Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nobel Prize in Literature article.|
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's main page in the In the news section on 9 October 2008.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Controversies Section
- 2 Malraux in Controversies section
- 3 Should List of Nobel laureates in Literature have links to "[year] in literature" articles for each award?
- 4 Biased and Eurocentric
- 5 File:Johannes Jensen Nobel Prize.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
- 6 Tranströmer and Swedish bias
- 7 Request for clarification
- 8 Kafka "oversight"
- 9 List of notable and controversial omissions
- 10 Hephzibah Anderson quote
- 11 Will this diagram be a help?
- 12 Citations
So obviously the controversies section is important, but surely having over half of the article devoted to it seems like undue weight. Does anyone have any ideas about how to fix this problem? Would it be appropriate to split it into its own article, a la Criticism of Wal-Mart? Or maybe just trim down the list of examples? But they're all sourced, so I'm not sure which ones you'd pick to ax Deadlyhair (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
- There already is such a page:  It should definately be cut down. If nobody else do it before me I'll probably engage it. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
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 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
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)
Biased and Eurocentric
Regarding the phrase "The 2009 award to Herta Müller, previously little-known outside Germany but many times named favorite for the Nobel Prize, has re-ignited criticism that the award committee is biased and Eurocentric.", the phrase "mostly by the US press" has been removed from the sentence, as the source  doesn't make that claim. At the same time, the source makes no claim of bias or Eurocentricity - the article is mostly about the shock of a relative unknown, even in Germany, winning the prize. If there were claims of Eurocentricity after the award, these need to be sourced, otherwise the claim should go. Greenman (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Agreed. In fact, if there are no sources, I would say it should be removed immediately. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
File:Johannes Jensen Nobel Prize.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
|An image used in this article, File:Johannes Jensen Nobel Prize.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
Tranströmer and Swedish bias
The source for this edit is Norman Lebrecht writing 3 lines possibly seriously mocking (possibly in jest) the fact that 8 laureates out of roughly 110 were Swedish. He doesn't even analyze the case of Tranströmer. I'd be all for having the criticism in the article if there were a significant source that actually questioned whether Tranströmer was worthy. There have been only 3 Swedish laureates who weren't themselves members of the Swedish Academy at the time of award, and 55 years since the last such award. From my understanding Tranströmer seems to actually be internationally acclaimed. Skrofler (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Request for clarification
Apparently nominations may be lodged by (among others) professors of language and/or literature. (Unfortunately, the citation link for this no longer works.) Does this mean full professors only, or would it also include assistant or associate professors (or whatever the Swedish equivalent would be)? Because if I'm eligible, then I'm going to nominate some of my favorite My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic clopfic. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
From the Wikipedia article on Franz Kafka: "Kafka's writing attracted little attention until after his death. During his lifetime, he published only a few short stories." Not much of an oversight as his notoriety and influence were almost entirely posthumous. Lesbro (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
List of notable and controversial omissions
The "List of notable and controversial omissions" is a bit problematic. First, it makes no sense to write that authors who died later than 1950 or who are still alive have never been nominated, as there is no way of knowing that. Of course John Updike wasn't nominated before 1950 - he was 18 years old then - to take one example. Second, unless the omission of a particular author has been discussed by a reliable source, it is not notable. The authors in the list are all notable, but that in itself does not make the fact that they have not received the Nobel Prize a notable fact about them. Because if that were the case, every single published author who has a Wikipedia article could potentially be on that list. Who is to decide which omissions are notable, unless there are any sources? Not a Wikipedia editor in any case. (Note that some of the names in the list are sourced, but the sources don't actually mention the Nobel Prize for those I have looked at - they source the year of death in most cases). --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- That being said, however, there could very well be a list that includes authors who died before 1950 and who were nominated for the prize. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Took the list to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- I commented at WP:NORN that the section should be removed as it essentially is a list of cherry picked anecdotes—there is no objective test of whether an author was overlooked, so each listed item would need to be an attributed opinion, and that is not suitable for Wikipedia (do we include counter opinions?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
- Took the list to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (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)
Will this diagram be a help?
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)