Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature

Malraux in Controversies section

Some piecemeal editing in this section makes it unclear what it is trying to say. Perhaps the editor can revisit this and clarify the original intent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.148 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Should List of Nobel laureates in Literature have links to "[year] in literature" articles for each award?

Only two editors are discussing this, so far, and we've reached an impasse. The discussion isn't very long, but more participation might help resolve the matter. The discussion is at Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature, "Links to national literatures and "[year] in literature"" section (sorry, apparently a direct link won't work). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Hephzibah Anderson quote

Not sure if his opinion merits inclusion in the article, but I do know the way it's presented can mislead readers:

• The journalist Hephzibah Anderson has noted that the Man Booker International Prize "is fast becoming the more significant award, appearing an ever more competent alternative to the Nobel."

without quoting what came before:

• It's in keeping with the way she lives her creative life that she should scoop not the established Man Booker Prize (only novels are eligible, though judge Claire Tomalin insisted that she be included on the 1980 shortlist for The Beggar Maid), but the newer Man Booker International. It is equally fitting that this is fast becoming the ... Ssscienccce (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Citations

I am removing the "citations needed" banner at the top of the page because most of the article has clear, verifiable citations and it just seems like the banner for the entire page is no longer necessary. I have put a few "citation needed" tags in the "Controversies about Nobel Laureate selections" section to indicate specific places where citations are still outstanding. --Arthistorygrrl (talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Camus listed in opposition to Eurocentrism criticism section

I find the photo of Camus next to the section on criticisms of Eurocentrism to be rather innane, his credentials as "African-born" hardly has any bearings on what the section is discussing. A proper non-European winner should be listed if the purpose is to display a significant glass-ceiling broken in the award. 89.100.70.175 (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Placing some punctuation inside quotation marks?

Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LQ we should "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." There are several sentences that seem to require a period to be moved. Any objection if I make these minor edits?

Preceding comment posted by Kawika (talk).

Placement after quotation marks is British practice. Sca (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox width

The Latest Nobel Prize infobox seems too wide, and implies we think Dylan is more important than all the other recipients. It should be the same width as the other jpg thumbs on the right side of the page. Sca (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Wait, why are the main page and the article so vague about the 2018 controversy?

The article: On 4 May 2018, the Swedish Academy announced that following the preceding internal struggles the Nobel laureate for literature selected in 2018 will be postponed until 2019, when two laureates will be selected.[29][28] The announcement was made after several members had left or declared their intention to resign from the Academy, leaving it without a quorum for making decisions or nominating candidates for the literature prize.[95]

The main page: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019.

Shouldn't there be more detail about the actual controversy, that the Academy is implicated in covering up sexual crimes committed by one of their associates? As it stands, you get no explanation unless you go look it up. cnte ^(talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

• See discussion on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 postponed. cart-Talk 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with the decision made, then. It doesn't matter if there are many reasons, the sexual assault scandal is clearly the primary one. There should be more details, probably even an entire separate article on the scandal. cnte ^(talk) 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The sexual assault scandal was not the primary one, just the one that media (clearly) decied to highlight. --cart-Talk 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Article name

I believe this article needs to be renamed as Nobel Prize for Literaure given that:

• the "for" title is used by the the English language website of the Nobel Foundation,
• is significantly more commonly used per Google Ngrams results

Any objections? Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Nobel Foundation as well as the Swedish Academy call the prize the Nobel Prize in Literature on their web sites. --K1812 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Aha. I see that the Nobel Foundation itself uses both variants on its website, e.g., in, for. Given that, I don't think this is a worthwhile move to debate since it makes little practical difference to the reader; so I'll withdraw my motion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems that the Nobel Foundation launched a new version of their web site between August 13 and August 15, and on that occasion also changed their opinion as to the name of the literature prize - which doesn't necessarily mean that we have to share their views... --K1812 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support move because "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English leaves much to be desired). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 09:39, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 13 September 2018

Nobel Prize in Literature → Nobel Prize for Literature – The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error. See discussion also in previous section here! SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. –Ammarpad (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

• Support Nobelpriset i litteratur, fine, but in English "for". [EDIT: but accept evidence below].... In ictu oculi (talk) 09:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support a quick internet search shows that Nobel Prize for Literature appears to be a common English term and style. However, I do see some use of Nobel Prize in Literature (example: New York Times has used both). Auldhouse (talk) 16:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
• Support the other nobels should also be changed from in to for עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current form is common enough in English. It can as easily be the Nobel Prize in (the field of)...literature, chemistry, etc., as the Nobel Prize for literature, chemistry, etc. No pressing need to change the status quo. Dohn joe (talk) 18:34, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we should make excuses for, and spread, poor grammar by adding things in parentheses that we possibly might be able to read between the lines. Clarity is always best. And the pressing need is proper English. Wikipedia is used by many schoolkids nowadays. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:32, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

What I'm trying to say, is that "Nobel Prize in Literature" is in fact proper English, as its usage in myriad reliable sources shows. Dohn joe (talk) 22:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not agree. Those references are in deference to, and/or are a result of, the original error, which was an error and is an error. If you suggested Nobel Prize in the field of literature we could discuss that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:03, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

"XXXX Prize in XXXX" is plain, proper English. See Harold_W._McGraw_Prize_in_Education, Julian_Corbett_Prize_in_Naval_History, among many others. Dohn joe (talk) 18:20, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant examples. In some cases, where for obviously could be misunderstood (that prize was used for education; that was a prize because it was outstanding for naval history), in is used. That's the way the English language works (very well, in fact). — Preceding unsigned comment added by SergeWoodzing (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. I get slightly more ghits for in [1] [2] and I'd need to say no case has been made above. Andrewa (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Press coverage tends to favour the current title, and I don't accept it is improper in English (an ever-evolving language). AusLondonder (talk) 09:56, 20 September 2018 (UTC).

Discussion

AusLondonder makes the point that they don't accept it is improper in English. Agree totally, but this goes further... Wikipedia is not the place to correct current English usage. We use English as we find it. That same argument, that those who use in are in some way using incorrect English and that Wikipedia should instead set a good example, seems to be the main argument of the proposer SergeWoodzing and of at least one supporter In ictu oculi as well. This is prescriptive linguistics, and is old-fashioned, as modern linguistics is descriptive, acknowledging that English for example is an an ever-evolving language as is also pointed out above. And it's also contrary to Wikipedia policy and principles. Andrewa (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I will continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. There is still such a thing as an error in language, no matter how modern we might want to be. Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known and (2) irrefutably correct and (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. Language is for communication and only has rules to make that as facile as possible for everyone. This is especially important when it comes to our big international languages, which will be harder and harder to use effectively the more rules we abandon and the vaguer or more sloppy usage becomes. I have corrected hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors since I began editing Wikipedia in 2006, logged in from 2009. Many of those corrections have been necessary because without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant. My corrections have normally been appreciated by Scandinavians and others alike and (because?) I don't get personal or sarcastic when making them. I'm trying to be helpful to other users, English teachers and our readers here, whenever possible. If that's not possible on this page and detail, of course I know that consensus rules. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation. But you you have no right to use Wikipedia to promote your desire to reverse the trend you see to vaguer or more sloppy usage, and that seems to be exactly what you are doing.

The claim that without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant does not seem even remotely relevant to this particular RM, and frankly I am very concerned that it may not apply to many (if any) of the hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors that you claim to have corrected either.

I am not raising this as a behavioral issue. I accept that you are trying to be helpful to other users, English teachers and our readers here. I am trying to work with you to resolve what I see as a major disagreement between us as to how English Wikipedia works.

Agree that Nobel Prize for Literature is (1) sufficiently known.

But disagree that it is (2) irrefutably correct, if by that you mean that the current title is incorrect.

And the major sticking point is (3) does not set a bad example and sabotage the hard work of English teachers. The current title does not do that at all. If these English teachers are marking students down for using the current title, it may well be they who are in error.

But nor is it Wikipedia's agenda to correct these teachers, however misguided they may be. We simply use English as we find it attested in reliable secondary sources. What use others make of our decisions regarding article names is up to them. Andrewa (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Much of that was very discouraging. By "irrefutabaly correct" I only meant that it is the only version that is so, whereas, in can be discussed as not so (civilly?) by people of differnent persuasions. What happened to WP:AGF? I believe we all have the right to our own opinions? In any case I now feel severely reprimanded and much less interested in trying to help readers of English comprehend some of the severe Swenglish on this project which often is very hard to comprehend for them. But you're right that this is not one such case. You are also the first administrator to make my work with that feel like it's allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. I'm very sorry that my move request turned into something so controversial and dark. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I could and should have phrased it more gently, but I do not see how.

By "irrefutabaly correct" I only meant that it is the only version that is so... Exactly. This is your opinion, and I respect that. But this is prescriptive linguistics, and irrelevant in terms of our article title policy.

whereas, in can be discussed as not so (civilly?) by people of differnent persuasions. What happened to WP:AGF? I believe we all have the right to our own opinions? Certainly we have that right, and I am not trying to discourage you from expressing yours. Nor am I accusing you of lack of good faith, or of not being here for the right reasons. But I am of the opinion that your program of enforcing the eradication of what you see as Swenglish appears contrary to long-established Wikipedia policy and practice, and that you should review it and at the very least refine your criteria for these edits. And yes, that does bring us into some degree of conflict, and I don't like it either. But we need to resolve it and move on.

In any case I now feel severely reprimanded and much less interested in trying to help readers of English comprehend some of the severe Swenglish on this project which often is very hard to comprehend for them. But you're right that this is not one such case. Feel free to raise other cases, where you feel that severe Swenglish is a problem, on my talk page, or ping me on the appropriate talk page. They can be old ones long forgotten by everyone else, or new ones under discussion, or anywhere in between. I must point out that it was you who raised the question of your other edits... hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors... suggesting that this was a similar case. You now seem to have shifted ground on this.

You are also the first administrator to make my work with that feel like it's allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. Again, it was you who suggested that this was just one of hundreds if not thousands of similar "corrections" that have so far gone unchallenged. Again, you now seem to have shifted ground on this. Perhaps that is progress, and you now recognise that this is different to all the others, and perhaps the others all improved Wikipedia. Or perhaps at least some of them were based on a similar mistake. I think you should at least consider that possibility. Admins cannot be everywhere. Perhaps others have fallen through the cracks. It happens all the time.

allmost some sort of vandalism. That really hurts. Well said. I am sorry that you feel severely reprimanded, I was trying to avoid that. But you do seem to have made a fundamental mistake in this proposal, and when challenged you suggested that hundreds if not thousands of other edits were made on similar grounds, and that you would continue to try to eliminate errors made because of Swenglish translations whereverer I can and no matter how far they have spread. Do you see why that is of concern to me? Andrewa (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes I see it, but simultaneously I see (1) a serious threat to my continued contributions to English Wikipedia in your (2) unwarranted lack of good faith in me based on one single disagreement about one single preposition, which I have admitted is not a clear-cut case while maintaining that for cannot be disputed as correct while in can be disputed (if we respect each other's opinions). That little difference - what cannot or can reasonably be disputed - is what the move proposal was about and for, not about incriminating myself as a vandal who very possibly (according to you) has made hundreds if not thousands of non-constructive edits amounting to disruption. It remains my opinion that English teachers should teach prize for literature not prize in literature, but obviously (?), while respecting your opinion, I do not wish to force any such opinions of mine on anyone. I state my case. I never demand that anyone must agree. And I guarantee you, I have no other agenda than improving the language on this project, as best I know how, in whatever way I feel it could and should be improved. The agenda includes helping the many valuable Swedish contributors here with some of their English, which I am able to do because I often understand what they actually want said, thinking in Swedish while writing in English, since I know both languages very well. One would assume an agenda like that might be encouraged, not discouraged, especially by a respected adiministrator. ? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not questioned your behaviour, but you now seem to be questioning mine. This is not the place for that. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Though English has been my first langauge for 68 years, this sentence confused me for clarity, and frankly, scared me a bit: The claim that 'without knowing both Swedish (or Danish or Norwegian) and English other readers would not even have been able to figure out what was meant' does not seem even remotely relevant to this particular RM, and frankly I am very concerned that it may not apply to many (if any) of the 'hundreds if not thousands of Swenglish errors' that you claim to have corrected either (bold by me to show what I may have misunderstood).

I'm sincerely sorry if I incorrectly took it it as a vailed threat and rather severe criticism of potentially very bad behavior on my part when I've corrected all those errors, in good faith and with every good intention and with intimate knowledge of both languages, since 2006. What, more exactly did you otherwise mean? (I'm putting the question here, not on my talk page in response to your entry there, because it is more-or-less relevant to part of my motivation for this move request. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:54, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Then let us wait until this RM closes, and then take it from there in the appropriate place. Andrewa (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2018 (UTC)