Talk:2009 Nobel Peace Prize/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Obama sends another 13,000 troops to Afghanistan less than one week after Nobel Peace Prize win

I added the following to the article:

Less than one week after winning the Nobel peace prize, President Obama sent 13,000 additional troops to Afghanistan.

Source: Obama sends another 13,000 troops to Afghanistan on top of 21,000 he announced in March... days after Nobel Peace Prize win, The Daily Mail, October 13, 2009

Since then, 4wajzkd02 erased it.

I would like to know if other editors think this should be included in the article or not. Thanks for your comments.

Grundle2600 (talk) 18:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

As much as I oppose the war in Afghanistan, as much as I question giving a generally conservative, generally war-like president the peace prize just because he's not as excessively warlike as the last guy to hold the job, I don't think this is at all relevant to this article. Simonm223 (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant to any article, really. This has been the primary focus of this user's Obama-related edits; looking for "gotchas" and perceptions of do-one-thing-say-another activities to add to articles, running afoul of WP:SYNTH. This particular one comes from a tabloid-ish newspaper whose only mention of the topic is in the headline. Nowhere in the body of the article itself does it note, comment, or even hint at Grundle's assertion that ordering more troops into Afghanistan is contradictory to the prize winning. What the articles does note, and what Grundle fails to mention, is that the overall troop level will remain the same, and that deployments of support troops have not been publicized in the past either, so the fact that this one was not published is not new territory. Tarc (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle, this is a serious WP:POINT violation, and you know that. Grsz¹¹ 18:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a direct connection either.   Will Beback  talk  18:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I call your attention to my revert, (not "erase"), which I did per BRD. The edit summary says:

Reverted good faith edits by Grundle2600; Title of new section is inappropriate. Further, does this WP:NOTNEWS belong here? Better in Obama's Foreign Policy article?

So, there there are concerns to be addressed, as I noted in my edit summary:

1. The title of the new section needs revision. As written, it is overlong, ungrammatical, and pushes a negative WP:POV
2. The addition itself seems to fit in a pattern of other edits you've made recently that ultimately been reverted and not gotten consensus - while referenced from a WP:RS, they seem cherry-picked from news articles to highlight negative news in an WP:UNDUE-weight fashion. Consider this - every national leader has negative news articles written about them. If every article about every national leader contained sections about every negative topic in every news cycle, the articles would be overwhelmed with noise. WikiPedia is not a journal of events, nor a blog called "Grundle2600's Compendium of Negativity about Obama in the News". My advice, previously given, ISTR, by others to you, is to wait a bit for a topic of interest to you (he says WP:AGF) to settle out a bit and become truly WP:NOTE. At that time, it will be easy to find an appropriate way to add it
3. Even if items 1. and 2., above, were mitigated, there is still the concern of whether your proposed new section is appropriate to this article and wouldn't (in a much improved form) fit better in a different Obama article. :--4wajzkd02 (talk)

I agree that it didn't need its own section - it's just that I didn't know where else to put it. However, the information itself is relevant, because of the incredible irony involved. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Grundle2600,

• "I agree that it didn't need its own section - it's just that I didn't know where else to put it". In the future, then, discuss (don't just assert) yoursuch a change on the talk page. Adding a new section for the reason you give, even if the addition was otherwise sterling, is irresponsible for even the most trusted and well-established editor. Apologies, but given your history of warnings/blocks/sanctions, for you to do so is egregiously wrong, and you simply must know better - it stretches WP:AGF to believe that you don't recognize that doing so is wrong (and if this is the case, then there is a serious issue with your ability to edit here effectively, after all this time).
• "the information itself is relevant, because of the incredible irony involved". Please re-read my points 2 & 3, above. Additionally, "irony" is not a criteria in WP:NOTE - surely you know that, too? If not, please remember it in the future.
• Finally, as I've said to you before, slow down, wait for news items to become truly notable, then weave notable items into the appropriate articles main bodies - not tossed into a new section (particularly one with a WP:POINTy title. I'm afraid you're on track for more sanctions. Can't you change your editing habits? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 22:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

4wajzkd02 - There is no wikipedia rule that requires editors to discuss a new section on the talk page before creating the new section in the article. But there is a guideline that encourages editors to be bold. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

You misinterpret my comments in a way I find hard to understand. I stated that since you "agree that it didn't need its own section" but "didn't know where else to put it", that you should, in "the future, then, discuss (don't just assert) your change on the talk page". I've refactored my comment to make this, I hope, crystal clear - if you don't think a change to an article (whether it be a new section, or whatever) is warranted, then don't make the change. If you don't know where or how to change something, discuss it on the talk page.

In addition, with respect to WP:BOLD, that editing guideline states "it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly". Knowing that an edit is wrong and doing it anyway, which you have clearly stated was the case here, is reckless. Can you desist from such behavior? --4wajzkd02 (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking that some other editor might possibly improve the article by moving my edit to a different part of the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will think differently in the future and post your recommended addition to the talk page. You should know by now that this is less disruptive. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 00:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the edit was moved by another editor...right off the side. Big improvement I'd say, so we should be about wrapped up here. Tarc (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion got off topic into personal issues (whether editors should discuss, be bold etc or not in the future certainly does not belong on this talk page intended for the improvement of the article) however the article [1] clearly makes the connection between the troop movement and the prize(in the title), so it cannot be WP:SYNTH. Which section should contain this information, if any? Hobartimus (talk) 12:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is an article that makes the connection it wouldn't be WP:SYNTH however, at best, it would be a paragraph in the criticism of... section. More gets into WP:DUE territory. Simonm223 (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Yea probably not that notable. If it is, then the press will write about it a lot more. Hobartimus (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Reaction from U.S. allies "overwhelmingly positive"

The statement is made in and cited to this article, but it is not substantiated by the content of the article or, seemingly, the content of this Wikipedia article. I realize this is not a very regulation-based observation, as the WaPostTimes is generally regarded as a reliable source, but this statement was made on the same day as the announcement and may need corroborative sourcing to confirm that it is still accurate, if it ever was. International sources such as the Daily Telegraph article cited in the above thread would suggest this was not the case. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 00:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, this ref is the Washington Times, not the Washington Post, as you represented. The paper you're suggesting is too liberal to be accepted as verifiable for the sentence that the reaction from allies was overwhelmingly positive—a sentence that was given its own paragraph in the article—is an ultraconservative paper founded by Unification Church founder Sun Myung Moon, believed by his followers to have received from Jesus the mission to be realized as the second coming of Christ. So reliable? Not terribly. But because its inclination is patently against the president, not for him. Still, the Secretary General of the UN and the President of France probably didn't change their minds. Abrazame (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I did not mean to offend with my slip of the tongue (keyboard?). I'm not familiar with the history of those two publications, and had no mal intent. I simply observed that the statement "overwhelmingly positive," though sourced, did not seem to be accurate in light of other sourced material in this article. »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 17:11, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

far-left, far-right

Recently an edit I made here, changing "leftist party Red" to "far-left party Red" was reverted, supposedly because it was breaking NPOV. And still, it says here "far-right Progress Party". So, what I wonder is, how it breaks NPOV to use the term "far-left" of a party that actually advocate an armed communist revolution, while it is ok to say the Progress Party is "far-right", which it is not even called by leftist media in Norway. -GabaG (talk) 12:12, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

So delete "far-right" ? Tarc (talk) 12:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Either delete "far-right", or use "far-right/far-left" on both parties, just as long as it is fair. The first is probably the best solution though. -GabaG (talk) 12:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Satire and Politics

I'm suggesting that there should be a section // sub-section, detailing the farcical elements of Obama receiving the award. It may be illuminating to note the different angles that have been taken in making comedy out of the award. It's rare that a Nobel Peace Prize is considered so comedic, so we should write up a section about that, I think. Cheers, Varks Spira (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

There have also been suggestions in the mainstream media about the political angle to the award. What kind of section could include sub-sections titled "Satirical angles" and "Political angles"? Varks Spira (talk) 21:20, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

SATIRE THEME: "But it was also striking how so many people seemed to greet the Nobel news with shock followed by laughter, as if truth and caricature has achieved a newly seamless blend in the Obama imprint.", Comedy Aside, an Obama Report Card , "Obama’s Nobel Prize: The World as Farce", "Why Obama Deserves the Nobel" "Late-Night Comedians Turning on Obama"

POLITICAL THEME: "The international politics behind Obama’s Nobel Peace prize; The Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama appears to be an effort to spur on, rather than reward, peacemaking." "a clear rebuke of the Bush administration's aversion to international organizations and treaties.", "It’s also being said that the decision is meant as a slap at President Bush."

Obviously these two themes need to be researched more. Anyone care to dig in? Varks Spira (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Uhm, you might wanna check out RationalWiki[2] since they have a fun section for such. Enjoy, The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

OH, that looks like a fun website, but I'm being serious. Two threads I've noticed are the political nature that some commentators supposed about the Nobel Peace Prize being awarded to Obama, as well as the satirical twist that other commentators have explored. Isn't that note-worthy in this article, especially for looking back in a decade to see how the coverage was, at the time? Varks Spira (talk) 00:28, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

We don't know this yet and WP has no deadline so what's the rush?The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 00:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't know "what" yet? Fine, I get that policy that there is no deadline, but does that mean we should do nothing and hope the future will just turn out? I don't know what you're getting at. I'm talking about "describing" the "coverage" of Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize in terms other than individual statements from important figures and newspapers. What are the common threads that some of the coverage has? So far, what I have discovered, is that there is the comedic value of the win and the political nature of the win to describe about the news coverage. Varks Spira (talk) 01:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

My (very simple) point is that, "what is in the news right now might be forgotten by tomorrow" [and by that I include some edits made at this page and more importantly, creating this page in the first place].The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 01:38, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I simply don't understand what you are talking about. Really, I don't. It's mysterious. Varks Spira (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Still imbalanced & repetitive US reception section

I commented here on the imbalance in the US reception section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2009_Nobel_Peace_Prize/Archive_1#Imbalanced_US_reception_section

If you break it down by paragraph, and each paragraph by sentence, with "0" indicating a mostly neutral sentence, "-" indicating a negative reaction (to Obama's reception of the award and to the Nobel committee) sentence, "+" indicating a positive reaction sentence, and "+/-" indicating a sentence comprised of first a positive reaction then a negative reaction, you can see how it's broken down here: 1: 0, -, 0, -, -, -, -, +/- (Mostly negative, one positive) 2: +/+, 0/+, 0, + (Mostly positive, several neutral) 3: -, 0, 0, -, -, -, -, - (Mostly negative, no positive) 4: -, -, -, -, -, -, -, - (Entirely negative) 5: -, - (Entirely negative) 6: -, -/0 (Mostly negative)

As you can see, the section's introduction paragraph starts out somewhat neutral, then is mostly negative with only one positive statement followed by another negative one. The the second paragraph is entirely positive. The remaining 4 paragraphs contain no positives and are almost entirely negative.

First of all, the introductory paragraph should contain a more appropriate mix of neutrality, positive reception, and negative reception. An article here says 61% of Americans feel Obama did not deserve the prize whereas 34% feel he did. Also 46% were glad he got the award and 47% were not glad: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/10/620000171/1

The article misrepresents American sentiment by weighting the article outrageously with negative information.

I had balanced the article previously to make it fair throughout but the article's neutrality has been dismantled.

I would like to see, in terms of paragraph: 1: Neutral introduction, some positives, some negatives [poll to represent overall reaction - it would be better to include this in a neutral first paragraph but it will not fit in the current introductory paragraph.] 2 or 3: Positive reactions 2 or 3: Negative reactions to Obama's reception of the award and the Nobel committee 4: Summation with a fair balance of positive and neutral.

I would like to see the article balanced again (as it was when I left it). It is not only imbalanced but also extremely long and repetitive. The last 3 negative paragraphs are redundant.

I will go ahead and add the link to the Gallup poll in an effort to make the reaction of the public clear, because the current imbalance in this section is very misleading.Stargnoc (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added the poll to reflect the general reaction of the public. The section still needs to be trimmed of 2 or 3 of the last paragraphs which are completely negative but the poll is important enough to reflect overall reaction that it should remain regardless of the length of the rest of the section.Stargnoc (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

That is good Stargnoc, I am not American and wouln't dream of editing the USA section myself but would endorse any attempt by you to significantly prune it. Personally, I am fascinated by the difference in perception between the USA and the rest of the world and would like to see this handled better. Anecdotally, I believe that the USA tends to see his work as incomplete while the rest of the world feels that he has already completely turned around the prevailing American exceptionism in a way nobody would have thought possible short of a decade or two. I hope some better anaysis will emerge in the press around the investiture that will render most of what we have here redundant, right now nobody's reactions are very considered. Ex nihil ^(talk) 01:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well, it's important to note that the USA is not homogeneous. Plenty of Americans are in support of working with the rest of the world but plenty are not. We know our rights: life, liberty, and the pursuit of ... ignorance. We managed to elect Barack Obama which is certainly a good sign, but we could just as easily elect another Bush in 3 years. I wouldn't put it past us.Stargnoc (talk) 06:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to think of how one could more blatantly state that they are here to push their point of view, but it's just not coming... »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 05:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be important to note that the Comittee voted in early Feb, not sure the exact date but it was only around 10 days after he had taken office. It is important because by that point, he hadnt even held the speech in Cairo or really done anything involving international policy. Good article though, pretty unbiased especially compared to most other wiki entries on American liberals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.160.191.18 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

• this is false, the nomination deadline was February 1. however the decision was not unanimous until October. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eladmir (talk • contribs) 08:28, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Gallery

The pictures in the gallery don't seem to help the article much. One is already in the infobox. Perhaps one more with Jagland could be placed in the article. The rest don't add anything.   Will Beback  talk  22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I'll see what I can do. Wine Guy~Talk 23:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  00:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Better? Wine Guy~Talk 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why?

why you only make the page for obama? why not for other people who recieved the nobel peace prize when obama barely did something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.203.119.125 (talk • contribs)

Probably for the same reason that we have George W. Bush presidential campaign, 2000 but not Thomas Jefferson presidential campaign, 1800: WP:RECENTISM.   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the only one, there's no 2008 Nobel Peace Prize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.118.182.64 (talk) 11:06, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"you" is you as well. You, or anyone else, are more than welcome to start an article on any single year's Nobel Peace prize. Be bold! Even those who think of it as a joke, this writer included, still have to admit that this award received much more press coverage than previous year's Nobel Peace Prizes. That's the number one reason this page exists. --Rajah (talk) 04:55, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The structure

Today the structure is like this:

   * 1 Nomination and announcement
   * 2 Initial reactions
         o 2.1 Barack Obama
         o 2.2 In the United States
         o 2.3 In Norway
         o 2.4 Other reactions
   * 3 Nobel lecture
   * 4 Gallery
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links

I think the structure of nowiki is less biased, like this:

   * 1 Nomination and announcement
   * 2 The Sermony and the Nobel lecture
   * 3 Reactions
         o 3.1 Barack Obama
         o 3.2 In the United States
         o 3.3 In Norway
         o 3.4 Other reactions
   * 4 Gallery
   * 5 See also
   * 6 References
   * 7 External links

Hogne (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say it has been structured as is due to interest. More people will be looking for comments on the reaction than for the text of his speech.Where is WikiResearch? (talk) 19:47, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism/Recommendations of Revocation

• Waging agressive warfare on other countries is hardly the image of the Nobel Peace Prize. Since Obama attacked Libya, there have been some who have wondered if the Nobel Prize committee was too quick in awarding Obama the Peace Prize and if there is a process for revoking it. Also, would the Libya war be a good reason to include in the criticism section? 69.143.106.26 (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

We can include whatever reliable, significant sources say on the matter. Who are wondering these things?   Will Beback  talk  22:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Nobel Committee asked to strip Obama of Peace Prize": "The Bolivian President [Evo Morales] and a Russian political leader [Vladimir Zhirinovsky] have launched a campaign to revoke Obama's honour after the US attacked Libya."

David Burge: "Barack Obama has now fired more cruise missiles than all other Nobel Peace prize winners combined"

—WWoods (talk) 00:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. 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 web.archive.org/web/20091011231018/ www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B7MB401&show_article=1 to www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9B7MB401&show_article=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 11:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

Relation to Obama's Cairo Speech

In the 3rd paragraph of the section titled, "Nomination and Announcement", it is stated, "Jagland said the committee was influenced by a speech Obama gave about Islam in Cairo in June 2009..." How did that influence the Nobel Prize committee when the speech in Cairo was given 5 months after Obama being awarded the Prize?Bayowolf (talk) 22:37, 22 March 2017 (UTC)