Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature

message: 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)
thread_title: Malraux in Controversies section

message: 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)
thread_title: Should List of Nobel laureates in Literature have links to "[year] in literature" articles for each award?

message: Not sure if his opinion merits inclusion in the article, but I do know the way it's presented can mislead readers:
*The journalist Hephzibah Anderson has noted that the Man Booker International Prize "is fast becoming the more significant award, appearing an ever more competent alternative to the Nobel." 
without quoting what came before: 
*It's in keeping with the way she lives her creative life that she should scoop not the established Man Booker Prize (only novels are eligible, though judge Claire Tomalin insisted that she be included on the 1980 shortlist for The Beggar Maid), but the newer Man Booker International. It is equally fitting that this is fast becoming the ... Ssscienccce (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hephzibah Anderson quote

message: 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)
thread_title:  Citations 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Camus listed in opposition to Eurocentrism criticism section 

message: Hi all. I'm curious about a grammar convention. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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?
::Preceding comment posted by  Kawika (talk).
:Placement after quotation marks is British practice. Sca (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placing some punctuation inside quotation marks? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Infobox width

message: 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)
replies: text: *See discussion on Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates#(Posted) Nobel Prize in Literature 2018 postponed. cart-Talk 08:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree with the decision made, then. It doesn't matter if there are many reasons, the sexual assault scandal is clearly the primary one. There should be more details, probably even an entire separate article on the scandal. cnte (talk) 14:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The sexual assault scandal was not the primary one, just the one that media (clearly) decied to highlight. --cart-Talk 11:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wait, why are the main page and the article so vague about the 2018 controversy? 

message: I believe this article needs to be renamed as Nobel Prize for Literaure given that:
* the "for" title is used by the the English language website of the Nobel Foundation,
* is significantly more commonly used per Google Ngrams results
Any objections? Abecedare (talk) 05:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nobel Foundation as well as the Swedish Academy call the prize the Nobel Prize in Literature on their web sites. --K1812 (talk) 23:57, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Aha. I see that the Nobel Foundation itself uses both variants on its website, e.g., in, for. Given that, I don't think this is a worthwhile move to debate since it makes little practical difference to the reader; so I'll withdraw my motion. Thanks. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that the Nobel Foundation launched a new version of their web site between August 13 and August 15, and on that occasion also changed their opinion as to the name of the literature prize - which doesn't necessarily mean that we have to share their views... --K1812 (talk) 07:33, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree & this should be looked at again. "Nobel Prize in Literature", conceivably, in English, is the title on an article about the appearance and mention of the Nobel Prize as a subject in literature, i.e. books, magazines and other written media. The article name is inappropriate here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: After 4 years, an IP hopped in to remove the needed clarification in the lead, having misunderstood why it's there according to their edit summary. I reversed that. Nobody has suggested that this article be name-changed, nor challenged what the prize most often is called in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The comment is awkward, effectively amounting to a "sic". It suggests that the Swedish Academy has used the wrong preposition. This is inherently POV. Have any reliable sources questioned the choice of preposition? If not, this editorial comment has no place on Wikipedia. There is no risk for confusion, given that there is no article on "Representations of the Nobel Prize in literature." 92.34.145.67 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The clarification is helpful, since there is an English grammar problem. It's as simple as that. Any suggestion of error is nowhere to be found. That's POV. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

text: PS the academy has used both prepositions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so the comment suggests that the Swedish Academy has a problematic grasp of English grammar. How is that any different from saying they've made a mistake? Again, it's an awkward editorial comment that makes a presumption about what the Swedish Academy really means. I don't claim to know why they choose to officially refer to the prize in this way, but I would guess that it's short for "prize in the field of literature." That's the vocabulary used by Nobel in his will, referring to the prizes being awarded in different "fields" or "domains." This is not an unusual prepositional construction for prizes, cf. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights, but it requires of course the full adverbial phrase "in the field of" to make grammatical sense. So, based on this, the editorial comment could just as well read "here meaning in the field of literature." But as long as we don't have any reliable sources supporting either interpretation, I don't think there should be any comment at all. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The clarification is correct, as well as helpful, especially since (as per the link I provided) the academy itself has used both in and for, and as such there is no reason to remove it. The Swedish language uses in (i) and I believe that's where the directly associated translation of this particular preposition originated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "clarification" is interpretative and as such inherently POV. Again, it presumes to know what the Swedish Academy "means," without a reliable source to back it up. This runs counter to standard Wikipedia practice. It's interesting that you bring up the Swedish preposition, since that one is also problematic: inom would be more expected here. In fact, the Swedish name for the award arguably has the same potential for confusion, given that the phrase Nobelpriset i litteratur could also be read as "depictions of the Nobel Prize in literature." But I wouldn't dream of putting an equivalent "clarification" on the Swedish Wikipedia page, since that would be interpretative. Let's take a step back and look at a similar case here on Wikipedia: Ewha Womans University. That name too has an English grammar problem. But it's not called out in the opening. Rather, the issue is dealt with later in the article, giving the university's explanation for the non-standard English. That should logically be what is needed here as well, because in the absence of a reliable source, the "clarification" is speculative. But I am not aware of any source that dwells on the Swedish Academy's prepositional preferences. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a thorough knowledge of Swedish in these comments, especially where Italics litteratur should be litteraturen to make sense in that language with the comment's intended meaning. Consequently thouugh,inom litteraturen means what we do not mean here (within literature). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

text:  I'm sorry: I just noticed the lengthy exchange on this topic in the previous section, which I for some reason had missed. It looks like the RM turned into some kind of compromise. So, this was all a bit redundant. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thabk you! Best wishes --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing name

message: 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)
thread_title:  "A Swedish literature prize"? 

message: A new section was recently added to this article: 'Recorded nominees'. Despite the noble effort of creating it, I see a few issues.
* This section is way too long - it makes up at least 80% of the article now - and it's still under construction, right now it's only up until 1966. If it is relevant, it should probably be its own article, like List of Nobel laureates in Literature is.
* Is it really relevant though? As stated in this article: "Members of the Academy, members of literature academies and societies, professors of literature and language, former Nobel literature laureates, and the presidents of writers' organizations are all allowed to nominate a candidate. ... Thousands of requests are sent out each year, and as of 2011 about 220 proposals were returned". This suggests that being nominated for the prize is not necessarily very notable, as hundreds of people are nominated every year.
* The section is completely unsourced! If that doesn't change, it needs to be removed regardless of relevance.
Any thoughts?
Lennart97 (talk) 20:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like a cavalcade of original research, and without any sources, I'd say it needs hiding at the very least. It just reeks of fluff. doktorb wordsdeeds 00:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

text: I have hidden the entire section until/unless somebody finds a source. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:59, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the decisive action! This seems like a good temporary solution to me. Lennart97 (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recorded nominees 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Placement of link to List of Nobel laureates in Literature 

message: 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)
thread_title:  2018 controversy – misleading passage 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies about Nobel laureate selections