Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Concerning Orhan Pamuk winning the Nobel for Literature....

Äntligen! --TallulahBelle 22:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

"TV and radio personality Gert Fylking started the tradition of shouting 'Äntligen!' (Swedish for 'At last!') at the announcing of the award winner, as a protest to the academy's constant nomination of "authors more or less unknown to the general public". Fylking has since agreed to stop his prank, but the tradition has been carried on by others." ---- What the hell does this mean? Clarify please. 71.102.186.234 02:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor edits

The map of the winners is rather silly. Like counting the words of Leaves of Grass.

--TallulahBelle 18:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

While the concept of a map showing the geographical locations of the winners may in fact be silly, as it were, I still think it is something interesting to look at. It is not obtrusive, does not take up much space on the page (the space it does take up is unused on the right side anyway) and provides a visual aide for an otherwise text and table page. If it were ok, I think it would be a good resident on the page.

--Jamesadavenport 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Saul Bellow's Nationality

Saul Bellow may have been born in Quebec, but he does not identify himself as a Canadian. The Nobel prize committee does not consider him Canadian, either: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/1976/ If he is considered non-Canadian, it also reduces to zero the number of Canadians who have won the award. I'm Canadian, so although I would like to see Canada listed as a winner, it is generally believed in Canada that our country has yet to produce a Nobel laureate. Bellow's win being counted just doesn't jive with the fact that the man spent his entire adult life in the US and wrote almost exclusively about Chicago, New York and the US in general.

What do the rest of you think? Pageblank 15:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Discounting him as Canadian in the table raises problems for T.S. Eliot and others who have double "votes" (and would mean the map having to be redone or dropped), but you can always make it clear in the footnotes of the table. "Saul Bellow although listed as Canadian...etc." Yomangani^talk 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this would cause problems for other authors; Eliot, for example, was born and raised in the US to an American family, and lived there until his graduation from Harvard; he permantly moved to Europe at the age of 26 (and so he was significantly shaped by the American portion of his life). Other examples of writers who spent _significant_ amounts of time in two countries are Gao and Naipaul, who should be listed under both countries (and their dual nationalities play a strong role in their literary works).

Bellow, though, moved to the US when he was only nine (and his family was not of Canadian extraction); as stated above, Canada shows little to no influence on his writings or personality, since he spent 90% of his life in the United States. I agree that he should be listed solely as an American. Irregulargalaxies 15:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Having considered it some more, I think we shouldn't be making our own rules as to which winners are credited with wins for which countries. That is original research. We should be referring to an authoritative source, and in this case I think it should be the Nobel Prize commitee. From the authors we are currently double counting they only list one as winning for two countries: Czesław Miłosz. Their list is as follows:

• T.S. Eliot - United Kingdom
• Nelly Sachs - Sweden
• Saul Bellow - USA
• Isaac Bashevis Singer - USA
• Czesław Miłosz - Poland and USA
• Joseph Brodsky - USA
• Gao Xingjian - France
• Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipaul - United Kingdom

If you agree I will ask the person who did the map to redo it (with a big grey space for the talentless Canada). Yomangani^talk 16:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your full list. First of all, I don't think the point of this article is to make a definitive statement as to which country a Nobel laureate should be credited as. The list of countries is there, in my mind, to let readers know more of the writers origins and influences on their work. It should not be viewed as an 'official' endorsement of their nationality. Listing Gao as only from France, for example, ignores the fact he was born and raised in China, is of Chinese heritage, writes his novels in Chinese, and deals primarily with life in China. However, he is a French citizen now and his books are banned in his home country; therefore, it is appropriate to list him as being from both countries. Similar arguments apply to Naipaul, Brodsky, Milosz, Singer, and Sachs. Eliot and Bellow are more debatable, but I don't think we should have a problem listing multiple countries for one author. Irregulargalaxies 20:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Ahh but that's original research. You are providing, for the wikipedia reader, an implicit literary critique based on your understanding of the author's origins and influences. If you want to turn that into a scholarly essay and get it published in Life Writing or some journal, then we can come back here and talk about what nationalities to list. But I completely agree that the purpose of this article is to provide information on the Nobel in Literature, and all the information we need can be found in the citations themselves. (unsigned comment on 9 October 2006 from 67.85.183.103)

Crediting Australia with having two Nobel winners is ridiculous. JM Coetzee moved from South Africa to Australia after being awarded the prize and none of his work (before the award) is about or was influenced by Australia. 80.171.132.141 (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC) John B.

Nationality is nationality. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what country supported a laureate's Nobel Prize winning work, nor does the article claim that it does. The change you're interested in making should be made to the "Most awarded countries" section, not the list of nationalities. –panda (talk) 21:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

JM Coetzee's name

About J.M. Coetzee... Is it really "Maxwell" rather than "Michael"? -- Cimon Avaro on a pogo-stick 11:26, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same question. Nobel say Maxwell, most other references say Michael. -- Popsracer 11:36, 2 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The Encylopedia Britannica Yearbook for 1949 says there was no Nobel Prize awarded for literature in 1949. So why is William Faulknerlisted as the winner ? Auric The Rad 18:33, Jan 5, 2004 (UTC)

List of People Who Did Not Win

Why include the note listing the many people who did not win the prize? How is that relevant?

I agree. It's not just irrelevant it also violates NPOV. I don't know but which standard 'eligibility' is measured. It's probably only a list of what people consider to be 'great' writers who never got the prize. Such a list cannot be neutral. It includes many names I would never consider 'eligible' (J.D. Salinger? Jacques Derrida!?), and does not include names I would consider worthy of the prize (Arthur Schnitzler, Franz Kafka).

I disagree. The fact that some giants of literature were never awarded the prize is a very common complaint and we'd be negligent to not discuss it here. That said, the exact composition of the list is a matter of debate, and perhaps we should come up with some standards of inclusion instead of letting everyone add their favorite writer. (Though I'd have no problem with you adding Kafka; I'm surprised he's not there already.) Gamaliel 16:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

This list is just going to end up being a bloated POV list. Just state that many writers of note never won the prize, then close the debate. Mandel 11:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to mention that the statures don't allow for posthumous prizes. In Kafka's case he died before his most famous novels were published (in fact he wasn't even nominated during his lifetime).

Is already mentioned in the Nobel Prize article, though a bit hard to find. Mandel 17:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

"Intent of the Will"

This passage is contradictory. It says that the will's meaning was ambiguous, and then it says that originally, the will's intent was honored. If the will's intent was ambiguous, it shouldn't say that "originally the will's intent was honored." If the will is not ambiguous, it should not say it was ambiguous. Amulekii 15:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another column

We should probably add a column for the language written in, which is arguably even more important than the writer's nationality.--Pharos 02:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Great idea! I made a start... –Hajor 03:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Is it worth linking to the acceptance speech/address? Here is Pinter's http://nobelprize.org/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html - spectactularly good as you'd expect. Midgley 00:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Non-winners

This is touched upon below but I wanted to re-start it. I deleted the list of non-winners, primarly based on the edit previous to mine - someone added vonnegut to the list (an author frequently cited as a candidate) and the next person took him off. this sort of back and forth, as well as people idly saying "I like joyce carol oates, I'll add her!", can only detract from the article. I think saying "look at the list and come up with your own missed chances" is a more legitimate way to cover this controversy.

i actually agree here. im not sure why gamaliel reverted the edit. gamaliel, why do you feel that part of the article is necessary?24.29.136.162 19:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

ok i see your explanation above, gamaliel, and i totally disagree insofar as you seem to be advocating expanding the list indefinitely. i guess an argument could be made to create an article called "notable writers who never won the nobel prize" but i still don't think this article is the place for it. are you willing to deal with every single addition to the list? if i add 25 authors right now, will you just delete them without comment? 24.29.136.162 19:46, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

one more thought on the topic - perhaps this list would be necessary IF there weren't a list of winners *right there*. anybody can take a brief glance at that list and see who is and isn't there. so not only is the extra list essentially unencyclopedic (as it implies a judgment of authors who "deserved" the award), but its patently unnecessary.24.29.136.162 20:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While I agree that such a list would detract from the main article, there ought to be a link to such a list. It's an interesting topic, and the scenario you guys are depicting, where the list includes all authors, great and small, is unlikely. I personally want to be able to see a list of notable writiers who didn't get it. And no, thinking of your favorite author isn't going to cut it. Even educated people could probably only think of a couple not on the list, but a list would make people aware of some very good authors that they hadn't even thought of. Amulekii 15:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Eligible writers who didn't win

C'mon, this is too much fun — and too shocking — not to include. Tolstoy didn't win? Joyce? Proust?

I agree that living writers are a different question — I included a short list with some strong limiting parameters, see what you all think. But a list of authors who are no longer eligible (because they are dead) but yet unquestionably should have won is an essential task of any article on the Nobel Prize for Literature. Living authors, well, yes, it can easily spiral into a list of writers we merely like — in theory, J.K. Rowling could be on the list. Come to think of it, I could be on the list, being as I am my own favorite writer ;). But with some hard-and-fast parameters, such as the two I included, this ought to cut down on silly names that don't rate it.

But the authors who did not win the prize but should have....well, that is something that really should be included. I mean, c'mon, Sully Prudhomme, and not Tolstoy or Chekhov?

Cheers, --MILH 02:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone removed this section before, saying it was simply original research and led to people inserting their own favourite authors. I think the same is happening now. In fact, I'm surprised it's survived this long. If we want to have this section, we need stricter standards and even this would be hard; a thing like this would be hard to source. For an example of extreme bias: 7 out of the 10 "those who haven't won" are American; 70% of Nobel Prize winners are not American.

I simply say this section should not exist. I would even say this list was far inferior to the former version. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Skinnyweed 19:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

It should go (as should the living writers section) - anybody who wants to compile their own alternative list can leave money in their will, and we can produce a new article after the first award ceremony. Yomangani 16:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

This part of the article diminishes its value. Yes, it's fun to read but by definition very much POV. The quality of it could also be questioned. How can Kafka be included? Yes, he is a famour writer who did not get the prize, but all his famous works were published after his death. The implicit statement behind this category is to highlight great authors that did not win the prize. How could Kafka have won? I suggest this section is deleted. Isber 15:07, 07 August 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section and the eligible writers section - they are point-of-view and original research, both of which are against Wikipedia policy. Yomangani 16:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Still, it's an interesting list (and and I've bookmarked an old version here). I agree in part about the original research issue, but the fact is, some writers probably died before getting their due (or gained a place in the canon without the prize) and that fact is part of Nobel lore.

There are also some great writers neglected, perhaps, for political reasons. Without violating NPOV, we could include that W.H. Auden felt very strongly that he scotched his chance at winning a Nobel by writing an honest introduction to a volume of poems by his late friend Dag Hammarskjöld, the U.N. Secretary General, who was beloved by voting members of the committee. Auden regretted not so much the prize but the useful prize money, which was about $45,000 or so in the early 1970s.

I think a short list of early 20th C Nobel Literature oversights (for example, Chekhov, Tolstoy, Ibsen, James, Hardy, Proust, Joyce, Woolf) could, without violating NPOV, serve as an illustration of a fairly common complaint about the Nobel Prize for Literature: that not all indisputably great writers get the Nobel nod. The list of near-misses becomes more speculative in recent decades, so I suggest we avoid all such speculation and in particular about possible living candidates (interesting as that is). Sandover 23:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it was interesting (and it would probably be more interesting if it was more comprehensive), but the fact is as it stood it was just a magnet for people to add their favourite authors. The W.H. Auden episode could certainly go in if we can reference it, and I'd personally like to see any other criticism or praise of the prize provided it is verifiable,in order to get away from the list of lists feel the article has at the moment. Yomangani^talk 00:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

That Auden anecdote is from memory, but I read a lot of him fairly seriously so I know that story came from a letter, a biography, or from someone who knew him. Very possibly from Richard Davenport-Hines, but I just can't place it.[1] I know Auden didn't think Hammarskjöld's poetry was up to par and that Auden more or less said so, possibly in the introduction to Hammarskjöld's posthumous Vägmärken (Markings), published in 1963. Auden lived until 1973. Sandover 01:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added a section on controversy covering Auden and some other awards for which I've been able to find reliable external sources. I think the Jelinek incident is the best, as it gives an actual statement from a member of the academy, whereas the others are intermediate sources (it would be nice to find a statement from Auden himself). Yomangani^talk 11:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it seems the misinformation about the "Nobel Committee's biggest blunder ever" is still around: that Leon Tolstoy was not awarded the Nobel Prize. Actually, the Swedish Academy tried to give him the prize three times before he died (yes: three times), but Tolstoy himself had already got his religious awakening and considered art, including literature and even his own creation, to be without value; therefore, he refused each time to take the prize, and it had to be awarded to someone else. (User: Voice from Finland, 12 October 2007.)

If you could find a reference for that, then you can add it in the article. On the other hand, if the statement in the article does not include a reference, feel free to remove it. –panda 15:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Why Delibes was stricken from list

Miguel Delibes is a writer who has so far failed to earn undisputed recognition within his own country. Aside from a second-tier prize for his first novel, he has not won any major prize. And in a fifty-year career, he has yet to win the Cervantes Prize, equivalent to the American Pulitzer Prize. In comparison, all the American candidates have won the Pulitzer at least twice, aside from Joyce Carol Oates, who has been nominated three times and won the National Book Award once.

The problem is solved. Skinnyweed 17:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Eligible writers (dead or alive)

These lists violate two policies of Wikipedia: no original research and neutral point of view. Who should or could have won the Prize will always be a point of view, and since the criteria are set by the person writing the list it is original research. Restructuring it as a paragraph rather than a list doesn't help: it simply shouldn't be in the article. If a notable source had been quoted as criticising the Prize and had named specific writers who should have won, then that could be included in an appropriate section, but this can't. Yomangani 09:44, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree: The Nobel Prize in Literature sets itself up as the arbiter of enduring literary quality. Yet there is no question it has failed to honor major writers, while awarding the prize to writers of dubious stature. The list of writers who did not win the award is a valid list—it is neither original research, nor is it promoting a particular POV. It is simply assembling a list of unquestionably major and eligible writers who did not win the award. It is no different from, say, assembling a list of New York neighborhoods that do not have a subway station. --TallulahBelle 03:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

'Major writers' and 'dubious quality' are two point of view statements right off the bat. A list of New York neighborhoods that do not have a subway station is verifiable and not POV - there is no arbitary criteria created by one the editors. This is clearly original research because there is no external authority who has compiled the list. Please read WP:NPOV, WP:OR and WP:V and see if you disagree. I've removed the lists again, because you had reverted to a version that was missing changes since I removed the lists originally. Yomangani^talk 08:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please see the other discussion above between Sandover and myself. Yomangani^talk 08:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't baseball, where statistics are everything. The Literature Nobel, by definition, is a subjective prize. Therefore, it is valid and consistent to include non-winners as well as those who are eligible and in fact have been nominated by other winners.

If you have additions, by all means, include them. However, to exclude writers who deserve the prize is not acceptable, for the reasons I outlined above. It is neither original research nor POV—even the members of the Nobel committee have stated that they regret and are embarrassed by a lot of the exclusions, starting with Tolstoy.

By the way, a map of winners is flat out silly. Again, this is literature—a necessarily subjective subject.

The article is about the Nobel Prize in Literature, not who you think should have won it based on some arbitary criteria. It strange that you think a map of the locations of the winners is silly, but not a list of people that should or could have won, when the first is verifiable but the second is not. If there are sources for the statement you made above ("even the members of the Nobel committee have stated that they regret and are embarrassed by a lot of the exclusions, starting with Tolstoy"), then please cite them and we can work on improving the article. I was only able to find references for Jelinek and some opinions on Auden and others. Yomangani^talk 15:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put the lists up again, why don't we break them off into a separate article? This one is longish anyway and we can then debate their validity without disrupting this article. Yomangani^talk 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, the list of writers who did not win is not a list of writer who I think should have won—it is a list of writers who anyone with any knowledge of literature would be surprised to know did not win.

Secondly, as the article states in its introductory paragraph, the award is given for literary merit—by definition a subjective criteria. Therefore, it is valid to posit instances where the subjective criteria of the Nobel committee failed.

Third, the list of non-winners is "POV" insofar as there is anyone who seriously believes that, say, Leo Tolstoy was not a great writer, or that Auden was not a great poet. But since no-one seriously questions whether the writers on the list of non-winners were deserving of the prize, it is valid to include them.

Fourth, the Nobel prize for literature is notoriously political. Yet no-where in the article is that mentioned—the article treats the committee's decision like holy writ, even though the committee itself has been violently divided, such as with the case of Graham Greene.

Literature is not baseball—it is not empty statistics. It's messy and fungible, common sense, not empty adherence to inapplicable rules. The approach the article takes at this point is wrong for the subject matter. --TallulahBelle 16:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Your argument holds no water - 1)you say that it's NPOV, but how do you define "anyone with any knowledge of literature". That's like me saying "anyone with any knowledge of baseball knows that Babe Ruth is the greatest player ever"....completely unverifiable.

2) "The subjective criteria of the Nobel committee failed"...WHAT? They're SUBJECTIVE criteria like you say....how can YOU simply state that subjective critera have failed? You're implying that there's some sort of OBJECTIVE way of judging whether they've failed.

3) "But since no-one seriously questions whether the writers on the list of non-winners were deserving of the prize"....that's ludicrous. I don't think I need to go farther.

If you can find some noteworthy source that's compiled some list like this, you could include that....otherwise, this is completely unencyclopedic...I really don't see how you can keep arguing this. I'm removing the section. GrahameS 17:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit: YOu don't seem to understand the concept of "No Original Research". Just because YOU think it's obvious, doesn't make it true.GrahameS 17:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I created Eligible_writers_who_have_not_won_the_Nobel_Prize_in_Literature so we could have this discussion without a revert war on this page. TallulahBelle, if you revert this page again you will be in breach of the 3 revert rule (as will I) which will mean an automatic block. Let's discuss it over there if necessary. Yomangani^talk 17:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparently I wasn't the only one that thought it was POV as it's been listed for deletion within 4 hours of being created and is attracting a pretty strong "Delete" - Yomangani^talk 21:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

This article infuriates me. I have tried to edit it in the past but I realize at this point that a small set of people are so intent on keeping these absurd lists that there's no reason to bother anymore. If you look at the list of who HAS won, you AUTOMATICALLY have a list of who hasn't one. It's everybody else!! This will never be anything other than people inserting their favorite writer, like Salinger (seems pretty unlikely someone, particularly an American, is going to win on the strength of a single book that happens to be on every 15 year old's school reading list - even Toni Morrison has something of a substantial body of work.) (unsigned comment on 9 October 2006 from 67.85.183.103)

I agree with you: both the dead "non-winner" list and the speculative "eligible writer" list are hopelessly POV and should be deleted. Please sign your comments on this page even if you don't have a UserID. Sandover 21:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

being fair to Fo

I can't seem to reference the 1997 article in the Times. But I reject the notion that Dario Fo was 'lesser-known' when he won the prize; his work was already widely performed by that point and familiar to literate audiences. Ironically, I think the controversy had more to do with the fact that Fo was already well-known, but as a kind of prankster dramatist. As the committee history notes, "The surprising Prize to Dario Fo in 1997 can also be said to have a double address: it was given to a genre which had earlier been left out in the cold but also to the brilliant innovator of that genre."[2]

Maybe we could find a better example of a lesser-known prize winner? Elytis, Canetti, Seifert, Simon, Szymborska, and Wolcott all come to mind... all of them much less familiar than Fo at the time of their respective awards. Sandover 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I referenced the Fo "controversy" from The Times (that is The Times in the UK...perhaps it's known as the London Times internationally) because it was mentioned in the intro and I didn't want to kick off any more arguments by altering the lead. I'm quite happy to see "lesser-known" gone, as again it is purely subjective. I'd be happier with it saying that the academy's choices can still provoke controversy and leave it at that, rather than trying to think of somebody that will be accepted as less well-known. Yomangani^talk 18:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Astrid Lindgren

I removed a silly statement that Swedes expect Astrid Lindgren to receive the price, because this is about as true as claiming that Americans expect Stephen King to win. Spakoj 13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I took that verbatim from one of the source documents, but suspected it wasn't the best example. Yomangani^talk 15:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yomangi, I am unsurprised by your attitude: You remove a valid list of living writers who have been nominated yet have not won, as well as a list of writers who did not win even though they were eligible (a list which included Joyce, Tolstoy, and Borges, among others), yet you slide in a trivial writer no one has ever heard of outside their own country in the Controvery section.

NPOV is a policy designed to erradicate exactly the kind of underhanded, subtly slanted approach you favor. In the name of NPOV, you cut a couple of valuable lists. But then you insert some no-name writer as a contender in the text of the article, adding a token citation in order to buck up your opinion. I bet you live by the motto "Knowledge Through Ignorance", or some such Bushist truthiness. --TallulahBelle 00:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, St. Wikipedia, For Deleting The Speculative Lists (Again)

And besides, Leonard Cohen wasn't on them. In my opinion, Beautiful Losers (1967) and Flowers for Hitler (1964) more than qualify him for a Nobel in Literature, when considered together with his lyrics. But Wikipedia is not the place to defend my private literary fantasy (which I could defend long into the night). Nor do I really mind if Cohen's a beautiful loser. So let's keep this entry list- and speculation-free, shall we, please? Sandover 03:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

She did have Margaret Atwood there, though I too would rank Leonard Cohen above her. The other Canadian that would deserve it (despite being a transplanted American) is Robert Munsch. They've never really honoured the whole genre of children's literature; Juan Ramón Jiménez is probably the closest that they have ever come. Eclecticology 06:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Very pleased here about Orhan Pamuk, great choice. Funny how he didn't seem to make TallulahBelle's eve-of-the-announcement list of "eligible writers," which only shows how useless such speculation is. TallulahBelle, are you familiar with the Wikipedia three reversal rule? You're past that, so enough with restoring these lists. They are not only speculative, they are an invitation to speculate, all very un-Wikipedic. (If I reverse you again, I've hit 3RR myself, so I appreciate other users backing me up on this NPOV problem.) Sandover 17:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Russia winners

Actually, most of the Russians listed should be noted as 'the USSR', and have the corresponding flag. so it was, officially. Constanz - Talk 10:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Irish Question: Either Seamus Heaney is from the UK, or else George Bernard Shaw is

By birth, Seamus Heaney is not Irish. He was born and brought-up in Northern Ireland, which means he is from the United Kingdom, and his entry should therefore be marked with a Union Jack, not the Irish national flag. Calling him Irish is a political statement, not a statement of fact. The facts of residence can be seen on the Wikipedia page for Heaney, although there he is again (for political reasons) called Irish.

Or, if Seamus Heaney counts as Irish (by residence, at the time of the Nobel award) then George Bernard Shaw (who unlike Heaney _was_ born in Ireland) should count as UK and get a union jack because Shaw was living in England at the time of his Nobel Prize (and for many decades before the prize and until his death).

Consistency needed!

__________________

First of all, everyone please sign your name during discussions - it helps so that we know who says what (and can have better debates and discussions). Heaney is Irish by many standards, including his own and the international world. The Nobel website identifies Heaney's country of origin as Ireland (a rubric we've used in the past on this website when arguments arise to nationality). Heaney makes his permanent home in Dublin, in the Republic of Ireland. He blasted a newspaper that identified him as a "British poet", stating that he is Irish by birth, heritage, and living status. His poems are heavily influenced by Ireland and Irish tradition. Finally, Heaney has been awarded citizenship by the Republic of Ireland. http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=580678&issue_id=5865

I think this is more than enough evidence to keep him as listed under Ireland.

As for Shaw, I don't think "country of residence" at the time of the award is a good measure by which to award nationality. There are multiple factors, including citizenship status, country of birth, heritage, and (relevant for this article) the relationship of the country to the author's literary output. Shaw was born and raised in Ireland (and was an Irish citizen), but lived much of his life in the UK; his literary work involves both Irish and British cultures heavily. Given that the Nobel website lists him as Irish (and he is commonly identified as such), I would urge to keep him listed under Ireland.

If we start going by birth country, that means Claude Simon should be listed as Malagasy, while current residence would imply that J.M. Coetzee is Australian. I'd like to hear more opinions on Kipling and Naipaul, however.

Irregulargalaxies 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Tendentious nationalities- Shaw's nationality is listed as the United Kingdom on the Nobel Prize website - not Irish! Seamus Heaney is by any standards an Irish writer. V.S.Naipaul after winning said that it was a tribute to "India the country of my heritage and Britain the country of my home." No mention of Trinidad And Tobago there! Although he is feted (and reviled) in the Caribbean as a Caribbean writer, this does not seem to be a label he applies to himself. What surely all this goes to show is that sticking little flags next to a list of writers like it was some sort of international competition demeans the idea of the nobel (as if awards to Jelinek and Fo hadn't already done that!). badtypist

Sorry to say it, but quite absurd to consider Heaney as a British writer. He is from a Northern Irish Catholic family, and the Northern Irish may consider themselves Irish or British as they will (and to have Irish or British passports), and, in the case of Heaney, although it's true that he's often oblique in his treatment of politics, it's perfectly obvious that he considers himself much more Irish than British (impossible to find a literate Brit who considers him an 'English' or 'British' poet - his poetry quite blatantly belongs to an Irish tradition). And of course he's been living in Dublin for some time now.

Shaw, however, could be considered British: probably best to count him twice, once as English and once as Irish (should probably do the same for Heaney, as that's what's been done for everyone else with question marks, though I'm fairly sure that he isn't a British citizen, technically, but rather an Irish one).

And about the mention of 'the Irish Free State' at the bottom of the page: that title has been out of date since 1937: the official name of the 26 southern counties is, in English, Ireland (Republic of Ireland is not the official name), or in Irish, Éire. The six northern counties are known as Northern Ireland. Though I supppose that's referring to Yeats and Shaw, who did receive the prize whilst the Irish Free State was in existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.13.173.116 (talk) 13:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Given some of the odd double nationalities, I'd suggest he should show as Irish and UK. Are there any other people who aren't listed under the territory of their birth? Morganr 20:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hermann Hesse

According to the article on Hesse, he was born in Germany and lived there most of the time. So the nationality "german" should be added to "swiss". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.70.14.2 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

Citations, please

eg. Naipaul, "for having united perceptive narrative and incorruptible scrutiny in works that compel us to see the presence of suppressed histories". 121.6.50.240 10:20, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured list?

You know, if we spun off the list part, with a little work I think it could be nominated as a great Featured list.--Pharos 23:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea. What could we add to it besides what's currently there? - Irregulargalaxies 16:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing we should cite the exact statements in the "Citations" column. Also, it would be good if we could get free images for as many of the winners as possible.--Pharos 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I started the separate list at List of Nobel laureates in Literature, and welcome suggestions and changes. It's mostly a carbon copy of the list from the article, although I added some color coding based on the continent that the winner is from (I think it's interesting to see the Eurocentric state of the Nobel in early years, and then how global it's become in the last 15). I haven't yet decided how to handle writers from multiple countries (ie Gao, listed under both China and France) or Pamuk, since Turkey is a transcontinental country. Anyway, let's defer discussion to the talk page there. Irregulargalaxies 22:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Language(s)

What does the Language(s) column represent in the table: the language(s) that the author writes in or the language(s) that the author speaks? (I image that many of the European authors can speak more languages than their native language.) It would be helpful if a short explanation was included. panda 15:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It represents the languages that the authors have written in, which is of course the information that is directly relevant to their literature.--Pharos (talk) 19:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Multi-national winners

As noted above, only Czesław Miłosz had both countries listed in his Nobel citation. I don't see any reason for listing multiple countries for some of the winners and will be removing them if there are no objections. It had led to some uneasy situations, such as Gao Xingjian having the flag of the PRC next to him while that country specifically decried his laureateship or Joseph Brodsky being identified with the Soviet flag even though the Soviet government had banished him. Besides serving as a nationalistic pissing contest for some of the nations involved, I don't see any reason for including them. DHN 18:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I would advise that you do NOT remove the multiple countries for laureates that have changed their citizenship. Removing them could lead to an edit war with those who want the info available. Wikipedia should maintain a neutral point of view and removing the multiple citizenships could be considered a nationalistic bias (e.g., in the case of Gao Xingjian, you'd be favoring the views of the PRC government), which goes against WP:NOPOV. panda 21:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't we favoring anyone. We'd just be reporting what's in their Nobel citations. Cao's Nobel citation does not mention PRC[3]. I'd say that including multiple countries when the Swedish Academy did not mention them would be violating NPOV and original research since the Nobel citation do not mention the countries listed. DHN 05:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Using info found elsewhere than the Nobel website does not denote original research. (A quick search of Gao Xingjian makes it obvious that he originally was a citizen of the PRC. It can also be inferred from his bio on the Nobel site.) There could be a very simple explanation for why the Nobel site normally lists only one country/laureate. My guess is that laureates are asked to fill out a questionnaire where one of the questions is "what is your country of citizenship?", and most people only have one citizenship at a time. That doesn't mean that someone couldn't have had a different citizenship before (or after) becoming a laureate. Also, not all of the text on the Nobel site is completely correct. For example, Germany didn't exist in 1902 (it was the German Empire then) but they listed the 1902 laureate as being from Germany. I've corrected that on the Wikipedia page. panda 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If we add all the nations that a laureate had been a citizen of with no regard for the Nobel citations, we'd turn this into a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. I see many examples of multinational laureates being currently listed under one country: Saul Bellow (Canada/US), Shmuel Yosef Agnon (Austria/Israel), Czesław Miłosz (citation specifically mentioned Poland/US), Elias Canetti (Bulgaria/UK), etc. Moreover, this doesn't include listings for countries that didn't exist at the time of the award (Tagore for India or Germany in 1902, although I think "Germany" is a common name for the German Empire in 1902 as "France" is the common name for the "French Republic" now). Listing all the countries will make it prone to edit war between nationalistic editors. If we include the authoritative Nobel citation, I don't think they can argue against that. DHN 07:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would argue the opposite. (1) The page currently has multiple countries for some laureates and there is currently no edit war. In fact, the page has listed multiple countries for some laureates since at least May 2004 without any major edit wars. (2) This page does not need to be nor should be a duplication of the Nobel site. The Nobel citation is no more authoritative than a laureate's personal website or other reliable sources. (3) If you do NOT include all of the citizenships someone has had, you can make the page prone to an edit war. Someone (not me) added the other countries because they found that info and wanted it there. It would be better if a citation was added, however. (4) A laureate's past country(ies) of citizenship is a fact, not original research simply because it's not listed on a single page of the Nobel site. The other citizenships can often be found on the Nobel site in a laureate's bio/autobio or elsewhere. There is no reason to rely on a single source for info presented here. (4b) Using fact A (e.g., France) from website B and fact X (e.g., China) from website B or Y to write fact A and X (e.g., France / China) is not synthesis of published material. Nothing has been synthesized. (5) It would be better to add countries to the other so called multi-national laureates who are not currently recognized than to remove info from those that is already on the page. Adding citations would also be helpful since they are currently lacking on the page. (6) IMHO there is nothing wrong with using countries that no longer exist today -- I would prefer to do that. Why the Nobel site has chosen to do otherwise is a mystery to me -- you'd have to ask them. panda 15:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The process you're describing is exactly what synthesis is. You can argue that it's not serving to advance a position, but I don't think you claim that it's not a synthesis from multiple sources. I've seen countries added and removed for laureates several times: [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]...DHN 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What I've described is A + B = A + B (fact collecting), not A + B = C (synthesis). WP:PSTS states "Research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is, of course, encouraged: this is "source-based research," and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." Just adding and removing countries from laureates doesn't denote an edit war. An edit war is defined as "when two or more contributors repeatedly revert one another's edits to an article." AFAIK that hasn't happened yet on this page. Regarding your references above: (1) The change to Herman Hesse was due to a comment on this talk page. (2) The change to Pearl S. Buck has actually not changed the info on the page at all and hasn't been reverted yet (but probably should be since it's just incorrect formatting). (3) The change to Saul Bellow has been discussed on this page. His status as a Canadian needs a reference if it shouldn't be reverted. Since I found one, I'll add it. (4) The change to Rabindranath Tagore was for the same reason I changed Germany to German Empire. (5) The change to Czesław Miłosz is probably a mistake by an anon contributor since as you mentioned above, both of his countries are listed on the Nobel site. (6) The change to Jaroslav Seifert is also based on the Nobel site using present day names for countries that didn't exist at the time the prize was awarded. (7) The change to Rudyard Kipling and Vidiadhar Surajprasad Naipau are probably honest mistakes by a anon contributor. Just because someone was born in a country or lived in a country does not make them a citizen of that country. A reference would be needed to substantiate that claim. Disputed facts should be referenced if they shouldn't be removed. If you like, I can find and add references for those with multi-citizenships. panda 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Either solution regarding how you show countries the person is from is fine with me, but the table listing showing Awardees per country should list what country they were mentioned as in the Nobel citation. 81.233.252.9 22:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

List of types of writing?

How about a table listing laureates by the type or types of literature they are known for? e.g. Poetry, Drama, Novels, Philosophy, History. (Laureates could of course appear under more than one heading in this table.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.251.192.96 (talk) 16:51, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

This is a good idea. We'd have to be really careful with this, though — as many authors have worked in different forms — but if we add this we should use the Nobel committee citations as our guide for the part of their body of work that they are being primarily recognized for.--Pharos (talk) 19:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

Looking at the list of items in the Trivia section of the article (several of which I wrote or contributed to), I don't think they add anything to the overall article. I'm nominating this section for deletion relatively soon. Objections? Irregulargalaxies 22:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Country – ambiguous or not

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not to discuss whether the country column in the table of the Nobel laureates is ambiguous or not. Your comments in this matter would be appreciated. panda 14:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

There is currently a Request for Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. Your comments would be appreciated. The results of the RFC may affect all of the Nobel Prize articles. panda 16:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some RFC updates:

• You can find the definition of the country data included in the Nobel lists in the RFC under the point Country data defined.
• There is currently a consensus moving towards removing all of the flags in the Nobel lists unless someone can devise an acceptable scheme for them. This portion of the RFC (point 2) will be closed in 2 weeks, i.e., 31 October 2007 24 October 2007, assuming it is not challenged. That is, the consensus will be to remove all flags from the lists.

–panda 15:23, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This RFC has been closed. The following was reach by consensus:

• The country data on the Nobel Foundation list is the laureate's nationality (according to the book "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes"); knowing this, there are at least a couple errors for the laureate's nationality in the Nobel Foundation's list.
• The countries/nationalities should be included in the list.
• Use common names for the countries/nationalities. All variants of Germany should simply be called Germany except for West Germany, even though there never were any laureate's from East Germany. Only one editor commented on which variant of Germany should be linked to (the current one), so it's difficult to say if there is any consensus about that aspect.

For a list of inconclusive items, please see the closing comments. –panda 20:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

J.K. Rowling?

For some reason, J.K. Rowling was listed as the winner of the 2007 prize. I'd just read about Doris Lessing being the winner, so I changed it to her. If I'm wrong, please change it back.Alphabet55 22:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

European / English Prize

Saying that the Nobel Prize in literature can go to any country is a bit dubious. I know that it's true in theory but we all know that that isn't really the case - the prize is almost exclusively reserved for either European writers or for writing in English. To date, Asia (60% of the human population) has received 4 prizes. That means that the Swedish Academy has awarded its own country more often than the all of Asia. Writers from Europe&America plus those writing in English have received a total 107 prizes while Asians and non-English Africans have received 5 prizes. To claim that the prize can be awared to any country is dubious at best. JdeJ 10:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

That's ridiculous, just because they don't award the prize doesn't make the assertion it can be awarded to any country wrong. Please don't start trying to inject such ridiculous point of view into the article, take it up with the academy, don't even think about doing so on Wikipedia. Nick 21:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Undocumented (unsourced) chart(s): Need for removal or proper verifiable documentation?

Please see related discussion in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Chart of national statistics. Thank you. (Such charts need deletion (?), given Wikiepdia editing policies cited there.) See also section of this current talk page on #Language(s) and #RFC: Country data in Nobel lists above. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 00:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If no one has strong objections, I propose removing the "Most awarded countries" table on January 3, 2008. See also the discussions linked above by NYScholar. –panda (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the "Most awarded countries" table since there were no objections about this since 20 December 2007, and because the Nobel Prize is never awarded to a country but rather to an individual or, in the case of the Peace Prize, possibly to an organization. –panda (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

awards are not made to countries but such lists is of great interest to many people (judging on the basis of the number of times the lists are repeated in books and newspapers). The fact that they are rewarded to individuals and not countries does not begin to be an argument for anything. How would it be? Golden rule: wikipedia should be helpful to users. There can be disputes about which state to associate a writer with (states are always messy) - but that can be covered in notes. Marbruk (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't already, I would strongly recommend that you read the related discussion in Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#Chart of national statistics. I am also inviting the editors who previously responded to this discussion to comment here. –panda (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Panda's viewpoint (and reiterate my own position as stated in the first post in this section some time ago). Among the three core editing policies in Wikipedia is not "helpfulness" or usefulness ("Golden rule: wikipedia should be helpful to users"--there is no such "Golden rule" among Wikipedia editing policies); the core editing policies are: WP:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and WP:NOR. Charts such as "most awarded languages" and "most awarded countries" violate all three policies. Please see the editing policies [and related guidelines] listed via the top header on this talk page and at WP:LOP. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC) [added q. --NYScholar (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)] [That is: in addition to being informative, Wikipedia articles have to be reliably sourced and verifiable by all readers. If one wants to link to an official list on the nobelprize.org site, one can provide such a link in the EL sec.; the site is already linked and such information is accessible via the official site. But those charts are compiled w/o the giving of reliable verifiable sources and are the product of "original research"--prohibited in Wikipedia. (addition). --NYScholar (talk) 23:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC); corr. --NYScholar (talk) 00:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)]

Controversies

The 'Controversies' section could do with some looking at. Is it really controversial that Astrid Lindgren has not been awarded the Prize? Or that Auden and Borges never won it? This section is dangerously close to becoming another Who Shoulda Won the Award list. The incidents involving Solzhenitsyn, Rushdie (due to the two resignations), and the member who protested the Jelinek selection (and Horace Engdahl's subsequent response that the member who resigned had not even attended Academy meetings for nearly a decade) are really the only true blue controversies on here. Jrs044 (talk) 05:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Birthplace

I'm not advocating any sort of changes to the list, but find it interesting to note that there are multiple Prize winners that were born in countries not associated with their citations or citizenship (due to either moving shortly after their birth or change of possession of their birthplace). A (partial) list is:

• Gerhart Hauptmann - born in Poland, then Germany
• Sigrid Undset - born in Denmark, raised in Norway
• Albert Camus - born in Algeria, then part of France
• Saint-John Perse - born in Guadaloupe, raised in France
• Giorgos Seferis - born in Turkey, then Asia Minor
• Shmuel Yosef Agnon - born in Ukraine, then Galicia
• Patrick White - born in the United Kingdom, raised in Australia
• Claude Simon - born in Madagascar, raised in France
• Gunter Grass - born in Poland, then Germany
• Doris Lessing - born in Iran, raised in Zimbabwe/United Kingdom

Paris is also the city with claim to the most literature laureates, at six (Prudhomme, France, du Gard, Gide, Bergson, and Sartre). Irregulargalaxies (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

See also #Undocumented (unsourced) chart(s): Need for removal or proper verifiable documentation? above. --NYScholar (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)