Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Controversies Section[edit]

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: [1] It should definately be cut down. If nobody else do it before me I'll probably engage it. --Esuzu (talkcontribs) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Malraux in Controversies section[edit]

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 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

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

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[edit]

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.[49]", the phrase "mostly by the US press" has been removed from the sentence, as the source [2] 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. (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Johannes Jensen Nobel Prize.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg 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
What should I do?

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.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Tranströmer and Swedish bias[edit]

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[edit]

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 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Kafka "oversight"[edit]

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[edit]

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)
Removed it. If anyone rebuilds it in any way, remember you will need a source saying the omission was notable and controversial. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hephzibah Anderson quote[edit]

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?[edit]

The percentage of Nobel Prize in Literature laureates by language family, till 2012

Eddau (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


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[edit]

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. (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nobel Prize in Literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Placing some punctuation inside quotation marks?[edit]

Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to 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[edit]

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)