Humanities desk
< February 14	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 16 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 15

Process of winning a Nobel Prize

How does one get nominated and win a Nobel Prize? I am looking for general information on how does a person or an organization get even nominated for these prestigious awards. Does one have to do extraordinary things for humanity to achieve this award? Is this award harder to win than gambling like winning the lottery? I am absolutely not looking for advice or assistance on how to win one for myself. 47.145.113.238 (talk) 06:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, the people nominated for and awarded Nobel Prizes in their various areas have made some remarkable achievements in the subject area for which the Prize is awarded. I think gambling is a poor analogy given (at least ideally) gambling is a pure game of chance, whereas the class of people who are nominated for and awarded Nobel Prizes (again, at least ideally) have dedicated themselves and their remarkable talents to the pursuit. I do take it from the way your question is worded, however, you're more interested in the Nobel Peace Prize, which is far less geared towards people like scholars in peace studies than, say, the Nobel Prize in Physics is geared towards scholars in physics. In general, you should read Nobel Peace Prize#Nomination and selection. 69.174.144.79 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily "extraordinary things". See Barack Obama. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say a black man getting elected President of the United States was an extraordinary achievement in itself. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And that contributed to world peace how? Clarityfiend (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Obama himself said that he felt "surprised" by the win and did not consider himself worthy of the award, but nonetheless accepted it.[103][104][105][106][107]" As SNL put it: "I got it for not being George Bush." Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine the size of the bucket of Nobel prizes Biden is going to get for not being Trump. — Kpalion^(talk) 11:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The rules are different for each award, but generally nominees are chosen by what the Nobel Committee considers "qualified nominators". For the science, economics, and literature awards these "qualified nominators" tend to be renowned experts in the field - university professors, prior laureates, recognized authorities - but for the Peace Prize the range of nominators is vast: all national legislators, heads of state, and heads of government worldwide; all university professors, current or emeritus; all members of boards of directors of organizations that have won the Prize in the past; and so on. It would be perfectly possible for a random US Representative from Podunk to nominate Trump or the QAnon guy, or for some toady in the National People's Congress to nominate Xi Jinping. --24.76.103.169 (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cases of a revolution or regime change unleashing worse evils afterwards in comparison to the previously overthrown regime?

Which cases were there where a revolution or regime change unleased worse evils in comparison to the previously overthrown regime? So far, I can think of:

The French Revolution, which replaced the Ancien regime of the House of Bourbon with the Reign of Terror after a period of initial liberalism
The Russian Revolution, which replaced Tsarist Russia with Communist rule after a period of initial liberalism in the form of the Russian Provisional Government
Cambodia, where Lon Nol's regime was replaced with the EXTREMELY murderous Khmer Rouge in 1975
Iran, where the Shah's regime was replaced with the Islamic Republic of Iran–as in, a regime led by Ayatollahs
Afghanistan, where Mohammad Najibullah's regime was replaced with civil war and eventually Taliban rule
Iraq, where Saddam Hussein's regime was replaced with civil war and eventually the rise of ISIS. One thing that Iraqis could be grateful for, of course, is that ISIS never actually conquered the Shi'a-majority and Kurdish-majority parts of Iraq. Likewise, no part of Iraq's capital Baghdad ever actually fell to ISIS.
Libya, where Muammar Gaddafi's regime was replaced with civil war and even the rise of the Islamic State in Libya

Which additional examples actually qualify for this? Futurist110 (talk) 18:10, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The American Revolution led to a regime with (eventually) higher taxes than those that provoked it. —Tamfang (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When were US taxes higher than British taxes? Futurist110 (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Whiskey Rebellion. In addition, most states levied a form of poll tax as well as local excise duties according to this. At what date that exceeded 3d on a packet of tea I can't tell. This line of argument assumes that tax is "evil" rather than a commendable contribution to the common good. Alansplodge (talk) 14:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also grossly misrepresents one of the main causes of the American Revolution. The colonists were not mad about taxes per se. The colonists were mad about their lack of representation in Parliament. The motto of the revolution No taxation without representation, was that the colonists felt that as British Subjects, they were owed commensurate elective representation in the same Parliament that was extracting taxes from them. I'm pretty sure most of the revolutionaries were well aware of the necessity of funding a well-working government, and that taxes were necessary to do so. What was the issue was that, in their view, the right of said government to collect said taxes was contingent upon representatives of the people being involved in passing the laws in question. The without representation part is doing the heavy lifting in that slogan. The first part is just there to give it a more memorable poetic punch. --Jayron 32 17:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was trying to answer Futurist's question about US taxes exceeding British, and secondly, that this case doesn't fit the OP's criteria. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreed. Read my reply as an elaboration, and not a refutation, of your apt answer. --Jayron 32 13:44, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the Irish were particularly fond of the rule of Oliver Cromwell in comparison to that of the House of Stuart. --Jayron 32 14:12, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba after Fidel Castro's revolution. The Chinese Communist Revolution also brought us the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, neither of which was a pleasant walk in the park. It's actually a common trope with most revolutions: "Like Saturn, the Revolution devours its children" (Jacques Mallet du Pan). Xuxl (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure Cuba was, domestically, all that bad off after the end of the Revolution. There was some turmoil during the revolution itself (revolutions are, by definition, tumultuous events) but other than international ramifications for Cuba's relations to other (mostly non-Communist) countries, within Cuba things were not particularly bad. Other than the members of the Batista regime itself, I don't know that the Cuban regime was markedly worse than the Batista regime, which itself was rather brutal to its citizenry, and there is an argument to be made that fairly quickly, living conditions improved for many people in Cuban society. To be sure, Cuba was not a utopia, but Castro's Cuba did not end up significantly worse than Batista's Cuba. --Jayron 32 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Life expectancy in Cuba is higher than that of the US" [1] Alansplodge (talk) 14:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Do they really live longer, or does it just seem longer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:20, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The basic fallacy of the question is to presume that there would exist a universal measuring stick for 'evil'. Was the impact of the French revolution positive or negative for mankind? The French revolution ushered paths for democracy and human rights, but it also gave rise to modern nationalism and bloody wars. It might be too early to tell what the final outcome was. But if your question is understood as, cases were an repressive regime was overthrown but another even more repressive regime came into power immediately afterwards, yes there are plenty such examples. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought too... I'm not sure how to quantify "evil", and how to even give numbers to such a concept to know how one regime can be measured as "more" evil than another. --Jayron 32 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Zhou En-Lai didn't say what he is said to have said. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:53, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and here's another aspect that came to mind with the French Revolution example in particular: how do you weigh acute evils of a few years/decades to chronic evils that might never have been removed without that spasm? The Reign of Terror article suggests that about 30,000 people died over the span of a year and a half. I wonder how many people annually starved while eating cake under the previous regime? Matt Deres (talk) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question I've wondered, but as you say, quantifying "evil" is pretty difficult. Maybe a better question to ask would be "how many revolutions succeeded?" Which is also a difficult question, but I think a bit easier to define, if you look at the goals of the revolutionaries, and how well they were achieved. Iapetus (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]