![]() | List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates is part of the Nobel laureates series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How significant is it to write laureates in native languages? This is not a biography related article and I see no importance of writing names in different languages. Leave Sleaves talk 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The rationale given in the table for 1994 (Arafat, Rabin, Peres) is exactly the same as that given for 1995 (Rotblat, Pugwash). Given that it refers to nuclear weapons I suspect it properly belongs to the latter. I don't have the energy to chase it up, but note it in case anybody else wants to. -- rbrwr ± 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am a newcomer for Wikipedia, also a Chinese from Shanghai. I have noticed a error on country column for 1989 laureate dalai lama. There is no country call Tibet, you can check that on UN. Tibet just a province of china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikewu83 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no list of the winner of the 2009 prize? And is there any mention in this article about 2010 nominees? Jørgen88 ( talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Lock this down now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.144.32 ( talk) 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ Editsemiprotected}}
please change "for extraordinary" to "for his extraordinary" in the quotation from nobel foundation on obama's award. the word was there, then removed. see the source cited. thanks-- 98.113.187.11 ( talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are these 2 winners classified as from Ireland? Each of them lived in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) at the time of their winning? I would propose to chnage the country in due course. Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
They're Irish and they identify themselves as such. I think they should be allowed to be listed as being from Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.145 ( talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The current official Nobel sources do specify United Kingdom for both parties. Therefore, unless new sources are obtained, I feel that the page should remain as this. Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, it's a sensitive issue. The whole issuing of the Peace Prize to Trimble and Hume has to do with the whole UK/Ireland schism that we're talking about. Ideally, no nation should be listed for either of them, in the spirit of the Peace Prize itself. Alternatively, "Northern Ireland" for both? (And Trimble?) It is, after all, a constituent country of the UK and neither party would object to its use. 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Under the Good Friday Agreement, all people from Northern Ireland are entitled to call themselves Irish and this is what John Hume has identified himself as. If you asked him where he was from he would tell you "Ireland". 89.126.62.224 ( talk) 21:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The second-to-last sentence within the second paragraph states: "As of 2008, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 96 individuals and 20 organizations." Can someone please update this for 2009? Thank you. ( 64.252.139.2 ( talk) 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
There was a discussion about an editor attempting to correct a factual inaccuracy within this article.
|
---|
Enumerated List of Individuals in Chronological Order:
Enumerated List of Organizations in Chronological Order:
|
Not done: The article is no longer protected and you can make these edits yourself. Please take this example of why sources are required to heart rather than "defending" your mistake. It was not a great error, and there are no consequences worth mentioning, but failing to learn from this would be a greater mistake. Sources are required for factual changes. Your fellow editors who were servicing the request were politely asking for that which is required. Had you taken the time to look for a source rather than argue that none was required, this would have been resolved days ago without the regrettable text I collapsed above. Regards,
Celestra (
talk) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Done. Anything else? Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
To respond, the key word was "calmly"; you, IP, flew off the handle. As for irony, no it was and is not ironic. It only appears so to you because you are not actually listening to what others are saying or don't actually understand what is going on. The original sentence said "96" and "20" because it had not been updated to reflect the 2009 award. You thought the numbers should be "98" and "19", which was wrong. People wanted a reference for switching something from an org to an individual in the count. You were corrected with reference to a list at nobelprize.org. The self-same list was already linked to from the article and supported the "20". After being corrected, you persisted in your incorrect count. After the source of your misapprehension was elucidated, you continued to criticize other for demanding a reference for your change, but demanded that a link to the nobelprize.org list be added to the lead (despite the fact that it was already present as a general reference) and that someone else change the image used for Grameen Bank. You lashed out at people who told you to do the latter yourself as being unhelpful even though the page was no longer protected and you could do it yourself. Your inability to simply accept being wrong when proven so, choosing instead to attack editors who were merely trying to protect the article from changes for which there had no source and were, as it turned out, wrong, is disappointing to say the least. - Rrius ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal to list the winners starting from the earliest or latest? I always thought it was custom (and looked better) to start it off with the most recent winners, or am I wrong? -- Linestarz ( talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation as to why the Prize wasn't awarded? Some gaps can be explained away (1914-16 because of World War I, 1939-43 because of World War II), but not others. I know that the Prize wasn't awarded in '48 because Gandhi had just died; but what about 1932, 1955, 1956, 1967, and 1972? Did the Nobel Peace Prize Committee announce a formal reason as to why it wasn't awarded then? I just looked on the Nobel website and couldn't find a definitive reason. -- MicahBrwn ( talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
118.136.213.19 ( talk · contribs) recently changed the list to always list the individual ahead of the group in those years where an individual and a group shared the prize. I can see arguments for this being more consistent or more respectful, but I think following the order used by the source would be better. We have a note to the effect that the form and spelling of the laureate's name is that which is found on the Nobel website. I think we should expand that to include the order of recipients. Please share your thoughts. Celestra ( talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"There are two lines of text which are clearly vandalism up there now. I don't know when this happened or I would revert it. Can someone please replace these lines with appropriate text. Perhaps this article should be protected until the controversy dies down. -- Jeiki Rebirth ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"for being black (...)" = vandalism. (though true).
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". thats the real quote (
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/)
93.217.48.82 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Hi, this is my first post so I please correct me if I do not follow protocol exactly.
I have noticed that in this article the section for 1989 (Dalai Lama) reads:
[for] his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [and] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people
the press release states: (referenced in article)
The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.
It seems to me that the award was only for the use of non-violent methods and the Nobel committee does not want to make the award for any "efforts to liberate Tibet"
I propose the following:
In his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [he] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.
Paul Torry ( talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This line was deleted from the article as trivial and unsourced:
I disagree. If we can discuss who didn't get the prize, how many women got the prize, and how many members of the U.S. Democratic Party got the prize, surely listing those who were murdered or died in prison is notable. There were wikilinks to all three biographies, so verifying the circumstances of their deaths is not an issue. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The same issue is being discussed at Talk:Nobel Peace Prize#Deletion of section "Recipients who met untimely deaths". I think it is original research unless there is a source discussing the untimely deaths of prize winners. Will Beback talk 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second here Ghostofnemo, you're not even sure if your list is complete, yet you think it should be placed in the mainspace, in a featured list, and presented as if it's a definitive list? And that's why you need a source. -- Scorpion 0422 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the List of Presidents or any other article, we're talking about this one. What it comes down to is that you want to add a loosely related unsourced statement (which goes against wikipedia's sourcing policy) that is based on your own research (which is against wikipedia's policy on original research) that you aren't even sure is complete and accurate. -- Scorpion 0422 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Should a line listing Nobel Peace Prize recipients who died as a result of assassination or in police custody be included in this article? I had in mind something like this: "Peace Prize recipient Carl von Ossietzky died in police custody. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated." This could appear at the bottom of the article lead-in, or at the bottom of the list of recipients. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Amnesty International logo.svg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Burma 3 150.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
Throughout this article Lê Đức Thọ is referred to as Le Duc Tho. Is there a reason why or should this be changed? LukeSurl t c 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Le Duc Tho declined (not rejected) the Prize is already in the lead of the article and in the footnote. We can't add it to the table because the last column is for the rationale behind the Prize, not for general comments. I think it could be ok to add this to the paragraph ahead of the table if it were reworded. He declined the prize, as I understand it from the sources, because the process he and Kissinger undertook had not led to an end of the war. 'Declined' captures that meaning. 'Rejected' is a much different concept. Secondly, it isn't clear that he is a Nobel Laureate if he declined the Prize. It would be better to just say something similar to the wording in the lead if we feel a need to restate this interesting fact. Celestra ( talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
@Niv062 - The source is the authority on the nationality. I appreciate that you feel that Palestinian Authority is "official", but the committee chose to use Palestine. Please return it to Palestine. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Use of a logo to decorate a table does not constitute fair use in my opinion and I know that others share that opinion. If you feel otherwise, please discuss it here and, if there is a consensus for the change, fill in the appropriate fair use rationale for the image at the image's page. Please see WP:NFCC, WP:FAIR USE, WP:LOGOS. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 19:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
For the recipients, should it mention their country of birth or their residence country at the time of award? 184.148.72.132 ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to find out which Peace Prize laureate from the Americas labelled Canada as a "colonial power" in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. It was very insensitive and false, since it was the United Nations that approved international aid and security from various countries to help the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And, yes, I have a DVD recording from a BBC forum proving that one of them said that nonsense. The resulting cheers from the audience in that forum is, to me, anti-Canada at its worst. This controversy and the unnecessary swipe at Canada like that needs to be addressed and apologized for. Ironically, Canada had a Haitian-born Governor-General at that time, too. Rockies77 ( talk) 07:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have changed India to British India where Muhammad Yunus was born. British India consisted of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Whereas India is only India. - Magnetic Rahim ( talk) 04:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 04:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello:
In the "General" subsection in the "References" section, the link to the Encyclopædia Britannica article is broken and should be updated to www.britannica.com/topic/Winners-of-the-Nobel-Prize-for-Peace-1856940. Please correct this broken link.
Thanks Ronsantos62 ( talk) 03:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the award ceremony speech (which is quoted as a source), the 1947 prize was "awarded [...] to the Quakers, represented by their two great relief organizations, the Friends Service Council in London and the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia."
On another page of the Nobel Foundation website the prize is listed as being awarded jointly to "Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers)." Note that "The Quakers" are not another name for the two organizations.
The decision of who to list (and how) depends on the interpretation of "represented by". More historical info can be found here. It seems clear that the prize was indeed intended for Quakers as a whole, and that the two organizations were chosen to receive the prize on behalf of the Quakers as a whole.
Thus I believe that we should list the recipient instead as "The Quakers (represented by AFSC an FSC)" (and remove the logo and nationalities). I will boldly make this change - feel free to revert and discuss. NisJørgensen ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading " [F]or his work... " is very strange. What is wrong with " For his work... " ? Also [For] and {For his work as]. etc. Odd. My inclination is to remove them. -- SGBailey ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1935 for his writings opposing the Nazis. He was arrested (for the second time) one month after Hitler came to power in 1933, and spent the rest of his life in prison and concentration camps. Ossietzky, weakened and broken after years of abuse by the Nazis, died in 1938.
This article contained an image of the Swastika flag, which became the sole flag of Nazi Germany in September 1935, when Ossietzky had already been imprisoned for over two years and six months. There is no historic reason why the flag should appear next to his name.
But we need not rely on questions of timing-- it is outrageous that the very symbol of Nazi inhumanity should be associated with his name.
I have removed the swastika flag twice now. It should not be added again.
Kablammo ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
No, there were two German flags in 1935; the swastika did not become the sole German flag until September 1935. Take a look at how German wikipedia handles it, and look at the discussion on their talk page.
But what possible purpose does any flag serve here? From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags:
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.
Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags ...
And "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason." Here there is no "good reason" to emphasize nationality at all — the award was to an individual, not a representative of a county, a service member, or member of a national team.
Kablammo ( talk) 01:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly.This is a prime example of that. It's not exactly controversial that this is a flag with a lot of political connotations, nor is it controversial that associating this person with those political connotations would be misleading. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly.describes this situation perfectly. It's not a question of the person disagreeing with the government whose flag it is, it's a question of the flag itself constituting a political statement (which this does) and associating the person with that political statement being misleading (which is obviously the case here). If you think the same argument applies to Apartheid South Africa, i.e. that its flag constitutes a political statement that it would be misleading to associate Mandela and Tutu with, I am in no way opposed to removing that flag as well. Consistency is not paramount; it's perfectly okay for some entries to lack flags if including flags would be misleading in some way. Of course, it's also a perfectly valid option to remove all flags; this isn't the Olympics and these people didn't compete for their respective countries, nor were the Nobel Prizes awarded to the countries but to the individual people. Oknazevad is correct here, as is Kablammo. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo ( talk) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Flags have been added back. I am removing them for the reasons and policies discussed above. They serve no purpose other than decoration, and associate some peace prize winners with nations and polities with which they disagree. Kablammo ( talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
By this edit: [4] a variety of images have been added. At least one of them, the image for Amnesty International, was previously removed (but now has a fair use rationale); I have not checked the others. Logos and similar images must be free to be used here, or a rationale for the use. Kablammo ( talk) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
![]() | List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates is part of the Nobel laureates series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
How significant is it to write laureates in native languages? This is not a biography related article and I see no importance of writing names in different languages. Leave Sleaves talk 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
The rationale given in the table for 1994 (Arafat, Rabin, Peres) is exactly the same as that given for 1995 (Rotblat, Pugwash). Given that it refers to nuclear weapons I suspect it properly belongs to the latter. I don't have the energy to chase it up, but note it in case anybody else wants to. -- rbrwr ± 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I am a newcomer for Wikipedia, also a Chinese from Shanghai. I have noticed a error on country column for 1989 laureate dalai lama. There is no country call Tibet, you can check that on UN. Tibet just a province of china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikewu83 ( talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Why is there no list of the winner of the 2009 prize? And is there any mention in this article about 2010 nominees? Jørgen88 ( talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Lock this down now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.144.32 ( talk) 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
{{ Editsemiprotected}}
please change "for extraordinary" to "for his extraordinary" in the quotation from nobel foundation on obama's award. the word was there, then removed. see the source cited. thanks-- 98.113.187.11 ( talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why are these 2 winners classified as from Ireland? Each of them lived in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) at the time of their winning? I would propose to chnage the country in due course. Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
They're Irish and they identify themselves as such. I think they should be allowed to be listed as being from Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.145 ( talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The current official Nobel sources do specify United Kingdom for both parties. Therefore, unless new sources are obtained, I feel that the page should remain as this. Gavin Lisburn ( talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Obviously, it's a sensitive issue. The whole issuing of the Peace Prize to Trimble and Hume has to do with the whole UK/Ireland schism that we're talking about. Ideally, no nation should be listed for either of them, in the spirit of the Peace Prize itself. Alternatively, "Northern Ireland" for both? (And Trimble?) It is, after all, a constituent country of the UK and neither party would object to its use. 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Under the Good Friday Agreement, all people from Northern Ireland are entitled to call themselves Irish and this is what John Hume has identified himself as. If you asked him where he was from he would tell you "Ireland". 89.126.62.224 ( talk) 21:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
{{editsemiprotected}}
The second-to-last sentence within the second paragraph states: "As of 2008, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 96 individuals and 20 organizations." Can someone please update this for 2009? Thank you. ( 64.252.139.2 ( talk) 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC))
There was a discussion about an editor attempting to correct a factual inaccuracy within this article.
|
---|
Enumerated List of Individuals in Chronological Order:
Enumerated List of Organizations in Chronological Order:
|
Not done: The article is no longer protected and you can make these edits yourself. Please take this example of why sources are required to heart rather than "defending" your mistake. It was not a great error, and there are no consequences worth mentioning, but failing to learn from this would be a greater mistake. Sources are required for factual changes. Your fellow editors who were servicing the request were politely asking for that which is required. Had you taken the time to look for a source rather than argue that none was required, this would have been resolved days ago without the regrettable text I collapsed above. Regards,
Celestra (
talk) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Done. Anything else? Dabomb87 ( talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
To respond, the key word was "calmly"; you, IP, flew off the handle. As for irony, no it was and is not ironic. It only appears so to you because you are not actually listening to what others are saying or don't actually understand what is going on. The original sentence said "96" and "20" because it had not been updated to reflect the 2009 award. You thought the numbers should be "98" and "19", which was wrong. People wanted a reference for switching something from an org to an individual in the count. You were corrected with reference to a list at nobelprize.org. The self-same list was already linked to from the article and supported the "20". After being corrected, you persisted in your incorrect count. After the source of your misapprehension was elucidated, you continued to criticize other for demanding a reference for your change, but demanded that a link to the nobelprize.org list be added to the lead (despite the fact that it was already present as a general reference) and that someone else change the image used for Grameen Bank. You lashed out at people who told you to do the latter yourself as being unhelpful even though the page was no longer protected and you could do it yourself. Your inability to simply accept being wrong when proven so, choosing instead to attack editors who were merely trying to protect the article from changes for which there had no source and were, as it turned out, wrong, is disappointing to say the least. - Rrius ( talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Is it normal to list the winners starting from the earliest or latest? I always thought it was custom (and looked better) to start it off with the most recent winners, or am I wrong? -- Linestarz ( talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation as to why the Prize wasn't awarded? Some gaps can be explained away (1914-16 because of World War I, 1939-43 because of World War II), but not others. I know that the Prize wasn't awarded in '48 because Gandhi had just died; but what about 1932, 1955, 1956, 1967, and 1972? Did the Nobel Peace Prize Committee announce a formal reason as to why it wasn't awarded then? I just looked on the Nobel website and couldn't find a definitive reason. -- MicahBrwn ( talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
118.136.213.19 ( talk · contribs) recently changed the list to always list the individual ahead of the group in those years where an individual and a group shared the prize. I can see arguments for this being more consistent or more respectful, but I think following the order used by the source would be better. We have a note to the effect that the form and spelling of the laureate's name is that which is found on the Nobel website. I think we should expand that to include the order of recipients. Please share your thoughts. Celestra ( talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"There are two lines of text which are clearly vandalism up there now. I don't know when this happened or I would revert it. Can someone please replace these lines with appropriate text. Perhaps this article should be protected until the controversy dies down. -- Jeiki Rebirth ( talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
"for being black (...)" = vandalism. (though true).
"for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". thats the real quote (
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/)
93.217.48.82 (
talk) —Preceding
undated comment added 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC).
Hi, this is my first post so I please correct me if I do not follow protocol exactly.
I have noticed that in this article the section for 1989 (Dalai Lama) reads:
[for] his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [and] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people
the press release states: (referenced in article)
The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.
It seems to me that the award was only for the use of non-violent methods and the Nobel committee does not want to make the award for any "efforts to liberate Tibet"
I propose the following:
In his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [he] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.
Paul Torry ( talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This line was deleted from the article as trivial and unsourced:
I disagree. If we can discuss who didn't get the prize, how many women got the prize, and how many members of the U.S. Democratic Party got the prize, surely listing those who were murdered or died in prison is notable. There were wikilinks to all three biographies, so verifying the circumstances of their deaths is not an issue. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
The same issue is being discussed at Talk:Nobel Peace Prize#Deletion of section "Recipients who met untimely deaths". I think it is original research unless there is a source discussing the untimely deaths of prize winners. Will Beback talk 03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Wait a second here Ghostofnemo, you're not even sure if your list is complete, yet you think it should be placed in the mainspace, in a featured list, and presented as if it's a definitive list? And that's why you need a source. -- Scorpion 0422 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
We aren't talking about the List of Presidents or any other article, we're talking about this one. What it comes down to is that you want to add a loosely related unsourced statement (which goes against wikipedia's sourcing policy) that is based on your own research (which is against wikipedia's policy on original research) that you aren't even sure is complete and accurate. -- Scorpion 0422 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Should a line listing Nobel Peace Prize recipients who died as a result of assassination or in police custody be included in this article? I had in mind something like this: "Peace Prize recipient Carl von Ossietzky died in police custody. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated." This could appear at the bottom of the article lead-in, or at the bottom of the list of recipients. Ghostofnemo ( talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The image File:Amnesty International logo.svg 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
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Burma 3 150.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (
commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC) |
Throughout this article Lê Đức Thọ is referred to as Le Duc Tho. Is there a reason why or should this be changed? LukeSurl t c 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
The fact that Le Duc Tho declined (not rejected) the Prize is already in the lead of the article and in the footnote. We can't add it to the table because the last column is for the rationale behind the Prize, not for general comments. I think it could be ok to add this to the paragraph ahead of the table if it were reworded. He declined the prize, as I understand it from the sources, because the process he and Kissinger undertook had not led to an end of the war. 'Declined' captures that meaning. 'Rejected' is a much different concept. Secondly, it isn't clear that he is a Nobel Laureate if he declined the Prize. It would be better to just say something similar to the wording in the lead if we feel a need to restate this interesting fact. Celestra ( talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
@Niv062 - The source is the authority on the nationality. I appreciate that you feel that Palestinian Authority is "official", but the committee chose to use Palestine. Please return it to Palestine. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 04:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Use of a logo to decorate a table does not constitute fair use in my opinion and I know that others share that opinion. If you feel otherwise, please discuss it here and, if there is a consensus for the change, fill in the appropriate fair use rationale for the image at the image's page. Please see WP:NFCC, WP:FAIR USE, WP:LOGOS. Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 19:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
For the recipients, should it mention their country of birth or their residence country at the time of award? 184.148.72.132 ( talk) 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
I am trying to find out which Peace Prize laureate from the Americas labelled Canada as a "colonial power" in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. It was very insensitive and false, since it was the United Nations that approved international aid and security from various countries to help the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And, yes, I have a DVD recording from a BBC forum proving that one of them said that nonsense. The resulting cheers from the audience in that forum is, to me, anti-Canada at its worst. This controversy and the unnecessary swipe at Canada like that needs to be addressed and apologized for. Ironically, Canada had a Haitian-born Governor-General at that time, too. Rockies77 ( talk) 07:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I have changed India to British India where Muhammad Yunus was born. British India consisted of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Whereas India is only India. - Magnetic Rahim ( talk) 04:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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) 04:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello:
In the "General" subsection in the "References" section, the link to the Encyclopædia Britannica article is broken and should be updated to www.britannica.com/topic/Winners-of-the-Nobel-Prize-for-Peace-1856940. Please correct this broken link.
Thanks Ronsantos62 ( talk) 03:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
According to the award ceremony speech (which is quoted as a source), the 1947 prize was "awarded [...] to the Quakers, represented by their two great relief organizations, the Friends Service Council in London and the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia."
On another page of the Nobel Foundation website the prize is listed as being awarded jointly to "Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers)." Note that "The Quakers" are not another name for the two organizations.
The decision of who to list (and how) depends on the interpretation of "represented by". More historical info can be found here. It seems clear that the prize was indeed intended for Quakers as a whole, and that the two organizations were chosen to receive the prize on behalf of the Quakers as a whole.
Thus I believe that we should list the recipient instead as "The Quakers (represented by AFSC an FSC)" (and remove the logo and nationalities). I will boldly make this change - feel free to revert and discuss. NisJørgensen ( talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Reading " [F]or his work... " is very strange. What is wrong with " For his work... " ? Also [For] and {For his work as]. etc. Odd. My inclination is to remove them. -- SGBailey ( talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1935 for his writings opposing the Nazis. He was arrested (for the second time) one month after Hitler came to power in 1933, and spent the rest of his life in prison and concentration camps. Ossietzky, weakened and broken after years of abuse by the Nazis, died in 1938.
This article contained an image of the Swastika flag, which became the sole flag of Nazi Germany in September 1935, when Ossietzky had already been imprisoned for over two years and six months. There is no historic reason why the flag should appear next to his name.
But we need not rely on questions of timing-- it is outrageous that the very symbol of Nazi inhumanity should be associated with his name.
I have removed the swastika flag twice now. It should not be added again.
Kablammo ( talk) 22:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
No, there were two German flags in 1935; the swastika did not become the sole German flag until September 1935. Take a look at how German wikipedia handles it, and look at the discussion on their talk page.
But what possible purpose does any flag serve here? From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags:
Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.
Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags ...
And "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason." Here there is no "good reason" to emphasize nationality at all — the award was to an individual, not a representative of a county, a service member, or member of a national team.
Kablammo ( talk) 01:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly.This is a prime example of that. It's not exactly controversial that this is a flag with a lot of political connotations, nor is it controversial that associating this person with those political connotations would be misleading. TompaDompa ( talk) 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly.describes this situation perfectly. It's not a question of the person disagreeing with the government whose flag it is, it's a question of the flag itself constituting a political statement (which this does) and associating the person with that political statement being misleading (which is obviously the case here). If you think the same argument applies to Apartheid South Africa, i.e. that its flag constitutes a political statement that it would be misleading to associate Mandela and Tutu with, I am in no way opposed to removing that flag as well. Consistency is not paramount; it's perfectly okay for some entries to lack flags if including flags would be misleading in some way. Of course, it's also a perfectly valid option to remove all flags; this isn't the Olympics and these people didn't compete for their respective countries, nor were the Nobel Prizes awarded to the countries but to the individual people. Oknazevad is correct here, as is Kablammo. TompaDompa ( talk) 00:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Kablammo ( talk) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Flags have been added back. I am removing them for the reasons and policies discussed above. They serve no purpose other than decoration, and associate some peace prize winners with nations and polities with which they disagree. Kablammo ( talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
By this edit: [4] a variety of images have been added. At least one of them, the image for Amnesty International, was previously removed (but now has a fair use rationale); I have not checked the others. Logos and similar images must be free to be used here, or a rationale for the use. Kablammo ( talk) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)