Talk:Booker Prize

Awards Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Novels High‑importance

	Novels portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Novels, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to novels, novellas, novelettes and short stories on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and contribute to the general Project discussion to talk over new ideas and suggestions.NovelsWikipedia:WikiProject NovelsTemplate:WikiProject Novelsnovel articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Page Title

Since the Booker Prize is known as the Man Booker Prize, shouldn't Booker Prize redirect to Man Booker Prize rather than the other way round? --Kevin 23:58, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree. "Man" is the commercial additive to the real name. When the commercial sonsor has expired, the "Man" prefix will go and we'll have to change the title again. Why not let it rest at Booker Prize? Mandel 13:58, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It is a dilemma how the prize should be named and referred to as on an encyclopedia. Surely the current official name is Man Booker Prize and we better stick with that. But the prize became to be known so only starting from 2002. And how long this sponsorship will last and the prize be named so is also in question. Consider those award receivers before 2002, they were awarded Booker Prize rather than Man Booker Prize.

My suggestion is to use the name Booker Prize as is commonly known and redirect Man Booker Prize. MarkBeer 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Mandel (and MarkBeer you give your own good reasons for retaining the title as is, in your opening comments). The Man Booker may very likely have folded without Man Investments coming on board, and if ever it should prove necessary in due course, there is absolutely no problem with redirecting to Booker Prize and editing a "history of the name" section to explain matters in more detail (Wikipedia is not paper). By all appearances, Man is making a strong, long term investment in supporting the Man Booker and this has been the official and correct title for several years. You see some journos in their articles referring only to it as "the Booker" and IMO this is lazy inattention to basic detail. I'm not saying that "the Booker" should never be used in everyday parlance or writing, but for me, those who may know or refer to the Man Booker only as the Booker have quite simply got the name wrong. 203.198.237.30 05:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection with the page currently being named as Man Booker Prize. My suggestion is Booker Prize (as is commonly known) be a better arrangement. There is absolutely no problem with redirecting Man Booker Prize to Booker Prize and at the very begining of the page stating:

Man Booker Prize, commonly called Booker Prize, ...

and editing a 'Status of the name' section to explain that the official name is currently such and such, cf the page Bertie Ahern for a supporting example.

Problems are also noticed when referring to the prize on other pages. If we stick with the official name in history, John Banville's The Book of Evidence (1989) was shortlisted by Booker Prize (as was called in 1989) and his The Sea (2005) won the Man Booker Prize. This is undesirable inconsistency. Although I have optioned for Man Booker Prize under both occasions on the Banville page, Roddy Doyle's Paddy Clarke Ha Ha Ha (1993) should on no account be said to have won Man Booker Prize. MarkBeer 06:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't accept that it is accurate to say that the Man Booker is commonly known as the Booker (this is not the only reason why I think so but for what's its worth, through involvement with an international writers' festival, my experience is that people who know what they're on about only use Man Booker - unless as I've said, it is intended as shorthand). Also, I don't agree that we should redirect to an article where the bolded term does not match the title. This would raise the separate issue of inconsisency with the basic WP convention of having title and bolded term match. Articles on people like Bertie Ahern are an exception which prove the rule. For me, the references on other pages are not inconsistent and it is completely accurate to say that Banville was shortlisted for the Booker in 1989 and the Man Booker in 2005. This is mere detail that may need to be checked more carefully depending on dates and I'm prepared to assist policing that - the desirable outcome being appropriate use of piped links. I suppose there must be many other instances of awards and titles changing names over time, with the differences perhaps becoming a mark of distinction in themselves (but not suggesting this for Booker/Man Booker). Off the cuff this comes to mind: Queen's Counsel, some time ago known as King's Counsel, who may now be called Senior Counsel. 203.198.237.30 08:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An exception which prove the rule? You've lost me I'm afraid. We might have had too many exceptions to prove that rule. The page of United Kingdom has United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in bold. So is the page United States. Are you telling me something like there is absolutely no rule, Mister Hongkong? I beg your pardon.

By the way, the page Hong Kong has Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China in bold. Shouldn't we have the latter as the page title and redirct the former to the latter? I hope you would not venture to disagree that Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China is commonly known as Hong Kong. Have a nice day, siree! MarkBeer 10:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this is to become ever more fun! Considered, relevant, non-churlish comparisons to geopraphical locations, and my! you can do a look up. You're well on the way to forming a solid consensus on this one. 203.198.237.30 11:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison reveals fallacy and elucidates truth. More examples galore: C. S. Lewis, Hessell-Tiltman Prize, and Newdigate prize. A much similar case is the WTA Tour which is now under the sponsorship of Sony Ericsson and has its official name as The Sony Ericsson WTA Tour, but no body calls it so in full except those big companies or organisations that hire bunches of (presumably trademark and patent) solicitors to make their public release more legally right. Glad that WTA has not venture to change its website address which is still http://www.wtatour.com/ rather than the ridiculous http://www.thesonyericssonwtatour.com/, whereas Booker Prize has obdiently moved its website from some otherwise address to the current http://www.themanbookerprize.com/. I shall wait to see the day when the sponsorship expires and the labour necessitated to change their official website domain, as well as the title correction and redirecting on an encyclopaedia. Have a nice day! MarkBeer 02:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are nearing a million EN WP articles and you come up with these irrelevant examples, and yes, exceptions which continue to prove the rule. You've exceeded yourself, comparing CS Lewis to this situation, and you may want to explain how the history and naming of these other prizes demonstrates any relevance, given that there is currently nothing on their pages which does so. But only if you're not absolutely convinced of the superiority of your position. 203.198.237.30 05:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We're glad that some is begining to assert their superiority by refuting every counterexample as irrelavant and a mere exception that proves the rule. We shall beg them go back to their Latin class for a re-education on etymology. Before that we shall keep doubting their mentality and implore them to have sense.

For detailed rejoinder, C. S. Lewis (and other examples) was intended, at least, to disprove the following statement by an anonymous (as the IP username construes) user:

I don't agree that we should redirect to an article where the bolded term does not match the title.

Although, as it transpires, the user is reluctant to rescind this assertion made by them, they have reached the decision not to reiterate it. Since page under the title of C. S. Lewis could have its begining with Clive Staples Lewis in bold and search of Clive Staples Lewis is indeed redirected to the page C. S. Lewis, the page titled Booker Prize might as well begin with:

Man Booker Prize, commonly and previously known as Booker Prize, is ...

and be redirected to from search of Man Booker Prize.

Again, as for what is or could be termed as common, a bigot mind is sure to pout. Bonsoir, MarkBeer 07:16, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You old charmer, MarkBeer! You "don't understand mean people" (for third parties: from MB's user page) but there is some struggle with civility here. As no one's about to enforce WP:NPA by spanking you for your churlishness, and I'm sure that you're actually a nice guy, let's start over. You started off by saying (btw, disregard my initial reference to agreeing with Mandel) that we should keep the official name, but then proposed redirecting to Booker Prize from Man Booker, with the article starting off with "Man Booker Prize (commonly known as...)". The current redirect setup deals with this (the Booker disambig article includes a link to the article MB) - but there isn't a redirect from Man Booker to the MB article, could you kindly create and redirect? - and my last edits to the MB article to better explain the naming thing will hopefully provide some satisfaction. 203.198.237.30 02:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One's glad that some's proposed to shove off incivility. For that I agree.

I have no objection of any sort for the current version, where the page has a name Man Booker Prize. My suggestion is that Booker Prize might be a better alternative than the official yet temporary name. Thus, according to my outlook, the article of this entity is titled Booker Prize starting with:

Man Booker Prize, commonly known as Booker Prize, is ...

or even better:

Booker Prize (current official name Man Booker Prize), is ...

and Man Booker Prize is redirected here.

Having no problem with the status quo and agreeing to disagree, I wish the user I am having the converse with had spent a gorgeous Valentine's Day in Hong Kong (as the IP address divulges). Cheerio, MarkBeer 00:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we got the HK thing earlier, and apology accepted! I think we could include "commonly known as" as you suggest (you know this is also mentioned in the 3rd para, right?). Btw, I'm curious about why you feel that Man is "temporary"? Do you know something we don't?? (and to play devil's advocate, what if it was Booker which got the chop?) 203.198.237.30 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC) (btw - thanks for creating Man Booker and redirecting, cheers) 203.198.237.30 08:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"one of the world's most prestigious literary prize"

Shouldn't this be "...prizes"?

Longlist / shortlist -vs- Long list / short list

Mel and Ken, why stop at edit warring and near violation of 3RR when there may be much more fun to be had after a few barely civil exchanges here descend into outright ad hominems! For what its worth, the Man Booker people apparently prefer longlist / shortlist. Here also. 203.198.237.30 08:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But, first, our article (to which this article links) is Short list; secondly, we should use the Wikipedia Manual of style, not the stylistic preferences of the subject of the article (this is standard policy in any reference work). Finally, "short list" and "short-listed" are overwhelmingly preferred in British dictionaries, "short list" and "short-listed" in the U.S.; as this is an article on a British award, we should use the British for for the noun phrase (whatever the PR people for the award do), and there's simply no genuine alternative for the verb. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be perfectly clear about my position. I do not disagree with Mel concerning dictionary definitions or British English. My position is that those things are not of primary importance in this case. We are talking about a thing that is known all over the world as the Booker shortlist. That, in my opinion, outweighs Mel's preference for some dictionaries over others.

Furthermore, Mel, your reference to the Wikipedia Manual of Style is misleading at best. Go read it again. It clearly supports my position.

My last point: the consensus so far is in favor of "shortlist" 2 to 1. Stop editing this article against the consensus. KennyLucius 18:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from anything else you are still changing a link to an existent article Short list to a link to a non existent article "shortlist". Also, to cliam consensus on the basis of one other opinion, offered by someone who doesn't appear to have read the debate on your Talk page, and couched neutrally, is pretty thin. You are also close to violating WP:3RR. Why not take a breath, count to 100, and leave it for a while? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 23:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thin consensus is better than none, and you have reverted as many times as I have. Perhaps you should take your own advice.

I notice that you didn't mention the Wikipedia Manual of Style supporting my position. Have you relented on that particular point? KennyLucius 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly I'll take the advice of a fellow admin, and leave this, as it's not worth the effort. I've piped the link. If you insist on following the Man-Booker PR people's semi-literacy, fine. most readers will be semi-literate too, so I don't suppose that it matters. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very kind of you, Mel. On semi-literacy: if I know that shortlist is not in the OED yet, that's half of literacy. I guess the other half is using only the words in the OED, right? I'll go along with that, but I must express my disappointment that you didn't address my IP argument. I intend to use short list correctly except when referring to a property purposely and consistently entitled shortlist.

Controversy

I find putting 'controversy, as the second item is a bit giving it a negative spin. Moreover, far too much is made of it given 1-the size of the article, 2- the prestige of the prize. Honestly, some of the comments are beside the point, quite judgemental and even unfounded, e.g. The journalist!s comment suggesting that the Booker chooses books people don't read... Most winners sell millions of copies, plus, that is not how the Booker choose a book, the choice is made on literary merit, and thanks Heaven there is such a platform for good quality books. Moreover, if you put attacks on the Booker, there should also be, as far as possible, the opposing views, there is no controversy without disagreement. Maybe pointing out, as a second point, that the Booker has made the name of large part of the great names in Literature should go first? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.45.136 (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of longlists

Should we also create a list of longlisted novels like the list of shortlist and winners? The information's on the official site. It would be really tedious though. Skinnyweed 22:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear

It is also a mark of distinction for authors to be nominated for the Booker longlist or shortlist. In 1993, the Booker of Booker Prize was awarded to Salman Rushdie for Midnight's Children (the 1981 winner), as the best novel to win the award in the first 25 years of its existence.

Does this mean that Mr. Rushdie won the prize twice, in 1981 and 1993? That seems odd. 140.90.208.79 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He won the Booker in '81 and the Booker of Bookers in '93. Two separate awards. --Steve 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come one author is written down as being from Scotland, yet others as being from the United Kingdom??? Shouldn't they all be the UK or split into the separate nations?? ## Sign your posts, please.

Probably - I created the country lists a while back, and thought about that - the UK in this list is essentially a proxy for English. It can certainly be changed, but I'd like to hear feedback from others - should we make everyone from N. Ireland/Scotland/Wales/England UK, or identify authors as specifically English? Since the Man Booker Prize is a Commonwealth organisation, it does recognise sub-units of the UK. Irregulargalaxies 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link

Why was the link to the betting for the 2007 Booker Prize removed?? This is clearly a very relevant link. The official Booker Prize website even has articles about the betting market, which have been listed in each of the last 25 years, as an important indicator of a likely winner. If you think it is spam, then you should remove the TurboBookSnob.com external link which is deriving commercial benefit as an affiliate to several e-commerce sites such as Ebay.

I removed the other one, as well, you are quite right about that. María (críticame) 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flags

Someone needs to fix the table so that there is a UK flag instead of text saying 'Flag of the United Kingdom'. I would do it myself, only I have no idea how. --Helenalex 00:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the South African flags should be switched to the Aparthied-era flag. --Jfruh (talk) 01:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, someone needs to remove the Australian flag credits from the two JM Coetzee entries. Crediting Australia is ridiculous. JM Coetzee moved from South Africa to Australia long after both Booker Prize awards and none of his work (before the awards) is about or was influenced by Australia. 80.171.132.141 (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC) John B.[reply]

"Including authors with dual citizenship, the United Kingdom has (by far) the most winners of the prize at 24. Second is Australia with six winners (counting both Coetzee and Carey twice), and third is the Republic of Ireland with four. " Is this statistic useful or relevant in the slightest? 84.142.72.147 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Jones[reply]

I see no compelling reason to have flags at all. Writers are not sportsfigures representing their country in national competitions, and, as we have seen, people move .... In fact I'm not sure of the purpose of the nationality column at all -- but I think we should definitely eliminate the flags. See WP:FLAG for more discussions, btw. --Lquilter (talk) 22:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. After reading WP:FLAG I propose that the flags are removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.142.72.147 (talk) 14:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality column may have been meant to illustrate the openness of the award. It doesn't do that very well in a winners list--probably would do so in a shortlist table. I suggest removing the whole column. KennyLucius (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the flags from the nationality column. IMO they distracted from the author and book names. I'm neutral on whether the entire nationality column should stay or go. Bláthnaid 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Choice of Countries

I wonder who chose the Commonwealth plus Ireland. It's like the Brits regarding Ireland as a "Home Nation" ("not really foreign, you know"). But since the precedent for a non-Commonwealth country was set, why not the USA? It's English speaking too.Millbanks (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is entirely my own guess, but I think that Ireland is included because it was part of the Commonwealth until the 1940s. The US was never part of the Commonwealth because it achieved independence before the Commonwealth was established. Two South African authors won the prize during the period that South Africa was excluded from the Commonwealth, so the criteria for allowing a country to be part of the prize do not appear to be strict. Bláthnaid 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps that - but also perhaps (only a suggestion) it reflects the range of countries Booker-McConnell had interests in.Although the list now has a fairly respectable list of winners, it has never quite shaken off being a bit of a joke. Perhaps the article should address that. 62.64.214.48 (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Newby2.jpg

The image File:Newby2.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

File:The White Tiger.JPG

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --17:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Booker of Bookers and 40th Anniversary

A recent edit has deleted a paragraph regarding the "Booker of Bookers" and 40th anniversary competitions. This has been done without discussion.

I believe details of both these competitions, while outside the annual prize timeline, deserve mention in this article about the Man Booker Prize, as they relate directly to it and would not exist without the main prize. I can see that they might be better placed in a separate section within the main article but can see no reason why they should be deleted outright.--Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning novel template

There's already a {{Man Booker Prize Winners}} for Booker Prize winning authors; why not have one for the novels as well, to replace those horrid succession boxes? Giant Snowman 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't mind the succession boxes. I've created similar ones for Australia's Miles Franklin Award winning novels, as well as {{Miles Franklin Literary Award Winners}}. If the discussion here proposes the replacement of the boxes, I'll follow along with the MF Award. --Perry Middlemiss (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Table and order of columns

I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.

Ian McEwan

Ian McEwan has been shortlisted 5 times. Not 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantaallou (talk • contribs) 15:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting

I've had a quick stab at copyediting this article as I feel that its own quality should reflect that of the subject it discusses. It's a great article, and it would be great if further edits and additions continue to comply with MOS, especially in the way the refs are displayed. It would also be a good idea if contributors could remember to include edit summaries (required for all edits), and to sign their messages on his talk page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Main Table and order of columns

A previous anynymous, unsigned message (probably on 1 September 2009, see User talk:83.78.180.148) reads:
I think the list of winners' title should be in the order: Author, Title, Country. Not the Country before the Title. Can we vote on this? I would suggest to change the order then.
I thoroughly agree with this suggestion - the Booker is not a literary Olympic Games. If a consensus is not reached within a few days, I'll be bold and make the change.--Kudpung (talk) 08:05, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Coetzee and nationalities

There have been multiple revisions removing JM Coetzee's country of origin as Australia (in addition to South Africa). I'm fully aware that he was born and raised in South Africa and only received Australian citizenship in 2006, after both his Booker awards. Regardless of when it happened, though, he does have Australian nationality now, lives there full time, and deals with the country in his recent works. I don't think it should be removed from the Country column in the table without discussion. Irregulargalaxies (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

duplication

Just before the table with the list of all the winners is: The 2009 recipient of the Booker Prize was English author Hilary Mantel, for her novel Wolf Hall.[8], which seems redundant and adds nothing to the list just below it. Would remove, but maybe the ref wants to be kept and moved to the list? --86.173.140.91 (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Main table sort order

Shouldn't this be in decreasing order of year rather than increasing. The more recent and relevant information first?? Why was this put in a counter-intuitive and inverted way? Kniwor (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Current Year?

Why isn't there anything about the current year or when it's awarded annually on this page? I had to go to the official site to find out that the shortlist was announced on September 6th and that the prize will be awarded on October 18th - IMO this should really be in the top paragraph - thoughts? It Figures. (talk) 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

line in intro seems a bit unfair

"In contrast to literary prizes in the United States, the Booker Prize is greeted with great anticipation and fanfare" seems like a jab to the US. even if it is to be included, why is it necessary to put it in the intro? Plus, that citation is largely opinion based in origin anyway and has no evidence whatsoever, other than being mentioned by some columnist to fit the tone of his piece. Completely unsubstantiated 76.172.114.52 (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Flags?

I propose to remove the flags and also the nationality column; the official site makes no mention of nationality and certainly isn't festooned with tiny flags. --John (talk) 12:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about removing the flags, although this is a minor issue. However I'm not so sure you should remove nationality. I'd like to see what others have to say. Thanks for inviting submissions. - Fanthrillers (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to start a RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels; will get it started tomorrow. Thanks for your patience. - Fantr (talk) 21:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to keep the nationality column because all nominees hail from "the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland." Therefore nationality is relevant. The author biographies also identify nationality. Further, the article contains a "genre column" which is even less relevant and which does not appear to exist on the Booker website. As for the flag icon, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Flags says "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams." The authors clearly do not represent their individual nations therefore I support the removal of the flag icon. - Fantr (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording...

'"Outsider" John Banville began this trend in 2005 when his novel The Sea was selected,...' Actually, Banville did not start the trend; it was started by the judges who selected him, which is something he had no control over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.129.176 (talk) 01:07, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Eligibility expansion

Would be nice if the article retained some hint of what the eligibility criteria were before 18 September 2013. --Khajidha (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Man Booker Prize. 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:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090904052840/http://www.brookes.ac.uk:80/library/speccoll/booker.html to http://www.brookes.ac.uk/library/speccoll/booker.html

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} 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Proposed merge with The Best of the Booker

No real interest in this, no consensus to merge, nothing for nearly six months. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Best of the Booker was one time sub-category of the main award Man Booker Prize with no fixed criteria of repeating in future. Also a small article size wise and can be easily merged into the parent Man Booker Prize. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not agree. This was/is a huge topic in the literary scene as can be further read here, here, and here. Notably, it was a public vote, and is seen as a vindication of the whole Booker craze before which the juries were accused of nepotism and playing favoritism. Booker prize is a controversial topic and we need comprehensive, separate articles for the readers to show its importance in modern English literature. I might be wrong, but we should discuss this thoroughly before merging. I think Sadads would like to comment on this, too. Cheers, Mr. Nair Talk 11:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The merger in no way would sensor any of the information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest merging the content of The Best of the Booker as a section of this article with a redirect, without removing any of the content per Dharmadhyaksha. It doesn't make sense to have to curate this information in multiple locations -- but certainly appears like a notable subtopic of the broader topic. Sadads (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge and redirect. The content can easily be merged to the main article (maybe a subjection of the history and administration?). I personally do not think it is important enough to deserve its own article and an AfD would probably conclude as a merge as well. (I would suggest leaving out the list of shortlisted books though - that would be a bit undue on the main article) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 13:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 22 December 2016

This discussion was listed at Wikipedia:Move review on 12 January 2017. The result of the move review was endorsed.

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Although the WP:COMMONNAME argument isn't conclusively proven, there is some evidence for it in Dicklyon's ngram, and there is a clear WP:CONCISE advantage to the proposed title, an argument which gained a consensus in support of moving, during the discussion. — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Man Booker Prize → Booker Prize – Common name according to the article, unambiguous, more concise, reversing bold 2005 move which was contrary to 2004 consensus. Andrewa (talk) 18:24, 22 December 2016 (UTC) --Relisting. Brad v 18:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Oppose - Man Booker Prize is long established and how the prize is best known. Some just say "Booker Prize", "Man Booker" or even just "Booker" but in this case Man Booker Prize is really the best known name and pretty concise as it is. -- GreenC 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker". -- GreenC 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #Conciseness below. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support the "Man" element is for commercial purposes. I can provide dozens of examples of events and prizes etc which use the non-commercial title. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per overwhelming usage stats in books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(click 'case insensitive' for it to work.) Man Booker changed its name in 2002, and many books are from before that date, so have to set the date from 2002 to 2008 to be fair. But the results are not right. Here is the Google Books search on The Booker Prize. Notice most of the books are actually "Man Booker Prize" .. Take this one for example, it says 47 "the booker prize" results but it's all "Man Booker Prize". Same holds for most of the others. -- GreenC 06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

See #Page Title for previous rather involved discussion, but the conclusion there was that Man Booker Prize should redirect to Booker Prize. But then see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Booker_Prize&action=history (which will be lost if the move goes ahead) 08:52, 24 May 2005‎ Clarkk (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (30 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (Booker Prize moved to Man Booker Prize).

The current name seems contrary to policy, see the explanatory essay at wp:official names. See also discussion at Talk:Folio Prize#Requested move 14 December 2016 which cites this page name as a precedent for adding the sponsor name there. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay giving someone's interpretation of policy and is not specific to the Man Book Prize except to say you don't have to use the full official name, but it doesn't say you shouldn't or can't either. Sometimes sponsors name are brand new and not well established like with the Folio Prize, but with the Man Booker it's well established and best known (IMO).

The essay is largely (but by no means entirely) my work actually! It certainly doesn't say you can't use the use the full name, in fact it explicitly gives cases and situations where the official name should be used. And it does have a little more standing than most essays, in that WP:AT#Use commonly recognizable names links to it.

It was written because WP:AT doesn't say a lot about official names. The policy is about how you should name an article. The essay is about how you should not, and with this focus can clearly make some points which are implied by WP:AT, but which are widely missed. Andrewa (talk) 09:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your essay says the full official name "should be used only if they are actually the name most commonly used". As noted above "Man Booker" is the most common usage I believe based on data analysis. So COMMONNAME still needs to be established regardless the essay doesn't change that. -- GreenC 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See #Conciseness below. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BTW now I'm afraid of bringing up other examples in case you try to RfM them also - a situation not conductive to collaborative editing. You have the right to RfM, but there are better ways to go about it. -- GreenC 18:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What better ways? Always happy to try something new.

I'm very sorry you feel that way. Please reconsider. We can't have rational discussion if people are going to deliberately withhold the evidence that supports their views.

You need only fear if this RM succeeds. And if it does, that indicates to me that it was good to raise it.

And if not, then the essay and perhaps also WP:AT will need some work. Because you're right, it's a relevant example. I'm not trying to be pointy. I'm trying to resolve the issue you raised. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A better way is hold off until the previous RfM concluded or has clear consensus. Otherwise it just creates a situation the stifles co-operative editing and trust. -- GreenC 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I could have done that, and simply foreshadowed at the previous RM that I intended to RM your (very relevant) example. I don't see that as a better way... the issues with respect to the two articles are similar but not identical. Here we also have the previous consensus and the subsequent undiscussed move in defiance of it, for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conciseness

From the survey above: A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker". -- GreenC 16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to misunderstand WP:CONCISE, as does the previous comment that the current title is pretty concise as it is.

There's no question that many sources do use the longer form. But it's logically impossible for them to outnumber those that use the short form, because the short form in included in the longer form. So whenever the longer form is used, both forms are used.

So to argue for the longer term, we'd need to decide that some criteria other than conciseness and common use apply... for example that the shorter term was less recognisable, or unofficial. This is where the essay comes in... the official name has very little standing here, as the policy (which links to the essay) also makes quite clear on careful reading. And there's no suggestion that the shorter form is any less recognisable than the long one.

This is a very common situation with respect to sponsorship, and so the principle affects many articles.

There are many reasons that sources might use the longer name. They might defer to the official name and/or have a different rule on conciseness to that of English Wikipedia. They may themselves have sponsorship connections. This again does not mean we need to follow them. Andrewa (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But it's logically impossible for them to outnumber those that use the short form, because .. whenever the longer form is used, both forms are used. No. From the set that includes both words (2890 results) subtract "Man" leaving the "Booker"-only set (863 results). Those using just "Booker" are less than those using "Man Booker". BTW I understand concise, but per your essay, that doesn't negate WP:COMMONNAME. -- GreenC 19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News results aren't encyclopedic results. We all know that many of these outlets are asked to or even encouraged to use sponsorship names by the companies in question. That doesn't make it right. We don't call the FA Cup the Emirates FA Cup, despite many official news sources doing so. We don't call the Football League Cup the the EFL Cup, nor do we call the EFL Trophy the Checkatrade Cup. And to claim Google News to be the de facto standard on "common name" is slightly misleading. Actually just doing a general Google search reveals that Booker Prize is 50% more prevalent across the web than Man Booker Prize. Finally, this prize originated without sponsorship so it's perfectly reasonable (like the FA Cup) to remove the sponsorship (and add a note in the lead as to its current name, for sponsorship reasons). Before anyone yells Baileys Prize for Fiction, that prize didn't even exist until Orange created it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:08, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Green Cardamom, I understand your methodology, but I disagree with it. You're saying that a hit for Man Booker Prize doesn't also count as a hit for Booker Prize. Now, if it were Man-Booker Prize, sponsored by Man and Booker, then that might be valid. But it's not. It's the Booker Prize, sponsored by Man, and those who call it the Man Booker Prize are in that very act also calling it the Booker Prize, and most if not all of them would recognise the phrase Booker Prize as referring to the same thing (or if not, you need to establish why not).

Strongly agree it doesn't negate WP:COMMONNAME. In fact have no idea how that suggestion came up. Affirming the common name over the official name is exactly what the essay says (as does the policy), hence this discussion about just how to decide what that common name is. Andrewa (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Booker Prize. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929040559/http://www.turbobooksnob.com/ to http://www.turbobooksnob.com/

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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long/Shortlist is not defined and article rambles.

I'll not be drawn into the longlist v long list debate. There should be no debate at all because it should be spelled exactly as Booker uses it. It's that simple. What I will say is that this article tells us nothing about the awards. What are the long/shortlists? What does it signify? How has it shaped the way listed authors are perceived? I don't know because I don't live in the UK but these are the things readers new to the Booker Prize want to know. This is largely a rambling article with nothing but dates. I myself am new to the prize (I've never cared who won what, I prefer to make my own opinion) but someone asked me yesterday about it and so I looked it up and realized that this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award. MagnoliaSouth ^(talk) 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award I disagree. The lead and infobox alone tell you for what it is awarded, when it was founded, who presents it, where it's presented, and then there's all the rest of the article, including all the winners and their books. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. As for terms like "shortlist" not being "defined", it's just plain English really. You could even just link short list if it's not clear what it means. That article even tells you what a "long list" is. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Booker Prize. 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: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Travancore was not part of British-India

QUOTE: From its inception, only novels written by Commonwealth, Irish, and South African (and later Zimbabwean) citizens were eligible to receive the prize; END OF QUOTE.

The term CommonWealth based upon a very foolish idea that prevails in Great Britain and England. Travancore was not part of British-India. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:294:A6D:A1A8:FD31:9AAC:CF7 (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down "See also" section

I propose that we only need two "See also" links rather than the current thirteen. International Booker Prize and Russian Booker Prize are already linked in body text (MOS:NOTSEEAGAIN). Then there are List of British literary awards and List of literary awards which should stay. Then there are links to other specific literary awards, but these are already encompassed by those two lists. I think this is a straightforward change, but I'm doing paid work for the Booker Prize Foundation so want to get feedback from other editors. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy of the British Empire

This section strikes me as rather bizarre. It's badly sourced, being totally reliant on a single author whose work is basically unknown and wholly out of print. The only review I was able to find (Bruce King, Research in African Literatures 34:2, 2003) was scathing, dismissing it as a "pedestrian book" that "is an anthology of citations to obvious remarks by others" and "manages to say nothing new" (p.214). On top of being obscure and not particularly academic, everything cited is from what appears to be the preface or introduction, indicating that whoever added that section didn't even read the entire book.

However, while a mediocre book by a basically unknown author is one thing, and it's bad to cite a book you haven't even read, what's even worse is the way that all other scholarship on the history of the Booker Prize, and indeed post-colonialism and post-imperialism, is completely neglected. People have been writing about such things for decades, so why would you ignore all of their arguments and counterarguments just to uncritically promote a single author's work? Even in terms of writers and academics critical of the Booker Prize there are far better places to start, like Todd's Consuming Fictions: The Booker Prize and Fiction in Britain Today (1996). It's just bizarre.

Certainly, just looking at the points there, I'd argue that Luke Strongman can't seem to tell the difference between a post-colonial novel concerned with the history and legacy of Empire and one that "engages in imperial nostalgia". The only example actually named, Something to Answer For (1969), certainly doesn't engage in the latter, as among its various themes is the exploration of British duplicity, incompetence, and dishonour during the Suez Crisis. And that aside, could you really ever consider a novel about events that happened a mere 13 years prior to its publication to be "nostalgic"?

Of the other novels that feature the British Empire and its legacy, some are profoundly critical. The Conservationist (1974), for instance, features a deep critique of apartheid. Others use the imperial past as a means of reflecting upon pressing contemporary issues, with Rites of Passage (1980), set during the 19th century on a ship bound for Australia, intimately exploring issues of sexuality and class.

This is also to say nothing that a large proportion of the winning novels about the British Empire, such as In a Free State (1971) and Midnight's Children (1981), being written by people of colour about the legacy and impact of imperialism, whilst also exploring various other themes of class, sexuality, race, freedom, and more besides. Is it "imperial apologia" for an author like V.S. Naipaul, who won the prize in 1971, to write about the lives of indians and other victims of Empire post-independence? The sheer arrogance and condescension to suggest such a thing is utterly astounding.

Additionally, the claim that the Booker Prize was created as some sort of propaganda exercise by British politicians is also absurd and baseless. Even if you ignore the actual history of how the prize was founded, the fact is that if it actually had some sort of pro-imperial agenda then that wound be reflected in the chosen winners. However, one of the earliest prize winners, John Berger, was also a noted Marxist who criticised the prize organisation for Booker's 19th century colonial profiteering, and who donated half his winnings to the British Black Panthers. 148.252.128.103 (talk) 02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carey

Peter Carey is a great writer of course, but so is nearly everyone else who won the award almost by definition. So I don't understand this recent series of edits: [1] .. It discusses Peter Carey being on a Guardian "Best 100" list (in the #100 position). Why is it in this article at all? It has nothing to do with the Booker Prize. And why is it even mentioned that he won the Booker in the History section? It's an arbitrary mention. That's what the list section is for. Then, it goes on about Carey winning the prize 2 times, and oh BTW these couple other writers did also, as an aside. It all seems biased in highlighting Carey and opens a can of worms for other editors to likewise push their favored author in the history section. -- GreenC 22:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Error in the Winners box

Bernadine Evaristo tied with Douglas Stuart, NOT Margaret Atwood. I'm not sure which year. Can someone correct this please? Kombo the mzungu (talk) 17:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, this isn't true. Atwood and Evaristo were joint winners in 2019. If you want to correct the article, don't rely on a hunch but find an actual source that backs up the change you want to make. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]