Talk:List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates

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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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://wiki.riteme.site/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.[1] 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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: 5 June 2024).

• 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: [2] 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)