Talk:2025 Nobel Peace Prize: Difference between revisions

 

Line 70: Line 70:

:The failure of Trump to win the prize himself has become a key driver of the [[Greenland crisis]], it remains very relevant. [[User:No Swan So Fine|No Swan So Fine]] ([[User talk:No Swan So Fine|talk]]) 22:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

:The failure of Trump to win the prize himself has become a key driver of the [[Greenland crisis]], it remains very relevant. [[User:No Swan So Fine|No Swan So Fine]] ([[User talk:No Swan So Fine|talk]]) 22:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)

::Political issues not related to the recipient should best probably go in page dedicated to Trump.–[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 07:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

::Political issues not related to the recipient should best probably go in page dedicated to Trump.–[[User:ReyHahn|ReyHahn]] ([[User talk:ReyHahn|talk]]) 07:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

== Italics in infobox quotation ==

I removed the italicisation in the infobox quotation per [[MOS:ITALQUOTE]], “Do not put quotations in italics. Quotation marks (or block quoting) alone are sufficient and the correct ways to denote quotations…” The change was reverted; the rational was that the other Nobel prize articles also do it, which is basically [[WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]] – that isn’t an actual rationale. Is there a real rationale to override the manual of style?

I had also removed the bolding, which seemed pointless. [[MOS:BOLD]] / [[MOS:NOTBOLD]] doesn’t seem to support a use case for its use here.

Thoughts? ([[User:Hohum|<b style=”color: Green;”>Hohum</b>]] [[User talk:Hohum|<sup style=”color: Red;”>@</sup>]]) 23:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project’s importance scale. This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Anti-warWikipedia:WikiProject Anti-warTemplate:WikiProject Anti-warAnti-war This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project’s importance scale.

The “controversy” sub-section exclusively utilizes sources from NDTV, the Anadolu Agency (aa.com.tr), and TRT World. Regarding the latter two, RfCs have held that they are generally unreliable for international/controversial news and/or topics that the Turkish government may have a conflict of interest in. Anadolu Agency RfC, here and TRT, here. There has not been an official RfC on NDTV, but discussions on it generally range from negative to mixed (though I have found a couple of arguments for reliability which I find relatively compelling). I would additionally argue that I might have some WP:UNDUE concerns regarding this sub-section, particularly as it is seemingly sourced (mostly) from the Turkish government, as it stands. I don’t have an issue with the section itself, but I think the current sourcing leaves it open to challenge. Anyways, not really a hill I want to die on, but I’d be curious to see others’ opinions. MWFwiki (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the content comes from unreliable sources it should be removed. It says that Anadolu Agency is controversial for political topics like this one, same for TRT.–ReyHahn (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree, in this case, that removal — sans better sourcing — is an option (if not required). But I’d like to obtain firmer consensus, personally. EDIT: It would appear someone has re-added what you removed with new sourcing. Sources look possibly borderline, but I haven’t checked them out, yet. MWFwiki (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the content that was using perennial sources. I still left a section that was based in NDTV but it seems somebody changed the sourcing. I do not know the new sources and I don’t know if these are undue.–ReyHahn (talk) 07:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Middle East Eye and The New Arab both seem unreliable to mixed. There have been no RfCs but there was an extensive discussion concerning the Middle East Eye which seemingly held that it was unreliable for contentious claims concerning living persons. There have been seven discussions regarding The New Arab, which, from my reading, generally seemed to hold a mixed opinion. The latest discussion seemed a bit more favorable, but a warning – which I agree with – was settled upon, which stated that it likely should not be used for contentious/exceptional claims. MWFwiki (talk) 19:21, 14 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we shouldn’t remove them. In fact, I remove the source from the TRT World because the source is based from the Anadolu Agency, which was considered unreliable when it comes to controversial topics. That’s why I put the Middle East Eye and The New Arab as the sources. Plus, just because it is pro-Palestine, doesn’t they are unreliable. Besides, I can also add a source from the Hindustan Times and The Telegraph (India) about that exact topic. Qhairun (talk) 06:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typo: *doesn’t mean they are unreliable.

My apologies. Qhairun (talk) 06:28, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not about being “pro-Palestine” (I would be making the same arguments if, for instance, AIPAC made a social media post condemning the winner for whatever reason). Those sources are questionable, as I showed from the discussions. Particularly for a contentious statement about a living person. But regardless, let’s say we go with the Hindustan Times and The Telegraph. We still have UNDUE. This is a statement (a single X post, no less) by a partisan organization (CAIR). Any article which is based on said statement is likely to have significant POV issues and implications. I think before re-adding any of the details in-question, a solid consensus should be achieved. You should not be unilaterally re-adding anything. MWFwiki (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion seems confused. Biographies of living persons need reliable sources because we don’t want to say untrue facts about someone and don’t want to reveal personal details that are not already reported. Neither of these things is at issue here. I don’t see any reason to doubt that CAIR made such a statement.

WP:NPOV (in the WP:DUE section!) says Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. Here we have statement reported in major news media from India (The Telegraph (India)) on a topic relevant to Venezuela and Israel/Palestine. It seems obvious to me that this international coverage indicates significance, and therefore that the the WP:NPOV policy quoted above requires inclusion of CAIR’s opinion. Daask (talk) 23:03, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The boycotting nonprofit would appear to have acted to protect something that doesn’t exist:

“Her political closeness to Trump and Netanyahu is considered to be a reason, damaging Norway’s neutrality by awarding a partisan politican.”

Norway may seek to be neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but it is by no means neutral in other ways. Norway is a charter member of North Atlantic Treaty Organization and was never a member of the Non-Aligned Movement.Amyzex (talk) 22:58, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The headline in the box says “María Corina Machado (de jure), Donald John Trump (de facto)” – “de facto” is not used correctly in this context.

“De facto” means “in fact” or “in practice” – it’s used when the actual circumstances differ from the legal/formal status.

In this case, the situation is the opposite:

• María Corina Machado is the “de jure” Nobel Peace Prize laureate: the formal, unchangeable winner.

• Machado also remains the “de facto” laureate, since the Nobel Committee has explicitly stated the title cannot be transferred.

Trump possesses a physical medal – owning a medal doesn’t make him a laureate “in practice”, just as owning a photo of someone’s diploma does not make you a “de facto” graduate.

That article already notes that Machado transferred physical possession of the medal to Trump – the current phrasing incorrectly suggests that Trump holds some sort of legitimate claim to the laureateship itself, which contradicts repeated statements made by the Nobel Committee. Mindplay.dk (talk) 08:28, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is not a political position. The Norwegian Comittee has already explained this.–ReyHahn (talk) 08:31, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Mindplay.dk I second this. Buying a super bowl ring in a pawn shop doesn’t make me Payton Manning any more than Trump possessing the medal makes him a Nobel Laureate. Primetime42 (talk) 00:17, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

at the end of the paragraph it is stated:
“It is the first time that a Nobel Medal has been given away for political reasons.”

If we want to give credit to English Wikipedia, in the Bio of the writer Knut Hamsun it is alleged that he gifted his Nobel medal to Goebbels for political reasons. ~2026-34435-3 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, nuancing text.–ReyHahn (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@~2026-34435-3 is there any benefit to having that trivia noted? Primetime42 (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the Nobel Prize Medal Aftermath is largely trivia, yet takes up a large part of the article. It should probably be mentioned that Machado gave her medal to an authoritarian warmonger, but it is not the first time it happens as Joseph Goebbels was also gifted a Nobel Prize Medal. A sentence or two to mention that Trump received it is due, but having a whole section devoted to that piece of trivia seems entirely undue. Jeppiz (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The failure of Trump to win the prize himself has become a key driver of the Greenland crisis, it remains very relevant. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:38, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Political issues not related to the recipient should best probably go in page dedicated to Trump.–ReyHahn (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the italicisation in the infobox quotation per MOS:ITALQUOTE, “Do not put quotations in italics. Quotation marks (or block quoting) alone are sufficient and the correct ways to denote quotations…” The change was reverted; the rational was that the other Nobel prize articles also do it, which is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – that isn’t an actual rationale. Is there a real rationale to override the manual of style?

I had also removed the bolding, which seemed pointless. MOS:BOLD / MOS:NOTBOLD doesn’t seem to support a use case for its use here.

Thoughts? (Hohum ^@) 23:24, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]