Talk:2012 Nobel Peace Prize

Ridiculous POV

The reactions section is ridiculously unbalanced and only cites obscure far-right cranks and crazies from the UK Independence Party and the likes. If we are going to have a reactions section, it should cite notable reactions, e.g. from heads of state or government. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Syriza is a left-wing party. The Greeks are not all "far-right cranks and crazies from the UK Independence Party". Nor is Channel 4 as far as I know. Or the BBC. And you can't come along and delete entire articles on a whim. Discuss before removing anything else please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

When you add a POV essay consisting exclusively of negative reactions from obscure figures, I can indeed delete the entire POV essay, as it didn't contain any reactions that belong in this article. The right place for such an essay would be your personal blog or something. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. A minimum standard of notability should be decided and all reactions which meet it should be shown or none should. Due weight must be observed in this regard. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Any official reaction coming from a government or international organisation could be added to the article, which is a common criterion observed in a case like this where there will obviously be a huge number of reactions. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

To avoid cross-posting, a controversy already seems to be arising mostly in Norway, but also maybe in Sweden, see Talk:Nobel Prize controversies#Soon to be added: 2012 Peace Prize. For the rest, Syriza is notable even if it is a left-wing party. Expect some more derisive reaction from Greece and southern Europe soon. This will make a controversy, I can feel it from here. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 17:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now we have the absurd incidence of Wikipedia giving the EU a platform to praise itself for winning an award while all [correctly cited] criticism has been eliminated. If no criticism or controversy exists [and this clearly is not the case] then why have a separate article for the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize in the first place? That my contributions are considered POV merely serves to highlight how silly this is. I have no allegiance to either Syriza or UKIP, nor have they any allegiance to each other. They are opposites in every way, politically (left-right), geographically (east-west Europe). Contrast with 2010 Nobel Peace Prize [judged by the Wikipedia community as a "good article" need I add], where responses from the internet, media, human rights groups, intellectuals, academics, etc. are included alongside those of politicians. That Wikipedia has an article for Van Rompuy, Barroso, Schulz, Merkel and Hollande to praise themselves for their ingenuity in managing to carry off the Nobel Peace Prize while Athens burns is itself a violation of Wikipedia's own policy of NPOV. It appears NPOV is here being mistaken for "eradicate all criticism, encourage praise, long live the EU, never mind those Greeks rioting, Spaniards protesting, or Irish and Portuguese being crushed." That Wikipedia is blind to this is nothing more than a crying shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.110.74 (talk) 17:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, cry me a river! You should at least learn to sing your own posts... Calm down, you are overreacting this. --$\color {Blue}{\mathcal {M}}$$\color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,}}$$\color {Blue}t)$ = ? 17:50, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If we were to cite every reaction from politicians representing fringe parties (like the UK Independence Party) or other unnotable figures (like "Municipal councillor Petros Constantinou"(sic!), "Photographer Ioanna Nikolareizi"(sic!), or "University of Iowa archaeologist Dr. Robert Cargill"(sic!)), the article would make up hundreds of pages. We only cite reactions from politicians who are notable in this context, such as the politicians who speak on behalf of their country (i.e. their government). These are official reactions from the elected representatives of their countries, not personal opinions. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why so serious? I carefully considered everything I said. How else do you expect me to convey the above? The addition of self-congratulatory comments from Monte, Bildt, Juncker Rutte and Di Rupo does nothing for the NPOV problem. It in fact makes it much worse than ever. It would be like filling the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize article with condemnation by officials and politicians from Shanghai, Beijing, Tianjin and Chongqing. --86.40.110.74 (talk) 18:04, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Municipal councillor Petros Constantinou", "Photographer Ioanna Nikolareizi" and "University of Iowa archaeologist Dr. Robert Cargill" are not notable. A statement from the Greek government (not municipal councillors) would be notable. LoopersdeBruges (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I think there are no trouble with Wikipedia's policies in this respect. I however think that the editors removing the initial criticism should consider putting it back, and balance it with positive criticism. The opinion is about the following: in Norway and UK the general reaction was negative, in Germany it was fairly positive, in Sweden the newspaper media praised the election, the official state media were neutral, but the common citizens derided it. For the rest of Europe, I don't know, although I heard the Greeks were negative. We should not only write about official reactions, that would produce a bias, instead we should try to use the usual WP:UNDUE due weight (Syriza is notable), WP:CITE and not allege anything without referring to who says? Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

A brief mention under "public reaction" of the reaction of various far-right and far-left Eurosceptics is appropriate (Syriza is part of the far-left,[1] so already covered). Mocctur (talk) 13:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Not every euroskeptic is far left or far right, but some are, I have changed the article to say 'including'. The sources do not support the assertion that it is an extremist view. --JacksonKnight 15:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this still politically neutral?Dave Briggs (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Farage/EFD quote

Included Nigel Farage quote. He is EFD group chairman in the European Parliament, he is UKIP leader and the most famous eurosceptic in the world. His opinion nicely balances the wiki article --JacksonKnight 15:52, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' claims require multiple high-quality sources if not stated by mainstream media as per WP:EXCEPTIONAL--JacksonKnight 23:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' does not qualify under WP:EXCEPTIONAL and you have not established that the sources are unreliable, you simply claim it. This in insufficient. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:53, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention the fact that the sources calling individual EFD member parties 'far right' are legion. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 00:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

'far right' is an important claim, not supported by the mainstream media. The sources you use are in receipt of EU funding, which creates a conflict of interest. You require multiple high-quality independent sources, otherwise the quote should be removed. (A source calling individual EDF members far-right will not suffice because you claim the whole group.)--JacksonKnight 00:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Many things are an important claim, that doesn't automatically make them WP:EXCEPTIONAL. Moreover, you have in no way supported your assertion that these sources are somehow not credible or even that they get EU funding. Even if they do, this doesn't automatically make them non-reliable. Eurobarometer gets EU funding - we still use it for all kinds of "important" claims. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 06:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Almost any activity in Europe could be claimed to have "EU funding". It's not like the EU dictates the views expressed in books published by Rowman & Littlefield. There are plenty of sources describing the group in question, or its members, as far-right. Even some of its own members left it because they considered it extremist. Mocctur (talk) 08:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

using the term 'far right' to describe the EFD is not used by the mainstream media. The author of the self-published book/source is in receipt of this funding from the EU and therefore cannot be used as a source on this topic as per WP:REDFLAG. If you cannot find multiple high-quality independent sources this needs to be removed, thats the rules of wikipedia.--JacksonKnight 15:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The Jean Monnet Programme is a highly regarded programme for funding independent research. The idea that research that happens to be funded by the Jean Monnet Programme is not "reliable" is absurd. Almost all research carried out in a country is in fact funded by the government. Funded by the Jean Monnet Programme means funded by the European tax payers and is no different from e.g. funding by various national research councils such as the Economic and Social Research Council. Your claim that a book published by Rowman & Littlefield is "self-published" or that EurActiv is not "mainstream" (it's one of the most frequently cited media specializing on EU affairs) is nonsensical. Mocctur (talk) 15:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

^^ Perhaps you could point me to a single Jean Monnet research project which has discovered that more European integration is not the answer? Just one single piece of work produced by by the 162 Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence, 875 Monnet Chairs, or 1001 Monnet teaching modules from any of the 72 countries on 5 continents in which it is represented. All of it paid for by the European Union. It is fundamentally different to other research funding in that its research as a starting point assumes its conclusions - that the EU is the answer. That is like cigarette companies funding the search for the causes of cancer, but excluding anything to do with tobacco from the search. Dave Briggs (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The mere fact that some institution has come to conclusions contrary to your own is not a point against it unless those conclusions can be challenged on their own merit. Internet companies give money to wikipedia, which has tonnes of content about how the internet is good. This doesn't undermine the credibility of the content. Other things may, but this sort of argument doesn't. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 19:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The grant is dependent on promoting the cause of greater European integration, as all EU grants are: in other words, it comes with a political string attached. That is not independent research, however you slice it and whatever my own views are! I think you'll find that my analogy about tobacco is rather closer to the mark than yours about Wikipedia! :) Dave Briggs (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Two sources do not necessarily show that the group is generally classified as far-right. If it is only a minority opinion in the academic community (I do not doubt that the sources are reliable and relevant), we should not use this label in this context. The EFD is sufficiently well characterised as a eurosceptic or 'anti-EU' group. Readers who want to know more about this group can follow the wikilink and find more detailed information about the positions and members of EFD. --RJFF (talk) 09:54, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

P.S. I would like to add that User:Mocctur's justification for revert in the edit summary ("stable consensus version") is deceptive. It was Mocctur, who added the label "far-right" the day before yesterday, and it has been contested since 2 hours after it was added. There has been an edit war since then, and Mocctur does not seem to be willing to stop it. --RJFF (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Reaction sorting

I was just wondering if it wouldn't be better in terms of clarity if we placed the reactions of EU members under the EU heading. Thoughts? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 18:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. They are all part of the EU after all. As I've been trying to say all day. --86.40.110.74 (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

There's a point to separating reactions from within the EU (organisation) itself from those of its member states, but also members from non-members. I'll do that now. Skrofler (talk) 06:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that looks better. Certainly the various politicians from EU member countries do not represent the EU as an institution. Mocctur (talk) 09:30, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Separating the Member States by whether they were original members or not is, however, pointless. I suggest this be changed, as all Member States are equal partners regardless of their accession date. 86.43.72.9 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The prize was awarded specifically in recognition of achievements in the 1950s (and other achievements at specific points of time), so sorting by entry (the customary practice in all international organizations) into the union is more helpful than a long alphabetical list, and is relevant to show which role the country in question had in the events being honored (e.g., the Czech Republic had little to do with Franco-German cooperation in the 50s, one of the key issues highlighted by the Nobel committee). In addition to being more readable, it also teaches the reader a little bit of EU history at the same time. Also, it appears that the most high level comments (from heads of government) came from the Inner Six (founding) members, while many of the other comments are comments by lesser officials, so it's a good thing to have the most prominent comments first.. Mocctur (talk) 20:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Prize distribution

Could someone clarify in the article how the prize was distributed? Was it shared between member states or some central EU entity like European Commission received the entire prize? 176.241.247.17 (talk) 16:33, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

To my knowledge it hasn't even been decided yet who will go accept it much less how it will be used. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone please edit the caption of Jens Stoltenberg to mention that he's from Norway? It's not immediately obvious where he's from just based on his name and face. 184.44.130.189 (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Also maybe change "...contributed to secure peace and to build democracy..." to "...helped to secure peace and build democracy...". The second translation I got directly from just using a simple Bing Translation but I think it sounds better. Going further, perhaps the word order in the quote from the Jens Stoltenberg should be rearranged to make it easier to read. Though that might undermine its worth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.139.214 (talk) 21:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Please, someone, add Greece (between the UK and Spain) in the list for: New accession states (by order of accession) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnev (talk • contribs) 02:37, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Where is Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia? The Baltic states are members since 2004, but they are not listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.130.199 (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Is the EU an "organization"?

Just curious if other editors would distinguish the EU from other nominated organizations. The EU seems to be better classified as a political entity, and very different from any past Nobel recipient. It'sseems almost like giving the award to a country or NATO or whatever. --PedEye1 (talk) 06:03, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the UN is a political organisation as well, plus it has a two letter acronym and everything. :) --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 09:39, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

The award is no different than the award to the United Nations in 2001, or many other prevous awards to international organisations. Indeed giving the prize to a country wouldn't be unprecedented either (the 1986 Charlemagne Prize was given to The People of Luxembourg). Mocctur (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

• Simple answer. The Nobel Prize people regard it as one. And NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) is, by its own terms, one too. --86.40.98.9 (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Does anybody know of any Reliable Source that quoted objections to this award (and perhaps also the 2001 award to the UN) on grounds that, unlike other rewarded organisations, the EU (and/or the UN) is supposed to be its people, and it's thus arguably an insult to the people (and/or symptomatic of elite contempt for the people) to treat awards stated to be to the EU (and/or to the UN) as awards to their bureaucrats, and/or that it puts the clock back to before 1789 by changing us all from being citizens back to being subjects and/or cannon fodder for our rulers, and so on? If such a Reliable Source can be found, I think it would improve the article if it were cited in the Reactions section. Tlhslobus (talk) 18:01, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I also notice there's a difference from 2001, where the press release explicitly refers to the UN as an organisation (though not in the sentence that announces that half the award is being made to the UN - the other half went to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan), whereas the 2012 press release seemingly never states nor implies that the award is to an organisation rather than to citizens, and it seems simply taken for granted by some others elsewhere that it is being made to an organisation rather than its citizens.Tlhslobus (talk) 18:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The actual award was to the EU "and its forerunners" which could not be named because they no longer exist - any more than it could be awarded to Ghandi, because he was assassinated before the award could be made. The actual work was done in the Councils of WEU between 1988 and 2001 and of the EU thereafter, WEU having hosted the Ministerial Meeting in Brussels which agreed the reintegration of Eastern Europe on 23-5 April 1990. It was then charged with the Petersberg Tasks from 1992 and pathfinding the integration of Eastern Europe into the techniques of Western diplomacy, and played several significant roles in the restabilisation of the Balkans. It handed the Presidential function over to the EU on 1.7.2001, but continued to underwrite the Article 5 Self-Defence Commitment until 2010 when the EU was finally legally competent to take on the charge. I was HQ Accountant of WEU until 30.6.2011, when it finally closed, handing the residual responsibilities on to the EU.

Both WEU and the EU are/were International Organisations in law, embodying the collaboration of their Member States in their particular competences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.26.161.134 (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Please Add Greece

please add Greece (between the UK and Spain) in the list for: New accession states (by order of accession) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnev (talk • contribs) 02:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

And one might also add Portugal, which joined with Spain in 1986. Both these countries were suffering from EU-enforced austerity at the time of the award, so presumably their Prime Ministers and Foreign Ministers found it politic to say nothing. The question is whether we are allowed point out that they may well have officially said nothing, either by saying so explicitly (which would presumably need a Reliable Source citation), or by putting in their flag, name, accession date, and no statement unless one is found. Would that violate WP:NPOV or WP:NOR? Or does the current failure to do this violate WP:NOT CENSORED? My own view is the flags should be included, per WP:IAR if nothing else, as it does a disservice to our readers to conceal from them the possible absence of Greek and Portuguese statements. So I'm going to add them, plus the other 6 states with no currently shown statement, with this paragraph as an explanation, and see what happens. Tlhslobus (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I don't think I'll bother. But if somebody can find reliable sources that say that Greece (or Portugal, etc) chose not to comment, it would improve the article if that got added.Tlhslobus (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

See also section

I just wanted to check what people think about adding a See also section to the article with links to things such as Pax Europaea, History of the European Union, 2004 enlargement of the European Union, Stabilisation and Association Process and possibly others (ideas?). So what do you think? --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 13:41, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Academic response

Should the fact that Steven Pinker applauded the decision as part of a lecture about The Better Angels of Our Nature, which is a historical analysis of violence, be included? This is the lecture in question. --U5K0'sTalk_{Make WikiLove not WikiWar} 23:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me...

...or does the page look choppy with all the wonky images? — ^Wylie_Coyote 21:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this the redirect page for the 2013 Nobel Peace Prize?

Shoudn't the 2013 prize have it's own page? Doesn't make any sense to me. Jimerb (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC) (fixing signature)

Where are the Baltic States in the list of EU Members? Please add!

Why are the Baltic States: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia excluded from the list of EU Member states? They have joined in 2004. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.226.112 (talk) 08:14, 31 October 2014 (UTC)