Talk:Nobel Peace Prize misused says Norwegian lawyer and activist

Active discussions

October 2008Edit

How to change the title ?Edit

How can I change the title to - say : "Author claims Nobel Peace Prize not peaceful enough" or some such ? BalansR (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy if anyone would do that for me or use another appropriate title, and if somebody wants take this all the way to publication. BalansR (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


The title and content of the article state the author's opinions and interpretations, rather than neutrally report regarding the event - which is the publication of a work critical of the Nobel committees. The article would require extensive reworking to avoid making factual statements which are, in reality, opinion and interpretation. - Amgine | t 19:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Please do not remove the NPOV tag without getting consensus that the issues have been appropriately responded to. I believe there are at least several factual statements which are, at least, biased. Statements such as "Until the Second World War about 85% of the laureates were awarded according to the will, says Heffermehl" make factual statements and attempt to weasel them as quotes when there is no actual quote to be made. The article is imbalanced, with the first two thirds of the article making the author's arguments, and a brief and confusing rebuttal paragraph tacked onto the end of the article.
A news article should state, neutrally, all the large, salient facts about the newsworthy event in the opening of the article. It should then proceed in the following paragraphs to expand on those facts, and should include relevant background information where the general public likely may not know the background and would likely have improved understanding of the news event if it is provided. It should not present an argument. - Amgine | t 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This can be deletedEdit

I changed the title by starting a new article. Did some changs to the text, and included a response to the author of the book. BalansR (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

That was not a good idea. It kills the whole history of the article. You should have requested that someone else rename. Also, the original article is still out there. Please don't do that again. Thanks, --SVTCobra 00:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Sorry. I tried to find help about, the procedure for renaming/changing titles. Any hints ? BalansR (talk) 01:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You don't get the ability to "rename" articles until your account is "Auto Confirmed" (takes something like 2-7 days). Next time, please post a request. I've restored the history through some trickery - it will look a bit strange but at least it is intact. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 01:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks !! I'll keep your advice in mind. BalansR (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Complete rewriteEdit

Released just three days before the announcement for Nobel's Peace Prize, Norwegian activist Fredrik Heffermehl's book Nobels vilje (Nobel's Will) is a critical assessment of the prize's history and the political committee and process which now awards the prize. Geir Lundestad, Director of the Nobel Institute and secretary of the Norwegian Nobel Committee has said he does not wish to enter into a debate with Heffermehl due to potential political and legal actions from Heffermehl.

Heffermehl denies having any plans for political or legal action: In Aftenposten he is quoted as saying to the Newsbureau NTB : "I have no idea what Lundestad is thinking of. I have no plans about taking action, legal or political, against the Committee. This is not an attack, but an exhortation to look at a number of questions,"

The book asserts the Stortinget (Norwegian Parliament), which selects the five members of the committee which selects the recipients of the Peace Prize, has in effect broken Norwegian and Swedish law by failing to follow the intentions of Nobel's will. The author compares the works of all the Peace Prize Laureates to date with his interpretation of the intentions and will of the prize's Founder.

"Of course we are following Nobel's intention. There may be a long discussion about how the will is to be interpreted. Mr Heffermehl thinks he holds the only correct interpretation. But his interpretation we disagree with," said Lundestad in an interview with the Danish news source Informatíon.

According to Heffermehl, prior to World War II about 85% of recipients were awarded in accordance with the will, but since the end of the war only 45% of the recipients fit the criteria. Recent recipients Al Gore and the UN's IPCC, Muhammad Yunus and his Grameen Bank, nor Wangari Maathai suit the requirements.

"Disarmament and anti-militarism was what Nobel wanted to promote," says Heffermehl to Aftenposten.

Critical disputes and protests of Nobel Prize awards, especially of the Peace prize, are as predictable as the prize itself. Of particular note was the failure of the committee to award a peace prize to Mahatma Ghandi, but the committee tacitly admitted this error when in 1948, the year of Ghandi's death, they elected to not award the Peace Prize saying "there was no suitable living candidate."

The portion of Nobel's will which defines the criteria for the Peace Prize is:

"och en del åt den som har verkat mest eller best för folkens förbrödrande och afskaffande eller minskning af stående armeer samt bildande och spridande af fredskongresser."Swedish
"and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."English translation
The rewrite lacks signing. BalansR (talk) 09:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Factual error in the rewrite : The cited text of the will is in Swedish, not Norwegian. Correcting that in the text above. Also Heffermehl denies having any plans for political or legal action: In Aftenposten he is quoted as saying to the Newsbureau NTB : "I have no idea what Lundestad is thinking of. I have no plans about taking action, legal or political, against the Committee. This is not an attack, but an exhortation to look at a number of questions," ( adding this above ) BalansR (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Next step ?Edit

So, what is the next step ? In my mind, if the complete rewrite is judged to be better, I have no objections to using that text, providing the correction re Swedish/Norwegian language is kept, and also the rebuttal from Heffermehl regarding purported political and legal action. It is definitely a good idea to include the picture of the will. BalansR (talk) 10:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Er, this is kinda uncommon but I think Amgine wanted to avoid being offputting by totally zapping your text. I'd suggest working on the same principle as {{mergeto}} - and I already lifted one paragraph out of the above and added it into the article page. So, key thing is the lede (intro), which opening paragraph best answers who, what, where, why, when, and how? (5W's and H). Beyond that it's just a matter of checking all the other details are in, flow from one paragraph to the next, and are generally easy to read. On Wikinews we do tend to have more of a degree of 'author ownership' over articles so I'll let you puzzle some over that.
As a matter of curiosity, why was Nobel's will written in Swedish? This may be a historical piece of trivia but I'm sure I'm not the only one who'd want to know. Perhaps that detail could be in the article too. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll review the article, with special emphasis on the opening paragraph. Alfred Nobel was a Swedish industrialist, making a fortune on dynamite. As far as I recall, on e story goes that he saw that 'his' dynamite was used for both 'good' and 'bad' purposes, and that was an important reason why he established the Nobel prizes. Swedish institutions choose the laureates for all prizes, except the Peace / 'anti-militarist' prize, which Nobel bestowed on a committee to be created by the Norwegian parliament. Norway was part of Sweden during the years 1814-1905, and got independence in 1905, without a war or major hostilities. At the time of Nobel´s last years (the will was finalised in 1895), leading forces in the Norwegian parliament were working against militarism, according to Heffermehl, and that was why Nobel chose as he did. Sweden had a long history of the opposite. See also e.g. the article at As one can see in that text, Alfred Nobel befriended Bertha von Suttner, an avid anti-militarist. But including such info in the article, will probably tilt the balance and NPOV staus of the article, in some people's eyes ? BalansR (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, some serious condensation of that could be included. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Done. How does it look now ? BalansR (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghandi comment in articleEdit

It is my understanding that Nobel decreed that the Peace Prize never be awarded posthumously, which would make the claims about Ghandi (1948) false. Instead it should be noted that Dag Hammarskjöld (1961) was given the award after his death and that this was the exception, not Ghandi. --SVTCobra 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Category and spellingEdit

{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Nobel Prize. Could you also fix the spelling of Ghandi to the correct Gandhi in the ninth paragraph? Green Giant (talk) 10:31, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

  Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:49, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Nobel Peace Prize misused says Norwegian lawyer and activist" page.