaction section about Thorbjørn Jagland's double role and calls for him to resign. It's not just in the opposition parties. - Hordaland (talk) 11:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Domestic Reaction

What is the basis for calling the reaction in the US 'mixed to negative'. Only one 'reaction' is sourced, and there's no evidenced sourced that gives any sense of an overall reaction.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that no one has gotten around to adding the many positive responses. (Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty has stated "the appropriate response is to say 'Congratulations,'" for example.) I expect this article will rival several other well-known articles on US politics for edit wars/conflicts. -- llywrch (talk) 16:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In any event, this is becoming ridiculously bloated. We don't need 12 different comments from the US from random bloggers or writers, regardless of the opinion. (And frankly, the selection of responses needs to be less ideologically tilted). Would someone mind pruning this back to a few comments from each side (perhaps from notable, and preferably non-partisan, sources). --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, I hope Pawlenty's comment is included, if for no other reason than a reminder of how far US political discourse has fallen. -- llywrch (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to have been added. And I took a bit of an axe to the bloat / excess commentary (we don't need to cite the entire editorial branch of the WashPost individually). I did try to keep the overall balance/tone unchanged though. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the wording in that section from 'mixed to negative' to 'positive to negative' and added a BBC reference supporting that.--Johnsemlak (talk) 16:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Please look over that BBC link -- nearly everything in it is negative, either mildly or strongly. The positive quote at the end, along with the Pawlenty quote that Ilywrch mentions above, could be added to the article. But from what I've seen, even among supporters, there's a negative reaction to this. It's hard to really tell this early what the overall reaction is, so I think it's most prudent to make sure we include a range both in terms of whether it's a positive-negative reaction and where on the political spectrum people are coming from. Reconsideration (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the BBC link is more balanced than you're reading. THe positive stuff is at the end but there are multiple positive reactions.--Johnsemlak (talk) 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, and all the comments are back. I don't really care which comments are kept, but I do feel that we don't need 9 pundit comments just for internal US reaction. Thoughts? --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He's an American. The reaction in the U.S. is important. Many are saying the Nobel Committee is trying to influence the U.S. Three paragraphs are standard for any section or subsection. It isn't too much. Reconsideration (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia layout guidelines suggest three good-sized paragraphs per section or subsection, and we're not nearly there yet. When commentary that's deemed better is added to the article, the commentary that's there now can be cut down. The fact that we have a good number of comments there now is very useful to editors later who may want to prune it judiciously so that we have representative comments. For instance, there's a wide range of statements that the award was ludicrous, and the commentary already added to the article makes it clear that that's one of the major themes. Another is that the award should not have been made because it's "aspirational" rather than based on achievement. As more important U.S. commentary comes in, we can shorten and combine this and present these themes in a more organized fashion. But there should be no rush to prune before the subsection gets too long. This is the best way to serve Wikipedia's readers. Reconsideration (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely. Simply put on it's first day of existence the major concern is expanding the article, not mass deletions. Hobartimus (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I should add that I added much of those comments. I'm going to try to prune some of the quotes and describe rather than quote some of the reactions, and try to organize them a bit by topic. That can be done now and should improve the section. Reconsideration (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Three paragraphs I'm fine with, but what we have right now is three of random pundits commenting. That seems slightly excessive, especially since they tend to just go over the same ground. I agree that it would be useful to have the references on hand, but there's no reason this can't be edited to collapse the whole thing somewhat. Ie, identify the major points that people are raising, and attribute the sources that hold that view. Aside from bloat, the main reason for doing this is to avoid unduly weighting points of view through sheer number of quotes. That said, we have a while before the our editing deadline, so no need to rush. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

E/C ah, sounds like it's being taken care of. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've just completely rewritten it, shortening some quotes, paraphrasing others and adding the Pawlenty comment and another positive comment from a Huffington Post blogger. I suggest that only representative and prominent commentators and public figures be added, and if they replicate other comments here, remove the less prominent commentators. But quotes or points that are particularly incisive should be kept if possible. We should probably add a comment from the head of the Republican party since we have comments from the Democratic party that seem to be reacting to him. The section seems to be close to as long as it ought to be. My view, anyway. Reconsideration (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Pawlenty's comment is not positive, but neutral. What he didn't say was an unadulterated, "Congratulations," or anything to that effect that would have come across as his personal opinion. He carefully did not say what his own reaction was. Instead, he distanced himself from it by saying only what the appropriate reaction would be. (If you can't say anything nice ...) - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.202 (talk) 00:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The words of world leaders and past winners are well represented. Sorry but Pawlenty is comparatively a minor U.S. state official so I removed his comment. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed passages from "Domestic reaction" section

I've removed these passages because they don't seem important enough and the section as a whole is too long. I don't even think these passages should be summarized. I added reasons in italics after each:

• Matt Lauer, host of the NBC news program Today, stated on the air, “We’re less than a year into the first term of this president and there are no - I'm not trying to be, you know, rude here - no major foreign policy achievements, to date.” Several columnists, including Mickey Kaus and Mark Knoller, suggested that Obama turn the Prize down. Who cares what Matt Lauer thinks? He's a host on a daytime TV show. I know of no one who looks to him for his opinion on anything. It may be worth adding back Kaus' comment that Obama should give the prize back, as long as its said that a number of other commentators have said the same thing (I heard David Brooks, the NYT op-ed columnist also said so), but who cares about Knoller?
• Some commentators thought the award would hurt Obama. Daniel Pipes, an academic and commentator, wrote at the website of the conservative National Review, "My prediction: The absurdity of the prize decision will harm Obama politically in the United States, contrasting his role as international celebrity with his record devoid of accomplishments." Michael Crowley, writing at the website of the liberal The New Republic magazine, called the award "a mixed blessing, at best" for Obama: "[O]ne suspects that even many fair-minded Americans (especially ones looking for a job) will roll their eyes." But David Ignatius thought the United States would reap foreign policy benefits. He wrote "The Nobel committee is expressing a collective sigh of relief that America has rejoined the global consensus. They’re right. It’s a good thing." I'm the one who originally added all this. I don't think predictions are really useful though, now that I think about it.

Perhaps others want these added back in, or perhaps something else taken out. Reconsideration (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the one who originally put in the sentence about Mickey Kaus suggesting he turn it down (someone else added Knoller later), and I think that that particular perspective is worth including because it is a different component of the total reaction than is discussed elsewhere. Bojangles04 (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pawlenty is seen as one of the more likely Republican nominees for president in 2012, and he was a Republican with a positive take on the award. But we now have McCain, so I doubt the Pawlenty quote is really useful. I'm not sure how useful the reactions of any government officials are, in the U.S. or outside. Reconsideration (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Comments by white house aides

Abc news reports that White House aides apparently thought this was a joke, and they were being"punked": "Two key White House aides were both convinced they were being punked when they heard the news, reported ABC News' George Stephanopoulos. "It's not April 1, is it?" one said."

see the full article here. It seems the award is highly surprising to all, to say the least. Now the question is, how exactly to cover the award all around wikipedia. The issue involves multiple articles, does anyone know where is the centralized discussion, if any. Hobartimus (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Notability concerns

Other peace prizes...

I don't have any problem with this page as such, as the content is sufficiently distinct from the general topic of Obama to not be merged (there are details of other nominees, citations, voting process, etc.). However it raises questions about why we do not have a 2008 Nobel Peace Prize page etc. I think we need to come to a consensus about how to handle this generally. Manning (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The notability of this article

Before we get bogged down in quibbles over which right-wing blogger's reaction is more important than which left-wing talking head's talking points, can we arrive at a more basic understanding of Why We're Here?

What is especially notable about Barack Obama winning the 2009 Nobel peace Prize? Because lots of people and sources are talking about it? That it is a "surprise" all-around? Where is 2008 Nobel Peace Prize, 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, etc...? Were those wins less notable because the winners were not named Barack Obama, or did someone just never think of it until now?

We really need to figure out exactly what is encyclopedic and what is simply...news. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trivial, but yes, it is because the winner was Barack Obama. (As you said, it was an unusual choice, with a lot of notable people talking about it). While we're not news, I think this does deserve more coverage than a brief entry in the winner's biography (which seems to be how this was handled for past winners). I'd suggest that listing the nominees, the text of the award (given that this wasn't necessarily given 100% for present accomplishments), reaction (and maybe reaction to reaction?) are all encyclopedic. But there's certainly pruning that could be done. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well that question is really not for a talk page is it? It's more for an Afd and such. But yes, it's interesting that this article format used here is not standard, to have articles for every single prize given. However there is some notability to the topic. It is unprecedented to be nominated after two weeks in office. Previous US presidents all got it after a full first term concluded and major diplomatic achievements. And it is also unprecedented that a military leader (commander in chief) would get a peace prize while fighting multiple wars at the same time. (Indeed, escalation of at least one of those wars via troop increase seems more likely now than any withdrawal) So there are unique circumstances here that could make the article potentially notable. Hobartimus (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I think we should have articles about those subjects. For example, the 1972 Nobel Peace Prize stirred up a lot of notable controversy, & Lê Ðức Thọ declined the award because of the objections raised. -- llywrch (talk) 17:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone here seen this wikipedia article: Criticism of awarding of Nobel Peace Prize to Barack Obama ? Abecedare (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

it's been redirected to here by Cirt. --Bfigura ^(talk) 18:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the Nobel Peace Prize is notable almost every year, under the standard formal notability criteria. The world is still talking about Arafat and Begin's prize years later, or Nelson Mandela's two of the more famous. I think it's a question of organization more than anything else. Likely, the prizes in all fields are notable, but can we really maintain that many articles or is it best to merge them all into a single master article every year? We do that for most prizes, from the Oscars to the McCarther Fellowships - one article for each, potentially with some global commentary about the process and ceremony, and potentially a little section for some of the more notable prizes. This one is getting a lot more early attention than usual, for reasons that can be sorted out. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I btter either see all the other years of prizes have articles or this one deleted a non-notable. The recentism is frightening. Wizardman 23:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like an ultimatum. I shouldn't have to point out that you can create these other articles yourself. There's probably a multitude of sources to take content from for the more notable ones. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying the amount of information on here is ridiclously overdetailed.Wizardman 23:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there. There should probably a paragraph for the U.S. reaction and a couple more (at most) for the international reaction. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. This is WP:RECENTISM gone overboard.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Trying to look through this to see what can be shortened and trimmed, but it is just becoming a bloated nightmare of unimportant cruft. Aides think its a prank? Blurbs on who the nominators are, their political affiliations, etc...? Trivial driftwood. Short of diving in and making huge chops that will likely be reverted, I think this has to go to AfD where hopefully saner heads will prevail. Tarc (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree this is insanely bloated (I've tried to keep it smaller, and lost), but I don't see how AfD helps. (Unless you're arguing everyone will say 'keep but trim'). It's clearly notable enough for a standalone article, so we'd still have people trying to keep material in. (Unless some admin is standing in their way with a clue-by-four). --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:24, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

<deindent>
I have to agree that this article is getting more bloated by the minute. How do sentences like,

White House aides working overnight in the Situation Room saw the report of the award on newswires. An aide then called press secretary Robert Gibbs, who called Obama's executive residence shortly before 6 a.m. to wake the president and inform him.

comply with WP:NOTNEWS ?! Similarly, while it would be reasonable to have a few sentences in the reaction section outlining how it ranges from congratulatory, to surprised to oppositional, and how observers are calling the award aspirational, it is certainly undue in an encyclopedia to list every pro forma public statement that has been issued. Don't know how best to cut all the flab, without starting an edit-war. Abecedare (talk) 00:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Best I can think of is to write an outline of what this should look like, then poll for support on the talk page. Polling is evil, but the best alternative I can come up with is asking an arbitrator to look threatening and stand nearby with a bat while the trimming gets done. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• This article is just full of WP:RECENTISM. I mean the "Reaction" section currently takes up most of the article, which is essentially a quote farm. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

• • Although it might be too long I might favor a specific Nobel Peace Prize controversies that's spun-off from the main Nobel Prize controversies. Then merging this into that. I know the other categories don't have specific "controversies" articles, but I think the Peace Prize is a bit different and its controversies more noticed. (Literature Prize controversies might also merit its own article though, but I'm not certain. Also I'm aware the science sections might actually be longer in the unified "Nobel Prize controversies" article, but that's likely because Wikipedia highly skews toward techie people)--T. Anthony (talk) 11:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we really need this article?

Yes, it all seems interesting at the moment, but I think this article is ultimately a case of WP:NOTNEWS - a passing event of no likely long-term notability. It's worth noting that according to List of Nobel laureates, 789 individuals and 20 organizations have been awarded a Nobel Prize as of 2008 (that needs updating...); out of all of them, only one of those has an article specifically about their receiving a Prize (this one!). That's a pretty blatant case of imbalanced coverage. I don't agree that this particular prize is so significant it needs its own article; the awarding of the Nobel Prizes, particularly the Peace one, is always notable, and arguably, there have been several which have been considerably more controversial than this one (see Nobel Prize controversies). If we have this article, we should accept that we're going to have to create 1901 Nobel Peace Prize, 1902 Nobel Peace Prize, and over a hundred more articles; or we should accept that we really shouldn't have this article in the first place. There's nothing in this article that couldn't be covered satisfactorily in Nobel Peace Prize, Barack Obama and Nobel Prize controversies. Robofish (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm actually tempted to take this article straight to AFD, but I think I'll wait and give it a chance for a little discussion first. Robofish (talk) 15:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah this page should be deleted --NotedGrant Talk 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reaction section

If the reaction was varied as the first sentence says, why do we only quote seven negative reactions? Gamaliel (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a positive reaction from Al Gore, but the flow isn't great. Could use rewording. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See "Domestic reaction" above, where this is already discussed. Reconsideration (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Taliban

Does anyone really consider the Taliban to be a legitimate source of opinions on the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? I mean, aren't they sorta know for they're lack of good will in the international community.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanotam (talk • contribs) 17:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The comment has been moved to the international response section. I've got no problems if someone wants to excise it, but I have to admit, it makes for interesting reading. --Bfigura ^(talk) 17:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It absolutely belongs. The spokesperson for an organization that Obama has vowed to defeat and is engaged in a war with has commented on what that organization feels is the ludicrous nature of awarding Obama a peace prize. Why would we include Hamid Karzai's views but not the Taliban's? nableezy - 18:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because of WP:UNDUE. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

How would it be undue? And I would be careful when calling Karzai's government "elected". nableezy - 05:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, given the recent election issues, fair point. I have no problem including the taliban's response, but I don't think it should be given WP:UNDUE weight is all. (Ie, it was included in the lede as one of 3 reactions earlier, which seems inappropriate, given that the other 2 were nobel laureates (1 positive response and 1 negative). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats fine by me, I dont think it is needed in the lead either. But the group with whom this nobel peace prize winner is at war with should be quoted. nableezy - 05:30, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Definitely needs to be in the article. Its only fair to get chronicle all the responses Vishnu2011 (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone really consider the Taliban to be a legitimate source of opinions on the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? I mean, aren't they sorta know for they're lack of good will in the international community.... -- well, just about every major media outlet did, so according to Wikipedia policy, the answer to your question is "yes". The response from the Taliban absolutely belongs in the article -- it is one of the most frequently cited reactions in the mass media, so it is notable and important enough to be here.Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Included yes, just not given unencyclopedic weighting. (The number of times the quote appears in the media doesn't necessarily correlate to the emphasis we should place on it). --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I mean, aren't they sorta know for they're lack of good will in the international community.... -- If you meant that they don't feel good will towards the international organizations that are dominated by the U.S., then you are probably correct. They don't have good will towards the U.S. because the U.S. is bombing and machine gunning people in their villages. But how does that affect the Taliban's qualifications to speak about the issue of a peace prize, if not to make them a more legitimate source of opinion (i.e. since the person getting a prize for "peace" is currently BOMBING the nations they live in)?Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Intro is POV

It says Initial reaction to the award was mixed. Some critics state that the award is premature or inappropriate, claiming that although Obama has made many promises, he has not yet actually done anything to promote peace. Well if the initial reaction was mixed, why are only the critics mentioned? Mixed means there was a range of reactions, not criticism only. Needpics (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be harder to find support for the award than to find critics for it, although plenty of politicians and heads of state seem blandly congratulatory. It's probably best to wait before characterizing what most people think, since most haven't spoken. There does seem to be controversy over whether or not the Nobel Committee should be awarding peace prizes unless the winner has a record of past achievement. And there's no controversy at all on one point: That Obama didn't get this for having achieved anything. Also, it's certainly controversial. The lead should reflect all that. Reconsideration (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

John McCain has a good quote that I just added to the reaction section. Good b/c it's really neutral, while still addressing the primary concern that seems to pop up. Would this be worth working in? --Bfigura ^(talk) 19:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There was something significantly more insidious going on. The source for that "critics" sentence (which is weasel-worded) was this article, which doesn't have any mention of people saying "inappropriate", and the mention of "premature" was by Hamas (which is obviously not the sort of "critic" implied by that sentence). I don't have time to investigate the history of this myself, but someone should please look into this. —AySz88\^-^ 19:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The initial reaction section has been cleaned up to include a postive reaction from Al Gore and citations for the criticisms of "inappropriate" and "premature." Hope this helps. Bojangles04 (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Further rewrites to the intro have deleted references to inappropriateness and limited the discussion to differing reactions from two past winners of the Peace Prize, Al Gore and Lech Walesa, both with citations. I think this should solve the problem. Bojangles04 (talk) 21:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful - it's wrong to say that "X criticized the award for Y" because syntactically that presumes Y to be correct. For example, you can't say "so-and-so criticized George Bush for killing baby seals" because that endorses the controversial claim that Bush killed baby seals. Rather, you could say "so-and-so criticized Bush, saying that he had killed baby seals" or something like that. For POV, sourcing, and weight reasons we can't say that people thought it was wrong to give the award to an unaccomplished politician - rather we would say people thought it was wrong that the award went to someone who they said did not have sufficient accomplishments to justify the award. That's closer to what Obama himself said, and I think all of these opinions are actually in line with each other, that the committee was awarding the effort or the vision and not any specific achievement. There is other commentary to say that the committee this year as it has in the past used the award as an attempt to spur on efforts that they saw as worthwhile in promoting peace (i.e. they were playing politics). All those things can be reported in a neutral way and do seem to represent some widespread opinions. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)(ec)"we can't say that people thought it was wrong to give the award to an unaccomplished politician" The issue is accomplishments in the field specific to the award. Obama was of course already accomplished as a US domestic politician on Feb 1. however at the time of his nomination for nobel peace prize he was in office for less than two weeks. Of course a short explanation in the article about the nomination process wouldn't hurt, detailing who nominated him based on what accomplishments and the reader can decide if he was accomplished in the field or not. Hobartimus (talk) 21:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this merely a hypothetical comment? If so, I agree with its sentiment. Or, are you actually objecting to something about this sentence: "1983 Nobel Peace Prize winner Lech Walesa questioned the award, implying that it was premature because Obama had not yet actually accomplished anything to effect peace despite his many proposals to do so"? I imagine the possible point of contention would be on Walesa's claim that Obama has proposed many things to effect peace (nuclear disarmament, a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, a concerted international effort to combat global warming, etc.), but hasn't done any of them yet. And while I could be sympathetic to that objection, it remains patently obvious that Obama simply has not yet accomplished any of these things. So I can't see the grounds for being too concerned about the possible "point of view" expressed by the summary of Walesa's comments as quoted above. All of that said, there has been a bit of an edit war over how this particular sentence should read, and the alternative which keeps being reintroduced does have POV problems. Bojangles04 (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere in between. This article keeps changing and there are several other related articles, so it's a concern over a number of statements here and in other articles, where the wording tends to suggest an endorsement not of the criticism itself but of the premise of the criticism. It's a pet peeve of mine, but also something that's easy to fix through careful wording. It's hard to put a finger on exactly why, but I agree with you regarding the Lech Walesa sentence. Something about the way that sentence flows makes it clear that this is all Walesa's analysis, not Walesa's reaction to a known fact. Agreed that this is patently obvious and nobody (not Obama, nor his supporters, nor likely the committee) argues otherwise. Everyone accepts that Obama has not achieved the things for which the prize was awarded, but is being awarded now for supporting them. Where we have to be more careful is where the premise is not universally agreed, or is uncited, etc. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that we have many articles for specific Nobel prizes in different disciplines, but not a full list. If one can divine a consensus out of that it seems to be that many prizes don't need their own articles, but many others do. Maybe you could liken it to say Category:Napa Valley wineries, where only a few dozen of the 150+ wineries in that AVA have their own articles. A comparable number are notable but do not have articles, mostly because nobody has gotten around to it. And there are many others that, although legitimate and sometimes significant businesses in their own right with some degree of reliably sourced coverage, simply don't meet the threshold where Wikipedia editors think an informed reader needs to know. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I was wrong. This appears to be the only article about a specific Nobel prize. I'm pretty sure that most or all Nobel prize awards in all categories since the awards started would pass the formal notability criteria because they are extensively covered over a long period of time. However, taking a step back it would potentially be very difficult and require the determined efforts of a great number of good editors to populate all of these articles. Notability is a threshold for creating articles, but there is no imperative that everything notable must have its own article. My suggestion is that we let this one evolve for another week or two until all the hubbub has died down. At that point we can take stock to see if this really looks viable. If so we can tend it a while longer and see what happens. If not we can decide where to merge this. The main Obama article is already too long and doesn't have room for much of this. Maybe there is a suitable sub-article. Also, there is probably a working group within a wikiproject that oversees Nobel Prize-related articles. Let's not step on their toes. How do they like to organize these? - Wikidemon (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The Nomination Committee

Do you guys think it is worthwile to incorporate into the article somewhere the members of the commmitee who decided the prize, their responses, etc? [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vishnu2011 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I expect a lot more information to come out on that in the next 24 hours. Reconsideration (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We have a whole article on the Peace Prize, so background on the committee would probably be best handled there.   Will Beback  talk  21:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the background on the committee that affects this particular awarding of the prize would be good here. Perhaps there as well, but probably in less detail. This decision is going to be analyzed and examined in great detail, which is best handled here, with a much shorter account on that more general page. Reconsideration (talk) 21:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Traditionally the committee leader is the only one who makes comments. Ågot Valla has commented publicly this year, and that is an exception. So I wouldn't hold my breath for more from the committee. - Hordaland (talk) 12:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Clean-Up

The Recreation section looks very messy. Do we really need to reference every blogger and columnist? A few notable people (i.e. high ranking politicians, past recipients, etc.) on both sides of the issue should suffice. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• See "Domestic reaction" above. Reconsideration (talk) 21:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The Prize's "Unique Nomination System"

What does the Prize's supposedly "unique nomination system" have to do with mentioning the fact that the award was shocking because Obama was nominated after having been President for less than two weeks? I'm happy to see discussion on the issue, but I'm putting that cited fact back in the article with a link to the section of the Peace Prize article that discusses the nominations. Bojangles04 (talk) 20:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(Not sure where else to put this: does it really matter that Obama was only officially president for two weeks prior to the nomination deadline? He did work on nuclear non-proliferation while in the Senate, and the use of diplomacy rather than force was a huge part of his campaign, so you could argue that he spent all of 2008 and most of 2007 promoting diplomacy.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermy88 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Siv Jensen really matter?

The leader of an opposition party with little influence in the Norwegian parliament doesn't like it? Really? Is her opinion notable enough to include? Simonm223 (talk) 21:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Nobel committee members come from the Norwegian parliament, so there's an outsized influence there. Is it a small opposition party or the main opposition party? If small, we should delete the comment. Do any members of the Nobel Committee come from that party? If so, maybe it should stay. The list of foreign reactions coming from heads of state and government people seems like the least useful part of this whole article. We expect the head of France to say something politely congratulatory, and we know it doesn't really matter. Iran's reaction seems valuable, though. Reconsideration (talk) 22:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

She's the leader of the Norwegian opposition - they only just had an election, but her party increased in seats so it's unlikely to get rid of her, and she remains a possible future Prime Minister. I wouldn't discount her opinion as having "little influence" --Saalstin (talk) 22:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC) Oh, and in response to Reconsideration, Inger-Marie Ytterhorn, one of the five members, was a Progress (Jensen's party) MP 1989-1993 --Saalstin (talk) 22:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes. I just looked up Progress Party (Norway). That party's reaction is certainly important. Reconsideration (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Of the 5 members of the Norwegian Nobel Committee (that are appointed by parliament), 1 is from the Progress Party and has been so for a very long time. The Progress Party is the second largest party of Norway and certainly is influential - governments have resigned in the past because they lost the support of the party. Siv Jensen does matter, as the leader of the Progress Party, she basically decides who will be the Progress Party's representative in the Nobel Committee (Norwegian media speculate that the Progress Party's representative and the Conservative Party's representative didn't support Obama).

Well, Jagland said all supported Obama. 84.215.121.104 (talk) 04:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversy on Obama on wikipedia?

Closing this per WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I can't believe this huge change. But my guess that this will be deleted by Obama fans/White House. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.243.248 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sic

In context, Wehner's "The Noble Committee" is not a 'sic' (quoted mistake) but a deliberate double entendre. Thus, 'sic' should be removed from that cite. - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.29.202 (talk) 00:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"sic" does not necessarily mark errors, but only indicates that the spelling is indeed taken from the original. See sic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough -- except that this is not the most common usage of the word in the Wikiworld. Unusual spellings in quotes go un-sicced all the time, the quotes being assumed to suffice. In this specific case, given the stated political slant and the known usage of the word to ridicule, wouldn't quotation marks + semi-protection + this comment on the talk page suffice? - Tenebris

Agreed. In common understanding, "sic" is often used by the republisher of a quotation to distance themselves from the perceived error, to make clear to the reader that the error was in the original and not an artifact of the news reportage process (usually hasty and error-prone, in the case of newspapers), or else to belittle or call attention to someone who has written something incorrectly. The more proper and correct usage is often forgotten. "Sic" is a meta-comment, and on Wikipedia we try to avoid meta-comments within articles. One presumes that if it's within quotes on Wikipedia that is exactly as it appeared, so in a technical sense "sic" is always superfluous. A more encyclopedic approach, if this must be said at all, is a footnote or inline comment that states it exactly, e.g. the "Noble Committee" [double entendre in original] - Wikidemon (talk) 01:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

"[double entendre in original]" is original research. While unlikely, it's possible that this is a simple typo. I don't insist on the "sic", but I know I would either fix or or check the source when I hit on it unprepared. One would be counterproductive, the other would waste my time. My time is important ;-). I'll put in an HTML comment to at least stop people from miss-correcting it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

...well, I won't - someone has fixed it by moving the attribution out of the quote into the editorial voice. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I did that. The "sic" was distracting. Problem solved. Wehner was included because he seemed to be representative. If a better representative of that point of view is found, the whole quote might go anyway. Reconsideration (talk) 12:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of previous sitting presidents

Article states 3 sitting Presidents had previously been awardes a Nobel. Carter was retired when he won it.rawleyrogers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rawleyrogers (talk • contribs) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The other two were Teddy Roosevelt & Woodrow Wilson. The Nobel Peace Prize has been awarded since the late 1890s, so there have been over 110 opportunities to hand it to people. -- llywrch (talk) 04:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The lead currently says "Obama is the third sitting U.S. President ... Former President Jimmy Carter won the award in 2002...". So there's no error. Melchoir (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Last paragraph in lede

Isn't it a little bizarre for including the opinion of the Taliban in the lede? It reads: "Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid, who said the decision was ridiculous, saying that "Obama should have won the 'Nobel Prize for escalating violence and killing civilians'." "I am all for showing the opposing opinions, but I think there are more run-of-the-mill people we could put in there as people opposed to Obama winning it than a terrorist organization. JEN9841 (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to concur with (with a proviso about the use of WP:TERRORIST). This seems to be giving undue weight to a minority viewpoint. --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

A majority of the major media outlets have cited this person in their stories, at least in passing, if not quoting him in full (see the numerous sources for this in the article -- Reuters, CNN, Fox News, Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Newsweek, and dozens of others). It's the most frequently cited negative reaction in the media right now. In order to be NPOV, the article needs to either have ZERO opinions in the lead, or it needs to have a BALANCE of positive and negative opinions. The Walesa quote is moderate to supportive, and the Gore quote is highly supportive. The Taliban quote balances this out with a negative reaction from a well-cited, reliable source. I vote that it stays in Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

But does that quote reflect the most common negative reaction to the award (which I think is a better metric for choosing the lede quotes, as they're supposed to summarize the article)? In my opinion, most people that have a negative opinion are doing so from a 'he hasn't done anything yet' position, not a 'he's bombing AFPAK' position. (The reason for that is I count at least 7 quotes from the first camp, but 2 from the later. That could be off in exact numbers, but I believe the trend is correct). --Bfigura ^(talk) 06:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Does Lech Walesa's reaction count as "the most common"? How many other people said that it is "too soon" (sources please)? I can find you dozens (hundreds) of reliable sources who are mentioning the Taliban's reaction, or views similar to it. I can also find hundreds that are praising Obama (as the Gore quote does). I can also find several right-wing nuts (but "reliable", according to WP policy...) that claim that Obama got it because he's black. The point is, there is no "most common" viewpoint. Reactions are very mixed, and it's impossible to choose a "most common viewpoint" -- some groups feel great about it, some feel strongly negative about it, and some don't really know how they feel one way or the other. But the fact is, that almost every single reliable source covering the topic of this article mentions the quote from the Taliban spokesman, so yes I would say it's one of the most commonly expressed views (according to my sources), and belongs in the article. Jrtayloriv (talk) 06:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

In the article yes, but not in the lead. Brothejr (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, as long as there are no supportive views either. If the lead contains only praise, then the lead is POV. The current lead is balanced with both supportive and negative reactions. Please give a reason (citing WP policy -- not your personal opinion) before reverting valid, well-sourced edits. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, please cite policy that backs up why we need to include the Taliban comment in the lead please. Brothejr (talk) 08:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure -- it's cited in just most of the news articles concerning the topic, including the half dozen or so reliable sources cited next to the quote. Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

OK however, the question is: why does that mean it deserves to be in the lead? Being cited in various news articles does not mean it needs to be in the lead (Please cite the policy that says that because it is mentioned in various articles that it needs to be in the lead.) Also please note that there is already criticism in the lead already. Brothejr (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:Reliable. The quote meets all reliability and notability criteria. You have given no valid reason for removing it. This article is about the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. Most of the sources of this article mention or include this quote. There is no policy that says that it needs to be in the lead. Nor is there any policy that says that anything positive must be said about it in the lead. I just don't want your POV to be pushed in the lead. I want a balanced lead. That means either: (a) remove all opinions (positive and negative) from the lead. or (b) have BOTH positive and negative views in the lead. If we choose (b), then we should choose the mostly widely cited of each of these. The quote that I added is the most widely cited negative quote that I've yet to find. I've said it numerous times -- please give a valid reason for removing well-cited content from the article. I've backed up my addition with numerous sources -- all you've given is hyperbole, your opinion, and ... nothing else really.Jrtayloriv (talk) 09:02, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Dude, please read WP:UNDUE and WP:LEAD. Just because something has more sources does not mean it is the majority of opinions. Please also note that the lead reflects the article. While having a criticism of the award is appropriate reflection of the article, the Taliban criticism is not reflective of all the criticisms and including it in the lead gives it more weight then it has. Please explain why, other then the usual response of there's more sources, the Taliban response carries more weight over the other criticisms? Brothejr (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that per WP:UNDUE something which has been widely covered in RS is accepted as significant and should be well covered. This isn't surprising since we can only follow the sources and if the sources feel a viewpoint is significant, it's not up to us to disagree. This doesn't of course mean it belongs in the lead since the lead is intended to summarise the article. Nil Einne (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Reactions in Norway

Just a few small suggestions. Jens Stoltenberg said a little bit more that may be more interesting to add. Jens Stoltenberg called the decision “surprising, exciting” because “it can contribute to the realization of the president’s visions.” [ Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ans2__LaT090 ]. I'm also questioning whether the leader of Rødt deserves to be mentioned. It's a party not represented in the national parliament, yet they are represented in the Oslo local government as well as in several other cities. The problem is that segments within Norway were highly negative. I have a feeling the reaction of former PM Kjell Magne Bondevik (until 2005) could also be of some interest. He's the current president of the Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights. I tried finding a source of what he said to Norwegian TV2 but couldn't this far. As a side note it should be noted that the two biggest opposition parties has called for the withdrawal of Jagland as the leader of the committee due to his double role. There has also been some fuss regarding the fact that two members of the committee are still members of the parliament. That raised concerns that people deserving the award from China or Russia could have been overlooked for political reasons [ source: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/article3313061.ece ]. I believe these facts should be relevant. I will check back here later today to see if this is discussed - and if so if any translation is wanted. 84.215.121.104 (talk) 09:13, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

According to a scientific poll based on a representative selection in Norway, 42,7% of respondents supports the decision of the Nobel committee. 27,6% said they opposed it. Another poll for another newspaper gave 43% support, 38% opposed. In the same article Jagland says "Who has done more than Barack Obama to promote world peace the last year? Can anyone answer that?" [ source for everything: http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/artikkel.php?artid=573351 ] 84.215.121.104 (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Since this award may affect how the Norwegian Parliament/government staffs the next Nobel Committee, authoritative Norwegian poll results should be a useful addition. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus among the polls. I'd like to see more comments in the Norwegian reaction section, maybe from major Norwegian newspapers. Reconsideration (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Before reading this section, I added a paragraph to Norwegian reactions about concern about Jagland's double role & sourced it to Bergens Tidende, 10th October. BT says that "also in the Labor Party, scepticism against Thorbjørn Jagland's double role is beginning to spread." Page 25. They quote MP Eva Kristin Hansen, Labor, member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, saying that Jagland must re-evaluate his position in the Nobel committee. - Hordaland (talk) 13:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You summed it up well, I think. Has Jagland responded to this? I havn't seen any response, but he may have? A problem with the Norway section is that it lists only one of two polls I have seen concerning the award. That can't be said to be balanced. I could add it but I am not registered and I won't do that now. I'd like to know if other Norwegians also see the political criticism as fairly incomplete. When several other countries lists commentators, it could be appropriate to at least include comments by well-known commentators such as Stanghelle, Strand etc. The award has been called a scandal by people a little bit more main-stream than the leader of Rødt too. I would like to see that view represented. 84.215.121.104 (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no big rush. Wikipedia articles are never done. I'm only following it on Wikipedia, which leaves no time for the local news ;-) But I don't recall such hubbub and such widely varying opinions in high places in Norway in Octobers past. (?)

The first poll(s) must have been so early that many respondents hadn't even heard the news yet, much less let it sink in. - Hordaland (talk) 16:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Jagland quite aggressively defended the committee's decision in a press conference. (VG, but a decent article.) At the very end of that article he says that if his membership in the committee is a problem, he'll resign. - Hordaland (talk) 17:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikisource is the appropriate place for the full text of the citation

Out of the bit of shortening I did here last night, I was a bit perturbed to see the one that made the most sense...and merely moved the info, not removed...was so carelessly reverted by Reywas92. We have related projects available to host things that are better suited there than they would be here; non-fair use images to commons, dicdefs to wiktionary, news to wikinews, and large bodies of text and such form wikisource. And an edit summary with "...not relegated to Wsource where no one will read it"? Not all of our readers are as ignorant as thy are made out to be, and just because you can't be bothered to click a link, I'm pretty sure they can. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I agree with you, although some kind of extensive quoting, combined with a detailed description of the statement probably is called for because the reasons for giving the prize are controversial. There are some subtleties about the reasons that the article should probably address.

On December 10 or so, Obama is going to deliver an address on accepting the award, and that should take up a good chunk of the article, too, and there will be some more analysis and some more information on how the award was given that will need to be added, so we really don't have room for huge chunks of quotes, although the official announcement is important. Having it at WikiSources solves a lot of that problem. Reconsideration (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

No, you did remove it from the article by moving it to Wikisource. They aren't ignorant, but actually, no, they will not click on the link. You don't need to be making these rude personal attacks that I can't be bothered to click on a link; I am looking out for the reader, because I know no one follows that link. Maybe they don't know what it means or that there even is a full citation, but readers will not see this important information if it is removed from the article. Sure, they can click on it, but they don't. I was a bit perturbed by the edit that removed it. If the article is about the Nobel Prize, doesn't it make sense to include the reason it was awarded??? If your issue is bloat, there isn't one. This article, with its references taking up a lot of space, fits perfectly well within WP:SIZE. Reywas92^Talk 20:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

If the full text of the citation is copyright, it would be very inappropriate to include it all here. We aren't here to decide what readers will and will not do. We are here to ensure that articles obey all relevent wikipedia policies and guidelines, and attempting to predict that readers won't want to click a link to bring them to text they really really really want to read to be a reason to include that text here seems entirely illogical. If they want to read it, they will click the link. If they don't want to read it, then there is no need to include it here. Either way, the inclusion of the full text most definately violates WP:MOS, and also likely WP:COPYVIO. --Jayron32 20:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I retract my statement if it really is copyrighted. But if it is, I don't think it's permitted on Wikisource either. But the problem with your arguement is that we don't know that all random interested readers "really really really want to read" the citation. Those who do want it may or may not realize that the little box is what they're looking for, but anyone else is unlikely to heed the link. Others who don't want to read it can skip it, but most wouldn't know. Reywas92^Talk 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Where IS the full text now? It really needs to be included or linked! (Apologies if it is there somewhere, and I just can't see it.) - Hordaland (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm having some difficulties at wikisource at the moment, as it has been deleted and restored back and forth a few times now, as a pair of admins cannot seem to figure out what to do between them. I think common sense will prevail (there's question whether it is public domain or not), but even if not, it is really a waste of space to include the entire thing here. Quote a line or so if applicable, the include a URL in the external links section. It should not return here in full text. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for answering. I think it is really essential that it is available! Surely many come here looking for it.

Strangely, I can't find the original online either just now. Everyone (Norwegian news outlets) links to the same page which is a 404, hopefully temporarily. The Committee can't have meant it to be secret! - Hordaland (talk) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Link Zabihullah Mujahid

Will you link Zabihullah Mujahid? I'd do it myself but it wont let me. -93.97.122.93 (talk) 13:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Done Why don't you create an account on wp--NotedGrant Talk 13:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

World reaction section

This box is at the top of the section:

I'm removing it for now. At first I thought that criticism seems out of place because a list of comments should be primarily quotes. The real question is, do we want a list of comments from around the world? If we can see a few themes in the quotes, now or later, let's switch to the format we have the US and Norway sections. If we prioritize, what's the best way to do that? European reaction is likely to be different from Arab reaction, and maybe examples of public reactions from both are important. Public statements from governments are usually blather, seems to me, but if a government says something particularly warm, cold or surprising, I think that's more worthwhile. Public reaction in Pakistan would probably be very useful because that may really affect world peace. Maybe we should condense the reactions from other Nobel winners in a sentence or two. Any reaction that's abnormal or shocking may be a bit more important, like Lech Walesa's statement (unusual for a previous winner).

Instead of removing quotes from the list now, let's wait a bit, see if a theme emerges (maybe someone wants to look for it and rewrite now). I'd rather not remove quotes immediately unless the thing is totally rewritten. If it's rewritten, it should be with clear themes in mind, not just a list in a different, harder-to-read form. Reconsideration (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's an example of a useless waste of space:

• Cuba – Former president Fidel Castro considered the award "positive". He said the prize should be seen as a criticism to the "genocidal policy" carried out by "not a few number" of US presidents. He said the award compensated Obama's loss in Copenhagen when Chicago lost its bid to host the 2016 Olympics, which provoked "angry attacks from far-right adversaries"

In a paragraph about how various governments with adversarial stances to the US have reacted to the prize (Venezuala, Iran, North Korea), the first two sentences would be useful. The second sentence, in which Fidel gives an analysis of domestic US politics, is a total waste. The "not a few number" quote is pretty far off topic, too, as the article now stands, although a detail like that could be used if the article showed just how it relates to a larger point. Reconsideration (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I saw the headlines of a newspaper. The smaller secondary headline said something like "praise, criticism, and bewilderment". This captures it nicely and neutrally. There should be a Wikipedia explanation that some people like the decision and some people do not. Yet a 3rd group are puzzled why he qualifies when he became president only 12 days after the cutoff deadline. Smaller subgroups say early awarding diminishes the value of it or that it shows that politics influences the decision. Why I think is not important, though. It's good that Mr. Obama won it and not Mr. bin Laden or Mr. Castro. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the reaction has been mixed in that way all over the world (and the news reporting from each reflects that). There isn't one (1) country of which we can say "this is their definitive reaction" as it varies so much. We can stick to government leaders, but they're not likely to say another non-political, are they? Reactions of previous Nobel Prize winners can make a section, although most of them are also going to be supportive (Walesa being the exception). I agree with Reconsideration that we need to wait a bit. It's certainly interesting to read reactions worldwide, but I don't think we want to end up with a List anything like List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008 Flatterworld (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• I rewrote it. Reconsideration (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Naomi Klein

Why is Naomi Klein's opinions included under the section of "United States" (A sub-section for "Reactions from the United States" section of the article)? She's not even American. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.120 (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

She's American, isn't she? But she's not important enough to include. Reconsideration (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

She's Canadian and last time I check Canada is not part of the USA, removing it now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.117.15 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of the American Naomi Wolf, another completely inconsequential voice in the crowd. This is the problem with mentioning people who are not worth mentioning. Please don't make childish statements. Reconsideration (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Naomi Klein, she's Canadian (from Quebece iirc). I pulled the quote from the US section. Given that the international section seems to be mostly heads of state, I don't think it would fit there, so I'm leaving the quote out entirely. --Bfigura ^(talk) 21:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I've put it back in, in the Canada section, following the Prime Minister of Canada's positive comments. It if far more memorable to hear Naomi Klein call it a "cheapening of the Nobel Prize" (genuinely surprised by that) than the PM saying... dang, I've already forgotten what he said. Also, 1) the Canadian section is currently quite short and 2) other countries have reactions that are non-heads of state. Nrehnby (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't fit anywhere. Why should anyone care what a single author says, no matter where she's from? We don't need to "fill out" that section, country by country, because it's too long already and individual national reactions, other than US and Norway really don't matter much (except maybe where there's a war going on -- maybe). To mention anybody's reaction to this, there should be some reason why we would really be better informed knowing that that particular person, or someone in that particular position, thought a certain way. Reconsideration (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbalanced US reception section

This section has 5 bulky paragraphs on negative reception to the award, only 1 paragraph reflective positively on it right at the end, and 1 final short sentence in a negative light to close it out. This is misleading and not reflective of actual perception. A POLLpigeon poll asking "Did President Obama deserve to win the Nobel Peace Prize?" resulted in 36% responding yes, 54% no, and 9% maybe. This is not a scientific poll but it's indicative of overall reception and the article in its current state is misleading.Stargnoc (talk) 18:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Also the article currently focuses on the media's reception of the awarding, not the public's perception. I've seen plenty of positive reaction in the media and plenty of negative or neutral reaction, but this article does not reflect this properly.Stargnoc (talk) 18:27, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's imbalanced perhaps but not as much as you think. Anything that polls 54% negative and 36% positive is pretty much a washout by American standards, so the ratio of negative to positive statements would be more than 54 to 36. To show how this works, imagine an extreme question like "do space aliens live among us". You will probably get 10% of the United States public saying yes and another 10% who say no, but their ships visit often. Does that mean that an article about extraterrestrial intelligence should have a section where 80% of the material disputes the existence of UFOs and 20% says they're real? I don't think you can use polls as an indication of weight in that way. Incidentally, I agree that the entire section is way too long. Plus, I'm not sure why we need reaction in every country. It's interesting but not really practical as a Wikipedia approach. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to say Wikidemon's poll example is dead on. Hobartimus (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your example is flawed. If the space aliens article was about the people's PERCEPTION of the existence of aliens, then it would be fair to balance the article to represent the 20%/80% ratio. However, if the article is just a study about extraterrestrial intelligence then of course people's perceptions would not be very relevant. The section here is about the RECEPTION of the people as to whether or not he deserved it, not an article that purports to determine whether or not he actually does deserve it. It's a brief explanation of opposing views and those views should be expressed adequately on both sides. I'm not saying the ratio has to approximate the actual breakdown percentage-wise, but it should cover both sides fairly. In that light I have added a paragraph toward the beginning to show another 2 examples of positive reaction. That's good enough for me.Stargnoc (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I do see what you're saying that the poll ratios need not reflect the weight given in the article, but I think for an article to be neutral both sides must be presented fairly. I also agree that the section is probably too long and I apologize for making it longer. I'm in favor of trimming it as long as positive and negative reactions are presented fairly.Stargnoc (talk) 19:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

My addition about Nancy Pelosi etc. really should probably be rephrased or moved within the paragraph, it doesn't fit in perfectly where I put it. But I would like to see the section formatted appropriately. There needs to be a paragraph on positive reactions near the beginning (within the first 3 paragraphs, I think). It's misleading to have 6 paragraphs of negative reactions and one sentence of positive reaction at the very end.Stargnoc (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think I fixed it, take a look.Stargnoc (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the last 2 large paragraphs could be combined or summarized at the end of the article. "Criticism of the award...", "Many commentators also...", "Commentary's Peter Whener...", "Republican Party chairman..." - instead of these 4 paragraphs I'd like to see 2 or 3 paragraphs better structured. I'm not sure how to end the US Reception section. It seems pretty silly to end it with a short sentence showing positive reaction followed by another short sentence showing negative reaction as it is now. If the last 2 sentences were combined into one paragraph with reaffirmation that reception has been mixed, the conclusion would be better.Stargnoc (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec X n) Stargnoc, overall I like your improvements. Yes, that's a valid point. My example was flawed by conflating coverage of the public opinion itself with using the public opinion ratio as a guide for how much to cover specific opinions. However, I do think that we should be getting the gist of the phenomenon, not trying to add public opinion polling data as such to articles about awards. Every year people grouse about the Academy Awards, Foodball draft picks, judicial nominations, and everything else under the sun. Pollsters sometimes measure this and newspapers may sometimes report it. It's not terribly encyclopedic because knowing the immediate after the fact polling opinion doesn't help the reader understand the subject matter. Thomas Jefferson approved the purchase of a vast stretch of territory from France. Public opinion was generally positive, with 63% approving and 30% disapproving. Commentators voiced both praise and criticism. The government of Mexico called it just another example of American expansionism..." and so on. In hindsight and historic context all that stuff is totally irrelevant. What does seem relevant about the reaction is that it was unusually strong, and represented an unusually high degree of feeling that the award was not deserved. That begs the question why, and what is the importance of this public perception. You're right that we should not portray this as unanimous, and that we should include significant minority opinions as well. I'm not sure that we can equate this with approving or disapproving of the award or Obama - most people would say that winners of the lottery, or most reality television shows, don't really deserve it, but don't disapprove of contestants or the award. They're expressing an observation about the system, not necessarily personal approval. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The reaction of government officials is, let's face it, empty blather. They say what they think will make them look good in front of their constituents. Hardly any of them criticize the idea that another politician gets an award. I guess they think it makes them look mean-spirited. Plus, they don't seem to say anything other than repeat what the last politician said. So let's note that they've said it, provide maybe one quote and mention the 3-4 most prominent examples. That can be done in two or three sentences, half a paragraph at most. What they say on a subject like this is meaningful in a very small way, no more. The reader just doesn't learn much. Look at the long list of reactions from around the world. Do you think you learned anything from Sarkozy's comment in France?

But major newspapers like The New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Los Angeles Times and USA Today cover a range of opinions, serve millions of readers and are very influential. They should be very prominent here. Magazines, syndicated newspaper columnists and other commentators are less influential but still worth mentioning if they have a quote that states well what others are saying. The same applies to former Nobel winners. Polls should definitely be mentioned and emphasized. Mention results from maybe two very reliable ones that represent some kind of consensus of results. Academics might be included, but not just to state obvious historical facts. One thing we shouldn't do in reaction sections is repeat much. Just say one person said it, provide quotes when they state something really well and say certain others agreed with it. Reconsideration (talk) 12:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"What are you talking about? Is this a joke?"

...was what Obama said initially when awoken by Robert Gibbs, according to David Axelrod via this New York Times : The Caucus blog post. Not sure if this goes into Obama's reaction section; currently that section seems to be just the official reaction. It might also be used to back up the part about the prize being a surprise. —AySz88\^-^ 22:44, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

See the section on "Comments by white house aides" above. Some White House aides had a similar comments when first hearing about the announcement. Hobartimus (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but aides aren't exactly the recipient himself. We probably would want to treat those differently. —AySz88\^-^ 23:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly, a lot of Nobel winners think it's a joke when they first hear. I'm not sure if the peace prize winners do, but more than once I've heard winners of the other prizes say that was their initial reaction. Just the other day, one of the recent winners from England was saying he thought a friend of his was playing a practical joke on him. It's probably worth mentioning. Reconsideration (talk) 12:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe normal practice (not sure of the Peace prize) is to inform the winner by phone call before it is announced. This doesn't always work of course and people do often think it is a prank. [4]. Sometimes their 13 year old son may answer or their spouse may hang up on the caller Nil Einne (talk) 13:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Jagland is quoted as saying that one doesn't wake presidents in the middle of the night, even for a peace prize. They usually do call the laureates. - Hordaland (talk) 13:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama templates

I really think they are inappropriate, given the article is about the prize itself, a political award from Norway. Other templates such as templates about Norway, or politics of Norway, or Nobel prizes, templates about or peace prize related templates etc etc would be all more appropriate. Discuss. Hobartimus (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Sweden, actually. Zazaban (talk) 19:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, not for the peace prize, just the other Nobel's. --Bfigura ^(talk) 20:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan's reaction

Here it is. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:46, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Now added. Thanks -- that was a very interesting reaction. Reconsideration (talk) 21:19, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Overcoverage notice removed from United States reaction section

I removed this notice from the U.S. reaction section:

The U.S. reaction is enormously important when the Nobel is awarded to a U.S. president near the beginning of his term of office. The importance of the prize is recognized as something meant to help Obama's leadership of U.S. foreign policy, which is conducted by the U.S. government, which relies on the support of the American people. The reaction of the nation whose government he heads is therefore enormously important in understanding this event. Overall, the reaction to the prize is enormously important and is not overly emphasized in this article. Reconsideration (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not disagree that US reactions should be covered. But coverage at greater length than all other world reactions combined is significant overcoverage. Your edits to "Elsewhere" look fine, but do not address the overcoverage issue as such. As currently written, the US section really looks like an effort to throw every random source editors can find onto the same page, presumably with the thought that somewhere in that range "balance" will emerge. Actually, that's not bad in itself; I don't complain about the balance of the US reactions section. The problem is really the length, which should be no more than half as long as it currently is. LotLE×talk 21:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please look at my comments at the end of the section "Imbalanced US reception section" about how it could be rewritten and reorganized. The length actually isn't longer than the rest of the world combined, it's about 40 percent of the total. That seems to me to be about right because the effects of this prize must be a very important aspect of it, and the U.S. is so important in that. If you look at the Dan Balz article mentioned in the beginning of the U.S. section, he notes where much of Obama's initial statement was crafted to appeal to the American people. The reaction is also a bit complicated, not falling on partisan lines that are easy to explain or is just puzzling. And any award is nothing if not an exercise in public relations, meant to encourage others, so overall reaction has to be important. If I can rewrite it sometime in the next 4-5 hours, it might be better to decide then how long it should be. Reconsideration (talk) 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, now the US section is about half the total (I just shortened the "Elsewhere" section a bit, but I think it will be expanded). Reconsideration (talk) 21:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I just rewrote it. Reconsideration (talk) 02:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

article must focus on people rather than officials

The article should focus more on PEOPLE's reactions (Americans, also citizens of other countries) rather than officials, politicians, media figures, etc. Indeed official's reactions are almost always biased, officials are bound to be politically correct. Politicians may think that it is too early , or just inappropriate in any case, but are almost obliged to react positively to the attribution. Among the reactions are different. Internet forums are clogged with negative comments from 'normal people' because opinions there are more genuine and unbiased, polls show about 75 percent (numbers vary from 60 to 90 from polls i find) of the public is skeptical or negative. People think that he does not deserve the prize, too early, way too soon etc, and any person with honest mind thinks that his achievements are nothing compared to the work of others typically Mother Theresa who worked for decades and THEN got her prize. Even california liberal blogs such as LA Times (article by M Muskal, dated oct 9th) are overwhelmed with negative comments. So if most of America (and probably other countries as well, so the world) disagrees with the attribution, then can this be written down, and various polls cited, rather than focusing the article on the few politically correct officials making it seem like the world is happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.114.126 (talk) 03:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Most comments online are negative on pretty much every topic, so does that mean we can assume everyone hates everything that ever happens? --86.129.6.0 (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An Australian reaction

[5] Former Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has described the selection as "a political decision of gross stupidity". Kevin (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Downer also describes the award as a "farce" and as "the worst decision in Nobel Peace Prize history" that has "done real damage to the institution". [6][7][8]

Also note that the Daily Telegraph states specifically that the award "has drawn much criticism", perhaps an appropriate sentence to include in the lead. Reactions among observers mostly seem to be negative (reactions from various heads of state/government don't really count because they are solely political and would be diplomatic whoever the winner was, and because they are motivated by the desire to have good relations with the US rather than actual opinions on the Nobel Prize - independent voices like most American newspapers seem to agree that the award was an embarrasment to both Obama and the Nobel Prize). 85.164.198.21 (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Reaction from U.S. allies "overwhelmingly positive"

The statement is made in and cited to this article, but it is not substantiated by the content of the article or, seemingly, the content of this Wikipedia article. I realize this is not a very regulation-based observation, as the WaPost is generally regarded as a reliable source, but this statement was made on the same day as the announcement and may need corroborative sourcing to confirm that it is still accurate, if it ever was. International sources such as the Daily Telegraph article cited in the above thread would suggest this was not the case. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Afghanistan

Why on earth does Afghanistan have a separate section under "reactions"? The only other sections are "Barack Obama", "United States", "Norway" and "Other reaction". Barack Obama obviously because he is the winner, the US because Obama is from the US and Norway because this is a Norwegian political award, but reactions in an obscure country like Afghanistan belong under "other reaction". 85.164.198.21 (talk) 00:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Because the Peace Prize recipient's country has been engaged in an 8-year-long armed conflict ("war" being the opposite of "peace") there, perhaps? Lapicero (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Obama Feels Unworthy of Peace Prize

Over CNN live on 10/09/09, Barack Obama admits he did not feel he deserved "to be in the company" of past Peace Prize winners, but would accept the prize while pushing for a broad range of international objectives, including nuclear nonproliferation, a reversal of the global economic downturn and a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict.(Danielpdavies (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

What's your point regarding the article? If you did read the article it has a whole section on Obama and his reaction. Hobartimus (talk) 01:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)