This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nobel Prize in Literature article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 October 2008. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 May 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Some piecemeal editing in this section makes it unclear what it is trying to say. Perhaps the editor can revisit this and clarify the original intent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.148 ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Only two editors are discussing this, so far, and we've reached an impasse. The discussion isn't very long, but more participation might help resolve the matter. The discussion is at Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature, "Links to national literatures and "[year] in literature"" section (sorry, apparently a direct link won't work). -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if his opinion merits inclusion in the article, but I do know the way it's presented can mislead readers:
without quoting what came before:
I am removing the "citations needed" banner at the top of the page because most of the article has clear, verifiable citations and it just seems like the banner for the entire page is no longer necessary. I have put a few "citation needed" tags in the "Controversies about Nobel Laureate selections" section to indicate specific places where citations are still outstanding. -- Arthistorygrrl ( talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I find the photo of Camus next to the section on criticisms of Eurocentrism to be rather innane, his credentials as "African-born" hardly has any bearings on what the section is discussing. A proper non-European winner should be listed if the purpose is to display a significant glass-ceiling broken in the award. 89.100.70.175 ( talk) 15:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to /info/en/?search=MOS:LQ we should "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." There are several sentences that seem to require a period to be moved. Any objection if I make these minor edits?
The Latest Nobel Prize infobox seems too wide, and implies we think Dylan is more important than all the other recipients. It should be the same width as the other jpg thumbs on the right side of the page. Sca ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The article: On 4 May 2018, the Swedish Academy announced that following the preceding internal struggles the Nobel laureate for literature selected in 2018 will be postponed until 2019, when two laureates will be selected.[29][28] The announcement was made after several members had left or declared their intention to resign from the Academy, leaving it without a quorum for making decisions or nominating candidates for the literature prize.[95]
The main page: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019.
Shouldn't there be more detail about the actual controversy, that the Academy is implicated in covering up sexual crimes committed by one of their associates? As it stands, you get no explanation unless you go look it up. cnte ( talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe this article needs to be renamed as Nobel Prize for Literaure given that:
Any objections? Abecedare ( talk) 05:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 11:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Nobel Prize in Literature → Nobel Prize for Literature – The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error. See discussion also in previous section here! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
AusLondonder makes the point that they don't accept it is improper in English. Agree totally, but this goes further... Wikipedia is not the place to correct current English usage. We use English as we find it. That same argument, that those who use in are in some way using incorrect English and that Wikipedia should instead set a good example, seems to be the main argument of the proposer SergeWoodzing and of at least one supporter In ictu oculi as well. This is prescriptive linguistics, and is old-fashioned, as modern linguistics is descriptive, acknowledging that English for example is an an ever-evolving language as is also pointed out above. And it's also contrary to Wikipedia policy and principles. Andrewa ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Asked to look at this by an old workmate, I am wondering.
"Nobel Prize in Literature", as a heading, would probably be taken by most readers as the title of a text about how the Nobel Prize is covered, written about, mentioned, featured, in literature. Thus unneccessarily confusing to many.
"Nobel Prize for Literature" can hardly be taken as anything but the title or a text about that particular prize, the one awarded for literature.
I haven't read through everything here, but isn't there enough media mention of the latter, as clearly meaning that (this) subject, that Wikipedia could use the least confusing name for this article? -- 217.21.233.78 ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think attributing a nationality to the prize is unnecessary, and potentially confusing, particularly in the article's very first sentence. There's enough room for such details in the rest of the article. Eelworm ( talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A new section was recently added to this article: 'Recorded nominees'. Despite the noble effort of creating it, I see a few issues.
Any thoughts? Lennart97 ( talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose that the link List of Nobel laureates in Literature go near the top of article, either in the text or inside the infobox. I have no opinion which. At the moment, it only seems to be in the 'Laureates' section and then the 'See also' section. This isn't maximally helpful. Some people don't know what a laureate is (the introduction doesn't define it), so they wouldn't think to click the 'Laureates' section. Many people wouldn't think to look in 'See also' for links of high relevance, as it's a more natural location for links of medium or even low relevance. Gvros8 ( talk) 21:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Good online sources seem scarce and often behind paywalls and I haven't got the time to sift them through, but the passage
"The three members resigned in protest over the decision by Sara Danius, the board secretary, not to take what they felt was appropriate legal action against Arnault.[98][23][105] Two former permanent secretaries, Sture Allén and Horace Engdahl, called Danius a weak leader.[98]"
is misleading as I recall the events. The impression is that Allén and Engdahl sided with (or might even be two of) the three members who resigned in criticising Danius for not taking sufficient action against Arnault; in fact, as I recall it, they criticised Danius for the opposite reasons. 151.177.58.208 ( talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The passage is misleading and also incorrect. In fact, the three members that resigned did not criticised Danius but sided with Danius efforts. Mondrian ( talk) 07:52, 10 October 2021 (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) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggest this section is deleted from this article, or at least shortened, as it is covered in both Nobel Prize controversies#Literature and the separate year by year articles, and that this article only include the general criticism. Mondrian ( talk) 06:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nobel Prize in Literature article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3 |
![]() | Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 October 2008. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 October 2016. | ![]() |
![]() | A news item involving Nobel Prize in Literature was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 4 May 2018. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Some piecemeal editing in this section makes it unclear what it is trying to say. Perhaps the editor can revisit this and clarify the original intent? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.230.117.148 ( talk) 22:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Only two editors are discussing this, so far, and we've reached an impasse. The discussion isn't very long, but more participation might help resolve the matter. The discussion is at Talk:List of Nobel laureates in Literature, "Links to national literatures and "[year] in literature"" section (sorry, apparently a direct link won't work). -- JohnWBarber ( talk) 00:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
Not sure if his opinion merits inclusion in the article, but I do know the way it's presented can mislead readers:
without quoting what came before:
I am removing the "citations needed" banner at the top of the page because most of the article has clear, verifiable citations and it just seems like the banner for the entire page is no longer necessary. I have put a few "citation needed" tags in the "Controversies about Nobel Laureate selections" section to indicate specific places where citations are still outstanding. -- Arthistorygrrl ( talk) 17:39, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
I find the photo of Camus next to the section on criticisms of Eurocentrism to be rather innane, his credentials as "African-born" hardly has any bearings on what the section is discussing. A proper non-European winner should be listed if the purpose is to display a significant glass-ceiling broken in the award. 89.100.70.175 ( talk) 15:19, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to /info/en/?search=MOS:LQ we should "include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material, and otherwise place it after the closing quotation mark." There are several sentences that seem to require a period to be moved. Any objection if I make these minor edits?
The Latest Nobel Prize infobox seems too wide, and implies we think Dylan is more important than all the other recipients. It should be the same width as the other jpg thumbs on the right side of the page. Sca ( talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The article: On 4 May 2018, the Swedish Academy announced that following the preceding internal struggles the Nobel laureate for literature selected in 2018 will be postponed until 2019, when two laureates will be selected.[29][28] The announcement was made after several members had left or declared their intention to resign from the Academy, leaving it without a quorum for making decisions or nominating candidates for the literature prize.[95]
The main page: The 2018 Nobel Prize in Literature is postponed until 2019.
Shouldn't there be more detail about the actual controversy, that the Academy is implicated in covering up sexual crimes committed by one of their associates? As it stands, you get no explanation unless you go look it up. cnte ( talk) 20:17, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe this article needs to be renamed as Nobel Prize for Literaure given that:
Any objections? Abecedare ( talk) 05:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved. ( non-admin closure) — Frayæ ( Talk/ Spjall) 11:32, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Nobel Prize in Literature → Nobel Prize for Literature – The "in" is Swenglish, i.e. a dictionary translation without better knowledge of normal English. (Swedish Academy's English and that of the Nobel Foundation, leave much to be desired.) Wikipedia should not endorse a translation error. See discussion also in previous section here! SergeWoodzing ( talk) 01:07, 13 September 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:23, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
AusLondonder makes the point that they don't accept it is improper in English. Agree totally, but this goes further... Wikipedia is not the place to correct current English usage. We use English as we find it. That same argument, that those who use in are in some way using incorrect English and that Wikipedia should instead set a good example, seems to be the main argument of the proposer SergeWoodzing and of at least one supporter In ictu oculi as well. This is prescriptive linguistics, and is old-fashioned, as modern linguistics is descriptive, acknowledging that English for example is an an ever-evolving language as is also pointed out above. And it's also contrary to Wikipedia policy and principles. Andrewa ( talk) 02:03, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
Asked to look at this by an old workmate, I am wondering.
"Nobel Prize in Literature", as a heading, would probably be taken by most readers as the title of a text about how the Nobel Prize is covered, written about, mentioned, featured, in literature. Thus unneccessarily confusing to many.
"Nobel Prize for Literature" can hardly be taken as anything but the title or a text about that particular prize, the one awarded for literature.
I haven't read through everything here, but isn't there enough media mention of the latter, as clearly meaning that (this) subject, that Wikipedia could use the least confusing name for this article? -- 217.21.233.78 ( talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
I think attributing a nationality to the prize is unnecessary, and potentially confusing, particularly in the article's very first sentence. There's enough room for such details in the rest of the article. Eelworm ( talk) 19:21, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
A new section was recently added to this article: 'Recorded nominees'. Despite the noble effort of creating it, I see a few issues.
Any thoughts? Lennart97 ( talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
I propose that the link List of Nobel laureates in Literature go near the top of article, either in the text or inside the infobox. I have no opinion which. At the moment, it only seems to be in the 'Laureates' section and then the 'See also' section. This isn't maximally helpful. Some people don't know what a laureate is (the introduction doesn't define it), so they wouldn't think to click the 'Laureates' section. Many people wouldn't think to look in 'See also' for links of high relevance, as it's a more natural location for links of medium or even low relevance. Gvros8 ( talk) 21:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Good online sources seem scarce and often behind paywalls and I haven't got the time to sift them through, but the passage
"The three members resigned in protest over the decision by Sara Danius, the board secretary, not to take what they felt was appropriate legal action against Arnault.[98][23][105] Two former permanent secretaries, Sture Allén and Horace Engdahl, called Danius a weak leader.[98]"
is misleading as I recall the events. The impression is that Allén and Engdahl sided with (or might even be two of) the three members who resigned in criticising Danius for not taking sufficient action against Arnault; in fact, as I recall it, they criticised Danius for the opposite reasons. 151.177.58.208 ( talk) 15:32, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
The passage is misleading and also incorrect. In fact, the three members that resigned did not criticised Danius but sided with Danius efforts. Mondrian ( talk) 07:52, 10 October 2021 (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) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
I suggest this section is deleted from this article, or at least shortened, as it is covered in both Nobel Prize controversies#Literature and the separate year by year articles, and that this article only include the general criticism. Mondrian ( talk) 06:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)