![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the Booker Prize is known as the Man Booker Prize, shouldn't Booker Prize redirect to Man Booker Prize rather than the other way round? -- Kevin 23:58, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
It is a dilemma how the prize should be named and referred to as on an encyclopedia. Surely the current official name is Man Booker Prize and we better stick with that. But the prize became to be known so only starting from 2002. And how long this sponsorship will last and the prize be named so is also in question. Consider those award receivers before 2002, they were awarded Booker Prize rather than Man Booker Prize.
My suggestion is to use the name Booker Prize as is commonly known and redirect Man Booker Prize. MarkBeer 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
We're glad that some is begining to assert their superiority by refuting every counterexample as irrelavant and a mere exception that proves the rule. We shall beg them go back to their Latin class for a re-education on etymology. Before that we shall keep doubting their mentality and implore them to have sense.
For detailed rejoinder, C. S. Lewis (and other examples) was intended, at least, to disprove the following statement by an anonymous (as the IP username construes) user:
Although, as it transpires, the user is reluctant to rescind this assertion made by them, they have reached the decision not to reiterate it. Since page under the title of C. S. Lewis could have its begining with Clive Staples Lewis in bold and search of Clive Staples Lewis is indeed redirected to the page C. S. Lewis, the page titled Booker Prize might as well begin with:
and be redirected to from search of Man Booker Prize.
Again, as for what is or could be termed as common, a bigot mind is sure to pout. Bonsoir, MarkBeer 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Mel and Ken, why stop at edit warring and near violation of 3RR when there may be much more fun to be had after a few barely civil exchanges here descend into outright ad hominems! For what its worth, the Man Booker people apparently prefer longlist / shortlist. Here also. 203.198.237.30 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be perfectly clear about my position. I do not disagree with Mel concerning dictionary definitions or British English. My position is that those things are not of primary importance in this case. We are talking about a thing that is known all over the world as the Booker shortlist. That, in my opinion, outweighs Mel's preference for some dictionaries over others.
Furthermore, Mel, your reference to the Wikipedia Manual of Style is misleading at best. Go read it again. It clearly supports my position.
My last point: the consensus so far is in favor of "shortlist" 2 to 1. Stop editing this article against the consensus. KennyLucius 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A thin consensus is better than none, and you have reverted as many times as I have. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
I notice that you didn't mention the Wikipedia Manual of Style supporting my position. Have you relented on that particular point? KennyLucius 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, Mel. On semi-literacy: if I know that shortlist is not in the OED yet, that's half of literacy. I guess the other half is using only the words in the OED, right? I'll go along with that, but I must express my disappointment that you didn't address my IP argument. I intend to use short list correctly except when referring to a property purposely and consistently entitled shortlist.
I find putting 'controversy, as the second item is a bit giving it a negative spin. Moreover, far too much is made of it given 1-the size of the article, 2- the prestige of the prize. Honestly, some of the comments are beside the point, quite judgemental and even unfounded, e.g. The journalist!s comment suggesting that the Booker chooses books people don't read... Most winners sell millions of copies, plus, that is not how the Booker choose a book, the choice is made on literary merit, and thanks Heaven there is such a platform for good quality books. Moreover, if you put attacks on the Booker, there should also be, as far as possible, the opposing views, there is no controversy without disagreement. Maybe pointing out, as a second point, that the Booker has made the name of large part of the great names in Literature should go first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.45.136 ( talk) 10:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we also create a list of longlisted novels like the list of shortlist and winners? The information's on the official site. It would be really tedious though. Skinnyweed 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that Mr. Rushdie won the prize twice, in 1981 and 1993? That seems odd. 140.90.208.79 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How come one author is written down as being from Scotland, yet others as being from the United Kingdom??? Shouldn't they all be the UK or split into the separate nations?? ## Sign your posts, please.
Probably - I created the country lists a while back, and thought about that - the UK in this list is essentially a proxy for English. It can certainly be changed, but I'd like to hear feedback from others - should we make everyone from N. Ireland/Scotland/Wales/England UK, or identify authors as specifically English? Since the Man Booker Prize is a Commonwealth organisation, it does recognise sub-units of the UK. Irregulargalaxies 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was the link to the betting for the 2007 Booker Prize removed?? This is clearly a very relevant link. The official Booker Prize website even has articles about the betting market, which have been listed in each of the last 25 years, as an important indicator of a likely winner. If you think it is spam, then you should remove the TurboBookSnob.com external link which is deriving commercial benefit as an affiliate to several e-commerce sites such as Ebay.
Someone needs to fix the table so that there is a UK flag instead of text saying 'Flag of the United Kingdom'. I would do it myself, only I have no idea how. -- Helenalex 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder who chose the Commonwealth plus Ireland. It's like the Brits regarding Ireland as a "Home Nation" ("not really foreign, you know"). But since the precedent for a non-Commonwealth country was set, why not the USA? It's English speaking too. Millbanks ( talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Newby2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit has deleted a paragraph regarding the "Booker of Bookers" and 40th anniversary competitions. This has been done without discussion.
I believe details of both these competitions, while outside the annual prize timeline, deserve mention in this article about the Man Booker Prize, as they relate directly to it and would not exist without the main prize. I can see that they might be better placed in a separate section within the main article but can see no reason why they should be deleted outright.-- Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's already a {{ Man Booker Prize Winners}} for Booker Prize winning authors; why not have one for the novels as well, to replace those horrid succession boxes? Giant Snowman 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.
Ian McEwan has been shortlisted 5 times. Not 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantaallou ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick stab at copyediting this article as I feel that its own quality should reflect that of the subject it discusses. It's a great article, and it would be great if further edits and additions continue to comply with MOS, especially in the way the refs are displayed. It would also be a good idea if contributors could remember to include edit summaries (required for all edits), and to sign their messages on his talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A previous anynymous, unsigned message (probably on 1 September 2009, see
User talk:83.78.180.148) reads:
I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.
I thoroughly agree with this suggestion - the Booker is not a literary Olympic Games. If a consensus is not reached within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change.--
Kudpung (
talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Irregulargalaxies ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been multiple revisions removing JM Coetzee's country of origin as Australia (in addition to South Africa). I'm fully aware that he was born and raised in South Africa and only received Australian citizenship in 2006, after both his Booker awards. Regardless of when it happened, though, he does have Australian nationality now, lives there full time, and deals with the country in his recent works. I don't think it should be removed from the Country column in the table without discussion. Irregulargalaxies ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Just before the table with the list of all the winners is: The 2009 recipient of the Booker Prize was English author Hilary Mantel, for her novel Wolf Hall.[8], which seems redundant and adds nothing to the list just below it. Would remove, but maybe the ref wants to be kept and moved to the list? -- 86.173.140.91 ( talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in decreasing order of year rather than increasing. The more recent and relevant information first?? Why was this put in a counter-intuitive and inverted way? Kniwor ( talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about the current year or when it's awarded annually on this page? I had to go to the official site to find out that the shortlist was announced on September 6th and that the prize will be awarded on October 18th - IMO this should really be in the top paragraph - thoughts? It Figures. ( talk) 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"In contrast to literary prizes in the United States, the Booker Prize is greeted with great anticipation and fanfare" seems like a jab to the US. even if it is to be included, why is it necessary to put it in the intro? Plus, that citation is largely opinion based in origin anyway and has no evidence whatsoever, other than being mentioned by some columnist to fit the tone of his piece. Completely unsubstantiated 76.172.114.52 ( talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose to remove the flags and also the nationality column; the official site makes no mention of nationality and certainly isn't festooned with tiny flags. -- John ( talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
'"Outsider" John Banville began this trend in 2005 when his novel The Sea was selected,...' Actually, Banville did not start the trend; it was started by the judges who selected him, which is something he had no control over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.129.176 ( talk) 01:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Would be nice if the article retained some hint of what the eligibility criteria were before 18 September 2013. -- Khajidha ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Man Booker Prize. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Best of the Booker was one time sub-category of the main award Man Booker Prize with no fixed criteria of repeating in future. Also a small article size wise and can be easily merged into the parent Man Booker Prize. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 12 January 2017. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved. Although the WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't conclusively proven, there is some evidence for it in Dicklyon's ngram, and there is a clear WP:CONCISE advantage to the proposed title, an argument which gained a consensus in support of moving, during the discussion. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Man Booker Prize →
Booker Prize – Common name according to the article, unambiguous, more concise, reversing bold 2005 move which was contrary to 2004 consensus.
Andrewa (
talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.
Brad
v 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.See #Page Title for previous rather involved discussion, but the conclusion there was that Man Booker Prize should redirect to Booker Prize. But then see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Booker_Prize&action=history (which will be lost if the move goes ahead) 08:52, 24 May 2005 Clarkk (talk | contribs | block) . . (30 bytes) (+30) . . (Booker Prize moved to Man Booker Prize).
The current name seems contrary to policy, see the explanatory essay at wp:official names. See also discussion at Talk:Folio Prize#Requested move 14 December 2016 which cites this page name as a precedent for adding the sponsor name there. Andrewa ( talk) 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
From the survey above: A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker". -- Green C 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems to misunderstand WP:CONCISE, as does the previous comment that the current title is pretty concise as it is.
There's no question that many sources do use the longer form. But it's logically impossible for them to outnumber those that use the short form, because the short form in included in the longer form. So whenever the longer form is used, both forms are used.
So to argue for the longer term, we'd need to decide that some criteria other than conciseness and common use apply... for example that the shorter term was less recognisable, or unofficial. This is where the essay comes in... the official name has very little standing here, as the policy (which links to the essay) also makes quite clear on careful reading. And there's no suggestion that the shorter form is any less recognisable than the long one.
This is a very common situation with respect to sponsorship, and so the principle affects many articles.
There are many reasons that sources might use the longer name. They might defer to the official name and/or have a different rule on conciseness to that of English Wikipedia. They may themselves have sponsorship connections. This again does not mean we need to follow them. Andrewa ( talk) 18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Booker Prize. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll not be drawn into the longlist v long list debate. There should be no debate at all because it should be spelled exactly as Booker uses it. It's that simple. What I will say is that this article tells us nothing about the awards. What are the long/shortlists? What does it signify? How has it shaped the way listed authors are perceived? I don't know because I don't live in the UK but these are the things readers new to the Booker Prize want to know. This is largely a rambling article with nothing but dates. I myself am new to the prize (I've never cared who won what, I prefer to make my own opinion) but someone asked me yesterday about it and so I looked it up and realized that this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Booker Prize. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
QUOTE: From its inception, only novels written by Commonwealth, Irish, and South African (and later Zimbabwean) citizens were eligible to receive the prize; END OF QUOTE.
The term CommonWealth based upon a very foolish idea that prevails in Great Britain and England. Travancore was not part of British-India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:294:A6D:A1A8:FD31:9AAC:CF7 ( talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we only need two "See also" links rather than the current thirteen. International Booker Prize and Russian Booker Prize are already linked in body text ( MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN). Then there are List of British literary awards and List of literary awards which should stay. Then there are links to other specific literary awards, but these are already encompassed by those two lists. I think this is a straightforward change, but I'm doing paid work for the Booker Prize Foundation so want to get feedback from other editors. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This section strikes me as rather bizarre. It's badly sourced, being totally reliant on a single author whose work is basically unknown and wholly out of print. The only review I was able to find (Bruce King, Research in African Literatures 34:2, 2003) was scathing, dismissing it as a "pedestrian book" that "is an anthology of citations to obvious remarks by others" and "manages to say nothing new" (p.214). On top of being obscure and not particularly academic, everything cited is from what appears to be the preface or introduction, indicating that whoever added that section didn't even read the entire book.
However, while a mediocre book by a basically unknown author is one thing, and it's bad to cite a book you haven't even read, what's even worse is the way that all other scholarship on the history of the Booker Prize, and indeed post-colonialism and post-imperialism, is completely neglected. People have been writing about such things for decades, so why would you ignore all of their arguments and counterarguments just to uncritically promote a single author's work? Even in terms of writers and academics critical of the Booker Prize there are far better places to start, like Todd's Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize and Fiction in Britain Today (1996). It's just bizarre.
Certainly, just looking at the points there, I'd argue that Luke Strongman can't seem to tell the difference between a post-colonial novel concerned with the history and legacy of Empire and one that "engages in imperial nostalgia". The only example actually named, Something to Answer For (1969), certainly doesn't engage in the latter, as among its various themes is the exploration of British duplicity, incompetence, and dishonour during the Suez Crisis. And that aside, could you really ever consider a novel about events that happened a mere 13 years prior to its publication to be "nostalgic"?
Of the other novels that feature the British Empire and its legacy, some are profoundly critical. The Conservationist (1974), for instance, features a deep critique of apartheid. Others use the imperial past as a means of reflecting upon pressing contemporary issues, with Rites of Passage (1980), set during the 19th century on a ship bound for Australia, intimately exploring issues of sexuality and class.
This is also to say nothing that a large proportion of the winning novels about the British Empire, such as In a Free State (1971) and Midnight's Children (1981), being written by people of colour about the legacy and impact of imperialism, whilst also exploring various other themes of class, sexuality, race, freedom, and more besides. Is it "imperial apologia" for an author like V.S. Naipaul, who won the prize in 1971, to write about the lives of indians and other victims of Empire post-independence? The sheer arrogance and condescension to suggest such a thing is utterly astounding.
Additionally, the claim that the Booker Prize was created as some sort of propaganda exercise by British politicians is also absurd and baseless. Even if you ignore the actual history of how the prize was founded, the fact is that if it actually had some sort of pro-imperial agenda then that wound be reflected in the chosen winners. However, one of the earliest prize winners, John Berger, was also a noted Marxist who criticised the prize organisation for Booker's 19th century colonial profiteering, and who donated half his winnings to the British Black Panthers. 148.252.128.103 ( talk) 02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Peter Carey is a great writer of course, but so is nearly everyone else who won the award almost by definition. So I don't understand this recent series of edits: [1] .. It discusses Peter Carey being on a Guardian "Best 100" list (in the #100 position). Why is it in this article at all? It has nothing to do with the Booker Prize. And why is it even mentioned that he won the Booker in the History section? It's an arbitrary mention. That's what the list section is for. Then, it goes on about Carey winning the prize 2 times, and oh BTW these couple other writers did also, as an aside. It all seems biased in highlighting Carey and opens a can of worms for other editors to likewise push their favored author in the history section. -- Green C 22:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Bernadine Evaristo tied with Douglas Stuart, NOT Margaret Atwood. I'm not sure which year. Can someone correct this please? Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Since the Booker Prize is known as the Man Booker Prize, shouldn't Booker Prize redirect to Man Booker Prize rather than the other way round? -- Kevin 23:58, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
It is a dilemma how the prize should be named and referred to as on an encyclopedia. Surely the current official name is Man Booker Prize and we better stick with that. But the prize became to be known so only starting from 2002. And how long this sponsorship will last and the prize be named so is also in question. Consider those award receivers before 2002, they were awarded Booker Prize rather than Man Booker Prize.
My suggestion is to use the name Booker Prize as is commonly known and redirect Man Booker Prize. MarkBeer 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
We're glad that some is begining to assert their superiority by refuting every counterexample as irrelavant and a mere exception that proves the rule. We shall beg them go back to their Latin class for a re-education on etymology. Before that we shall keep doubting their mentality and implore them to have sense.
For detailed rejoinder, C. S. Lewis (and other examples) was intended, at least, to disprove the following statement by an anonymous (as the IP username construes) user:
Although, as it transpires, the user is reluctant to rescind this assertion made by them, they have reached the decision not to reiterate it. Since page under the title of C. S. Lewis could have its begining with Clive Staples Lewis in bold and search of Clive Staples Lewis is indeed redirected to the page C. S. Lewis, the page titled Booker Prize might as well begin with:
and be redirected to from search of Man Booker Prize.
Again, as for what is or could be termed as common, a bigot mind is sure to pout. Bonsoir, MarkBeer 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Mel and Ken, why stop at edit warring and near violation of 3RR when there may be much more fun to be had after a few barely civil exchanges here descend into outright ad hominems! For what its worth, the Man Booker people apparently prefer longlist / shortlist. Here also. 203.198.237.30 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me be perfectly clear about my position. I do not disagree with Mel concerning dictionary definitions or British English. My position is that those things are not of primary importance in this case. We are talking about a thing that is known all over the world as the Booker shortlist. That, in my opinion, outweighs Mel's preference for some dictionaries over others.
Furthermore, Mel, your reference to the Wikipedia Manual of Style is misleading at best. Go read it again. It clearly supports my position.
My last point: the consensus so far is in favor of "shortlist" 2 to 1. Stop editing this article against the consensus. KennyLucius 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
A thin consensus is better than none, and you have reverted as many times as I have. Perhaps you should take your own advice.
I notice that you didn't mention the Wikipedia Manual of Style supporting my position. Have you relented on that particular point? KennyLucius 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
That's very kind of you, Mel. On semi-literacy: if I know that shortlist is not in the OED yet, that's half of literacy. I guess the other half is using only the words in the OED, right? I'll go along with that, but I must express my disappointment that you didn't address my IP argument. I intend to use short list correctly except when referring to a property purposely and consistently entitled shortlist.
I find putting 'controversy, as the second item is a bit giving it a negative spin. Moreover, far too much is made of it given 1-the size of the article, 2- the prestige of the prize. Honestly, some of the comments are beside the point, quite judgemental and even unfounded, e.g. The journalist!s comment suggesting that the Booker chooses books people don't read... Most winners sell millions of copies, plus, that is not how the Booker choose a book, the choice is made on literary merit, and thanks Heaven there is such a platform for good quality books. Moreover, if you put attacks on the Booker, there should also be, as far as possible, the opposing views, there is no controversy without disagreement. Maybe pointing out, as a second point, that the Booker has made the name of large part of the great names in Literature should go first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.45.136 ( talk) 10:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Should we also create a list of longlisted novels like the list of shortlist and winners? The information's on the official site. It would be really tedious though. Skinnyweed 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Does this mean that Mr. Rushdie won the prize twice, in 1981 and 1993? That seems odd. 140.90.208.79 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
How come one author is written down as being from Scotland, yet others as being from the United Kingdom??? Shouldn't they all be the UK or split into the separate nations?? ## Sign your posts, please.
Probably - I created the country lists a while back, and thought about that - the UK in this list is essentially a proxy for English. It can certainly be changed, but I'd like to hear feedback from others - should we make everyone from N. Ireland/Scotland/Wales/England UK, or identify authors as specifically English? Since the Man Booker Prize is a Commonwealth organisation, it does recognise sub-units of the UK. Irregulargalaxies 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Why was the link to the betting for the 2007 Booker Prize removed?? This is clearly a very relevant link. The official Booker Prize website even has articles about the betting market, which have been listed in each of the last 25 years, as an important indicator of a likely winner. If you think it is spam, then you should remove the TurboBookSnob.com external link which is deriving commercial benefit as an affiliate to several e-commerce sites such as Ebay.
Someone needs to fix the table so that there is a UK flag instead of text saying 'Flag of the United Kingdom'. I would do it myself, only I have no idea how. -- Helenalex 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
I wonder who chose the Commonwealth plus Ireland. It's like the Brits regarding Ireland as a "Home Nation" ("not really foreign, you know"). But since the precedent for a non-Commonwealth country was set, why not the USA? It's English speaking too. Millbanks ( talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The image File:Newby2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check
The following images also have this problem:
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
A recent edit has deleted a paragraph regarding the "Booker of Bookers" and 40th anniversary competitions. This has been done without discussion.
I believe details of both these competitions, while outside the annual prize timeline, deserve mention in this article about the Man Booker Prize, as they relate directly to it and would not exist without the main prize. I can see that they might be better placed in a separate section within the main article but can see no reason why they should be deleted outright.-- Perry Middlemiss ( talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
There's already a {{ Man Booker Prize Winners}} for Booker Prize winning authors; why not have one for the novels as well, to replace those horrid succession boxes? Giant Snowman 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.
Ian McEwan has been shortlisted 5 times. Not 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantaallou ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
I've had a quick stab at copyediting this article as I feel that its own quality should reflect that of the subject it discusses. It's a great article, and it would be great if further edits and additions continue to comply with MOS, especially in the way the refs are displayed. It would also be a good idea if contributors could remember to include edit summaries (required for all edits), and to sign their messages on his talk page. -- Kudpung ( talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
A previous anynymous, unsigned message (probably on 1 September 2009, see
User talk:83.78.180.148) reads:
I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.
I thoroughly agree with this suggestion - the Booker is not a literary Olympic Games. If a consensus is not reached within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change.--
Kudpung (
talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Done. Irregulargalaxies ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There have been multiple revisions removing JM Coetzee's country of origin as Australia (in addition to South Africa). I'm fully aware that he was born and raised in South Africa and only received Australian citizenship in 2006, after both his Booker awards. Regardless of when it happened, though, he does have Australian nationality now, lives there full time, and deals with the country in his recent works. I don't think it should be removed from the Country column in the table without discussion. Irregulargalaxies ( talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Just before the table with the list of all the winners is: The 2009 recipient of the Booker Prize was English author Hilary Mantel, for her novel Wolf Hall.[8], which seems redundant and adds nothing to the list just below it. Would remove, but maybe the ref wants to be kept and moved to the list? -- 86.173.140.91 ( talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be in decreasing order of year rather than increasing. The more recent and relevant information first?? Why was this put in a counter-intuitive and inverted way? Kniwor ( talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Why isn't there anything about the current year or when it's awarded annually on this page? I had to go to the official site to find out that the shortlist was announced on September 6th and that the prize will be awarded on October 18th - IMO this should really be in the top paragraph - thoughts? It Figures. ( talk) 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
"In contrast to literary prizes in the United States, the Booker Prize is greeted with great anticipation and fanfare" seems like a jab to the US. even if it is to be included, why is it necessary to put it in the intro? Plus, that citation is largely opinion based in origin anyway and has no evidence whatsoever, other than being mentioned by some columnist to fit the tone of his piece. Completely unsubstantiated 76.172.114.52 ( talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
I propose to remove the flags and also the nationality column; the official site makes no mention of nationality and certainly isn't festooned with tiny flags. -- John ( talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
'"Outsider" John Banville began this trend in 2005 when his novel The Sea was selected,...' Actually, Banville did not start the trend; it was started by the judges who selected him, which is something he had no control over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.129.176 ( talk) 01:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Would be nice if the article retained some hint of what the eligibility criteria were before 18 September 2013. -- Khajidha ( talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Man Booker Prize. 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}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The Best of the Booker was one time sub-category of the main award Man Booker Prize with no fixed criteria of repeating in future. Also a small article size wise and can be easily merged into the parent Man Booker Prize. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 12 January 2017. The result of the move review was endorsed. |
The result of the move request was: Moved. Although the WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't conclusively proven, there is some evidence for it in Dicklyon's ngram, and there is a clear WP:CONCISE advantage to the proposed title, an argument which gained a consensus in support of moving, during the discussion. — Amakuru ( talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Man Booker Prize →
Booker Prize – Common name according to the article, unambiguous, more concise, reversing bold 2005 move which was contrary to 2004 consensus.
Andrewa (
talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting.
Brad
v 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.See #Page Title for previous rather involved discussion, but the conclusion there was that Man Booker Prize should redirect to Booker Prize. But then see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Booker_Prize&action=history (which will be lost if the move goes ahead) 08:52, 24 May 2005 Clarkk (talk | contribs | block) . . (30 bytes) (+30) . . (Booker Prize moved to Man Booker Prize).
The current name seems contrary to policy, see the explanatory essay at wp:official names. See also discussion at Talk:Folio Prize#Requested move 14 December 2016 which cites this page name as a precedent for adding the sponsor name there. Andrewa ( talk) 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
From the survey above: A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker". -- Green C 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
This seems to misunderstand WP:CONCISE, as does the previous comment that the current title is pretty concise as it is.
There's no question that many sources do use the longer form. But it's logically impossible for them to outnumber those that use the short form, because the short form in included in the longer form. So whenever the longer form is used, both forms are used.
So to argue for the longer term, we'd need to decide that some criteria other than conciseness and common use apply... for example that the shorter term was less recognisable, or unofficial. This is where the essay comes in... the official name has very little standing here, as the policy (which links to the essay) also makes quite clear on careful reading. And there's no suggestion that the shorter form is any less recognisable than the long one.
This is a very common situation with respect to sponsorship, and so the principle affects many articles.
There are many reasons that sources might use the longer name. They might defer to the official name and/or have a different rule on conciseness to that of English Wikipedia. They may themselves have sponsorship connections. This again does not mean we need to follow them. Andrewa ( talk) 18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Booker Prize. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll not be drawn into the longlist v long list debate. There should be no debate at all because it should be spelled exactly as Booker uses it. It's that simple. What I will say is that this article tells us nothing about the awards. What are the long/shortlists? What does it signify? How has it shaped the way listed authors are perceived? I don't know because I don't live in the UK but these are the things readers new to the Booker Prize want to know. This is largely a rambling article with nothing but dates. I myself am new to the prize (I've never cared who won what, I prefer to make my own opinion) but someone asked me yesterday about it and so I looked it up and realized that this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award. MagnoliaSouth ( talk) 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Booker Prize. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
QUOTE: From its inception, only novels written by Commonwealth, Irish, and South African (and later Zimbabwean) citizens were eligible to receive the prize; END OF QUOTE.
The term CommonWealth based upon a very foolish idea that prevails in Great Britain and England. Travancore was not part of British-India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:294:A6D:A1A8:FD31:9AAC:CF7 ( talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I propose that we only need two "See also" links rather than the current thirteen. International Booker Prize and Russian Booker Prize are already linked in body text ( MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN). Then there are List of British literary awards and List of literary awards which should stay. Then there are links to other specific literary awards, but these are already encompassed by those two lists. I think this is a straightforward change, but I'm doing paid work for the Booker Prize Foundation so want to get feedback from other editors. MartinPoulter ( talk) 16:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
This section strikes me as rather bizarre. It's badly sourced, being totally reliant on a single author whose work is basically unknown and wholly out of print. The only review I was able to find (Bruce King, Research in African Literatures 34:2, 2003) was scathing, dismissing it as a "pedestrian book" that "is an anthology of citations to obvious remarks by others" and "manages to say nothing new" (p.214). On top of being obscure and not particularly academic, everything cited is from what appears to be the preface or introduction, indicating that whoever added that section didn't even read the entire book.
However, while a mediocre book by a basically unknown author is one thing, and it's bad to cite a book you haven't even read, what's even worse is the way that all other scholarship on the history of the Booker Prize, and indeed post-colonialism and post-imperialism, is completely neglected. People have been writing about such things for decades, so why would you ignore all of their arguments and counterarguments just to uncritically promote a single author's work? Even in terms of writers and academics critical of the Booker Prize there are far better places to start, like Todd's Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize and Fiction in Britain Today (1996). It's just bizarre.
Certainly, just looking at the points there, I'd argue that Luke Strongman can't seem to tell the difference between a post-colonial novel concerned with the history and legacy of Empire and one that "engages in imperial nostalgia". The only example actually named, Something to Answer For (1969), certainly doesn't engage in the latter, as among its various themes is the exploration of British duplicity, incompetence, and dishonour during the Suez Crisis. And that aside, could you really ever consider a novel about events that happened a mere 13 years prior to its publication to be "nostalgic"?
Of the other novels that feature the British Empire and its legacy, some are profoundly critical. The Conservationist (1974), for instance, features a deep critique of apartheid. Others use the imperial past as a means of reflecting upon pressing contemporary issues, with Rites of Passage (1980), set during the 19th century on a ship bound for Australia, intimately exploring issues of sexuality and class.
This is also to say nothing that a large proportion of the winning novels about the British Empire, such as In a Free State (1971) and Midnight's Children (1981), being written by people of colour about the legacy and impact of imperialism, whilst also exploring various other themes of class, sexuality, race, freedom, and more besides. Is it "imperial apologia" for an author like V.S. Naipaul, who won the prize in 1971, to write about the lives of indians and other victims of Empire post-independence? The sheer arrogance and condescension to suggest such a thing is utterly astounding.
Additionally, the claim that the Booker Prize was created as some sort of propaganda exercise by British politicians is also absurd and baseless. Even if you ignore the actual history of how the prize was founded, the fact is that if it actually had some sort of pro-imperial agenda then that wound be reflected in the chosen winners. However, one of the earliest prize winners, John Berger, was also a noted Marxist who criticised the prize organisation for Booker's 19th century colonial profiteering, and who donated half his winnings to the British Black Panthers. 148.252.128.103 ( talk) 02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Peter Carey is a great writer of course, but so is nearly everyone else who won the award almost by definition. So I don't understand this recent series of edits: [1] .. It discusses Peter Carey being on a Guardian "Best 100" list (in the #100 position). Why is it in this article at all? It has nothing to do with the Booker Prize. And why is it even mentioned that he won the Booker in the History section? It's an arbitrary mention. That's what the list section is for. Then, it goes on about Carey winning the prize 2 times, and oh BTW these couple other writers did also, as an aside. It all seems biased in highlighting Carey and opens a can of worms for other editors to likewise push their favored author in the history section. -- Green C 22:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Bernadine Evaristo tied with Douglas Stuart, NOT Margaret Atwood. I'm not sure which year. Can someone correct this please? Kombo the mzungu ( talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)