Talk:2010 Nobel Peace Prize/Archive 1

Archive 1

Infobox with navigational functions

I think this series of annual articles should have an infobox which also would include some navigation assistance. It is much too cumbersome to scroll to the bottom of the page, expanding one of the collapsed navboxes there and then click on the link for the previous year's prize article. As I'm mostly concerned that a would-be infobox should have this navigation facility I have no thoughts about other content, but others may if they agree that such an infobox would be appropriate. __meco (talk) 09:20, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree Sjurmh (talk) 18:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

China has released admitted murderer of Norwegian woman

Apparently[1] China released Zhao Fei, a Chinese national who fled Hungary in August following the murder of his Norwegian girlfriend, Pernille Marie Thronsen, a crime he allegedly has admitted to, on the day of the Peace prize announcement. My personal opinion is that this move, if it has been reported accurately and it is linked to the Peace Prize, is rather spectacular, both on a global and historic scale. I was looking for where in this article this could be detailed, however, it seems to lack a dedicated section discussing the repercussions on Sino-Norwegian relations. Should that not be created? __meco (talk) 19:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Zhao was released several days prior to the Nobel Prize announcement, according to late-breaking news on Norwegian TV. __meco (talk) 21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

3O

I am in a disagreement with a fellow editor about whether the 'Cyber warfare attacks' section belongs in the article. It appears to me that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and its inclusion would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related. I argue that it is not relevant, and does not belong. After two reverts, I still feel inclusion would be synthesis; but my fellow editor feels that WP:SYN applies to WP editors and not the article. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:23, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ahem... My position is that WP:Synth applies to the article, for sure. What it does not apply to are reliable sources. If we can quote news and other media articles, that in and of themselves meet our requirements as being reliable sources, then our prohibition against original synthesis does not apply to their conjectures. The presumed connection to the Nobel Peace Prize for this year is clearly made in all the articles used to reference the "cyber warfare" section. The only possible synthesis on our (my) part is the choice of the term "cyber warfare" for the heading. But that can be changed if so desired. __meco (talk) 13:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I apologise for having slightly misrepresented that which seemed clear but concise in the edit summary. I stated my problem with inclusion: the article cited reported the cyber attacks, but also mentioned the 2010NPP obviously because of the timing; no overt connection was drawn, except mentioning the Nobel Committee, which is central to both. There, the connection ends. As WP is not the news, to report the attack in this article would, IMHO, be inappropriate. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Disclaimers: I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O. I have made no previous edits on 2010 Nobel Peace Prize/Archive 1 and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.

Opinion: (edit conflict) One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." This is an opinion of that sort. As I see it, the real question here is not WP:SYNTH or whether the cited sources are reliable, but whether the information ought to be included in the article because what the reliable sources themselves are saying is speculative and because the sources' linkage between the attacks and the prize can be seen as post hoc ergo propter hoc. The section does, I think, fairly summarize what's been said in the quoted sources, so WP:SYNTH does not, per se, apply to the issue. What does apply, it seems to me, is WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE (especially the paragraph beginning, "Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints..."). Since all the sources can do at this time is to report the cyber attacks without any proof that they are related to the prize, they're at best merely suspicious (and there can be no doubt that cyber attacks arise out of China which are unrelated to the prize). Without some reliably-reported proof of a relationship between them and the prize, they're really nothing more than breaking news and, despite their suspicious victims, timing, and origin, to give them anything more than a passing mention in this article gives them undue weight. For that reason my opinion is that they ought not to be reported in the article except by a single sentence saying something like, "After the prize was awarded, the prize's website and persons connected with the crime came under a number of cyber attacks originating in China, though a direct connection between the prize and the attacks has not been proven." That sentence ought to be followed by footnotes to all four sources, and ought to go in a subsection under the section Initial_reactions not in a section by itself.

What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Pruning of cyber attacks section

I cannot see from the preceding talk page section that any consensus has been established to prune this section as has been done today in this edit. The edit summary (spectacularly and falsely labeled as a minor edit) was given as "per WP:UNDUE, as discussed on talk page | per WP:MOS, WP:MOSNUM, WP:Linking". That was obviously a very ostentatious rationale, although actually not very informative and also citing a discussion that has far from provided a mandate for such action. __meco (talk) 18:42, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• I apologise for the inadvertent 'minor edit' label, was meant to apply the changes to the date format within the citations.

  Actually, I prefer to see any mention of the cyber attacks removed outright; however, you reverted me when I did. I solicited a 3O, and the advice appeared to favour a substantial simplification of the section because there is no demonstrable link between the attacks and the award. I waited a couple of days before acting on this advice. I have just now edited again, replacing my paragraph of yesterday with the verbatim sentence precognised by the 3O. FYI, I have just posted a further request at WT:CHINA in light of your continuing protest. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

• I have now corrected a few factual errors in the replaced sentence. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:53, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
• I have just reversed the change, and have taken the query to the NPOV noticeboard. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 03:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

As another disinterested party looking in, (from the NPOV noticeboard) I think that TransporterMan's suggestion for a single sentence is a valid choice, as the RS do not establish a direct link. --Habap (talk) 17:59, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, I noticed the report at WP:NPOVN. I do not think the current "Cyber warfare attacks" section is appropriate because it is 100% speculation. Yes, the speculation is all sourced, but given what the sources say, the treatment is too extensive for this article. Even if obvious clumsiness such as "originating in Taiwan ... may not have been the real originating address" is fixed, the facts are very unclear: yes, certain things happened, and yes, a couple of sources have speculated about them, but no authority has issued a conclusion. I favor reducing the section to a sentence in some other section, although I would change TransporterMan's "proven" as in "...though a direct connection between the prize and the attacks has not been provendemonstrated". Saying "proven" allows the possibility that a lot of evidence points in a certain direction, but there is some small doubt; however, there appears to be no evidence, merely conjecture, so the connection hasn't even been demonstrated. I am happy to agree that the conjecture is possibly correct, but that isn't satisfactory for an article. Johnuniq (talk) 10:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

It appears from the current edit history that the "single sentence" idea has been discarded, but I see no discussion here that indicates why. --Habap (talk) 16:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Ohconfucius' edit because I thought it was too radical. It even omitted any mention of the elaborate faux invitations. I generally object to the positions stated by others in this section that this information does not need any mention or if it does, that can be reduced to one sentence. This is self-evidently a serious attack on the prize and the prize-awarding organization. There is no speculation inherent in that. An attack doesn't become non-notable simply because its perpetrators are unknown. __meco (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

I've got two problems with a three-paragraph explanation of the attacks. First, the sources only speculate on the source of the attacks. Second, attacks like this are actually very commonplace. The average internet user faces these kind of messages regularly. So, while it is likely not be a coincidence, it's not particularly uncommon activity. It would be like posting that last week someone checked the doors of the local secondary school to see if they'd been left unlocked. It would also be better if you carried out your discussions here on the talk page, rather than only in the edit summaries of reversions. --Habap (talk) 20:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Habap is correct about the incident (the current text is wildly inflated), and the discussion (the issue should be discussed here, with an emphasis on facts from sources). The current text is over-excited using tabloid-style presentation: who cares where "at least one IP address" was traced to, particularly when it was probably not the "real originating address". Has any reliable source (i.e. reliable on security issues) demonstrated at least a probable link to this article? Johnuniq (talk) 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'm already on record as saying I don't think this warrants any mention, and still believe that to be the case. However, I wanted to avoid a protracted edit war over this, so I followed the 3O advice in drafting the sentence. I see others, except for Meco, are of that view that the current content amounts to WP:UNDUE. In fact, Johnuniq suggests that even mention of any suspected origin ought to be removed – this is entirely in line with arguments I have advanced. I'm unsure what to do now that Meco seems to be fighting consensus on the issue by reverting me. Does any one have any suggestions as to where we go from here? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 06:23, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have a suggestion, but first I would like to state that your posting a WP:3RR warning on my talk page is simply inappropriate. Apart from my reverting you yesterday my previous edit to the article was on November 17! __meco (talk) 08:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• May I also point out that you reverted me in pretty short order each time I make the change, and the reason you haven't strictly fallen foul of WP:3RR is because I deliberately slowed the tempo down to allow for discussion. The fact of the matter is that you put it back to an unacceptable version without making any positive suggestions other than blindly and fallaciously argue 'I don't agree it is, because it's clearly notable'. What concerns me is how you make no effort in editing in a consensual manner, and your reverts are therefore disruptive. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it too. When you decide to "go slow" then you forfeit the assistance from WP:3RR. The argument which you make to the contrary is simply invalid. I also would like to take issue with the fact of you calling my edits disruptive while at the same time misrepresenting my positions or actions at every turn. Although I have admittedly resisted the tentative consensus, I have argued my case much more earnestly than what your out-of-context quote suggests ("I don't agree it is, because it's clearly notable"). You are the one not showing good faith here. I may be a minority of one at present, but as long as I'm making use of Wikipedia's conflict resolution toolbox, just as you are, this matter has not yet been settled. __meco (talk) 10:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, enough of the bad faith accusations. Another reason for your last revert being on 17 November is that I put it back to "your version", where it stayed for most of that time pending discussion; you clearly don't like to see any abridging of it. I've now rewound it back to "your version" pending further discussion. Knock yourself out. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Cyber warfare attacks content dispute

This is the contested text that is currently not included in the article:

Less than three weeks after the announcement of Liu as this year's recipient, the Nobel Peace Prize website came under cyber attack originating in Taiwan. This exposed visitors to the site to the risk of infection by a Trojan horse which could take control over the victim's computer. At least one IP address used in the attack was traced to the National Chiao Tung University in Hsinchu, although that may not have been the real originating address of that particular attack

On November 3 the computer of the secretary of the Nobel Committee, Geir Lundestad, was attempted broken into via an email from a named executive of one of the IT companies associated with the institute. In the forged email, Lundestad was given a link to a page where he was requested to surrender his username and password. Instead he notified the National Security Authority and this incident is being investigated by the police. This attack was believed to have the same perpetrator as the previous attack in that it originated from the same dynamic DNS server.

In yet another incident an unknown number of individuals have received an email containing malware which on the surface is an invitation to the award ceremony from the Oslo Freedom Forum. This email is presenting a PDF file which looks very professionally made. This attacker has also been traced to the same server as the previous attacks.

Source 1 (AFP):

1. "The Nobel Peace Prize website came under cyber attack from Taiwan"
2. "Visitors to the www.nobelpeaceprize.org website risked infection by a "Trojan horse" virus, a difficult to detect programme that allows hackers to take control of victims' computers."
3. [Frank Stien, in charge of computer security at Telenor] "said the last IP address used by the hacker was at the National Chiao Tung University in Taiwan, but he cautioned that the attack may have originated elsewhere as hackers often used many computers to hide their traces."

Source 2 (Christian Science Monitor):

1. “My assumption is that it is a Chinese-based actor,” said Greg Walton, an expert on information technology surveillance
2. "Findings by the Norman malware detection team in Oslo revealed a new Trojan-horse virus [...]"
3. "Mr. Walton, who studied virus samples of Trojan horses in 2008 that were targeting Tibetan activists, said yesterday's virus originated from Taiwan, but was probably used a “stepping stone” from mainland China"

Source 3 (Aftenposten):

1. "Alt tyder på at angrepene er koordinerte fra samme sted, blant annet fordi angriperne brukt den samme serveren." "Everything indicates that the attacks are coordinated from the same location, among other reasons because the attackers used the same server"
2. "Siden vi finner spor fra den samme Dyndns-serveren, er det mye som tyder på at det er samme aktør som står bak angrepet, sier avdelingsdirektør i Nasjonal sikkerhetsmyndighet og sjef for NorCERT Christophe Birkeland" "Since we find traces from the same Dyndns server, a lot of things suggest that the same actor is behind the attack, says department director at the National Security Authority and head of NorCERT (Norwegian Computer Emergency Response Team, a department of the National Security Authority) Christophe Birkeland"
3. "Ingen vet sikkert hvem som står bak angrepet, men mistanken er allerede rettet mot kriminelle datamiljøer som kan operere i eller i tilknytning til Kina." "Nobody knows for sure who is behind the attack, but suspicion is already focused on criminal computer communities that are able to operate within or associated with China."
4. "Den første hackingen av nettsidene til instituttet skjedde fra en ip-adresse ved et universitet i Taiwan." "The initial hacking of the webpages of the institute occurred from an IP address at a university in Taiwan."

Source 4 (Computerworld):

1. "Slik begynner en epost som er sendt ut til en ukjent mengde mennesker.[ ] Men eposten er falsk. Invitasjonen, en svært proft utformet pdf, inneholder nemlig ondsinnet programvare." "Thus reads the start of an email which has been sent to an unknown number of people. [ ] But the email is fake. The invitation, a very professionally presented pdf, actually contains malevolent software."
2. "Eposten med invitasjonen spores ifølge Contagio Malware Dump tilbake til Kina." "The email with the invitation is tracked back to China, according to Contagio Malware Dump."

---

I am making the above display available so that all facts are clearly detailed as the discussion progresses. My opinion is that there is ample content here to warrant more than a superficial one-sentence mention of cyber attacks. I will specifically comment on some of the statements presented in the discussion in the preceding sections:

• "It appears to me that the connection between this incident and this year's prize is too tenuous, and its inclusion would tend to suggest that the attacks and the recipient of the prize were related." (User:Ohconfucius)
  • COMMENT I find this argument untenable. The evidence which has been presented more than suffices for mention of the incidents and they are almost certainly connected to this year's recipient. And this is not original synthesis as the suggestions are made by qualified computer security experts. The (now removed) text clearly relates the level of uncertainty with which these suspicions are being made. Had the suspicions been leveled at a living individual I could sympathize with the strong qualms presented by fellow editors, but s sovereign nation is not afforded the extraordinary protection laid out in our guidelines on biographies of living persons.
• User:TransporterMan responding to a Third Opinion Request finds a one-sentence mention sufficient.
  • COMMENT TransporterMan de-emphasizes the relevance of the connection made by the experts between the occasion and the facts of the hacking events. Again, I assert that the discussion (that was removed) has a sufficiently solid basis. We aren't dealing with a BLP incident, the sources are well qualified to make the speculations they make. It is important to understand that there is no blanket policy prohibiting relaying speculations in articles on controversial topics, as some editors seem to believe. There are obviously certain precautions that must be observed and the speculations cannot be idle. My opinion is that these demands are well satisfied in the current case.
• "I do not think the current "Cyber warfare attacks" section is appropriate because it is 100% speculation." (User:Johnuniq responding to a query at the Neutral point of view noticeboard)
  • COMMENT This is patently false. The attacks are real and documented.

Finally I shall make a correction to a part which several editors have commented on. Where it reads "At least one IP address used in the attack was traced to the National Chiao Tung University" this should have read "The last IP address used in the attack was traced to the National Chiao Tung University". This may not be sufficient to make any opinions moot, but at least that would be the correct version based on the sources. __meco (talk) 10:38, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Very well-written and clear presentation of sources. --Habap (talk) 14:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

RfC: How much mention should be of the cyber attacks

How much detail should be afforded to the several instances of cyber attacks surrounding this year's Nobel Peace Prize? This has already been debated in several sections on this talk page. It has also been taken to Wikipedia:Third opinion and the Neutral point of view noticeboard. __meco (talk) 10:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

• It should be made clear that the instances of cyber attacks were not "surrounding this year's Nobel Peace Prize", nor is there any demonstrable link between the two. The question should also allow the option of "none at all" being considered a response. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
  • With one or two of the above sources, we seem to be seeing something which crosses the line of 'relevance', but it still feel it is too much like undue weight. We could certainly mention how it was a spoofed invitation to attend the prizegiving. However, I read computer world said: "The email invitation is tracked according Contagio Malware Dump back to China. Men konkret hvem som står bak vites ikke. But specifically who is behind is not known." But I cannot find any finger pointed to China in the Contagio source cited. Is the use of 'China' ambiguous, coz it was only ever traced as far as Taiwan? --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
    • I only transfered the Contagio link from the Computerworld article as a talk page reference. It has not been introduced into the article, nor do I intend to do that. I'm not sure why Computerworld added that link, but their article must rest on their would-be status as a reliable source, and so must any claims made therein, whether or not they have provided links to further references. I think we should simply disregard that link if it doesn't appear useful. __meco (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
      • No, it cannot, on that specific point about tracing to China. Especially as the text in the article is incoherent with the underlying cited source. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 01:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
        • This is a very technical page with a lot of information. I at least could see references to ChinaNet there. That's a mainland China ISP. I must admit, however, that I do not feel qualified to analyze the content of that page with respect to finding support for Computerworld's claim. __meco (talk) 09:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

• Posted at {{Cent}}. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you really think this RfC belongs among those discussions that seem to be mostly policy-related? Wikipedia:Centralized discussion states that it is a place for "ongoing discussions on policies, guidelines or other matters that have a wide impact and on which a broad consensus is needed". __meco (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the entry from the template because, per WP:CENTNOT, it is not for listing discussions about content disputes.  Sandstein  16:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

• OK, sorry for not properly understanding what it's for. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

A word to the wise re edit warring

The edit warring policy says,

"An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion."

The three revert rule is merely a bright-line rule and it expressly says,

"Remember that an administrator may still act whenever they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring, even if the three-revert rule has not been breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times."

What's going on here is clearly an edit war and I must warn you that you stand a risk of having this page protected and/or being blocked from editing if it continues. I applaud the continued, civil discussion and the progressive use of dispute resolution, but the action needs to be confined to this talk page without continuing to change the article page. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 14:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Confucius Peace Prize

Reuters has reported (here) on an alternative to the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize, the "Confucius Peace Prize". Reuters reports that, "It was meant to be China's answer to the Nobel Peace Prize, a timely riposte to the honoring of jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo."

The article goes on to suggest that, "Its timing is no coincidence, coming the day before the Nobel is formally awarded to Liu in Oslo, an event that has prompted a slew of invective from the Chinese government for honoring a man it calls a subversive and a criminal."

While the creation of the Confucius Peace Prize may not have been officially endorsed by the Chinese government (sources seem unreliable on that point), it is a notable Chinese reaction. A Google-search of the phrase "Confucius Peace Prize" results in 121,000 hits.

My question is, is this reaction sufficiently noteworthy, according to the standards of Wikipaedia, to warrant inclusion in the article? Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 11:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

By a wide margin the answer to your question is 'yes'. __meco (talk) 12:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• I disagree. It might be borderline notable, but not "by a wide margin". --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 13:53, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done A brief section on the Confucius Peace Prize has been inserted. That is my first significant amendment to a Wikipaedia article. If I have made any mistakes, please feel free to offer some advice. Uncensored Kiwi ^Kiss 23:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Errors on map of attendees

I am not sure how to edit this map, but there are some errors:

1) Philippines is shown in red (non-attending). Philippines initially announced it would not attend (to "avoid annoying China") but ultimately attended. 2) Argentina is incorrectly shown as a non-attendee. 3) Australia has an embassy in Norway but it is not shown on this map whether they attended. Since it was not named as a non-attending country I presume they were in attendance. http://www.allembassies.com/embassies_in_norway.htm and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Embassies_in_Oslo

Also I think it would be more accurate to list countries that skipped the ceremony as "Did not attend". Several gave no explanation for their non-attendance, so I don't think that this can be characterized as a 'boycott' in all cases. Thanks to anybody who can help out with this. Also if anybody has a list of the attendees (I can only find list of those who didn't attend) it might be helpful on this. Thanks. Spinner145 (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I originally added the map, but agree with your concerns. I've commented out the map (removed it from public view although the code is still in the article) until we figure out what's going on. Here is the map in question and the references provided by the creator/uploader on commons.

• Nobel Peace Prize: Who Is Boycotting the Ceremony?" BBC News World. BBC MMX, 10 Dec. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. <[2]>.
• Foster, Peter. "Nobel Peace Prize Row: 18 Countries Turn down Ceremony Invitations." Telegraph.co.uk. Telegraph Media Group Limited, 7 Dec. 2010. Web. 11 Dec. 2010. <[3]>.

--Banana (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

An older version of the map here before it was 'updated(?)' yesterday seems to have the attendence above, except for Australia which is still marked as non-attending.--Banana (talk) 20:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

More searching brings up this report that the Philippines did not attend.--Banana (talk) 20:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Interesting, I did some more searching too, and found this http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=638232&publicationSubCategoryId=63. It says that the PH ambassador didn't attend, but also announced that it was not a boycott but was because of a prior engagement. I'm still looking to see if I can find something definitive on this, because the NY Times said that PH first said it wouldn't attend, but then backtracked. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/10/world/asia/10china.html?ref=liu_xiaobo I'll keep looking to see if I can find something definitive.Spinner145 (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I think almost everyone not attending (except China) is saying it's because of a prior engagement. : ) Anyway here is a source saying australia was not invited. Here is a source saying Argentina isn't coming.I'm going to put the map back. --Banana (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This said the Philippines relented and will attend. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I think the Philippines initially said it was not going, then said it was going, and then switched back and ultimately did not send a representative.Here is an article covering a speech in which the Filipino President defended his decision to not send a representative. --Banana (talk) 04:59, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Banana, thanks for your work on this. I think you're right on the Philippines and Australia. I think Argentina, however, did ultimately send a representative. This article says that while initial reports said Argentina would stay away, Argentina subsequently announced that it would send a delegate. http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6B85B320101210. This source also lists Argentina as an attendee http://www.newsinenglish.no/2010/12/10/nobel-peace-prize-day-dawns-whos-coming-and-whos-not/ . As suggested in the Reuters report, I think that the earlier reports were in error and we have to take the reports from Argentina's foreign ministry as definitive. Spinner145 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Going to remove the map (if it hasn't been already) and leave a note for the creator on commons. --Banana (talk) 08:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

*I'm glad the map has been removed. I was questioning it myself, not for the reasons you removed it, though. I feel that such graphic representation is potentially misleading. It has been shown that two-thirds of invited countries attended, and the Chinese have been leading a propaganda assault by saying over 100 countries have shown them solidarity. The map can best be referred to as "representation by land mass" – which I think is a pretty meaningless measure. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

(We now have an accurate map.) I hadn't considered that. Seeing how all of Western Europe and North America (except for Cuba) was blue gave me a better understanding of the situation, but I can see how someone quickly glancing through the article would just see how huge Russia is. --Banana (talk) 01:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if this map is a "representation by land mass", so is any other map such as GDP map and Olympic boycotts map. Sometimes, countries are represented by their land masses. -Xiaojeng (talk) 06:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Yea, funny that maps are meant to illustrate land mass. In addition, as you may well know, other stuff exists. ;-) --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:21, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Consistency of article

I think the article would have a little more self-consistency if the first sentence of the second paragraph ("Intellectuals and politicians from the international community praised the decision, ...") could be more harmonized with other parts of the article (section on international media reactions, etc). "Western intellectuals and politicians praised the decision ..." would be more consistent as well as having a more neutral POV. It would also be more true. In fact, aside from Liu's incarceration, has there been much discussion of the merits of his proposed changes to the Chinese government by non-Western, non-Chinese intellectuals, and whether these changes would do or be "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" (to quote from Alfred Nobel's endowment of the Nobel Peace Prize)? Son of eugene (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the addition to the intro, but you lost me with the second part of your paragraph. Perhaps discussion of his ideas would better go in the article about him? --Banana (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, i probably said too much in the second part. It is my desire to avoid "original research" or to suggest any non NPOV material be included. But i do think the article tends to give the false impression that everybody except the Chinese government thinks his prize was a good, apolitical decision. Even in the West people are beginning to come out and point at least to the politics of the matter (John Simpson of the BBC has pointed to the counter-arm-twisting of some of the boycotters; David Gosset said that awarding the prize to Liu tended to discredit the committee). So i think if the article could say "Many western intellectuals and politicians praised the decision ...." it would be much more neutral than "Intellectuals and politicians ...." . (So: i should have stuck to one idea only. As to putting something in Liu's article, i'm not quite sure. It is a question of how the Nobel committee looked at his proposals and connected them with peace somehow. But it all still sounds like original research, so it has to be wrestled with a little more. Thanks for your words.) 67.122.209.44 (talk) 22:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm going to add it in. --Banana (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm late to this discussion, but I strongly disagree with this edit. Saying "Western Intellectuals and politicians" is misleading. Numerous non-Western governments have supported the award, either explicitly through public statements or implicitly by not caving to Chinese pressure to boycott the award ceremony. (see, e.g., Japan, S. Korea, India, Indonesia, S. Africa and Thailand). Also, focusing just on the "Western" support ignores the praise from many Chinese intellectuals in HK, Taiwan and abroad, as well as from the dissenting voices within China that have been suppressed by the government. It also ignores the intellectuals from other non-Western countries, who have come out in support of this award. This should be immediately reverted or changed to simply say "Many politicians and intellectuals..." without making any geographical distinctions. The finer lines of just who has praised, who has objected, and how can be drawn within the body of the article. Spinner145 (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good point. I'm liking the way it is currently written. --Banana (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The Dalai Lama is not a "Chinese person"

The Dalai Lama is not a "Chinese person" as stated in the article. He is Tibetan. He may have Chinese citizenship -- I don't know what citizenship he claims -- but he is not Chinese in any other way.

He certainly had Tibetan citizenship at birth because Tibet was not part of China at that time. Has he ever relinquished it? Maybe some one who is an expert in this area can provide the answer.(71.22.47.232 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC))

To me at least, the article was stating that Xiaobo was the first Chinese person to receive a Nobel Prize (as the Dalai Lama is not a Chinese person). The wording could be clearer. --Banana (talk) 23:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Due to the ambiguity of the situation, and the fact that some may consider him to be Chinese (and others not), the article does not state the Dalai Lama is a Chinese person. You are welcome to try different wording. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Hitler Edit

Okay, does anyone know how to get this page protected? I think it has to be. Those Chinese hackers will stop at nothing on this one. If you did not notice. someone edited the page so the name of the Liu was changed to Adolf Hitler and the page was changed to Hitlers face as well. It was fixed by someone. I think its terrible some people are so immature. So if we can't get it protected everyone please be on the look out to correct if it happens again. Cloudblazer (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to ask for semi-protection because the article has been getting some good content from ips (particularly 60.242.159.224).--Banana (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Query about image

I just posted a query about the image FP keeps on removing per GFDL. I'm reinstating it pending a satisfactory explanation about why it isn't acceptable to claim historical fair use, as I don't want to have to re-upload it. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

"Keeps on removing"? I only removed it once. Now at FFD. It quite clearly fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

• It was indeed removed by someone else, although it was done at around the same time you removed two other images. Apologies. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 08:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

3rd or 4th person receiving the prize while in prison/detention?

Hi,

the page for Liu Xaobo says: "He is the fourth person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Nazi Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935), the Soviet Union's Andrei Sakharov (1975), and Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991)."

This article (both in the introduction and later on) says: Liu is also the third person to be awarded the Nobel Peace Prize while in prison or detention, after Germany's Carl von Ossietzky (1935, awarded in 1936) and Myanmar's Aung San Suu Kyi (1991).

what's up with that? :) Gershake (talk) 21:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

According to our article on him, he was not allowed to leave the country to collect the prize in 1975, but was not arrested until 1980. I guess it depends on your meaning of detention ( although if he was leading "public protests against the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan in 1979" it suggests he was not in prison).--Banana (talk) 01:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)