Talk:List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

Names in different languages

How significant is it to write laureates in native languages? This is not a biography related article and I see no importance of writing names in different languages. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 20:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll erase names in native languages. AdjustShift (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

1994 rationale

The rationale given in the table for 1994 (Arafat, Rabin, Peres) is exactly the same as that given for 1995 (Rotblat, Pugwash). Given that it refers to nuclear weapons I suspect it properly belongs to the latter. I don't have the energy to chase it up, but note it in case anybody else wants to. --rbrwr^± 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. ^LeaveSleaves _talk 05:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No country called Tibet in 1989

I am a newcomer for Wikipedia, also a Chinese from Shanghai. I have noticed a error on country column for 1989 laureate dalai lama. There is no country call Tibet, you can check that on UN. Tibet just a province of china. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ikewu83 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See this. ^LeaveSleaves 15:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you feedback, please check this. I believe UN is more authorized than Nobel committee. Ikewu83 (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

The link you provided says nothing about Tibet or Nobel Prize. This list and the information in it is based on information released by the Nobel Prize committee. ^LeaveSleaves 04:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree completely with Sleaves, the information on the list should reflect what nationality the Nobel Foundation states for the laurates. The article United Nations member states exists under its own name. And, by the way, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia rather than an outlet for the official world view of the People's Republic of China. Peace, Tomas e (talk) 12:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have one question? If the reference is wrong? Should we correct it, or keep the error?Ikewu83 (talk) 09:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 and 2010

Why is there no list of the winner of the 2009 prize? And is there any mention in this article about 2010 nominees? Jørgen88 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

The 2009 winner hasn't been announced yet, so that might have something to do with it... -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:34, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Obama was announced by the BBC as the winner 8 minutes ago; the page has been suitably updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.42.175 (talk) 09:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Page protection

Lock this down now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.144.32 (talk) 10:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It should be monitored, but I don't think it is ready to be locked yet. Zamp m (talk) 11:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected; I've also removed the reference to President Obama's win this year as violating WP:RECENT. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit request

{{Editsemiprotected}}

please change "for extraordinary" to "for his extraordinary" in the quotation from nobel foundation on obama's award. the word was there, then removed. see the source cited. thanks--98.113.187.11 (talk) 11:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

-Rrius (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hume and Corrigan

Why are these 2 winners classified as from Ireland? Each of them lived in the United Kingdom (Northern Ireland) at the time of their winning? I would propose to chnage the country in due course. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it said Ireland, but since the source lists both as being from the United Kingdom, I changed the list. -Rrius (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

They're Irish and they identify themselves as such. I think they should be allowed to be listed as being from Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.1.172.145 (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The current official Nobel sources do specify United Kingdom for both parties. Therefore, unless new sources are obtained, I feel that the page should remain as this. Gavin Lisburn (talk) 21:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, it's a sensitive issue. The whole issuing of the Peace Prize to Trimble and Hume has to do with the whole UK/Ireland schism that we're talking about. Ideally, no nation should be listed for either of them, in the spirit of the Peace Prize itself. Alternatively, "Northern Ireland" for both? (And Trimble?) It is, after all, a constituent country of the UK and neither party would object to its use. 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Luckily, we avoid getting involved in this and all the other sensitive areas by consistently using the information from the Nobel Prize website. If we change the practice for these entries, how do we respond when the revisionists claim the Dalai Lama is from China? Celestra (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Under the Good Friday Agreement, all people from Northern Ireland are entitled to call themselves Irish and this is what John Hume has identified himself as. If you asked him where he was from he would tell you "Ireland".89.126.62.224 (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Updated statistics

{{editsemiprotected}}

The second-to-last sentence within the second paragraph states: "As of 2008, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 96 individuals and 20 organizations." Can someone please update this for 2009? Thank you. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 14:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

According to my count, the corrected statement should read: "As of 2009, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 98 individuals and 19 organizations." As for individuals ... there have been 98 individuals who have each won one prize. As for organizations ... there have been 17 organizations that have each won one prize; one organization (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) that has won two prizes; and one organization (International Committee of the Red Cross) that has won three prizes. Thus, there have been a total of 98 unique individual prize-winners and 19 (17+1+1) unique organizational prize-winners (as of 2009). Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC))

 Not done Please provide links to appropriate reliable sources that can be used to verify these facts, and then reinstate the request. Thanks,  Chzz  ►  13:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion about an editor attempting to correct a factual inaccuracy within this article.

What are you ... kidding me? First of all ... you do not need a reliable source to merely count / enumerate facts that are established, sourced, and cited. Second of all ... the statement that is currently in the article is not only (a) unsourced ... but is also (b) factually incorrect. So, Chzz, if you prefer to keep a factually incorrect unsourced statement in the article -- as opposed to a factually correct unsourced statement -- then so be it. Hopefully, some other editor will see not only how asinine that proposal is ... but also what good that proposal does to Wikipedia's credibility. This is exactly the type of "process" that (some) Wikipedia editors just love to get involved in ... despite the asinine results it produces. Great idea, Chzz ... go ahead and keep the factually false unsourced statement over the factually true unsourced statement in the article. Let "process" not only dicate -- but also supersede -- common sense. Let's not see the forest at all, but let's really scrutinize those trees! Good move! (64.252.139.2 (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)) Furthermore ... since you demonstrate that you are so partial to following Wikipedia rules ... here's a Wikipedia rule for you: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy: While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy to violate the principles of the policy ... If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them. Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures. (emphasis added) Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)) Futhermore ... see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Also, see Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means: "Use common sense. Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution violates the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution ... The principle of the rules is more important than the letter." (emphasis added) Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC))  Done - But it turns out that both the article and your figures are incorrect. This site states that "97 individuals and 20 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize". Also, how would the number of organisations who have won the Nobel Peace Prize go down from 20 to 19? After all, once an organisation wins the Nobel Peace Prize they have won it for good.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  10° 31' 45" NET   00:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC) My figures are indeed correct. Please see below. The original article was incorrect; your revised edit is likewise incorrect; and the website that you cite is also incorrect. Again, please see below. Also, please allow me to answer your question. You asked: "How would the number of organizations who have won the Nobel Peace Prize go down from 20 to 19?" The answer to that question is that the 2008 figure that the article originally cited was incorrect in and of itself. So, the number of organizations did not go down between 2008 and 2009. Rather, the 2008 figure was incorrect to begin with. Apparently, if the 2008 figure were indeed correct, it would have read 19 organizations for that year as well ... to which an additional zero organizations were added for 2009, keeping the figure stable at 19 organizational prize winners. Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) Individual prize winners, in chronological order, are listed below. There are 98 individuals listed. No individual won more than one award. Therefore, there are a total of 98 individual prize winners. Organizational prize winners, in chronological order, are also listed below. There are 22 organizations listed. Two organizations won more than one award. Therefore, items #5, #9, and #14 are removed from the list below ... as they are duplicitous. Therefore, there are a total of 19 (that is, 22 - 3) organizational prize winners. Thus, according to my count (as indicated above) ... my original edit request was both accurate and proper. The corrected statement should read: "As of 2009, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 98 individuals and 19 organizations." Please adjust the article accordingly. Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 06:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) Enumerated List of Individuals in Chronological Order: Henry Dunant Frédéric Passy Élie Ducommun Albert Gobat Randal Cremer Bertha von Suttner Theodore Roosevelt Ernesto Teodoro Moneta Louis Renault Klas Pontus Arnoldson Fredrik Bajer Auguste Beernaert Paul Henri d'Estournelles de Constant Tobias Asser Alfred Fried Elihu Root Henri La Fontaine Woodrow Wilson Léon Bourgeois Hjalmar Branting Christian Lange Fridtjof Nansen Sir Austen Chamberlain Charles G. Dawes Aristide Briand Gustav Stresemann Ferdinand Buisson Ludwig Quidde Frank B. Kellogg Nathan Söderblom Jane Addams Nicholas Murray Butler Sir Norman Angell Arthur Henderson Carl von Ossietzky Carlos Saavedra Lamas Robert Cecil Cordell Hull Emily Greene Balch John R. Mott Lord Boyd Orr Ralph Bunche Léon Jouhaux Albert Schweitzer George C. Marshall Lester Bowles Pearson Georges Pire Philip Noel-Baker Albert Lutuli Dag Hammarskjöld Linus Pauling Martin Luther King Jr. René Cassin Norman Borlaug Willy Brandt Henry Kissinger Le Duc Tho Seán MacBride Eisaku Sato Andrei Sakharov Betty Williams Mairead Corrigan Anwar al-Sadat Menachem Begin Mother Teresa Adolfo Pérez Esquivel Alva Myrdal Alfonso García Robles Lech Walesa Desmond Tutu Elie Wiesel Oscar Arias Sánchez The 14th Dalai Lama Mikhail Gorbachev Aung San Suu Kyi Rigoberta Menchú Tum Nelson Mandela F.W. de Klerk Yasser Arafat Shimon Peres Yitzhak Rabin Joseph Rotblat Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo José Ramos-Horta Jody Williams John Hume David Trimble Kim Dae-jung Kofi Annan Jimmy Carter Shirin Ebadi Wangari Maathai Mohamed ElBaradei Muhammad Yunus Grameen Bank Al Gore Martti Ahtisaari Barack Obama Enumerated List of Organizations in Chronological Order: Institute of International Law Permanent International Peace Bureau International Committee of the Red Cross Nansen International Office for Refugees International Committee of the Red Cross Friends Service Council American Friends Service Committee Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees International Committee of the Red Cross League of Red Cross Societies United Nations Children's Fund International Labour Organization Amnesty International Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War United Nations Peacekeeping Forces Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs International Campaign to Ban Landmines Médecins Sans Frontières United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change What is the source for this information? We can not make edits without being sure of our sources. After you add a source, please feel free to restore the editsemiprotected tag. Debresser (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC) If you followed any of the above thread ... you would see that ... the sources are: (a) the list of winners as provided in this very article, List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates ... and (b) the list of winners as provided in this Nobel Prize website page, All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Also, please read the above thread about factually incorrect information being posted ... as well as the Wikipedia policies cited. Who would have ever thought that this would become such a Herculean task ... to correct a simple error in Wikipedia. This is simply unreal ... how wrapped up in "process" you all get ... even at the very sake of accurate information. Editors flip out about "no sources" ... but could care less about posting (and maintaining) factual errors in this, ummmmm, encyclopedia. Simply unreal. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) Wikipedia is not a bureacracy? Ha! What a joke! The above thread is the very definition of bureaucratic bullshit. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC))

After further checking, it seems that you have made a mistake when you created the list above. Grameen Bank is an organisation not an individual as seen here, so the correct figures are that 97 individuals and 20 organizations that have won the Nobel Peace Prize. Also, these correct figures are also stated on the source that you have specified, which so happens to be the same one I gave for my previous edit, so the figures shall remain as they currently stand.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  298° 34' 15" NET   19:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

One other thing, if either Chzz or Debresser had just made the edit without asking for sources, the article would have stated that 98 individuals and 19 organizations had won the Nobel Peace Prize and it would have been wrong. The purpose for asking for sources is to prevent such a mistake happening. All they asked for was a link like this to verify your proposed edit. If this was true, "you do not need a reliable source to merely count / enumerate facts", then this error would have been allowed to slip through. You should check your sources more carefully and state them rather than insisting that your version is correct.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  305° 43' 30" NET   20:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To - Set Sail For The Seven Seas: Thank you for clearing up this discrepancy. I will defend all of my posts thusly. First, the original version of the article was indeed incorrect. Second, I asked for it to be corrected, while explicitly stating ... "according to my count". (Ultimately, my count was erroneous.) Third, Wikipedia editors repeatedly asking "where are your sources" does not resolve the issue in any way whatsoever. That inaction merely maintains the previously incorrect information. So, again ... thank you for your taking the time (and interest) to clear up this discrepancy. That being said ... I request two further edits to this article. One: that the actual source be placed into the article for the sentence in question (i.e., this entire thread). The source is this: [1]. Two: that someone edit the formatting of the Table / Chart listing the 2006 winner of Grameen Bank. The way that it is currently formatted includes the photo of a person (individual) ... as opposed to the organizational logo. This is inconsistent with the rest of the organizational listings in this Table / Chart and, thus, the source of the confusion and discrepancy that has permeated the entire above discussion. The organizational logo for Grameen Bank can be found here: [2]. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Not done: The article is no longer protected and you can make these edits yourself. Please take this example of why sources are required to heart rather than "defending" your mistake. It was not a great error, and there are no consequences worth mentioning, but failing to learn from this would be a greater mistake. Sources are required for factual changes. Your fellow editors who were servicing the request were politely asking for that which is required. Had you taken the time to look for a source rather than argue that none was required, this would have been resolved days ago without the regrettable text I collapsed above. Regards, Celestra (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Celestra here, it's OK to make mistakes, but it's better to learn from them. I've sorted out the formatting for the table and left a note showing where the organizational logo for Grameen Bank should go, but I believe that organisational logos are generally copyrighted, so it shouldn't be added unless it follows a fair use rationale. I recommend adding a free alternative if one can be found. Hope this helps.   Set Sail For The Seven Seas  258° 44' 44" NET   17:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The irony is simply astounding. Everyone pontificates about how important sources are ... I asked that the relevant sentence be sourced ... and the reply is, "add the source yourself". This is astounding and amazing to me. Amazing what type of help and assistance people are (not) willing to offer. Yet -- they will adamantly insist on the importance of sources. So, they insist that sources are important and mandatory ... otherwise, the information cannot be added. Then, they refuse to add the source when requested. The inmates are running the asylum. Lord help us all. You know what? Keep the source out. I am truly sorry that I ever "gave a shit" about this article at all ... and helping to improve it. Your behaviors are appalling and shameful ... and you should be ashamed. Seems like everyone's agenda is to prove that they are right (and that they can quote Wikipedia policy, chapter and verse) ... as opposed to, I dunno, maybe improving and correcting errors in the article. What a selfish world we live in. So, as you insist ... let's keep the source out ... the source that you claim is indispensible. And I will assist you all in not improving the article, as well. Thanks for your help! (Please note sarcasm.) Simply unreal. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 18:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

To - Set Sail For The Seven Seas: Thank you again for being the exception to the rule ... and for actually attempting to help me with my reasonable requests. I appreciate your help and your attempts to improve the article. All other editors in this thread seem like pompous asses who are full of themselves and their ability to quote policy ... at the expense of correcting a simple error. Talk about missing the point, huh? Unreal. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 18:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

And, all of this ... in a featured article, to boot! The irony simply multiplies. Simply unreal. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 18:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC))

Irony? You were asking people to make changes, and they were demanding you prove yourself correct. How is that ironic? In addition to learning what was proposed above, and the definition of "irony", I think you could try not to be abusive. When User:Chzz said he was not doing carrying out your edit because it wasn't verified, you pounced, "What are you ... kidding me?" That followed by an excessively confrontational defense of your position was the wrong way to go. Instead of that, you could have simply explained calmly that no research was involved. Merely counting was the only thing needed. These last three contributions of yours were totally unnecessary. "Honey catches more flies than vinegar" and all that. -Rrius (talk) 20:02, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

You clearly miss the point. To this very day, the all-important and indispensible source is still not included in the article, as I requested days ago. And, you will recall that all of my previous requests were denied because there was no source provided. So, ummmmm, yeah -- the use of the word "ironic" is much more than appropriate. Everyone here is so worried about pontificating policy ... that they miss the forest for the trees. Everyone pontificates about how important and indispensible sources are. If that is the case ... why have several editors taken the time to pontificate on this Talk Page ... but not one has taken the time to (God forbid) add the source (that I requested) into the article. Yes, the word "ironic" is much more than appropriate in this case. In other words, everyone wants to hear themselves talk and blather on and on about policy and the importance of source within articles ... but no one wants to actually add the requested source. And, all of this, in a featured article, no less. If you don't see the irony, there is little I can do to help you see it. You also claim that, quote, "Instead of that, you could have simply explained calmly that no research was involved. Merely counting was the only thing needed." If you read the above posts, I explicitly stated: "[we] do not need a reliable source to merely count / enumerate facts that are established, sourced, and cited". How is that not the same exact thing as what you proposed that I should have done? The ultimate irony ... at this very moment ... the article still has no source. What a joke. All talk and no action. Everyone pontificating about how sacrosanct sources are and no changes could -- heaven forefend -- ever be made without a source. And, here, two weeks later ... no source has been added, even though it was explicitly requested to be added. This is the very definition of a bureaucracy ... it is a joke ... and shameful behavior on your parts. So, let's keep the source out. I will continue to help to not improve the article, as I see that that goal is secondary (if even that) to the primary goal of blowing hot air and demanding dictates and spouting policy ... but, of course, all the meanwhile not actually doing anything. Unreal. Just unreal. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 15:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

this page is cited as a general reference and it does list the total number of winners. By the way, it's a featured list, not a featured article. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Scorpion ... that is the same exact source that I (and others) previously pointed out ... and the same exact source that I requested to be placed into the article. Why are you mentioning it again? Furthermore, the distinction between featured article / list is immaterial to this discussion ... but thanks for pointing it out. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

I was pointing out that it has always been in the article (not as a citation, but it has been present), even though you said "the all-important and indispensible source is still not included in the article." -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The step Rrius left out is that after the requester calmly explained that it was "merely counting," a reasonable editor servicing the request would wonder why that count disagreed with the article. They would check the sources and see that the article agrees with those sources and they would decline to make the edit. If the requester was also behaving reasonably, the editor servicing the request might try to work with the requester to resolve the discrepancy, but in this case, why should they? The article is unprotected; there is no longer any reason to continue this discussion as it has nothing to do with improving the article. Adding an inline citation to help avoid this mistake in the future seems unnecessary to me, but it also doesn't require consensus. Happy editing, Celestra (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To Celestra – Actually, what you said would not happen and should not happen ... is indeed exactly what did, in fact, happen. You stated: "If the requester was also behaving reasonably, the editor servicing the request might try to work with the requester to resolve the discrepancy, but in this case, why should they?" Well, quite contrary to your belief, an editor did exactly that. The editor is Set Sail For The Seven Seas, who did exactly what you questioned that any reasonable editor would do. So, the proof is in the pudding: he / she did it. And, I specifically thanked Set Sail For The Seven Seas in a post above for his / her help in seeking the discrepancy. In any event, there are many ways to skin a cat. Thanks. (64.252.124.238 (talk))

Sorry for my ignorance (largely due to TL;DR), but what is wrong with the list, and what is it that needs to be cited? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

The second-to-last sentence within the second paragraph should read: "As of 2009, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 97 individuals and 20 organizations." And the source is: Nobelprize.org: All Nobel Peace Prize Laureates. Thank you. (64.252.124.238 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC))

(outdent) Done. Anything else? Dabomb87 (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, per WP:LEAD and WP:V, we do not need a source for simple counts, and additionally the count is a summary of the already-sourced list, so we do not need a source for that statement as well. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Un-freaking-believable! The IP changed the article from the correct data then asked someone else to put it back. That pointy bit of disruptive behavior merits a discussion with the admins. Celestra (talk) 21:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

To respond, the key word was "calmly"; you, IP, flew off the handle. As for irony, no it was and is not ironic. It only appears so to you because you are not actually listening to what others are saying or don't actually understand what is going on. The original sentence said "96" and "20" because it had not been updated to reflect the 2009 award. You thought the numbers should be "98" and "19", which was wrong. People wanted a reference for switching something from an org to an individual in the count. You were corrected with reference to a list at nobelprize.org. The self-same list was already linked to from the article and supported the "20". After being corrected, you persisted in your incorrect count. After the source of your misapprehension was elucidated, you continued to criticize other for demanding a reference for your change, but demanded that a link to the nobelprize.org list be added to the lead (despite the fact that it was already present as a general reference) and that someone else change the image used for Grameen Bank. You lashed out at people who told you to do the latter yourself as being unhelpful even though the page was no longer protected and you could do it yourself. Your inability to simply accept being wrong when proven so, choosing instead to attack editors who were merely trying to protect the article from changes for which there had no source and were, as it turned out, wrong, is disappointing to say the least. -Rrius (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

List of winners

Is it normal to list the winners starting from the earliest or latest? I always thought it was custom (and looked better) to start it off with the most recent winners, or am I wrong? -- Linestarz (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no right or wrong answer. The official website for the Nobel Prizes lists award winners from earliest to most recent. So, that is probably the convention that the Wikipedia editor followed when he started this article. Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 17:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

I do agree, however, that it would "look better" to start with the current winner and list the rest from most recent to earliest. It is not so much that the chart would "look better" per se. Functionally, however, I think that contemporary readers are more interested in (and more inclined to wonder about) the more contemporary winners (from, say, the last 10 or 20 years) than they are concerned with who won in the distant past (in 1902 or in 1911, for example). Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

okay tried to change it but realized it looked like it would take a LOOOOOONG time, anyone have a script that could do it? - Linestarz (talk) 04:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't change it. Oldest to newest is better. See the MoS and also every other list like this on Wikipedia. Garion96 (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Top posting is counter-intuitive. It might be easier to navigate if broken up into smaller sections.

Years the Peace Prize was not awarded

Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation as to why the Prize wasn't awarded? Some gaps can be explained away (1914-16 because of World War I, 1939-43 because of World War II), but not others. I know that the Prize wasn't awarded in '48 because Gandhi had just died; but what about 1932, 1955, 1956, 1967, and 1972? Did the Nobel Peace Prize Committee announce a formal reason as to why it wasn't awarded then? I just looked on the Nobel website and couldn't find a definitive reason. --MicahBrwn (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not believe that the Nobel Peace Prize Committee lists any "official reasons" for this. Thus, any "explanations" that Wikipedia offers would be speculative. If the Committee does, in fact, cite any "official reasons" for these gaps ... I am sure that they are of some generic variety (e.g., "The Committee felt that there were no suitable nominees / winners that year."). Thanks. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 17:26, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

As an aside ... and following your reasoning ... some of the other years listed bring to mind (for me): the Great Depression, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War. I have no idea if these were factors in the "no award" status for the years you listed ... but they are significant world-wide events (devoid of "peace") that transpired around the time-frame gaps you cite. This is all speculative on my part, however. (64.252.139.2 (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2009 (UTC))

Order of laureates in years in which the prize is shared

118.136.213.19 (talk · contribs) recently changed the list to always list the individual ahead of the group in those years where an individual and a group shared the prize. I can see arguments for this being more consistent or more respectful, but I think following the order used by the source would be better. We have a note to the effect that the form and spelling of the laureate's name is that which is found on the Nobel website. I think we should expand that to include the order of recipients. Please share your thoughts. Celestra (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Barack Obama vandalism

"There are two lines of text which are clearly vandalism up there now. I don't know when this happened or I would revert it. Can someone please replace these lines with appropriate text. Perhaps this article should be protected until the controversy dies down. --Jeiki Rebirth (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"for being black (...)" = vandalism. (though true). "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples". thats the real quote (http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2009/) 93.217.48.82 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC).

1989 Incorect use of []

Hi, this is my first post so I please correct me if I do not follow protocol exactly.

I have noticed that in this article the section for 1989 (Dalai Lama) reads:

[for] his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [and] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people

the press release states: (referenced in article)

The Committee wants to emphasize the fact that the Dalai Lama in his struggle for the liberation of Tibet consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.

It seems to me that the award was only for the use of non-violent methods and the Nobel committee does not want to make the award for any "efforts to liberate Tibet"

I propose the following:

In his struggle for the liberation of Tibet [he] consistently has opposed the use of violence. He has instead advocated peaceful solutions based upon tolerance and mutual respect in order to preserve the historical and cultural heritage of his people.

Paul Torry (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Peace Prize recipients who were assassinated or who died in custody

This line was deleted from the article as trivial and unsourced:

The following recipients were assassinated or died while being held prisoner: Carl von Ossietzky, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Yitzhak Rabin. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Nobel_Peace_Prize_laureates&diff=402383748&oldid=402346713

I disagree. If we can discuss who didn't get the prize, how many women got the prize, and how many members of the U.S. Democratic Party got the prize, surely listing those who were murdered or died in prison is notable. There were wikilinks to all three biographies, so verifying the circumstances of their deaths is not an issue. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you on the democrat party note, I'm not sure when that was slipped in there, but these list pages should try to avoid singling out individual laureates as being controversial (there's an entire page for that). It is trivia, as there are a number of other stats that could also be included but are not. As for your claim that it was sourced, it really wasn't. Sure, maybe there are sources at those pages, but how are users to know if that list is complete? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You're saying that someone being slain or dying in prison is trivia? If these guys all liked to wear pink socks, that would be trivia; pointing out that they were slain or died in prison is not. Next point, are you suggesting there is any doubt that a) these men won the Peace Prize or b) they were killed or died in police custody? You want me to supply a reference for each man that states the manner of his death? I don't think anyone disputes that this happened. I think this falls into the "Paris is in France" category, especially with the wikilinks. Each bio states that the person won the prize and states the details of their deaths. Ghostofnemo (talk) 11:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying you would need a reference that confirms what you are saying. So a reference that said Ossietzky, King and Rabin were assassinated or died in prison and are the only ones of the 98 individuals to do so. Either way, I think that kind of thing is better suited to the main Nobel Peace Prize page. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The deleted line did not state that these were the only three. I intentionally left it open so that other editors could add more names. I think the "list" page is a better place to note these kinds of things than the main article though. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created a new section at the bottom of the list of recipients. Does this satisfy your concerns? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:24, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

GoN, your addition is undue weight. This is a list and it should be "no more and no less". It seems to me that you've learned nothing from your forum shopping and you still do not understand what WP is. You must remember what you think neutral and relevant is not neutral and relevant at WP most of the time. Oda Mari (talk) 16:20, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

If the list should be "no more and no less" then why is there such a long lead-in with such a wide variety of observations? For example, we learn that Gandhi never won, Hammarsjkold won posthumously, how many women have won the prize, and that more women have won this prize than any other Nobel prize. Don't you think it's notable that some of the recipients were murdered? And why the attitude? Please see WP:NPA. Ghostofnemo (talk) 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm talking about your addition, GoN. Please do not stray the point. If there is a problem in the lead, that is another matter. Take a look at List of Presidents of the United States, there is no "Presidents who were assassinated during his term" section. It's not a matter of notability. That is why I pointed out that you do not understand what Wp is. In other word, what an encyclopedia is. Your addition is simply inappropriate. Oda Mari (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The edit originally appeared in the lead-in, but it was deleted, so I moved it to a separate section lower in the article. This is from List of Presidents of the United States from the "About the List" section: "Of the individuals elected as president, four died in office of natural causes (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin D. Roosevelt), one resigned (Richard Nixon), and four were assassinated (Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy)." So apparently not trivial. Here's a direct link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States#About_the_list If you'll look at the top of this section, you'll see the original deletion. Ghostofnemo (talk) 18:31, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The same issue is being discussed at Talk:Nobel Peace Prize#Deletion of section "Recipients who met untimely deaths". I think it is original research unless there is a source discussing the untimely deaths of prize winners.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait a second here Ghostofnemo, you're not even sure if your list is complete, yet you think it should be placed in the mainspace, in a featured list, and presented as if it's a definitive list? And that's why you need a source. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The list of Presidents of the US mentions not only assassinated Presidents but also ones died of natural causes and one resigned. All of them can described as "Presidents who did not serve a full term". The description in that article is neutral and not undue weight. Oda Mari (talk) 07:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

The list of Presidents is also unsourced. There is no reference given that mentions every member whose name is given, as a member of a group, but it is easily verifiable that each man was assassinated, and so was added to the list. Mentioning that members of a group met untimely deaths is neutral and not undue weight - it is simply stating a fact and is not implying anything. I don't understand the rationale for these repeated deletions of factual information that is relevant to the article and which is paralleled in similar articles. If you want to add causes of death for other prize winners, please do so, but don't delete factual material from the article. If this is really your concern, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Npov#Achieving_neutrality Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

There are countless neutral facts we could add based on our own research. Have you read Wikipedia:No original research carefully?   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the List of Presidents or any other article, we're talking about this one. What it comes down to is that you want to add a loosely related unsourced statement (which goes against wikipedia's sourcing policy) that is based on your own research (which is against wikipedia's policy on original research) that you aren't even sure is complete and accurate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:53, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't think the undisputed fact that these men were either assassinated or died in police custody is notable? That's why this is noted in the U.S. Presidents list article. It's highly irregular for someone to be assassinated! What if I reference each line? "Martin Luther King, Jr. died as a result of assassination.(ref) Anwar Sadat died as a result of assassination.(ref) and so on? Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:17, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

And you can't be serious in claiming that incomplete lists cannot be submit to Wikipedia articles! Material is added to the encyclopedia all the time, and there is no requirement that only perfectly complete contributions are allowed. If I miss someone, other editors are sure to add them. Ghostofnemo (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't care what other articles do. This is a featured list and it's supposed to be an example of wikipedia's best work. You're not going to add an incomplete statement and hope that others complete it for you. And on top of that, it's unsourced, only loosely related to the topic and several other editors agree that the statement is out of place. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The Nobel Prize Committee notes that King was assassinated on their web page here (last line): http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html So it was notable to them. I haven't check the others, but I could use these Nobel Prize bios for references if you like. Also, please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Ownership_of_articles Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Two issues. First, the Nobel Committee hosts an entire biography of King. They talk about his grandfather, about the schools he attended, his family life, and many other details. Biographies of other recipients list similar details. Should we start adding alma maters and spouses' names, just because those appear in Nobel Committee bios? Nope. While those facts are very significant to the lives of the people, they are not relevant to this article. King did not win the prize because he was married to Corretta Scot and wasn't he assassinated because he won the prize.

As for the "ownership" issue, that generally applies to a single editor taking ownership of an article. In this case, multiple editors disagree with you. Nor is this a tag team situation either. On the other talk page I suggested a compromise but you never responded. That suggestion was to find a source talking about how peace activists are often imperiled by their strong stands, stands that also win them recognition like the Peace Prize. I've read things like that so I believe a source is probably available. Would that satisfy you?   Will Beback  talk  12:53, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

My objective is that readers of the article be aware that some of the Peace Prize recipients were assassinated, or died shortly after being released from police custody. If those who were killed are actually listed, I would be satisfied with your solution. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

BTW, all the Nobel Prize bios of the winners I've noted point out they were assassinated, or in Ossietzky's case, died under police supervision shortly after being released from a concentration camp, where he was being held at the time of the award ceremony. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All of the Wikipedia bios cover that as well, so we're good. As for this article, we only list four pieces of information for each entry: date, name and nationality of the recipient, and short excerpt from the award citation as the rationale. I don't see any room for adding cause of death, and once we start adding asterisks there'll be no logical end to it. If you can find a source which says that a disproportionate number of recipients have been murdered then that might be suitable for the main article.   Will Beback  talk  08:22, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

All of this information is allowed in the article, but not deaths by assassination or mistreatment?

"Despite having been nominated five times, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi never won the prize. Following his assassination in 1948, the committee considered awarding it to him posthumously but decided against it and instead withheld the prize that year with the explanation that "there was no suitable living candidate."[9] In 1961, Dag Hammarskjöld, who died after his nomination but several months before the announcement, became the only Laureate to be recognized posthumously; following this, the statutes were changed to make a future posthumous prize nearly impossible.[10] In 1973, Lê Ðức Thọ declined the Nobel Peace Prize, because "he was not in a position to accept the Prize, citing the situation in Vietnam as his reason."[11] Linus Pauling, the Nobel Peace Prize laureate in 1962, is the only person to have been awarded two unshared Nobel Prizes; he won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 1954.[11] The International Committee of the Red Cross has been awarded the prize three times (1917, 1944, and 1963), and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has won twice (1954 and 1981).[11]

Twelve women have won the Nobel Peace Prize. This is more than any other Nobel Prize.[12] As of 2010, the Peace Prize has been awarded to 98 individuals and 20 organizations. There have been 19 years in which the Peace Prize was not awarded, more times than any other Nobel Prize."

This stuff seems much more like trivia to me. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Should a line listing Nobel Peace Prize recipients who died as a result of assassination or in police custody be included in this article? I had in mind something like this: "Peace Prize recipient Carl von Ossietzky died in police custody. Martin Luther King, Jr., Mohamed Anwar Al-Sadat and Yitzhak Rabin were assassinated." This could appear at the bottom of the article lead-in, or at the bottom of the list of recipients. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

• No. This is unlike the mention of awards to women, for which the Nobel Committee's website devotes a whole webpage.[3] Despite requests, you have not provided any source that connects the deaths of these four men to their receipt of the award. All prize winners will die, but the manners of their deaths should not be included here unless they can be tied directly to the award. What if an honoree catches pneumonia while traveling to Oslo teo receive the prize and dies a month later? What if the ex-spouse of a winner gets into a fight over the money and kills the reicient? What if an organization loses funding and disbands (a form of organizational death)? The primary aim of this list is just to report the names and a few details of the winners. Readers who wish to learn more can read the linked bios. Additional prize-related background, if sourced, might belong at Nobel Peace Prize rather than here.   Will Beback  talk  09:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Just a note about the Gandhi inclusion, I was the one who added it. I'm generally not a fan of noting omissions, because in many cases they are based on POV and other users will also add those they feel are notable exclusions. However, almost every article I've ever read that includes controversies notes the exclusion of Ghandi. And, most importantly, in 1948, the year Ghandi was killed, no prize was given, with the explanation that "there was no suitable living candidate" which is something not done before or since. Because of that, I think his exclusion and the explanation of the lack of a 1948 prize is more important for this page than listing recipients who were assassinated. In fact, everything that Ghostofnemo believes is trivia relates directly to the prize and in some cases are quite important (ie. Hammarskjold being the only posthumous winner). Listing those who were assassinated is fascinating, but not related to the prize at all. Those men did not win the Nobel Prize because they were assassinated, so here it is trivia. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

"Twelve women have won the Noble Peace Prize." Did they win it because they were women? According to your reasoning, this is just as "trivial" as mentioned that some were assassinated. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

• No, just as we don't highlight Nobel laureates in physics who died as a result of their research. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:04, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

From the article List of Presidents of the United States "Of the individuals elected as president, four died in office of natural causes (William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding, and Franklin D. Roosevelt), one resigned (Richard Nixon), and four were assassinated (Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy)." Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:19, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There is an enormous difference though. Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley and Kennedy were assassinated because they were presidents, so their deaths should be noted. Having any kind of world leader die in office, be assassinated or resign is a major uncommon occurance and should be noted. You really can't compare that to the winners of a prize. I admit that I have nothing to back me up, but I'm pretty sure that Rabin wasn't assassinated solely because he was a Nobel Peace Prize laureate. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, tough call. Adding something new for just a few entries needs somebigger consensus. Although it would seem like WP:Trivia to list this when their respective pages would/should have this.(Lihaas (talk) 18:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)).

Image copyright problem with File:Amnesty International logo.svg

The image File:Amnesty International logo.svg 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.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --21:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

File:Burma 3 150.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Burma 3 150.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Lê Đức Thọ

Throughout this article Lê Đức Thọ is referred to as Le Duc Tho. Is there a reason why or should this be changed? LukeSurl ^{t c} 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

The MOS suggests that there is no preference- whichever is in more common usage, or used by the subject, should be used for the article title and, by extension, elsewhere in WP. In this case the reference uses Le Duc Tho as does our main article, Le Duc Tho. (Lê Đức Thọ is a redirect to Le Duc Tho.) If you think the spelling which uses the Vietnamese alphabet is more appropriate, it seems like the main article's talk page would be the right place to reach a new consensus. Regards, Celestra (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Multiple issues for undoing recent change

The fact that Le Duc Tho declined (not rejected) the Prize is already in the lead of the article and in the footnote. We can't add it to the table because the last column is for the rationale behind the Prize, not for general comments. I think it could be ok to add this to the paragraph ahead of the table if it were reworded. He declined the prize, as I understand it from the sources, because the process he and Kissinger undertook had not led to an end of the war. 'Declined' captures that meaning. 'Rejected' is a much different concept. Secondly, it isn't clear that he is a Nobel Laureate if he declined the Prize. It would be better to just say something similar to the wording in the lead if we feel a need to restate this interesting fact. Celestra (talk) 00:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Palestine/Palestinian Authority

@Niv062 - The source is the authority on the nationality. I appreciate that you feel that Palestinian Authority is "official", but the committee chose to use Palestine. Please return it to Palestine. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of logos

Use of a logo to decorate a table does not constitute fair use in my opinion and I know that others share that opinion. If you feel otherwise, please discuss it here and, if there is a consensus for the change, fill in the appropriate fair use rationale for the image at the image's page. Please see WP:NFCC, WP:FAIR USE, WP:LOGOS. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

We have flags. Why not logos? [Soffredo] 22:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The flags (at least the one I checked were not uploaded under a fair use rationale, but are acceptable because "This image only consists of simple geometric shapes and/or text. ", which also grants it no copyright protection; The UN flags are from open clip art library: "This file is from the Open Clip Art Library, which released it explicitly into the public domain". The OPCW logo (although outdated) seems not to qualify there… L.tak (talk) 08:28, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't say that others share your opinion, not unless you can point to a previous discussion. Otherwise I may just as well claim that many don't share your opinion, and I am as correct. Anyway, I don't share your opinion, and I think the logo should be added here, as long as a proper fair use rationale is added to File:OPCW logo.gif. We already use many other logos here, though I note they are tagged as PD or such (for the record, I am not happy with the copyright status of File:IPB logo svg.svg). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:04, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

My statement was not remarkable enough to require proof. Simply look in the sections above or peruse the history of the article. Your statement is also not remarkable, as proven by the fact that the fair use images keep getting added back. I'm glad you acknowledge the difference between the PD images which are included here and the non-free images which are not: the non-free images require a fair use rationale. What fair use rationale do you suggest, keeping in mind NFCC#8? Celestra (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

It fits perfectly within the niche of NFCC8 as it denotes and identifies the organization as a recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Otherwise all similar tables should be scrapped as inappropriate plus it's sloppy to have some recipients identified by eother foto or logo and others not. -- fdewaele, 13 October 2013, 17:05 CET.

By that reasoning, any place we want to display the logo meets NFCC#8 and that clearly isn't the intent. I'm not convinced the use of the logos on the organizations' articles "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" and it seems obvious to me that the readers' understanding of this list is not increased by the contents of that column of the table. Even if we all agreed that the column looks bad without having something on every row, a better solution would be to remove the column altogether; it is a nice decoration and adds to the appearance of the list, but the list would be just as informative without it. Celestra (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

FWIW - yes, I *entirely* agree - the listing would be "just as informative without it [ie, the logo column]" - however, including the logo column helps make the listing more reader-friendly - and appealing/accessible to readers - an important consideration imo atm - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 17:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with you as well about the overall value of that column and I would oppose any attempt to remove it. My point remains that that value does not meet NFCC#8, so we have to exclude non-free images. Regards, Celestra (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Also Thanks - no problem whatsoever - if not yet aware, I recently inserted a PD image (of peace) in several relevant blank spaces in the logo column - at least until better images become available - seems better than blank spaces imo atm -*entirely* ok w/ me to rv/mv/ce of course - in any case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Country of birth or residence at the time of award?

For the recipients, should it mention their country of birth or their residence country at the time of award?184.148.72.132 (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

One Nobel Peace Prize laureate bashing Canada for "colonizing Haiti"

I am trying to find out which Peace Prize laureate from the Americas labelled Canada as a "colonial power" in Haiti after the 2010 earthquake. It was very insensitive and false, since it was the United Nations that approved international aid and security from various countries to help the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. And, yes, I have a DVD recording from a BBC forum proving that one of them said that nonsense. The resulting cheers from the audience in that forum is, to me, anti-Canada at its worst. This controversy and the unnecessary swipe at Canada like that needs to be addressed and apologized for. Ironically, Canada had a Haitian-born Governor-General at that time, too. Rockies77 (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

And this comment is relevant to this article because... Felviper (talk) 23:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

British India and India are not same

I have changed India to British India where Muhammad Yunus was born. British India consisted of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan. Whereas India is only India. - Magnetic Rahim (talk) 04:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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/20120901134144/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016093455/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/index.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1979/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141016094235/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/index.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1993/index.html
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/63cbrTycS?url=http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/press.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2010/press.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131011152336/http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2013/press.pdf to http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2013/press.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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/20111006045457/http://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html to https://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:01, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. 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/20130530222747/http://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html to http://www.nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2017

Hello:

In the "General" subsection in the "References" section, the link to the Encyclopædia Britannica article is broken and should be updated to www.britannica.com/topic/Winners-of-the-Nobel-Prize-for-Peace-1856940. Please correct this broken link.

Thanks Ronsantos62 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Done Gulumeemee (talk) 06:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Who should be listed for 1947 - the Quakers, or their representatives?

According to the award ceremony speech (which is quoted as a source), the 1947 prize was "awarded [...] to the Quakers, represented by their two great relief organizations, the Friends Service Council in London and the American Friends Service Committee in Philadelphia."

On another page of the Nobel Foundation website the prize is listed as being awarded jointly to "Friends Service Council (The Quakers) and American Friends Service Committee (The Quakers)." Note that "The Quakers" are not another name for the two organizations.

The decision of who to list (and how) depends on the interpretation of "represented by". More historical info can be found here. It seems clear that the prize was indeed intended for Quakers as a whole, and that the two organizations were chosen to receive the prize on behalf of the Quakers as a whole.

Thus I believe that we should list the recipient instead as "The Quakers (represented by AFSC an FSC)" (and remove the logo and nationalities). I will boldly make this change - feel free to revert and discuss. NisJørgensen (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Liu Xiaobo 2008 2a.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Amnesty-International-Logo-Image.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Why do many Rationales start with square brackets?

Reading " [F]or his work... " is very strange. What is wrong with " For his work... " ? Also [For] and {For his work as]. etc. Odd. My inclination is to remove them. -- SGBailey (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Square brackets are supposed to indicate words which are not in the original quoted text but are added to clarify. [F]or should mean that the original text had "for" with a lower-case f. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Brackets_and_parentheses.

For example, the 1902 description of Elie Ducommun's prize as "[For his role as] the first honorary secretary of the International Peace Bureau" should mean that the source contains all but the first four words.

However I have looked without success for some of the supposedly original quotes (without the words or capital letters in square brackets) in the sources given. Perhaps I have not looked in the right place. It would be a good idea if someone went through the list and made sure all the quotes without the [ ] are actually there. Dirac66 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of the style manual, the square brackets get in the way of smooth reading of the text. Would it be permissible to remove them all and add a table prefix/suffix saying something like "Introductory words may not be a direct quotation"? -- SGBailey (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Or we could remove the words which are not in the source. Dirac66 (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Liu Xiaobo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Swastika next to the name of a victim of the Nazis

Carl von Ossietzky, a German pacifist, was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for 1935 for his writings opposing the Nazis. He was arrested (for the second time) one month after Hitler came to power in 1933, and spent the rest of his life in prison and concentration camps. Ossietzky, weakened and broken after years of abuse by the Nazis, died in 1938.

This article contained an image of the Swastika flag, which became the sole flag of Nazi Germany in September 1935, when Ossietzky had already been imprisoned for over two years and six months. There is no historic reason why the flag should appear next to his name.

But we need not rely on questions of timing-- it is outrageous that the very symbol of Nazi inhumanity should be associated with his name.

I have removed the swastika flag twice now. It should not be added again.

Kablammo (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

You should not remove it. While I understand your sentiment, the reality is that the flag of the country of which he was a citizen at that time was the Nazi flag. It's usage here is only to refer to the country existing at that time, not to the political party. Besides there are other examples of people, like Desmond Tutu and Nelson Mandela, listed with a country, and its contemporary flag, whose then regime those people actually fought against.Tvx1 23:53, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there were two German flags in 1935; the swastika did not become the sole German flag until September 1935. Take a look at how German wikipedia handles it, and look at the discussion on their talk page.

But what possible purpose does any flag serve here? From Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Icons#Flags:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject officially represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

Words as the primary means of communication should be given greater precedence over flags ...

And "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason." Here there is no "good reason" to emphasize nationality at all — the award was to an individual, not a representative of a county, a service member, or member of a national team.

Kablammo (talk) 01:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, per WP:FLAGICON they should be removed for all entries. oknazevad (talk) 17:15, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

It's just your opinion that there is no good reason. I can see the relevancy. The nationality of these laureates is quite a notable aspect in sources. Coverage of that is not much different than for sports.Tvx1 18:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The nationality can still be given without the flag. Kablammo (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

When someone is awarded with a Nobel prize, the media coverage and public reaction on their country is huge, while for a foreign citizen, little coverage is given. So the indicating the nation of the awarded person is very relevant, a good reason. Why not using text instead of a flag? In such extent list, a flag will provide clear and quicker information than text. You can easily have the idea of the most nations with people awarded with Nobel prizes, while with text you miss that global understanding. If all flags use can be replaced by text, we would have no need for flags. They have a purpose. This is brought here just because you don't like a particular flag, because what might represent for some people. But if now, in 2020 some country decide to change their flag to one you don't like, would we just avoid the use of flags because we don't like it, or keeping using the old one?Rpo.castro (talk) 11:41, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Flags are usually detrimental to article quality, and I agree that they should be removed for all entries. This particular instance is especially bad, however. Per MOS:FLAG#Political issues: Beware of political pitfalls, and listen to concerns raised by other editors. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly. This is a prime example of that. It's not exactly controversial that this is a flag with a lot of political connotations, nor is it controversial that associating this person with those political connotations would be misleading. TompaDompa (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that flags are usually detrimental to the article's quality. That's just your opinion. And in your last two sentences you claim it is not controversial, yet you removed it? That doesn't make sense. The guideline you cite only recommends to make sure to use the flags correctly, but doesn't forbid or even dissuade anything. I really don't think there is an intention to make a political statement here. The only intent is to show the flag of that state at that time. Moreover he's not the only here combined with a historic flag of state which government they were at odds with. Take Mandela and Tutu for instance. Leaving exactly one person without a flag is just ridiculous.Tvx1 12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Read what I wrote again. I didn't say that the flag or its inclusion is uncontroversial. What I said is uncontroversial is that the situation described by MOS:FLAGPOLITICAL applies in this instance. Some flags are (sometimes or always) political statements and can associate a person with their political significance, sometimes misleadingly. describes this situation perfectly. It's not a question of the person disagreeing with the government whose flag it is, it's a question of the flag itself constituting a political statement (which this does) and associating the person with that political statement being misleading (which is obviously the case here). If you think the same argument applies to Apartheid South Africa, i.e. that its flag constitutes a political statement that it would be misleading to associate Mandela and Tutu with, I am in no way opposed to removing that flag as well. Consistency is not paramount; it's perfectly okay for some entries to lack flags if including flags would be misleading in some way. Of course, it's also a perfectly valid option to remove all flags; this isn't the Olympics and these people didn't compete for their respective countries, nor were the Nobel Prizes awarded to the countries but to the individual people. Oknazevad is correct here, as is Kablammo. TompaDompa (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

The policy (quoted at the top of this page) is clear, and the majority of those commenting here agree. I have gone further, and removed overlinking of nations per MOS:OVERLINK, and also linking to specific political systems of nations. There is no need to link to Belgian Congo or British India for persons born in those places, or which republic of the government of France; the places are the same regardless of changes in party or government.

There is a tendency to clutter up our articles with excessive detail and excessive links. It is sufficient for our purposes here to state where they were from (and the where is a matter of geography, not polity). This after all is just a list; the biographies are where the detail properly belongs.

Accordingly I have taken out links for nations as unneeded. The removal of those flags simply restored relevant fields to what they were when this list became featured. I also have taken out links to specific types of government or ruling authority.

On the specific issue of flags: These are not sporting teams, but persons, many of whom were at odds with the governments under which they lived. It is profoundly offensive to have the hakenkreuz next to one of its victims, full stop.

If disagreement continues, perhaps one or more admins should be asked to determine consensus.

Kablammo (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Flags

Flags have been added back. I am removing them for the reasons and policies discussed above. They serve no purpose other than decoration, and associate some peace prize winners with nations and polities with which they disagree. Kablammo (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Flags were added back; I removed them. See the discussion immediately above, and the relevant MOS policy also cited there. Kablammo (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Logo amnesty thailand .jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Logo of International Memorial.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Non-free images?

By this edit: [4] a variety of images have been added. At least one of them, the image for Amnesty International, was previously removed (but now has a fair use rationale); I have not checked the others. Logos and similar images must be free to be used here, or a rationale for the use. Kablammo (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)