Talk:Neustadt International Prize for Literature

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

What's so unusual in $50K ? this should be explained. --Lysytalk 21:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wide-ranging fame[edit]

Here I am in Toronto. Two Torontonians have won this award, and I am not really aware of it.
I have a fairly recent García Márquez book here, Melancholy Whores (Putas tristes). The hardcover book jacket mentions his Nobel, but his Neustadt is absent.
Varlaam (talk) 19:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the city of Norman. The University is a well-regarded publisher of academic books. Varlaam (talk)

Policymic[edit]

An editor keeps adding a Policymic source to the Couto section of the table. Not only is it unnecessary given that we have two other sources to verify the claim, but Policymic is an inappropriate source on Wikipedia due to its inherent self-published nature. We don't need it, so we should be removing it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I just posted to your talk page at the same time. The "editor" is myself. As I said, RS/N doesn't say that a source can never be used. It depends on the context. This is an author interview which is the author's own words. There is nothing unreliable about it. It is useful in this article because it's the only source that gives the authors perspective right after winning the prize. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Policymic is inherently unreliable as we cannot verify that anything there is really true. It's completely self-published. There is nothing that the Policymic source offers to verify what it's being used for that we cannot use actual reliable sources on. Even if it were a useful source, the section it cites is not about anyone's reaction, it's a table of winners. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this different is that an author's own interview is a primary source, it "offers an insider's view of an event" (per WP:PRIMARY). Primary sources are allowed on Wikipedia see the policy at WP:PRIMARY, we use them so long as they are don't make up the bulk of sources, and don't make original interpretations, it is useful as an insiders view on an event. (An interview is a primary source, as has been established in countless AfD discussions where interviews have not been allowed into evidence.) While there is currently no year by year history section in the article that expands on the sources there could be; and maintaining citations in the table is more than verifying winners, they are links to relevant sources about that years award, it improves the article to provide sources about that year's award, we are not limited to sources only for verifying the simple fact of who won (even though this source does that as well). That we can't trust the source is easily resolved. Since it's a primary source, it is possible to verify by emailing the living author and ask if the interview is accurate, verification is possible. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can we verify that this actually occurred, that these are his words? I can't, for sure. Policymic lacks the editorial oversight that allows us to verify this information. As the information isn't actually adding to what's being cited, I fail to see why we should continue to use a bad source that we basically don't use anywhere else as an exception here. I'll note what WP:PRIMARY says about primary sources: "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia." Emphasis is mine, and Policymic fails to meet this standard. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's easily verified by asking the author directly. However since PRIMARY requires it to be "reliably published", it would be circular reasoning to say the source is reliable since it's primary. So I guess that line of reasoning doesn't hold up given the requirement for primary reliability. This to me seems strange because primary sources can include documents that are unpublished, yet we use them. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By "reliably published," it means things like a news interview, a published book, etc. Things with editorial control to ensure that what is being said actually reflects that primary source. So the autobiography of Mark Twain, published by a university press is reliable, as is a blog from someone who is writing about themselves that we can verify is the blog of that person. What we have here is asserted as an interview by a third party website with no editorial control. The interview is filtered through two things: an interview with no obvious credentials to speak of, on a website that has no editorial oversight to speak of. It's 100% inappropriate in this context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Neustadt International Prize for Literature. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:42, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Neustadt_International_Prize_for_Literature&oldid=1207169693"