Talk:Bokklubben World Library

Flags = WP:OR

The flags and countries should be removed, as the countries are not on the original list, and represent original research. Identification of the modern-day State of Israel with the ancient Israelites for example, is an ideological statement, not a simple objective fact, and it is not in the original list. — goethean ॐ 17:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. The flags are in the list I translated, and represent the modern countries corresponding to the authors' homelands.

The best modern representation for the ancient Hebrews would be the Israeli flag, tainted by torture and racism and hypocrisy as it is. The Old Testament God was a nasty vindictive son of a bitch, as exemplified by the Book of Job, so being associated with Him hardly qualifies as some sort of compliment.

The flags help to indicate the global nature of the list; trying to assign an ancient country, or even polis, to Homer is a waste of time, but his dialect and culture are clearly Greek.

I think most people are sick to death of having an OR label automatically pasted on everything useful in Wikipedia.

Your average teenager doesn't know where Proust is from, much less Rumi.

Varlaam (talk) 23:24, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The flags are in the list I translated

Could you provide a link, please? — goethean ॐ 03:14, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

"Article contains a translation of « Les 100 meilleurs livres de tous les temps » from fr.wikipedia."

What is it that you think I put this here for?

The history for this page clearly states:

"Translated from frwiki (major), nowiki (minor)"

I also consulted the Dutch page, although I didn't mention that.

Varlaam (talk) 04:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Third opinion - I'm here in response to the request for a third opinion at WP:3O. I'm just a regular editor with no special powers. I'm just here to state my opinion. You are free to listen or ignore me as you see fit :)

I think that the use of the flags is inappropriate. It is positively misleading to associate ancient writers with the flags of modern states. It is also WP:OR, but my main problem with it is that it leads the reader to incorrect conclusions - e.g. that William Shakespeare lived in something called the United Kingdom, and that therefore (for instance) Macbeth was set in Shakespeare's own country, whereas in fact Scotland was literally and legally a foreign state at the time.

Thparkth (talk) 01:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. ditch the flags.

besides, what about nations that had flags that different now? what if Kafka had lived 15 years later and had written under German rule? would you show the Nazi flag of Germany?

And Austria wasn't the state it is today. Kafka lived in what's now the Czech Republic, but it was apart of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

what if we had some great work from the Mayans or the Aztecs? wouldn't it seem perverse to have them listed with modern, Mexican or Central American, flags, representing cultures pretty much wiped out the cultures of the Mayans and the Aztecs?

the answer is simple: ditch the stupid flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.63.222 (talk) 20:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing from the French list

Apparently the French list is incomplete.
Present in the Norwegian list are:

• Samlede fortellinger av Franz Kafka
• Gilgamesh

... Still checking, Varlaam (talk) 04:26, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. The Dutch and French lists are both translated from the Norwegian.

But both are missing the same 2 titles:

• • Collected stories of Kafka
  • Gilgamesh

The Swedish page is an independent survey with a quite different, and rather interesting, list.

I will correct the English, French, and Dutch pages, not necessarily in that order.

Varlaam (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The pages have now been updated with the missing titles: French, Dutch, and Canadian, in that order.

The Dutch page actually required a lot of tidying. An error on the Dutch page indicated that it had been translated from the French page.

Varlaam (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The earliest version of the French list is numbered, going to 100, but omits both Gilgamesh and the third Kafka.

However, Beckett's trilogy, rather oddly, occupies two rows.

Possibly the French table was built from a French source where the error had already been introduced.

Still investigating, Varlaam (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that you respond to my comments rather than edit warring and removing the original research template from the article. — goethean ॐ 19:32, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add one more novel's name to be added into the list which surprisingly was missed out from it. Apart from the three great novels of Leo Tolstoy mentioned in the list, one major name should have been enlisted, which is "Resurrection". I don't know why this beautiful novel was not considered to be among the list of 100 best novels of the world! This novel, in the beginning after if's publishing, out-sold even writer's earlier novel "War & Peace". It captured the readers' minds throughout the story-telling by Leo Tolstoy and at the same time accessed their conscience to make them able to face it. I think "Resurrection" shouldn't be excluded from the list. Please consider this.

Thank you- Md. Anique anique.md@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Md. Anique (talk • contribs) 08:23, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Since the book list in this article isn't based on user opinions, I don't think it would be appropriate to add any books besides the ones named by the Norwegian Book Club. Everyone's got their pet book that they'd like to see on this list. 24.229.167.112 (talk) 11:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Mesopotamia != Iraq

This article now claims that The Epic of Gilgamesh was written by an Iraqi. Do I need to explain why this is inaccurate? — goethean ॐ 20:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian just lists it as "Gilgamesh, Mesopotamia". Mesopotamia does not exist anymore, and when it did it did not fly the flag displayed for it here. I'm for not displaying flags for those nationalities listed by the cited sources unless we have a flag icon for those nationalities at the time the book was written. Just displaying the flags at all does verge on really does amount to WP:OR in that flags are not displayed in the sources. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 02:10, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, Mesopotamia does still exist, as it is the name of as region rather than a country. According to the Wikipedia article on it,

Mesopotamia is a toponym for the area of the Tigris-Euphrates river system, largely corresponding to modern-day Iraq, as well as some parts of northeastern Syria, southeastern Turkey, and southwestern Iran.

— goethean ॐ

Yes. I meant to say "does not exist as a country today" (as implied by the statement that then followed).

But, it is used in "Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia" which we redirect to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq" – so we are, in that case at least, saying "Mesopatamia = Iraq" (although it seems from that article that the literal translation would be more like "Al-Qaeda in the Country of the Two Rivers").

I still think we should get rid of the flags altogether, unless another source not already listed in the article includes them. Just easier that way, and they don't contribute much to the article's actual subject anyway. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 15:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

...so we are, in that case at least, saying "Mesopatamia = Iraq"...

Not necessarily. What we are saying is that the organization which calls itself, more or less accurately, 'Al-qaeda in Mesopotamia' only exists in Iraq. — goethean ॐ 16:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Swedish list added to earlier Norwegian list

This seems to be in reference to this large addition to the article by User:Varlaam (who also seems to have started this section without signing).
Why is this material in this article? Do you intend to simply paste a "translation" of this article from every other-language wikipedia into this one at en.WP? If they do the same, that will rapidly become unmanageable. I intend to remove this text. Is there any good reason (per all WP policies and guidelines, etc.) that I should not? WikiDao ☯ (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'm removing it then. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 16:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

And Anne Frank..? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.80.69.170 (talk) 05:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Franz Kafka is not from the Czech Republic

Kafka was an Austrian citizen who lived in Prague and wrote in German. Ethnically, he was Jewish, not Czech. Cross check the Wikipedia article for Kafka: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Kafka, where he is listed as having been born in Austria Hungary and died in the First Austrian Republic. It would be better to list his country as "Austria."

The French source cited in the article lists no country. The reference from the Guardian lists Kafka's country as "Bohemia" (which is ridiculous). Timohuatl (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Czech Republic was not created until the 1990's. Timohuatl (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

There are also lots of authors listed under "Italy" who died before it became a nation, but it's just to give geographical location, not nationality or ethnicity, so I don't think it really matters, so change it to Bohemia if that's what the Guardian uses. We could also just remove that column entirely if we really want to avoid any controversy. Gregcaletta (talk) 12:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Authors used in the selection process

Does anyone know if there is a list somewhere of the 100 authors used? If not, is there at least a description of how they chose the 100 authors? I think it might be good to include that in the article. I am particularly curious that the New Testament and secular Christian texts like Dante's Comedy and Milton's Paradise lost are missing from the list and also missing are the Koran and the Tao Te Ching, which would not be strange if it weren't for the many religious texts (Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist) that DID make the list. Anyway now I'm rambling and distracting from my original question. Gregcaletta (talk) 01:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This content was added on February 6, 2012. 24.102.138.222 (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Three authors from Israel. Nuff said about his travesty. All the selected Arab authors are stupid idolators of the West, which means they don't represent shit. What a useless biased piece of shit. Also, authors were selected from only 54 countries. This shitty shit list is good for only one thing: you guessed it... for wiping off shit!

The dates table doesn't work right

If sorted by date, it becomes all scrambled. Dates before Christ go especially out of order. Surely someone can rewrite the dates so that they get sorted in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.186.140 (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Got ya covered; it was bothering me too. 24.102.138.222 (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Mahabharata

It says the Mahabharata is around 8000-7000 years old, however this would pre date all known written language so I doubt this is accurate, I think the a 0 will have to be removed from its BC date, but I am not 100% sure of the dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.222.204.233 (talk) 19:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This issue was fixed on November 2, 2011. 209.92.145.39 (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing books in English version

I count only 98 books in the list, so I guess two books are missing from the list. I've managed to find out that one of them is One Thousand and One Nights. Edit: the other is A Doll's House. Could someone reinsert them in the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.211.150.171 (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

This issue was fixed on November 13, 2011. 209.92.145.39 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

How Many Authors Were Surveyed?

After copying the list of surveyed authors from the Norwegian Book Club website, it appears that there are in fact 101 authors who were polled when assembling this list. Both the Wikipedia page and the Norwegian Book Club website insist that only 100 authors were contacted. Since the list contains no duplicates, can anybody figure out why there's a discrepancy? It would help if someone who knew Norwegian could ask the Norwegian Book Club about this. 24.102.138.222 (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I sent an email asking this question to their customer service address a week ago using Google Translate to convert the message from English to Norwegian, but they haven't gotten back to me. 209.92.145.39 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

There is a CBS article about this list that mentions three other authors who were surveyed but never responded. It's likely that the "100 Authors" is just a simplification, and that the number was originally intended to be higher. 209.92.145.39 (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Ranking missing

Hi guys. In other parts of Wikipedia, the numbering is listed automatically. Can this be done for The 100 best books as well, so we can instantly know "which book comes at rank 40" without hand-counting? I would do myself if I'd know how to do the automatic counting. 194.166.100.75 (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the introductory paragraphs on the page itself, no rankings for the books were released, except that Don Quixote was number one by a large margin. The default sorting of the table of books is roughly by the author's last name. 24.102.133.176 (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Gogol

I see, there is so-called 'Ukrainian' writter 'Mikola Gogol' is mentioned. I should say that there was a mistake: Nikolai Gogol was a Russian writter of Ukrainian descent. Moreover, Ukraine (back then it was called 'Malorossiya') was a part of Russian Empire. And since he lived in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and later in Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy, and wrote all his works in Russian, no-one except for the radical Ukrainian nationalists consider him as 'Ukrainian' writter.--95.37.184.93 (talk) 04:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The name was changed on February 10, 2012. I left it alone since no one seemed to care. It looks like the Talk page for Nikolai Gogol is full of arguments over his nationality. If you want to change the name to match the one on his Wikipedia page, go for it. 24.229.167.67 (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Books Versus Novels

Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didly-Dias:

I couldn't help but notice that this is a list mostly if not completely of novels. The title of the entry is therefore misleading, because although all novels are books, not all books are novels. Surely there are great non-novel books out there too that could be added--ahem, Marx? Rawls? Nietzsche? Aristotle? Hmmm... If you wouldn't like to change the list, I would change the title to "100 Greatest Novels and Poems".

Saludos,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The title of the article comes from the name of the book list as compiled by the Norwegian Book Club. It's not been uncommon for people to assume that this list is something that Wikipedia editors created on their own, and that they could add or remove books that they didn't personally care for. Both the list's name and its contents, as controversial or self-aggrandizing as they might be, should be allowed to remain faithful to the original source for accuracy's sake. 24.229.167.112 (talk) 03:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the source considered them to be "Novels". Bladesmulti (talk) 06:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Including the list or not

Per Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Text_2, the list actually shouldn't be here at all. Non-free content policy specifically mentions "[a] complete or partial recreation of "Top 100" or similar lists where the list has been selected in a creative manner" as an example of content that Wikipedia should not reproduce. --McGeddon (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Had same issue with The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:15, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So, out of curiosity, how hard is it to get a license to legally reproduce the list? The Guardian reprinted the entire list in their article, so I assume the Norwegian Book Club isn't against doing that.24.229.167.112 (talk) 18:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the crucial point here is "where the list has been selected in a creative manner". This is a list compiled by votes from a selected jury. Thus, is can be compared to any other jury-based ranking, from Academy Awards to Nobel Prize in Literature. I understand that different rules might apply when it comes to one individual author's selection as in The 100 Most Influential Books Ever Written, but this list is not like that one.

And yet, from another point of view, this is at list of a books published by Bokklubben [Norwegian Book Club], in a series called Verdensbiblioteket = Library of world literature since 2002 (see library catalogue records here). If Wikipedia can hold series such as Penguin 60s Classics and Great Books of the 20th Century, we should certainly be able to hold this norwegian series as well. There is no copyright infringement involved in listings of published books by objective criteria. Bw --Orland (talk) 07:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

One person choosing 100 books doesn't seem very different from a hundred people choosing 10 books and having those decisions somehow curated into a list of 100 by Bokklubben. Wikipedia certainly lists Academy and Nobel prize winners and even shortlists, but I can't see that we include longlists.

But fair point, if this was framed as "100 great books published by Bokklubben in 2002" it changes from a creative list to a simple, public business venture - and perhaps usefully emphasises that the list is more likely "100 books Bokklubben could obtain the rights to translate and reprint". Perhaps the initial selection even had to be from that subset of books. Is it worth explicitly reframing the article as a book series (and maybe renaming it to "Bokklubben World Library")? --McGeddon (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've moved the article as suggested, to Bokklubben World Library, which also is a more accurate translation of the norwegian title. Please reconsider including the list of books again. bw --Orland (talk) 06:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I just re-added the book list to the page since the recommended page name change has been made.24.229.167.112 (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, missed the previous comment. This all seems fine. --McGeddon (talk) 11:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The 100 Best Books of All Time listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect The 100 Best Books of All Time to this article. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

With User:Orland doing the move suggested above, User:McGeddon brought this to RfD, to which Orland has contributed to it (amongst others).

I'm not canvassing, but for the record yesterday I created Lists of 100 best books and at the RfD suggested retargeting The 100 Best Books of All Time to it. Si Trew (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, nice page! When I first came across the Bokklubben World Library, I was originally looking for a page just like the one you made. I'm fine with retargeting The 100 Best Books of All Time to Lists of 100 best books.24.229.167.112 (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

evene.fr

This page is called the "Official site" here, but I doubt it. The French article does not seem to emphasize it except as a French page. The Norwegian one only contains two links to Norwegian pages (French does not), one of which is an actual list, unlike what we have here. --AVRS (talk) 21:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Montaigne, Rabelais lived in the Middle Ages? Poe somewhere in the 19th century?Marcin862 (talk) 16:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

You're looking at the column that states the year that a book was published. The exact lifespans of each author, if available, can be found on their linked pages. 24.229.167.112 (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant the 'Country' column for these two writers - links to France in the Middle Ages.Marcin862 (talk) 20:29, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Nature of the list

a series of classical books, mostly novels, published by the Norwegian Book Club since 2002.

a. I think that should be "classic books" if any form is appropriate.

b. At what rate is the BWL issued? Evidently it is not monthly or it would be complete.

This list endeavors to reflect world literature, with books from all countries, cultures, and time periods [...] Don Quixote which was given the distinction "best literary work ever written"

c. Did the Norwegian Book Club provide any more information about how the list of 100 was generated? instructions to the surveyed writers? description or enumeration of books excluded by the compiler?

d. How many of the surveyed writers have written no published fiction? how many have written a novel? how many write literary works? Is simply "writers" the best translation from the Norwegian?

--P64 (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Standardization of text formatting in table

Most of the book titles are in italics, some are not. This pertains to the Book of Job and Xun's "Diary of a Madman" (with quotation marks), nevertheless this is also the formatting in the respective article. The Epic of Gilgamesh is also not in italics, while it is italicized in its own article. Celan's Poems on the other hand do not have an entry in the Wikipedia is not in italics either. How should this be fixed? Striderjo (talk) 10:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)