Talk:Nobel Peace Prize/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

Contents

Table format

Its better to list the prize-winners as a table. The way its listed now -- tabbed new line -- is taking twice the amount of space on the page. Jay 08:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC) it is in fact like "no" or "know". This cannot possibly be an appropriate part of the article without a reference to how to interpret it. --Jerzy 18:21, 2004 Jan 16 (UTC)

External material

IMO, much valuable material at Peace-Prize nominations should be included, as there is considerable confusion abt this.

Arafat

It should be stated conclusively that Yassir Arafat funded terror. I tried to incorporate this but it was rejected.

Agreed. The article suggests that only people on the right-wing fringe believe that Arafat supported terror.

1988 U.N. Peacekeepers

The official presentation speech [1] does not mention Canadian forces. The description in our article is not supported by evidence. I am going to remve the reference to the Canadian forces. -Willmcw 23:20, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fairuse?

Can the acceptance speech images be used under the fairuse tag. I'm interested on adding an image to Tenzin Gyatso. Falphin 22:11, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

There are six pictures of him on the page already, so there doesn't seem to be an urgent need for a seventh. In any case, the page where it appears has a copyright notice.[2] What claim of fair use would you use? -Willmcw 22:37, July 9, 2005 (UTC)
Yes but they are all with the top sections. The image with a little color change is on several sits. I believe it can go under the pattern 1, 4,5,8(I haven't contacted the owner which I will do) 10, Yes. I don't think the original image is creative. Falphin 01:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I very well may be wrong since I'm not that familiar with this though. Falphin 01:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
The better argument may be that it is a publicity photo. I'm not expert either, but I do know that you should record your explanation and the website of origin, rather than simply saying "fair use". Cheers, -Willmcw 02:07, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

The darker side of the medal

Added a section on controversy. 195.70.48.242 13:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

That's apprecaited, and some of that controversy, at least, should be in the article. It'd be stronger if there were some sources or named critics. -Willmcw 20:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I've moved a paragraph here as it's unsupported POV and ablist.

The awarding of Nobel prizes during the Cold War was mired by a certain anti-communist bias. Both Sakharov (the 1975 awardee) and Gorbachev (the last Soviet statesman who was honoured in 1990) are seen as subversive figures by many people living in the former Soviet Bloc. In case of Gorbachev the prize is referred to as a paralympics medal by critics, alleging the recognition is merely a reward for his poor leadership skills, which greatly contributed to the empire's rapid disintegration. The 1953 Nobel Peace Prize awarded for the Marshall plan, some hold, cannot be objectively approved, as the nominally open US-sponsored economic rebuild plan was advertised as available to all countries in Europe, when in fact it contained numerous requirements, held by some to be humiliating, which effectively secured the absence of countries under the Soviet sphere of influence, even though these were the places worst hit by the destruction of WWII.

Andjam 15:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I've also removed the following paragraph as it contains unsupported speculation. It's seriously doubted by many whether nuclear suitcase bombs exist, let alone that deployments in Norway had a role in their creation.

The Nobel Peace Prize has attracted controversy for various reasons. Some have noted the assumed contradiction that modern-day Norway, the awarding country of the Peace Prize, is a member of NATO, seen by some as a partisan military organization, as opposed to the historically neutral Sweden, which awards the scientific Nobel Prizes. Since 1983 Norway's Parliament has leased the country's territorial waters and two of its ports as a permanent base and patrol area for the US Navy Ohio class ballistic missile submarines, forcing the USSR (later Russia) to hastily implement a "nuclear suitcase" controlled hair-trigger MAD mechanism in response. Each Ohio class vessel carries 24 nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missiles, thus the 1985 and 1995 Nobel peace prizes, which were awarded recognizing nuclear disarmament efforts, have been described as apparently hypocritical. However the committee is fully independent from the parliament and the Norwegian parliament have no members or saying in the award issue. (A member of the committee cannot at the same time be a member of the parliament). In addition the committee include former members from all major parties, incuding those parties that oppose NATO membership.

Andjam 02:43, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Andjam, you are mistaken and totally misunderstand it. Please read more carefully next time. The nuclear suitcase is not a suitcase sized A-bomb! It is a classified suitcase, with contains advanced satellite radio communication systems and multiple biometric ID equipment (iris, palmprint, voice, numeric code entry). It allows the political leader to authenticate himself and order a nuclear ballistic missile strike via remote control even if he is abroad or far away in the countryside.
Such a system has existed in the USA for more than 35 years, and a highly trained armed forces officer always carry the 15 kilogram heavy brown leather suitcase within 10 footsteps of the president, day and night. You can see him in many press photos shadowing the president. Americans call the device as the "nuclear football". In 1996 (I think it was in 1996 maybe plus or minus a year) there was a scandal widely discussed in the press, when the Clinton staff actually forgot about the officer and his brown briefcase, and the presidental staff left in their limousine cars. The officer had to walk more than half a mile, alone, through an inadequately protected area and he only had a pistol for defence of himself and the classified cargo. Please note, without the code briefcase, the US president cannot initiate a nuclear first strike (but a counterstrike can be launched, if at least three top-ranked ICBM base commanders in diverse parts of the USA congregate their launch decisions via a complicated electronic communications system.
The USSR had no such "atomic code briefcase" system until 1983, because US missiles' flight time from CONUS to Moscow was about 25 minutes and that was enough to organize and launch the soviet counter-strike ICBMs via traditional wire and radio communications (the russians love to use morse code for ciphered transmissions).
In 1983, when the USA and Norway started to patrol Ohio SSBN missile submarines in the fjord and norwegian coastal water close to the USSR, the US missiles' flight time was shortened to 10 minutes to Leningrad (Sankt Petersburg) and 12 minutes to Moscow. This was too short for traditional response mechanism and so the soviet union could be decapitated with a suprise US missile strike and unable to respond. Thus the soviets had to hastily implement a "nuclear code briefcase" system for the political-military leadership (party secretary, general chief of staff, chief of red army missile force), so they could remotely authenticate the launch in less than five minutes.
Because the soviet electronic was inferior to western technolgy, and because the system had to be built so swiftly, it was not very reliable and satellite coverage for the enciphered communications was inadequate. This further destabilized the WMD situation in the Reagan era, when the USSR felt threatened in its very existance every day.
With all due respect, I don't see any real difference between what the two of you are saying. Andjam said that the stationing of SSBN's required (in the Soviet military mind) the creation of a hair-trigger retaliation system. Both of you have good insights which might better be added to an article on nuclear war planning, for example. (In the meantime - Please, gentlemen, no fighting in the War Room.) -Willmcw 08:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
OK, while the nuclear-war history is correct, we need to be careful to avoid original research. Juxtaposing the Norwegian Parliament's putative control over the Prize with a particular action in the Cold War is not helpful. It is certainly appropriate to include general concerns about Norway's NATO membership (with all that entails), particularly compared to Nobel-giving-neighbor Sweden, which did not belong to a military alliance. However individual instances of NATO basings, whether naval, air force, etc., are beyond the scope of this article. If there is an actual controversy (and there is, to at least some extent), then let's quote the principle critics. But to list events in the history of Norway with the intent to say, in effect, "See, these are the dolts who give out the Peace Prize" would be bad for the article. -Willmcw 08:40, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Years not awarded

Other than the obvious (WWI/WWII), can someone help add the reasons for the various years when it was not awarded? Thanks --Dpr 03:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

They don't give reasons on their website. I'm not sure that there are any definitive, verifiable answers as to why they don't give the award in certain years. -Willmcw 04:27, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Reasons for the no award years for at least the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine can be found in Nobel: The Man and His Prizes, 1950. It's a bit more complicated than just stating that it was due to WWI/WWII. –panda 07:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominees

Nominees are not verifiable or notable. Any college social-studies professor, any national egislator, etc can nominate an individual, and more than a hundred people are nominated annually. Nominations are kept secret by the committee. For those reasons I deleted a list of "High profile nominees". In addition, the inclusion of the list seems to have been to highlight people who are unlikely to get the award. -Willmcw 05:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I like the idea of seeing who has been nominated for the Peace Prize before, but you do bring up a good point. Perhaps when someone finds a reliable source and lists notable people, besides those listed before, then maybe it could be reintroduced into the article. --crumb 06:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Nominations are meant to be kept secret for 50 years (I think), not in perpetuity. If you think the nomination process is too loose, then isn't it in the public interest that the public knows that? Also, I don't think the people listed were people unlikely to get the award. If Kissinger and Arafat could get peace prizes, would it have been impossible (if it weren't for invading Poland) for Hitler to get a peace prize for the Munich agreement? Andjam 10:57, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
If you can find an official list of 50+ year-old nominations then I certainly won't object to it. However I am not aware of any such list. The article already has a discussion of the nomination process. Yes, it is very loose, in common with many other awards. I suppose that it is possible that the Brazilian mystic/dietitian who claims to have received multiple Peace Prize nomination could get one too, or the Ohio car dealer who also claims a nomination, but let's deal in facts rather than speculation. -Willmcw 11:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Here's Hitler's nomination, from the official web site. Andjam 02:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I retract my earlier comment about (old) nominations being unverifiable, I hadn't seen this databse before. (apparently it is new). However it is a huge swamp. There were 136 nominations (some for the same people) in the first year alone. The real controversies are over who did and didn't receive the prize, not over who was nominated. -Willmcw 03:11, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Are you objecting to the list as it currently stood, or against any mention of who has been nominated for the prize? Were you concerned that the list reflected negatively on the Nobel foundation? Andjam 07:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The list was just made up of the least-likely to receive it. What, exactly, is the point of listing a few random names? No, I don't think that the fact that Hitler was once nominated reflects poorly on the prize - it reflects poorly on the nominator. And that's exactly my point. Beyond saying the an enormous variety of people have been nominated, what purpose is served by listing particularly odd nominations? -Willmcw 20:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
If Kissinger or Arafat could get Nobel Peace Prizes, why is Hitler a "particularly odd nomination"? (As a side note, there were quite a few Chamberlain nominations. If Chamberlain won a prize but Hitler didn't, in some ways that'd be a greater departure from Nobel tradition than if both Chamberlain and Hitler won). Looking at it another way, why would someone make what they thought to be an unlikely nomination? What'd be the point if no-one outside the committee would know of it for 50 years? Andjam 12:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you should look to the US Presidential elections for insight. Many people write in, often fictitious, people for office. I'm sure the majority of the write in's are NEVER publicized. Begging the question "What'd be the point if no-one outside the committee would know of it for 50 years" -Charles 08:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
If Hitler was not an odd nomination then why bother making a point of it? The psychology, sociology, and gamesmanship of making award nominations is a fascinating topic, but unfortunately I don't have any data on it. I'd generally assume that anyone who makes a nomination hopes for it to prevail, though it is also possible that some are done to curry favor. I'd guess that there is a good chance that every totalitarian dictator has been nominated. Though the nominators are asked not to publicize their nominations, some might do so. Again, what purpose is served by posting a list of five nominees out of the thousands of people who have been nominated? -Willmcw 19:49, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The point is, though, that being a nominee means nothing. Which is why a list of "infamous" nominees is crucial, in that the individuals, as "prominent" as they may be, can be any nut who manages to get himself elected to a national congress, or passes tenure at a small private college. The point of that paragraph is to dispel any notion that a nominee is somehow "special". Calwatch 05:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We may wish to post that the Noble Peace Prize has been used to make a political statement in the case of Jimmy Carter and IAEA both failures in efforts for peace and a safer world

130.236.83.55 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)The nomination of Hitler was a protest. The background was that a number of members of the Swedish parliament had nominated Neville Chamberlain because of the Munich agreement. Erik Brandt, another member, thought this was outrageous and decided to formulate an ironic nomination of Hitler, whom he despised. However, when Brandt made the nomination letter public many people completely misunderstood it and thought he was serious. This caused him to withdraw it. Others understood what he was driving at, but thought it was improper to treat something as serious as a nomination for the Peace Prize in such a fashion. The correct version of the story can be read in Swedish newspapers from late January and early February 1939.130.236.83.55 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Swedish newspapers from 1939 are difficult to find. Do you know of any source for this material that would be more accessible? Or, if you have access to them, can you add the material and list the papers as sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately I am at this point not aware of any easily accessible sources in English. In my opinion the Nobel Foundation ought to amend the "Hitler entry" in their database in order to clarify why he was nominated and why the nomination was withdrawn. Such an action would eliminate a lot of speculation among those who happen to come upon the entry without knowing the background. I have sent the Foundation a suggestion along those lines. In my opinion that's the best place to attack the problem. If nothing happens I will put together something that can be published here. The incorrect version was apparently broadcast in in Swedish radio a couple of years back and never corrected even though there were protests by people who knew the truth. I guess sensations are news, the more boring truth is not130.236.83.55 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Among those who completely misunderstood Brandt's letter were trade union members in his own district. They put together a very angry statement, which was published in various newspapers. I imagine that Brandt had to endure many difficulties even after he had withdrawn the nomination, people don't like to have been made fools of. 130.236.83.55 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC) The nomination of Hitler and the views of Brandt are discussed in Gunnar Richardsons recently published book "Förtroligt och hemligt", pp 144-148. The nomination letter is printed in extenso. R. also mentions that the nomination has been completely misunderstood in later years, for example during a radio broadcast in December 2004 when a representative of the Nobel Museum "explained" that Brandt probably was influenced by pro-Nazi sentiments and only withdrew the letter because of pressure from his party (he was a Social Democrat). Richardson immediately demanded a correction, since he was well aware of the real story. According to the book no apology or correction was ever published. Which is amazing as even the most superficial research would reveal Brandt's motives and his fervent opposition to Hitler. 130.236.83.55 10:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

That's excellent. Can you write up a few sentences which explains it, and use the book for the reference? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)I guess so. Where should I put my contribution? Here so that you (or someone else) can edit the article in a suitable fashion or directly into the article? I have no idea of what the standard procedure is.130.236.83.55 20:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry. Editing an article is just like editing a talk page. You can add the text to Nobel Peace Prize#Nominations. The citation stuff is a little tricker - if you tell me the date of publication and the publisher I can add the citaiton for you. Editors will correct any mistakes, so there's nothing to be concerned about. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

130.236.83.55 17:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC) It's Richardson, Gunnar, Förtroligt and hemligt : kunglig utrikespolitik och svensk neutralitet under andra världskriget. Stockholm : Carlsson, 2007. I have also written a short piece about the nomination on my own web site, focusing more on the reaction in Swedish newspapers.17:29, 6 August 2007130.236.83.55 17:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC) (UTC)

That's perfect, and makes the incident seem less irrational. Thanks for adding it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

India

  • The list of peace prize recepient do indicate that it is mainly focused on people of European and US origins and more recently people of ever fighting communities in Middle East. It is notable that there is not a single citizen of India ever awarded a peace prize, despit many leaders of peaceful freedom struggle in India by Mahatma Gandhi, key person in in forming UN tbd, in early 90's and revolutionizing idea of better and peaceful living within diverse religions by Panduran Athvale.

Two residents of India, Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama, have received Peace Prizes. (Theresa may have been citizen, seeing as she lived in India from 1928 until her death in 1997.) The failure the award a prize to Gandhi is famous, and noted in the list (see 1948). -Willmcw 19:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Alfred & Dynamite

"..Alfred Nobel was the man whose inventions include dynamite and Ballistite, which led to the death of millions of people." Can dynamite really be said to have killed literally 'millions' of people? Certainly thousands, from accidental deaths, but one million people is a lot of people (presumably mostly construction workers and miners?) Perhaps by association, nitroglycerin and its derivatives in bombs may have killed millions, but I don't think you can say that Alfred Nobel's dynamite led to the death of millions of people. Is there a source on this statistic? I am inclinded to change this to "thousands of people" (i.e in the range 1000-999,999 rather than 1,000,000-999,999,999) if no one has any disagreement. Slugmaster 23:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia

  • Wikimedia as candidate
  • Yes, adult-child sex is either child molestation or statutory rape in most civilized counties of the world. OTOH, Gay sex, sex between consenting males, is legal in most civilized countries. Yes, I have a POV. No, that does not prohibit anyone from editing Wikipedia.

BJAODN? -Will Beback 06:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

BJAODN... I fail to understand the point of the above reference. -Charles 08:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Month presented

Does this article tell which month/date the award is presented each year? If not, it should (if anyone knows). Badagnani 21:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Category?

Why is this article in Category: Wikipedia culture? - Michael J 18:14 10 May 2006

Because of this silly edit,[3] which was only partially reverted. My fault. Thanks for catching it. Cheers, -Will Beback 22:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat

Is the country something that the committee annouces? If not, why is Yasser Arafat listed as Egypt? He considered himself a Palestinian and was head of the Palestinian Authority at the time. We list the Dalai Lama as Tibet even tho he is in exile in India. And if we're going by country of birth, then shouldn't Shimon Peres be Poland and Yitzhak Rabin be Palestine? Of course if the country is something that the commitee announces as part of their award and it was Egypt then there is no problem Nil Einne 09:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reason for the Peace Prize Category Needs Correction

The article currently states that the peace prize came about because of the destruction of millions of people caused by dynamite. This "fact" seems to not be entirely correct. IMO, we should remove this and add in the NY Times statement instead.

NY Times' article states: "Nobel never explained his choice of prize categories. Chemistry and physics seem obvious choices because he was a trained chemical engineer...The reason for the peace prize is less clear. Many say it was to compensate for developing destructive forces. But his explosives, except for ballistite, were not used in any war during his lifetime, Tore Frangsmyr wrote in a portrait of Nobel published by the Swedish Institute in Stockholm in 1996."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/health/26docs.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=919b88628e82140e&ex=1160884800

--speedoflight | talk to me 20:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Why don't you make the correction? -Will Beback 00:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Carter and El Barradi

Should a change be made saying the reason they won the award was to send a political message to Bush. The Nobel chairman said Carter won as to kick bush in the shins. Since both have been failures and were not awarded for their efforts. Decato 03:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

This quote was apparently not made by a Nobel chairman, but by a former Nobel chairman who, presumably, was not involved in the selection. Have searched for a source of this quote and was unable. Please clarify. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.228.240.119 (talk) 23:40, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Why was there no prize awarded in 1928?

the nobel website simply states that the money was reserved. I am looking for a source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EnquiringMinds (talk • contribs) 06:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

RFC: Country – ambiguous or not

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not to discuss whether the country column in the table of Nobel laureates is ambiguous or not. Your comments in this matter would be appreciated. panda 14:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

There is currently a Request for Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. Your comments would be appreciated. The results of the RFC may affect all of the Nobel Prize articles. panda 16:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Some RFC updates:

  • You can find the definition of the country data included in the Nobel lists in the RFC under the point Country data defined.
  • There is currently a consensus moving towards removing all of the flags in the Nobel lists unless someone can devise an acceptable scheme for them. This portion of the RFC (point 2) will be closed in 2 weeks, i.e., 31 October 2007 24 October 2007, assuming it is not challenged. That is, the consensus will be to remove all flags from the lists.

–panda 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

First awarded?

When was the first nobel peace prize given? If it was in Nobel's will, there's five years during which prizes could've been given (doesn't mean there were) that we don't have listed. Obviously, I don't know when it was.--190.74.126.248 21:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

As we can see from the list, the first prize was given in 1901. The Alfred Nobel and Nobel Prize articles tell us that Nobel's will did not give details for how the prizes were to be awarded, and the will was contested by relatives. So it took five years to fund the prize, create the committees, and make the first selections. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yuan Longping (China) for Nobel Peace Prize?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuan_Longping

What do you think? Is the contribution of Yuan qualified for Peace Prize nomination? (Personally I think he is qualified, but I would like to hear opinions of others) How much is his chance for a prize if he got nominated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.48.248.67 (talk) 12:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)