Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature/Archive 1

Unlike the prizes for Physics and Chemistry, this one seems to be expressed with a lowercase "L" much of the time. Should we move this entry to a title with a uppercase "L" so that it conforms to the pattern set by the other Nobel Prize articles? It the proper name of a prize, no? --maveric149
 * The academy web page linked from the article uses a capital "L". Eclecticology

Controversies Section
So obviously the controversies section is important, but surely having over half of the article devoted to it seems like undue weight. Does anyone have any ideas about how to fix this problem? Would it be appropriate to split it into its own article, a la Criticism of Wal-Mart? Or maybe just trim down the list of examples? But they're all sourced, so I'm not sure which ones you'd pick to ax Deadlyhair (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There already is such a page: It should definately be cut down. If nobody else do it before me I'll probably engage it. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Tranströmer and Swedish bias
The | source for | this edit is Norman Lebrecht writing 3 lines possibly seriously mocking (possibly in jest) the fact that 8 laureates out of roughly 110 were Swedish. He doesn't even analyze the case of Tranströmer. I'd be all for having the criticism in the article if there were a significant source that actually questioned whether Tranströmer was worthy. There have been only 3 Swedish laureates who weren't themselves members of the Swedish Academy at the time of award, and 55 years since the last such award. From my understanding Tranströmer seems to actually be internationally acclaimed. Skrofler (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Kafka "oversight"
From the Wikipedia article on Franz Kafka: "Kafka's writing attracted little attention until after his death. During his lifetime, he published only a few short stories." Not much of an oversight as his notoriety and influence were almost entirely posthumous. Lesbro (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Will this diagram be a help?
Eddau (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Nobel Prize in Literature. 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/20091009110708/http://www.thelocal.se:80/14776/20091005/ to http://www.thelocal.se/14776/20091005/
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5EsureXKk to http://nobelprize.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

List of notable and controversial omissions
The "List of notable and controversial omissions" is a bit problematic. First, it makes no sense to write that authors who died later than 1950 or who are still alive have never been nominated, as there is no way of knowing that. Of course John Updike wasn't nominated before 1950 - he was 18 years old then - to take one example. Second, unless the omission of a particular author has been discussed by a reliable source, it is not notable. The authors in the list are all notable, but that in itself does not make the fact that they have not received the Nobel Prize a notable fact about them. Because if that were the case, every single published author who has a Wikipedia article could potentially be on that list. Who is to decide which omissions are notable, unless there are any sources? Not a Wikipedia editor in any case. (Note that some of the names in the list are sourced, but the sources don't actually mention the Nobel Prize for those I have looked at - they source the year of death in most cases). --bonadea contributions talk 17:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That being said, however, there could very well be a list that includes authors who died before 1950 and who were nominated for the prize. --bonadea contributions talk 17:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Took the list to WP:NORN. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I commented at WP:NORN that the section should be removed as it essentially is a list of cherry picked anecdotes—there is no objective test of whether an author was overlooked, so each listed item would need to be an attributed opinion, and that is not suitable for Wikipedia (do we include counter opinions?). Johnuniq (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Removed it. If anyone rebuilds it in any way, remember you will need a source saying the omission was notable and controversial. Dougweller (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for clarification
Apparently nominations may be lodged by (among others) professors of language and/or literature. (Unfortunately, the citation link for this no longer works.) Does this mean full professors only, or would it also include assistant or associate professors (or whatever the Swedish equivalent would be)? Because if I'm eligible, then I'm going to nominate some of my favorite My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic clopfic. --Dawud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.166.72 (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Biased and Eurocentric
Regarding the phrase "The 2009 award to Herta Müller, previously little-known outside Germany but many times named favorite for the Nobel Prize, has re-ignited criticism that the award committee is biased and Eurocentric.[49]", the phrase "mostly by the US press" has been removed from the sentence, as the source doesn't make that claim. At the same time, the source makes no claim of bias or Eurocentricity - the article is mostly about the shock of a relative unknown, even in Germany, winning the prize. If there were claims of Eurocentricity after the award, these need to be sourced, otherwise the claim should go. Greenman (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In fact, if there are no sources, I would say it should be removed immediately. 64.180.40.100 (talk) 02:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)