Talk:Nobel Prize in Literature

Confusing name

Asked to look at this by an old workmate, I am wondering.

"Nobel Prize in Literature", as a heading, would probably be taken by most readers as the title of a text about how the Nobel Prize is covered, written about, mentioned, featured, in literature. Thus unneccessarily confusing to many.

"Nobel Prize for Literature" can hardly be taken as anything but the title or a text about that particular prize, the one awarded for literature.

I haven't read through everything here, but isn't there enough media mention of the latter, as clearly meaning that (this) subject, that Wikipedia could use the least confusing name for this article? --217.21.233.78 (talk) 17:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree & this should be looked at again. "Nobel Prize in Literature", conceivably, in English, is the title on an article about the appearance and mention of the Nobel Prize as a subject in literature, i.e. books, magazines and other written media. The article name is inappropriate here. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

After 4 years, an IP hopped in to remove the needed clarification in the lead, having misunderstood why it's there according to their edit summary. I reversed that. Nobody has suggested that this article be name-changed, nor challenged what the prize most often is called in English. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The comment is awkward, effectively amounting to a "sic". It suggests that the Swedish Academy has used the wrong preposition. This is inherently POV. Have any reliable sources questioned the choice of preposition? If not, this editorial comment has no place on Wikipedia. There is no risk for confusion, given that there is no article on "Representations of the Nobel Prize in literature." 92.34.145.67 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The clarification is helpful, since there is an English grammar problem. It's as simple as that. Any suggestion of error is nowhere to be found. That's POV. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

PS the academy has used both prepositions. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, so the comment suggests that the Swedish Academy has a problematic grasp of English grammar. How is that any different from saying they've made a mistake? Again, it's an awkward editorial comment that makes a presumption about what the Swedish Academy really means. I don't claim to know why they choose to officially refer to the prize in this way, but I would guess that it's short for "prize in the field of literature." That's the vocabulary used by Nobel in his will, referring to the prizes being awarded in different "fields" or "domains." This is not an unusual prepositional construction for prizes, cf. United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights, but it requires of course the full adverbial phrase "in the field of" to make grammatical sense. So, based on this, the editorial comment could just as well read "here meaning in the field of literature." But as long as we don't have any reliable sources supporting either interpretation, I don't think there should be any comment at all. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

The clarification is correct, as well as helpful, especially since (as per the link I provided) the academy itself has used both in and for, and as such there is no reason to remove it. The Swedish language uses in (i) and I believe that's where the directly associated translation of this particular preposition originated. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

The "clarification" is interpretative and as such inherently POV. Again, it presumes to know what the Swedish Academy "means," without a reliable source to back it up. This runs counter to standard Wikipedia practice. It's interesting that you bring up the Swedish preposition, since that one is also problematic: inom would be more expected here. In fact, the Swedish name for the award arguably has the same potential for confusion, given that the phrase Nobelpriset i litteratur could also be read as "depictions of the Nobel Prize in literature." But I wouldn't dream of putting an equivalent "clarification" on the Swedish Wikipedia page, since that would be interpretative. Let's take a step back and look at a similar case here on Wikipedia: Ewha Womans University. That name too has an English grammar problem. But it's not called out in the opening. Rather, the issue is dealt with later in the article, giving the university's explanation for the non-standard English. That should logically be what is needed here as well, because in the absence of a reliable source, the "clarification" is speculative. But I am not aware of any source that dwells on the Swedish Academy's prepositional preferences. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 19:26, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a thorough knowledge of Swedish in these comments, especially where Italics litteratur should be litteraturen to make sense in that language with the comment's intended meaning. Consequently thouugh,inom litteraturen means what we do not mean here (within literature). --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry: I just noticed the lengthy exchange on this topic in the previous section, which I for some reason had missed. It looks like the RM turned into some kind of compromise. So, this was all a bit redundant. 92.34.145.67 (talk) 00:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Best wishes --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Reinstated altenate term again. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:43, 17 October 2024 (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:

• Selma Lagerlof nobel prize illustration.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Controversies about Nobel laureate selections

I suggest this section is deleted from this article, or at least shortened, as it is covered in both Nobel Prize controversies#Literature and the separate year by year articles, and that this article only include the general criticism. Mondrian (talk) 06:51, 7 March 2023 (UTC)