Talk:Nobel Peace Prize

Change to heading of Template

For a proposed minor change to heading of Template, see Template talk:Nobel Peace Prize#Heading to Template. Davshul (talk) 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Subliminable (but clearly deliberate) POV in "Nobel's will" quotation

User:Spiff made two small edits - both marked m, and with edit summaries saying Improved quotation, added important "preceding year" clause... added emphasis. The "improvement" was quite obviously to "emphasise" the fact that Barack Obama was awarded the prize without having spent the preceding year as US President, clear POV. Not only this, but this actually makes the quote somewhat inaccurate as the "during the preceding year" is from a completely separate sentence to the rest of the quote text (though it is IN the will). I have removed this "improvement" from the quote. _ɹəəpıɔnı 21:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Two style nits

I rearranged the conjunctions and sentence adverbs to clarify what I think what was the intended contrast -- cases where Nobel's inventions were used to violent ends versus cases where they were put exclusively to peaceful purposes. Also I changed "whilst" to "while". "Whilst" is either poetic or archaic, and neither seemed intended in the context. --Jeffreykegler (talk) 01:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

"Whilst" is current usage in the UK, though even there it's popularity is declining. See "While". A general rule when it comes to deciding between US and UK spelling is to follow the original usage in the article. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). However in this case I don't think there's be any objections to your change.   Will Beback  talk  07:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My apologies re "whilst". My references confirm that "whilst" is still acceptable as current British English. If I had the edit to do over, I'd leave the "whilst" alone.--Jeffreykegler (talk) 18:52, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just don't try to change "Yoghurt" to "Yogurt". ;)   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This is all wrong!

We all know this is how the Nobel Peace Prize is decided:

1. Mix a secret potion
2. Roll the ancient dice
3. Hire a focus group
4. Have a human sacrifice!

'FLaRN'(talk) 03:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

2010: Nobel´s intention distorted by Norwegian parliament?

Does anyone else agree that this section seems to give undue weight to one particular man's work. No problem citing him, but does it justify quite so much text? 194.70.181.1 (talk) 09:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of section "Recipients who met untimely deaths"

An editor has deleted this entire section on the basis that it is trivia. How do the other editors feel?

"Peace Prize recipient Carl von Ossietzky died in police custody. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated." http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobel_Peace_Prize&diff=402710405&oldid=402693160 Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like an effort to add original research, implying that the Prize was a factor in their demise. If some respectable secondary source has made this point then that'd be different.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The article on List of United States Presidents notes which ones were assassinated, in the "About this list" section. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It only lists those who died wile in office, and is not restricted to violent deaths. A comparable list here would include only those who died before the next person received the award, and would similarly include all causes of death. While there are books on the assassinations of presidents, are there are similar sources that discuss the deaths of Nobel Prize winners in the year immediately following the honor?   Will Beback  talk  03:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a certain linkage linkage between winning the Peace Prize and having bold enough views that you might get killed (or left to die) for having them. There is probably a greater linkage between having bold views and not living long enough, you have to still be living to win a Nobel. The latest award may bear the first out, who knows. But until this becomes a subject of unified commentary, we should avoid commenting on it as a unique subject. Within a prose section discussing outcomes for all the recipients, this would be OK. Perhaps a mention in the "Reaction" section, and not just deaths either, what about Aung San and Liu? Is there an overview piece on this that could be sourced? Franamax (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Those are good points. I'd make a further observation about prize winners versus presidents. I think we can agree that the presidents were killed because they were presidents. If they had not been elected, it's unlikely that they would have been the targets of assassination. OTOH, can we say that any of these people were killed because they won the Peace Prize?   Will Beback  talk  05:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Will Beback. The meaningless word "untimely" is surely meant to imply that there is a connection of the sort Franamax posits, but without a good, solid secondary source for that assertion we should not imply this. Likewise we shouldn't be picking out only some untimely deaths of Nobel laureates to imply a strong connection; with the possible exception of Jeanne Calment, all deaths are "untimely". — Gavia immer (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Picking up on one of Franamax's points, the people who win the prize are often troublemakers (trouble for those who prefer to continue strife), and people like that are always in danger. If Gandhi's death hadn't been so "untimely" he undoubtedly would have won. The same may be said of other potential recipients. I bet we could find a source that says something about winning the prize and being an endangered activist.   Will Beback  talk  05:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with the addition of properly sourced information in that vein. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's notable if someone died as the result of an assassination (or died in custody) as this is highly irregular and therefore notable. It could be considered one of the hazards of being a public figure. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no question that assassination is remarkable enough that it should be noted in the biographies. What isn't clear is why it should be noted here. Would "list of Harvard alumni" have a special section on those who died violent deaths? I doubt it. Again, provide a source and there won't be a concern.   Will Beback  talk  01:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize Committee notes that King was assassinated on their web page here (last line): http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html So it was notable to them. I haven't check the others, but I could use these Nobel Prize bios for references if you like. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

At this point we're having the same discussion in two places. I'll respond at the "List" talk page.   Will Beback  talk  12:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Nobel Peace Center

In what way could Nobel Peace Center be mentioned in this article (now it is only a link in section "see also").

Maybe the center has on display pictures of all the recipients? Maybe the center has on display at least one of the awards and/or diploma/certificates?

(The center is a commercial venture but that in itselft does not disqualify it from being mentioned in a notable setting.)--155.55.60.112 (talk) 10:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Already one 2012 nomination

Not sure where this info belongs but former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is in the proces of being nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination are not really notable. There is a very low threshold for nomination, and the prize committee asks that they not be publicized. Since they do not confirm or deny nominations until fifty years have elapsed, the nominations are only known when a nominee or nominator announces them for publicity purposes.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

EU Nobel

EU deserves the Nobel prize absolutely. EU experiment establishes peace in Europe. Every EU citizen, especially Greeks are thankful to EU members and to Nobel price committee. Thank you all for bringing peace & austerity to us all. --Filippos2 (talk) 07:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)