Talk:Booker Prize

message: Mel and Ken, why stop at edit warring and near violation of 3RR when there may be much more fun to be had after a few barely civil exchanges here descend into outright ad hominems! For what its worth, the Man Booker people apparently prefer longlist / shortlist. Here also. 203.198.237.30 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, first, our article (to which this article links) is Short list; secondly, we should use the Wikipedia Manual of style, not the stylistic preferences of the subject of the article (this is standard policy in any reference work). Finally, "short list" and "short-listed" are overwhelmingly preferred in British dictionaries, "short list" and "short-listed" in the U.S.; as this is an article on a British award, we should use the British for for the noun phrase (whatever the PR people for the award do), and there's simply no genuine alternative for the verb. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Aside from anything else you are still changing a link to an existent article Short list to a link to a non existent article "shortlist".  Also, to cliam consensus on the basis of one other opinion, offered by someone who doesn't appear to have read the debate on your Talk page, and couched neutrally, is pretty thin.  You are also close to violating WP:3RR.  Why not take a breath, count to 100, and leave it for a while? --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Frankly I'll take the advice of a fellow admin, and leave this, as it's not worth the effort.  I've piped the link.  If you insist on following the Man-Booker PR people's semi-literacy, fine.  most readers will be semi-literate too, so I don't suppose that it matters. --Mel Etitis  (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Longlist / shortlist -vs- Long list / short list

message: I find putting 'controversy, as the second item is a bit giving it a negative spin. Moreover, far too much is made of it given 1-the size of the article, 2- the prestige of the prize. Honestly, some of the comments are beside the point, quite judgemental and even unfounded, e.g. The journalist!s comment suggesting that the Booker chooses books people don't read... Most winners sell millions of copies, plus, that is not how the Booker choose a book, the choice is made on literary merit, and thanks Heaven there is such a platform for good quality books. Moreover, if you put attacks on the Booker, there should also be, as far as possible, the opposing views, there is no controversy without disagreement. Maybe pointing out, as a second point, that the Booker has made the name of large part of the great names in Literature should go first?   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.45.136 (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: Should we also create a list of longlisted novels like the list of shortlist and winners? The information's on the official site. It would be really tedious though. Skinnyweed 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of longlists

message: :It is also a mark of distinction for authors to be nominated for the Booker longlist or shortlist. In 1993, the Booker of Booker Prize was awarded to Salman Rushdie for Midnight's Children (the 1981 winner), as the best novel to win the award in the first 25 years of its existence. 
Does this mean that Mr. Rushdie won the prize twice, in 1981 and 1993? That seems odd. 140.90.208.79 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He won the Booker in '81 and the Booker of Bookers in '93. Two separate awards.  --Steve 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear

message: Why was the link to the betting for the 2007 Booker Prize removed?? This is clearly a very relevant link. The official Booker Prize website even has articles about the betting market, which have been listed in each of the last 25 years, as an important indicator of a likely winner. If you think it is spam, then you should remove the TurboBookSnob.com external link which is deriving commercial benefit as an affiliate to several e-commerce sites such as Ebay.
:I removed the other one, as well, you are quite right about that. María (críticame) 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Link

message: Someone needs to fix the table so that there is a UK flag instead of text saying 'Flag of the United Kingdom'. I would do it myself, only I have no idea how. --Helenalex 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, the South African flags should be switched to the Aparthied-era flag. --Jfruh (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also, someone needs to remove the Australian flag credits from the two JM Coetzee entries. Crediting Australia is ridiculous. JM Coetzee moved from South Africa to Australia long after both Booker Prize awards and none of his work (before the awards) is about or was influenced by Australia. 80.171.132.141 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Including authors with dual citizenship, the United Kingdom has (by far) the most winners of the prize at 24. Second is Australia with six winners (counting both Coetzee and Carey twice), and third is the Republic of Ireland with four. " Is this statistic useful or relevant in the slightest? 84.142.72.147 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I see no compelling reason to have flags at all. Writers are not sportsfigures representing their country in national competitions, and, as we have seen, people move .... In fact I'm not sure of the purpose of the nationality column at all -- but I think we should definitely eliminate the flags. See WP:FLAG for more discussions, btw. --Lquilter (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. After reading WP:FLAG I propose that the flags are removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.72.147 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The nationality column may have been meant to illustrate the openness of the award. It doesn't do that very well in a winners list--probably would do so in a shortlist table. I suggest removing the whole column. KennyLucius (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the flags from the nationality column. IMO they distracted from the author and book names. I'm neutral on whether the entire nationality column should stay or go. Bláthnaid 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Flags

message: I wonder who chose the Commonwealth plus Ireland. It's like the Brits regarding Ireland as a "Home Nation" ("not really foreign, you know"). But since the precedent for a non-Commonwealth country was set, why not the USA? It's English speaking too.Millbanks (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is entirely my own guess, but I think that Ireland is included because it was part of the Commonwealth until the 1940s. The US was never part of the Commonwealth because it achieved independence before the Commonwealth was established. Two South African authors won the prize during the period that South Africa was excluded from the Commonwealth, so the criteria for allowing a country to be part of the prize do not appear to be strict. Bláthnaid 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps that - but also perhaps (only a suggestion) it reflects the range of countries Booker-McConnell had interests in.Although the list now has a fairly respectable list of winners, it has never quite shaken off being a bit of a joke. Perhaps the article should address that. 62.64.214.48 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Choice of Countries

message: The image :File:Newby2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
The following images also have this problem:
*:      File:The White Tiger.JPG
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with File:Newby2.jpg

message: A recent edit has deleted a paragraph regarding the "Booker of Bookers" and 40th anniversary competitions.  This has been done without discussion.
I believe details of both these competitions, while outside the annual prize timeline, deserve mention in this article about the Man Booker Prize, as they relate directly to it and would not exist without the main prize.  I can see that they might be better placed in a separate section within the main article but can see no reason why they should be deleted outright.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Booker of Bookers and 40th Anniversary

message: There's already a  for Booker Prize winning authors; why not have one for the novels as well, to replace those horrid succession boxes? GiantSnowman 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I don't mind the succession boxes.  I've created similar ones for Australia's Miles Franklin Award winning novels, as well as .  If the discussion here proposes the replacement of the boxes, I'll follow along with the MF Award. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Winning novel template

message: Ian McEwan has been shortlisted 5 times. Not 4.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantaallou (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Ian McEwan

message: I've had a quick  stab at  copyediting  this article as I  feel  that  its own quality  should reflect  that  of the subject  it  discusses. It's a great  article, and it  would be great  if further edits and additions continue to comply  with  MOS, especially  in  the way  the refs are displayed. It  would also  be a good idea if contributors could remember to  include edit summaries (required for all edits), and to sign  their messages on  his talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting

message: A previous anynymous, unsigned message (probably  on 1 September 2009, see User talk:83.78.180.148) reads:I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.I thoroughly  agree with  this suggestion - the Booker is not  a literary  Olympic Games. If a consensus is not reached within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change.--Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Main Table and order of columns

message: There have been multiple revisions removing JM Coetzee's country of origin as Australia (in addition to South Africa). I'm fully aware that he was born and raised in South Africa and only received Australian citizenship in 2006, after both his Booker awards. Regardless of when it happened, though, he does have Australian nationality now, lives there full time, and deals with the country in his recent works. I don't think it should be removed from the Country column in the table without discussion. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coetzee and nationalities

message: Just before the table with the list of all the winners is: The 2009 recipient of the Booker Prize was English author Hilary Mantel, for her novel Wolf Hall.[8], which seems redundant and adds nothing to the list just below it. Would remove, but maybe the ref wants to be kept and moved to the list? --86.173.140.91 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: duplication

message: Shouldn't this be in decreasing order of year rather than increasing. The more recent and relevant information first?? Why was this put in a counter-intuitive and inverted way? Kniwor (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Main table sort order

message: Why isn't there anything about the current year or when it's awarded annually on this page? I had to go to the official site to find out that the shortlist was announced on September 6th and that the prize will be awarded on October 18th - IMO this should really be in the top paragraph - thoughts? It Figures. (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Year?

message: "In contrast to literary prizes in the United States, the Booker Prize is greeted with great anticipation and fanfare" seems like a jab to the US. even if it is to be included, why is it necessary to put it in the intro? Plus, that citation is largely opinion based in origin anyway and has no evidence whatsoever, other than being mentioned by some columnist to fit the tone of his piece. Completely unsubstantiated 76.172.114.52 (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  line in intro seems a bit unfair 

message: I propose to remove the flags and also the nationality column; the official site makes no mention of nationality and certainly isn't festooned with tiny flags. --John (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you about removing the flags, although this is a minor issue. However I'm not so sure you should remove nationality. I'd like to see what others have to say. Thanks for inviting submissions. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd like to start a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels; will get it started tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. - Fantr (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I prefer to keep the nationality column because all nominees hail from "the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland." Therefore nationality is relevant. The author biographies also identify nationality. Further, the article contains a "genre column" which is even less relevant and which does not appear to exist on the Booker website. As for the flag icon, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." The authors clearly do not represent their individual nations therefore I support the removal of the flag icon. - Fantr (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags? 

message: '"Outsider" John Banville began this trend in 2005 when his novel The Sea was selected,...' Actually, Banville did not start the trend; it was started by the judges who selected him, which is something he had no control over.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.129.176 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor wording... 

message: Would be nice if the article retained some hint of what the eligibility criteria were before 18 September 2013. --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility expansion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Man Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090904052840/http://www.brookes.ac.uk:80/library/speccoll/booker.html to http://www.brookes.ac.uk/library/speccoll/booker.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The Best of the Booker was one time sub-category of the main award Man Booker Prize with no fixed criteria of repeating in future. Also a small article size wise and can be easily merged into the parent Man Booker Prize. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not agree. This was/is a huge topic in the literary scene as can be further read here, here, and here. Notably, it was a public vote, and is seen as a vindication of the whole Booker craze before which the juries were accused of nepotism and playing favoritism. Booker prize is a controversial topic and we need comprehensive, separate articles for the readers to show its importance in modern English literature. I might be wrong, but we should discuss this thoroughly before merging. I think  would like to comment on this, too. Cheers, Mr. Nair Talk 11:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The merger in no way would sensor any of the information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest merging the content of The Best of the Booker as a section of this article with a redirect, without removing any of the content per Dharmadhyaksha. It doesn't make sense to have to curate this information in multiple locations -- but certainly appears like a notable subtopic of the broader topic. Sadads (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  [Closed] Proposed merge with [[The Best of the Booker]] 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Oppose - Man Booker Prize is long established and how the prize is best known. Some just say "Booker Prize", "Man Booker" or even just "Booker" but in this case Man Booker Prize is really the best known name and pretty concise as it is.  -- GreenC 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker".  -- GreenC 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See #Conciseness below. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

text: (click 'case insensitive' for it to work.) Man Booker changed its name in 2002, and many books are from before that date, so have to set the date from 2002 to 2008 to be fair. But the results are not right. Here is the Google Books search on The Booker Prize. Notice most of the books are actually "Man Booker Prize" ..  Take this one for example, it says 47 "the booker prize" results but it's all "Man Booker Prize".  Same holds for most of the others.  -- GreenC 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929040559/http://www.turbobooksnob.com/ to http://www.turbobooksnob.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I'll not be drawn into the longlist v long list debate. There should be no debate at all because it should be spelled exactly as Booker uses it. It's that simple. What I will say is that this article tells us nothing about the awards. What are the long/shortlists? What does it signify? How has it shaped the way listed authors are perceived? I don't know because I don't live in the UK but these are the things readers new to the Booker Prize want to know. This is largely a rambling article with nothing but dates. I myself am new to the prize (I've never cared who won what, I prefer to make my own opinion) but someone asked me yesterday about it and so I looked it up and realized that this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The lead and infobox alone tell you for what it is awarded, when it was founded, who presents it, where it's presented, and then there's all the rest of the article, including all the winners and their books.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

text: P.S. As for terms like "shortlist" not being "defined", it's just plain English really.  You could even just link short list if it's not clear what it means.  That article even tells you what a "long list" is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Long/Shortlist is not defined and article rambles. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202172535/http://themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1317 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1317
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050227170112/http://sawnet.org/news/news220.html to http://www.sawnet.org/news/news220.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: QUOTE: From its inception, only novels written by Commonwealth, Irish, and South African (and later Zimbabwean) citizens were eligible to receive the prize; END OF QUOTE. 
The term CommonWealth based upon a very foolish idea that prevails in Great Britain and England. Travancore was not part of British-India.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:294:A6D:A1A8:FD31:9AAC:CF7 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Travancore was not part of British-India 

message: I propose that we only need two "See also" links rather than the current thirteen. International Booker Prize and Russian Booker Prize are already linked in body text (MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN). Then there are List of British literary awards and List of literary awards which should stay. Then there are links to other specific literary awards, but these are already encompassed by those two lists. I think this is a straightforward change, but I'm doing paid work for the Booker Prize Foundation so want to get feedback from other editors. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut down "See also" section 

message: This section strikes me as rather bizarre. It's badly sourced, being totally reliant on a single author whose work is basically unknown and wholly out of print. The only review I was able to find (Bruce King, Research in African Literatures 34:2, 2003) was scathing, dismissing it as a "pedestrian book" that "is an anthology of citations to obvious remarks by others" and "manages to say nothing new" (p.214). On top of being obscure and not particularly academic, everything cited is from what appears to be the preface or introduction, indicating that whoever added that section didn't even read the entire book.
However, while a mediocre book by a basically unknown author is one thing, and it's bad to cite a book you haven't even read, what's even worse is the way that all other scholarship on the history of the Booker Prize, and indeed post-colonialism and post-imperialism, is completely neglected. People have been writing about such things for decades, so why would you ignore all of their arguments and counterarguments just to uncritically promote a single author's work? Even in terms of writers and academics critical of the Booker Prize there are far better places to start, like Todd's Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize and Fiction in Britain Today (1996). It's just bizarre.
Certainly, just looking at the points there, I'd argue that Luke Strongman can't seem to tell the difference between a post-colonial novel concerned with the history and legacy of Empire and one that "engages in imperial nostalgia". The only example actually named, Something to Answer For (1969), certainly doesn't engage in the latter, as among its various themes is the exploration of British duplicity, incompetence, and dishonour during the Suez Crisis. And that aside, could you really ever consider a novel about events that happened a mere 13 years prior to its publication to be "nostalgic"?
Of the other novels that feature the British Empire and its legacy, some are profoundly critical. The Conservationist (1974), for instance, features a deep critique of apartheid. Others use the imperial past as a means of reflecting upon pressing contemporary issues, with Rites of Passage (1980), set during the 19th century on a ship bound for Australia, intimately exploring issues of sexuality and class.
This is also to say nothing that a large proportion of the winning novels about the British Empire, such as In a Free State (1971) and Midnight's Children (1981), being written by people of colour about the legacy and impact of imperialism, whilst also exploring various other themes of class, sexuality, race, freedom, and more besides. Is it "imperial apologia" for an author like V.S. Naipaul, who won the prize in 1971, to write about the lives of indians and other victims of Empire post-independence? The sheer arrogance and condescension to suggest such a thing is utterly astounding.
Additionally, the claim that the Booker Prize was created as some sort of propaganda exercise by British politicians is also absurd and baseless. Even if you ignore the actual history of how the prize was founded, the fact is that if it actually had some sort of pro-imperial agenda then that wound be reflected in the chosen winners. However, one of the earliest prize winners, John Berger, was also a noted Marxist who criticised the prize organisation for Booker's 19th century colonial profiteering, and who donated half his winnings to the British Black Panthers. 148.252.128.103 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy of the British Empire 

message: Peter Carey is a great writer of course, but so is nearly everyone else who won the award almost by definition. So I don't understand this recent series of edits:  .. It discusses Peter Carey being on a Guardian "Best 100" list (in the #100 position). Why is it in this article at all? It has nothing to do with the Booker Prize. And why is it even mentioned that he won the Booker in the History section? It's an arbitrary mention. That's what the list section is for. Then, it goes on about Carey winning the prize 2 times, and oh BTW these couple other writers did also, as an aside. It all seems biased in highlighting Carey and opens a can of worms for other editors to likewise push their favored author in the history section. -- GreenC 22:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Carey 

message: Bernadine Evaristo tied with Douglas Stuart, NOT Margaret Atwood. I'm not sure which year. Can someone correct this please? Kombo the mzungu (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this isn't true.  Atwood and Evaristo were joint winners in 2019. If you want to correct the article, don't rely on a hunch but find an actual source that backs up the change you want to make. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in the Winners box