Talk:Herta Müller/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

What is this?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

" Born in Niţchidorf, Timiş County in Romania, her native language is German." 216.81.122.233 (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

M.A. Orthofer's speculation

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

There should be mentioning of M.A. Orthofer's successful speculation of her winning Nobel hours before it was announced and the process behind this as he explained it, involving Ladbrokes.com and the referral links from the Swedish Academy's mail server.196.205.5.133 (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This seems quite trivial; that someone correctly speculated she would win is not as important as the fact that she did win. Some people speculated that Bob Dylan would win this year. Heck, I speculated last night that I would want oatmeal for breakfast this morning, but went for a donut instead. María (habla conmigo) 13:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not about the prediction of course. The importance here lies in the process that led to it as explained by Orthofer of The Complete Review. The fact that Le Clézio's odds went on a similar trend at Ladbrokes as did Mueller's this year, all this is giving a rise to a "leak" controversy. 196.205.5.133 (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then this issue has very little to do with Muller herself, and therefore does not need to be included in her article. Perhaps see about adding it to complete review's article, which seems far more fitting. María (habla conmigo) 14:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Nationality, Ethnic background

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The history of the article shows that some editors question her nationality, citizenship, ethnic background, and others say that the infobox should say "German, Romanian" and right now it does say that. It would be good to have a an accurate, cited source to be sure. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not as much a question of cited sources, nor is it an issue of "some editors question her nationality, citizenship, ethnic background". I don't believe anyone is contending that she is not both a citizen of Germany and a German ethnic (of the Swabian subgroup), just as nobody appears to be contesting that she was, by law, a Romanian national and citizen (not a Romanian ethnic). The confusion is between editors, not between sources or facts. I added "Romanian" to the infobox (with a piped link to Romania, not to Romanians) because it is both factual and relevant, and because that template does not address her ethnicity, but her nationality. It would be after all an anomaly not to mention it for someone who spent her entire childhood and youth in Romania, was a citizen by birth, was employed by state-owned institutions, speaks fluent Romanian, revisits Romania regularly, and wrote much of her work about Romania. The rest of these issues are bound to be cleared up if the entire article becomes a more properly sourced (and more intelligent) narrative, but I personally believe it is a very bad idea to cite with the purpose of addressing the priorities of editors, and not the natural flow of info in a bio article, and would only produce a chaotic and unprofessional text. Dahn (talk) 15:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Müller is (or was) a Romanian according to Romanian nationality law. She acquired German nationality using right of return. German nationality law partially allow dual nationality, but don't know it is allowed or not in Romania. Matthew_hk t c 11:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Categories

Latest comment: 15 years ago25 comments3 people in discussion

How logical are these categories:

Romanian essayists
Romanian novelists
Romanian schoolteachers

The first two; my understanding is that means Romanian language-essayists/-novelists, which she isn't (she wrote only in German, because, as she said, her Romanian writings would be at a lower level of quality compared to her German ones). The last one: was she notable as a schoolteacher? No. If one asks to name a few Danube Swabians, you certainly can name her, but if one asks to name a few Romanian schoolteachers, would you think of her? Dc76\^talk 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

She is included in those categories because she was all those things while being Romanian. You say: "my understanding is that means Romanian language-essayists/-novelists, which she isn't". I'm afraid your rationale misses the mark - the categories refer to citizenship/nationality (and, by proxy, ethnicity - where applicable). This is the standard with any such category. Let alone that this rationale would be absurd in plain cases of multicultural literatures or countries that don't "belong" to their language (Category:Swiss writers, Category:American writers, Category:Paraguayan writers - to name just a few), but Romanians themselves (even ethnic Romanians) are and were not "tied" to the Romanian language - there are plenty of cases where this is the case, but where you won't find the inclusion questionable. From Eugène Ionesco, Emil Cioran and Mircea Eliade (who also wrote in Romanian, but, to quote you, who remembers that when it comes to their overall work? plus, they all preferred a foreign language for reasons similar to Müller's), to Marthe Bibesco, Paul Celan and Andrei Codrescu. Not to mention the gazillion others who wrote in foreign languages even when in Romania. I also don't see any reason to include a subjective view over what is and isn't notable in her career as a writer or schoolteacher or whatever. That would be a slippery slope, and wouldn't really help as far as categorizing goes. Dahn (talk) 23:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand your point. If Romanian essayists and Romanian novelists means people who were essayists and novelists while in Romania, then the categories are warranted. If you say this is how these categories are meant to be in WP, then I have no reason not to believe you. But I am not convinced they should be so in WP (obviously this is a larger issue, and modifying only in this article should not occur), because the status quo as you described it strikes me as odd. When one writes artistic literature, one has to use a particular language, hence one can be identified with that language before being identified with a country of origin. When one walks the street, he does not have to have a particular ethnicity, language, etc. He can be identified with the city who's streets he walks. When one writes a paper in chemistry (just a random example), similarly, no language identifies him, because a translation would look identical in any language. A literary translation, would, however, not look identical in other languages. What a chemist had to convey is reproduced exactly in any language (assuming the translation is correct). What Herta Müller wrote reads in one way in German, and reads differently in another language even with the most correct translation. (I am just using her example, I am not trying to infer anything about this article as different from other articles of other authors.) Unlike her, Ionescu, Cioran wrote in Romanian as well. Eliade is more delicate: as an essayist, he should be considered (IMHO) in the languages he wrote in, but as a scholar, the languages do not matter, and he belongs to the countries he lived in.

Swiss writers. Assuming no one claims the existence of a "Swiss language", one can be a Swiss-writer (i.e. from Switzerland) and a French-(language)-writer. An American writer generally would be an English-language one (hence if English-language-writer category is not present, it is generally assumed), but we can conceive the idea of a Spanish-language American writer to get Nobel. Ditto Paraguay. BTW, the examples are excellent. The obvious solutions "suggests itself": Herta Müller is a German novelists, a Romanian novelist, and a German-language novelist. The only problem with this is: don't we have too many categories for one person? It isn't helpful when categories take 4-5 lines and requires a whole minute to read and properly comprehend.

"don't we have too many categories for one person?" There is no such thing as too many categories. I also don't imagine many people use the categories to read from in the article, as opposed to getting to the article from category pages. As for the rest: DC, it's very exhausting when you emit hypotheses on issues that are already addressed - see Category:French-language writers (note how it includes all the "French writers" category, which is probably for the best) and Category:German-language writers (per the same rationale, she is already in there as a "German novelist"). Dahn (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

About schoolteacher, we need but read her bio to note that on the same par with adding this category we can add categories such as "recipients of X prize" (for all 20 prizes she got), "wives of Richard Wagner" (a 1-entry category), "granddaughters of wealthy farmers", "relatives of people deported to the Gulag", "people that refused to cooperate with Securitate" or "people that gave private German lessons", "people that worked as translators". She was the latter two in the same degree as she was a schoolteacher. I am not saying she wasn't any of these, but there should be a common sense limit on how many categories are there. I would love to create Category:People that refused to cooperate with Securitate just to have some fun, but not seriously. I think you get the idea. Dc76\^talk 01:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"we can add categories such as "recipients of X prize" (for all 20 prizes she got)" - yes we could. "wives of Richard Wagner" (a 1-entry category), "granddaughters of wealthy farmers", "relatives of people deported to the Gulag", "people that refused to cooperate with Securitate" or "people that gave private German lessons" - except those are not valid categorization criteria, and most would be created especially for her. "people that worked as translators" - she is (and should be) added to Category:Romanian translators. I hope you get the idea. (One more note: if you plan to start a category for "refusing to cooperate", let me assure that you it will be deleted sooner or later for the same reason as any of the other hypothetical ones you cite above; but that, in any case, it's "people who", not "people that"). Dahn (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc76, let me just answer two of your points (though Dahn already did this). First, a category need not be a defining characteristic of a person, merely a characteristic (provided it's non-trivial). Look at Category:Romanian schoolteachers: do we tend to think of Horia Sima, Ştefan Voitec or Radu Berceanu as schoolteachers? No. But they were, so it's appropriate to include them in the category. Second, scroll down. Scroll down. Behold. Some people just happen to fit into lots of categories: nothing wrong with that. See even August Kanitz: from a very brief biography, I was able to extract sixteen categories for him. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was in particular to avoid such examples as Sima, Berceanu and Churchill that you just provided, I started this discussion; I did not know they existed. Given that there are strange things like these, I will not argue any more along this line. Keep her as a schoolteacher and a translator, if WP went so far with that. However, I have to point out that instead of pointing to me why I am allegedly wrong, Dahn could have just said: We have Category:Romanian writers in French, we can add her to a new category Category:Romanian writers in German and remove her from Romanian essayists and Romanian novelists. Dahn spends all the time trying to prove me wrong, when it would take 1/10 of the time to propose the solution which (who/that/whatever) I as a logical person would have immediately embraced. Dc76\^talk 18:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, for Christ. "Romanian writers in German", validated or not, will not compensate for either "novelists" or "essayists", for a simple, immediately apparent reason: not all writers are essayists or novelists (meaning that she will still be both a "writer in German" and an "essayist"/"novelist"). If you look through the "writers in French" articles (please do), you'll note that the category is never used instead of the "essayists"/"novelists"/"whateverists" category(-ies), but alongside it (them). You're starting to look like a guy in a train going to Sibiu who wants to go to Iaşi and argues with everybody on the train that they're going in the wrong direction. Dahn (talk) 19:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Instead of making funny comparisons (actually the train is indeed going to Iaşi, and you probably have got the wrong ticket, not the rest of the "passengers" :-) ), please be so kind and speak about the issue. We should add her to categories "Romanian novelists in German" and "Romanian essayists in German", both subcategories of "Romanian writers in German". You do not need to pretend you teach me that novelists and essayists are subsets of writers. I proposed a minimalistic solution: only one new category. If you insist to have all three categories ("Romanian ... in German"), I don't oppose. If you oppose this too, then please, note that we have a content dispute about organization of content in WP, and kindly do not point me to this link, which is policy, not content. Dc76\^talk 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"actually the train is indeed going to Iaşi" - no, you're just facing the other way; turn around. "We should add her to categories "Romanian novelists in German" and "Romanian essayists in German", both subcategories of "Romanian writers in German"" - there is such a thing as "overcategorization"; in fact, creating those subcats just so we can remove her from cats where she belongs, without even considering how many other articles will fit into that category, is exactly the kind of "wives of Richard Wagner" rationale you spuriously claimed I was endorsing above. "If you insist to have all three categories ("Romanian ... in German"), I don't oppose." - obviously, I don't insist on that, you do.

"You do not need to pretend you teach me that novelists and essayists are subsets of writers. I proposed a minimalistic solution: only one new category." - Look, I'm not teaching you anything. I'm telling you that the "minimalistic solution" is no solution at all. For starters, because there is no problem. And secondly, because it won't supplant the existing categories - whether you otherwise know what essayist is to writer I honestly don't pass judgment on and is not the object of my remark. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I prefer thinking about the organization of the category tree before I add articles in them. You take an article at a time and put it in existing categories if it matches. We have two different a priori non-contradicting approaches, and it is unfortunate we can not find an effective way to communicate. BTW, I was saying that an existing cat justified "Category:Wives of Richard Wagner". Now you say I *spuriously* claimed *you* were endorsing it. You turn my reasoning as a personal attack against you. What I said was not spurious, and was not against you, it was logical; you simply seem not to like when people tell you logical things. Dc76\^talk 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Our approaches only matter to the measure where you tell me that I should go and create special categories to address what you (and only you) think are problems, when there's no urgency to do so. That is the whole length to which I am prepared to discuss your editing style (i.e. when you question and impinge upon my editing style with some whimsical imperative); other than that, my answer to "I prefer thinking about the organization of the category tree etc." is: good for you.

Judging by what you wrote above, you have effectively claimed I was endorsing something similar to "Category:Wives of Richard Wagner" (whether that's what you meant or not is really not my problem), and that was either a false analogy or a spurious claim - one or the other, your call. I went with the assumption that you're not just throwing words around, which is why I preferred to consider it spurious (gilded, specious, beguiling, deceptive) rather than nonsensical. I did not say that was a personal attack (nor do I care if it was), but it is what your argument translates into. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"you tell me that I should go and create special categories to address what you (and only you) think are problems, when there's no urgency to do so." Just say so, and I would have agreed with you from the start. BTW, I did not tell *you* to go create something, I asked if they seem logical to you. There's a big difference. But you "translate" into something...

Do I have to tell explicitly that "Category:Wives of Richard Wagner" was just a joke? I compared "schoolteachers" to "German translators", not to "wives of". You said adding Mueller to "Cat:German translators" makes sense, and I stopped talking about "schoolteachers". I said I don't agree but I would accept.Dc76\^talk 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In addition to the fact that categories are easy to start and hard to delete/reconfigure (which is why I'd rather seriously think about whether a category is needed or validated by reality, instead of asking you if you object or not to it being created), I have to say that, contrary to other editors, I don't create and don't recommend creating a category (even a valid one), adding it to just one article or a small number of articles, and them relying on others to fill it (whether they even notice it or not). I find that type of editing rude, shortsighted and not constructive, and I only create category that: a) I know are already capable of grouping a significant number of articles; b) I can fill myself, at least up to a certain level, immediately or soon after creating the category. That's why. Dahn (talk) 21:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My style is different from yours. I think for days before, and then I do a series of actions. It ensures a), but b) is ensured only in long-term. It has however an advantage: logical integrity.

I have many things under way in WP. It is not a final encyclopedia, it is in working situation. Eventually, I will fill those categories. If you insist, I will try to do that faster. Dc76\^talk 21:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's my point again: if this is what you insist on doing, take a short moment to consider how many articles other than Müller will belong in either categories, as well as the relationship between the two hypothetical categories and the ones the articles are already included into. That's really all. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The relationships are very easy to draw, but involve the creation of several categories that won't be populated for many years. Obviously I am not going to create such categories. Which is why I stopped talking about that. (I asked "why not do so and so". I am not rushing to actually do any of that.) IMHO, an additional Cat:Romanian writer in German would be enough, but even about that I won't insist, b/c I see some logical cons. so let it be as it is. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"Sima, Berceanu and Churchill [...] I did not know they existed" - now, I'm not going to take that literally, as tempting is it is. The reason I'm quoting you on this is to bring to your attention that you're being unreasonable: you want us to hypothetically discuss things that you don't inform yourself about. It's frankly annoying. In this case, it's annoying that you debate categorizing when you manifestly didn't inform yourself about its purposes (which is worrisome, given that you have started categories - some of which are, incidentally, absurd, as several have pointed out by now). Instead of dragging all of us up and down on a mission to inform you (and then claim that we're wasting our time), what say you click on this link and start reading from there and from related pages - I assure you that, while they don't address every conceivable problem, they do provide a simple answer to most of your queries above. Dahn (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you, please, be so kind and tell me what categories that I have started are absurd. This is not some general policy, this is you telling me I did something wrong. Please, be specific, otherwise you are just throwing accusations. Dc76\^talk 20:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. All the categories were you subdivided the history of Romania per region and then subcategorized them with dates that mean nothing to regular reader (when no subcategorization was actually needed). As Bogdangiusca noted on your talk page, this was a bad idea. You just now wrote on my talk page that, since I for one didn't go on objecting (which is, after all: do I write too much or too little?) it means I must not have objected further. In fact, I means I only have so much patience to clean up and the mess and convince you that it is a mess. But whatever. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Category:History of Romania contained too many entries, many needed subcats were absent, and many Moldova-related articles were put wrongly for Romania. I looked around at the way it was done for USA, France, Poland and some Nordic countries, and did by similarity. Bogdangiusca (sorry, I thought it was you) inquired about what I was doing, and I told him, and pointed that it would make more sense to outsiders (i.e. people who know little to nothing about History of Romania) in the end (if we stop mid way, then one might get the impression, as you wrongly got it, that some categories are not warranted because they contain too few articles, etc). If you read carefully Category:History of Romania category tree, you will note that everything is logical, but still some articles have not been moved to subcats yet. If you misunderstand something, you are welcome to discuss that on my talk page rather in the talk page of this article. Rather than accusing everyone but yourself to do a mess, please try understanding the logic of what others do, and when you notice something, say "I would have done another way, isn't that better?" Unlike yourself other people do not care to present their content opponents as "creators of mess" and might actually listen. (when was the last time you listened to others?) Dc76\^talk 21:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Dc, maybe this is not clear to you: I have no problem with the principle of creating subcategories; I do share Bogdan's concerns about creating that type of categories, for the exact same reasons he stated. I don't accuse "everyone but myself" of producing a mess, I said and will say you did, you alone, with only negative feedback from other users. Again: train, Iaşi, facing...

"as you wrongly got it, that some categories are not warranted because they contain too few articles" - where the bleeding hell did I ever say or imply anything like that? I have said that some of the categories you created are absurd, but not because "they contain too few articles" - that is a gross misrepresentation of what I have said. Yes, some categories will be invalidated if they contain too few articles (as indicated by the WP:CAT policy); and, yes, I do find it a problem that you didn't bother with filling at least some of those categories once you created them. However, it's not that which is the problem with the categories you already created. The problem there is that you created those categories by dividing a larger period into periods differentiated one from the other with problematic and sometimes plainly whimsical nomenclatures. The dates, for one, don't mean anything to the regular reader (meaning that the subcategorizing criterion is esoteric), and, in some cases, make absolutely no sense to any reader (they seem to follow arbitrary beginnings and ends of an epoch). Some subcategories should be merged into the others, and most will need more intelligible titles. Now, it's pretty clear to me that you have failed to register the point of that objection when it was pointed to you the first couple of times, so I really see no sense in carrying on a debate with you on this issue - when I have the energy, I'll consider CfDing them individually to make more sense, and I'm sure other users will note the problem. Thank you for giving us all something extra to do.

The assumption that I could only object to your original form of categorizing (which, if this is not clear, is also contrary to several requirements of WP:CAT) because I don't "understand" is is borderline insulting, and, in fact, is everything that your post (whimsically) accuses me of doing. The rest ("when was the last time you listened to others?" and other heart-to-heart stuff): I think you have repeatedly promised not to start flamebating and resorting to ad hominems, and apologized for having done it in the past, so I'll assume you already know why I will disregard them.

And I'm not sure I want to go on debating these issues here. Dahn (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would like to retract my words "when was the last time you listened to others?" I could say that to you if I were to meet you personally, but not in WP. Sincerely sorry about writing that here. I would appreciate if you would not use words like "borderline insulting". I am honestly trying to understand your concerns.

My original way of thinking about categorization is my personal taste. As I don't call your taste wrong, please be so kind not to call mine, as well. There is only one form to categorize for all editors: create/move/delete categories (and discuss them).

"Yes, some categories will be invalidated if they contain too few categories (as indicated by the WP:CAT policy); however, it's not that which is the problem with the categories you already created. The problem there is that you created those categories by dividing a larger period into periods differentiated one from the other with problematic and sometimes plainly whimsical nomenclatures." - Yet you never told me what specific categories you mean. Is that so difficult to name them?

"Now, it's pretty clear to me that you have failed to register the point of that objection when it was pointed to you the first couple of times" - What you point to me now (which by the way is not specific, b/c you did not name a single "wrong" category) was never pointed to me before. If I remember correctly, Bogdan only mentioned about Category:History of Moldavia (as opposed to just Category:Moldavia) I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.

"I'll consider CfDing them individually to make more sense, and I'm sure other users will note the problem." - You are simply being confrontational. You want CfD credit. Why not tell me what categories you don't like, tell me what you would have done instead, and let me think a day or two? What if I would agree with you? Do you have something to lose? I hope your point is not CfD credit or credit to prove me wrong. Dc76\^talk 23:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The one thing I haven't yet answered elsewhere and that still lingers on this page is the claim that I would want "CfD credit" (whatever that means). Let me assure you: I find CfD a burdensome and tiresome procedure, and, contrary to what you may think, I don't enjoy sterile discussions (the likelihood of which increases exponentially with a CfD). Which is one more reason I take issue with flawed categories that come from and go nowhere. Dahn (talk) 05:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Noted. Dc76\^talk 06:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandelism

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Is the curious George/ communist criminal/ Kenya Osama box a massive act of vandelism? How could wikipedia allow such a blatant act in a feature article? --Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I partly echo that sentiment: though it seems admins are quite prompt with reverts, it's high time for a semi-protect on this page. This is not a featured article, btw. Dahn (talk) 23:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, prominent article is what I meant--Dudeman5685 (talk) 23:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also concerned about vandalism. I noticed the IP that made 4 vandalisms was blocked for 48-hours. (Unfortunately I noted this after I posted on AN/I). I definitively agree it is high time (I am using mixed British-American :-) ) to stop vandals, but the problem with semi-protection is that IPs won't be able to edit. It's not difficult for a vandal to make quickly an account. But there can be good contributors from people who do not normally edit WP, but might edit this article these days. Such people might not be aware of all WP procedures. Perhaps we should put it on some kind of 24-hours every 2-minutes watch, if such a thing exists. Dc76\^talk 01:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reminder

Latest comment: 15 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

WP:SOAP

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Contrary to some speculation, the Nobel Prize for Literature is based on artistic merit, not on politics. Look at what was done in Nadirs [Niederungen] with a few simple declarative sentences: "The barber emptied the tin bowl through the door into the street. My friend was standing close to the gush of water. He was leaning with his back on the door frame."Lestrade (talk) 00:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

If the award was not based on politics, the former head of the Committee would not have claimed that he would not vote for any American author. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The artistic caliber of American (United States) literature is, in the opinion of the Nobel Committee, not high enough to be awarded the prize. Even a glance at the work of recent winner Elfriede Jelinek is enough to prove that the award is not political.Lestrade (talk) 19:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

She's a Volksdeutsche and feels sorry for herself. You can hardly improve on that. Feketekave (talk) 14:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, this is not a forum. Dahn (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional sources:

Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I found a bunch of other sources that might not be present on the article but might repeat some info (Between them and the article and within each other). I will paste them here for anyone that wants to add something/use to expand on article depth etc.

[1], [2], [3], [4] and [5]. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the most helpful post in this talk page! The rest is just gibberish. Dc76\^talk 19:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, I hope they are of some use! :)Calaka (talk) 07:28, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

ISBN Numbers

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Dear friends;

Please see http://www.librarything.com/author/mullerherta and visit tags later. Thanks in advance! Best regards

Publication of Herztier

Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

According to the printed edition, Herztier was first published in 1993, not 1994[6]. Urban XII (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could be, but that's the only source I've seen saying that. Compare [7] from a German reprint (scroll through for publishing details). Could be that the book was copywrited the year before it was published, and the English publishers have mixed these details up, which is something that they do. Declan Clam (talk) 02:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Emigration

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"Müller left for West Berlin with her husband, novelist Richard Wagner, in 1987, under pressure from the Romanian government." This implies that they wanted to stay on in Romania, but were bullied into leaving. Anybody who lived in Romania at that time knows that most Germans were eager to leave Romania for West Germany, but that the Romanian authorities made every effort to stop them from leaving. How about changing the sentence into: "In 1987 she and her husband were finally allowed to leave for West Germany" or something similar?--Mycomp (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It looks like a good idea, but maybe we should wait until we have a source. Urban XII (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

How about Deutsche Welle [8] ("After being refused permission to emigrate to West Germany in 1985, Mueller was finally allowed to leave in 1987..."), Times of India [9], Der Spiegel [10]?--Mycomp (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems perfectly adequate. Urban XII (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Which title for Atemschaukel?

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

See Talk:Everything_I_Possess_I_Carry_With_Me#title.3F for a discussion. PamD 16:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Herta Müller. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110719032927/http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/bos/en5124021.htm to http://www.goethe.de/ins/us/bos/en5124021.htm

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:32, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the Nobel Award

Latest comment: 15 years ago13 comments4 people in discussion

The criticism of the appropriateness of an Nobel award to Mueller that I have added is pertinent to this article and shouldn't be deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Müller has been translated into more than 20 languages[11] ("Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre und der Übersetzung ihrer Werke in mehr als 20 Sprachen gehört Müller zu den wichtigen Autoren im internationalen Literaturbetrieb") and received a literary award roughly every year since the early 80s. She's a well-known author in Europe, stating that an author that been translated into more than 20 languages is "little-known outside Germany and even there was known only among a minority of intellectuals and literary critics" is nonsensical. Featuring such criticism so prominently, immediately after the fact that she won the Nobel Prize, is WP:UNDUE. There's always some criticism against the choices of the Swedish Academy. The discussion on whether the Swedish Academy is biased against Americans belongs somewhere else. Urban XII (talk) 02:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You may differ with the Washington Post's viewpoint, but that is no reason for deletion. The Post is considered a reliable source and a respected for its opinions. This is not undue, as it is pertinent to her prize award. Deletion of an opposing opionion from such a source is itself a form of bias. --Zeamays (talk) 02:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a fringe view, and it's not notable. The discussion of alleged bias of the Swedish Academy doesn't belong in the biography of Herta Müller. We don't report everything every Americans newspaper writes. Urban XII (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a reference to prove this is a fringe view, or is this your original research/personal opinion? Anyway, the publication of the criticism in the WP makes it notable. You wrote, "We don't report everything every Americans newspaper write." No only what is notable, such as the criticism of this little-known writer by the Washington Post. Wikipedia is not edited to suit an exclusively European viewpoint, even if that is your preference. Finally the current form of the article you edited deletes the reason that the award has been criticized. If you will read the WP article you will see that the award was also criticized in Germany, that she is also not widely read there. --Zeamays (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that the focus of the reference is that Mueller was little-known even in Germany. I have deleted the Eurocentric criticism (also expressed in the WP article) because that appears to distract Urban from the main point. --Zeamays (talk) 03:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Anyway, the publication of the criticism in the WP makes it notable" — No, the fact that an American newspaper writes something doesn't mean it has to be included in articles about Nobel laureates and featured just as prominently as the information that she won the Nobel Prize. There have been published tens of thousands of articles about Müller these days, including articles like this. This article in DW describes her as an "important author in the international literary world" and mentions that her works have been translated into more than 20 languages. She has won prestigious international prizes like the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award years ago. It's ridiculous to call her a "little-known writer". I suggest you get yourself a blog, which would be more suitable to publish your opinions than Wikipedia. Urban XII (talk) 03:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, this is a controversy. You seem to have the opinion that just because you don't agree it is not suitable for Wikipedia. A couple of references to the contrary don't make a critical viewpoint in a mainstream publication "fringe". Wikipedia is geared to airing opinions and criticism, not suppressing them. You have deleted my various attempts to describe the critical views expressed in the Washington Post, so I'm going to request a third opinion. --Zeamays (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, I also note that both the articles you cite above were written after the Prize, not prior to it. It is not a surprize that after a Nobel prize her work would be widely discussed. Keep in mind the Post article was about her fame prior to the prize. --Zeamays (talk) 03:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with Zeamays. She is nearly unknown outside the German-speaking world - not only in America. Feketekave (talk) 13:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Urban, please keep your edit summaries polite. See WP:CIVIL. Feketekave (talk) 13:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the source given says "many U.S. literary critics and professors contacted Thursday had never read Mueller, if they had heard of her at all" and generally argues about an alleged preference towards European authors over American ones. So the only information this source would allow us to add would be something like "Prior to the award, Mueller was little-known in the US", but this sounds like an undue stress on a single country: what about her fame in China, in Portugal or in Chile, for instance? Goochelaar (talk) 14:04, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Goochelaar, if you read down, the Post article also says,

"Even in Germany, where Mueller lives, her devoted fans were shocked at her big win. "We have been discussing this all day," said Sabeth Vilmar, manager of a bookstore in the Prenzlauer Berg neighborhood of Berlin. "She's popular with a minority of intellectuals, and of course the literary critics, who think she is brilliant. But she is not well known by a wide audience, and certainly not internationally." Reference: Jordan, Mary. Author's Nobel Stirs Shock-and-'Bah'. Washington Post. Friday, October 9, 2009.

Other major newspapers have similar commments, regarding both US and European reactions, for example from the New York Times: "Herta Müller Wins Nobel Prize in Literature" by MOTOKO RICH and NICHOLAS KULISH Published: October 8, 2009 and , "European Reaction to Nobel Is Varied and Sometimes Harsh" by Nicholas Kulish, published October 8, 2009. --Zeamays (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)