Talk:Right Livelihood Award

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

Philatelist or Philanthropist[edit]

The section on "History" (oldid=749166108) starts with: "Jakob von Uexküll, the philatelist,...", which would be someone who collects stamps. I would believe it should be "philanthropist" instead (like mentioned in the article introduction), but I leave it to others to get this right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.216.226.93 (talk) 14:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philatelist is correct. He sold his stamp collection. --Dr Oldekop (talk) 20:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intent of organization's name[edit]

Was the award named after the identically-named concept in Buddhism? --Dpr 06:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See [1].--Old Moonraker 07:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, sorry, but Bullshit!
What the cited article, by a Sri Lankan admirer of the most recent award says, in relevant part is these two complete 'graphs:
The funds for the Right Livelihood Award were secured by von Uexkull selling his prized collection of stamps for about a million dollars. The name Right Livelihood would strike a familiar note to those acquainted with Buddhist philosophy.
Von Uexkull being a philosophy graduate from Oxford has been struck by this name Right Livelihood appearing in Buddha’s Noble Eightfold Path.
That is, one presumed Buddhist surmises that all Oxford "philosophy graduate[s]" study the major eastern religions. (Perhaps that is Commonwealth English for "philo major" -- but our bio Jakob von Uexkull says he "graduat[ed] in Philosophy, Politics and Economics", aka "Modern Greats", "a modern alternative to Classics (known as Greats)".)
So a gentlemen who might be offended if he encountered
decided, based on a factual mistake and unreasonable assumptions, not that Uexkull intended to evoke Buddhism, but that he "has been struck by this name" as "a familiar note".
In fact, there is no evidence in the ref that the foundation was named after anything Buddhist.
(It's too bad, but no big deal, that there's been confusion. But my tone may be infected by the possibility that that bad info influenced the following contrib by Ninjagonzo; if so, please make the slight effort necessary to discounting my tone.)
--Jerzy•t 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following contrib was made, immediately below Old Moonraker's 07:32, 8 November 2007 contrib, at a time when they were both in the lead section of this talk page. The juxtaposition could logically have been intentional, as discussed below. --Jerzy•t 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hello! i just put some changes in the article, because i like its motivation, and i thought the text was pretty much criticizing it; should it not be completely neutral? greetz, ninjagonzo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninjagonzo (talk • contribs) 00:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NG refers to their own edit 19 minutes earlier, which has two portions:
  1. It removed the factual statement
    (It uses its name without prominently explicating any relationship between the name and the Right Livelihood element in the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.)
    This statment is needed, in the absence of solid evidence for simply lk'g to Noble Eightfold Path, i.e. evidence that the organization intends to evoke the RL that is part of NEP:
    with no lk, we conceal from those who know nothing of Buddhism the plain fact that many people who hear of RLA react to it based on the assumption that it intentionally evokes Buddhist thought;
    with a lk and no dislaimer, we imply that intention without evidence of it.
  2. It replaced a factual statement about RLA's lack of connection to Nobel Prizes with
The ceremonial event takes place in the Swedish parliament usually during the first week of December, and the award is therefore often referred to as the "alternative Nobelprize".
That replacementwould deserve a {{fact}} tag on the word "therefore", if it were not an attempt to deny what most readers would assume is likely, from the facts it replaced: that the term "alternative Nobel prize" is an attempt to make a claim of similarity, if not to also implicitly disparage the judgment of the Nobel committees by asserting the need for an "alternative" to their judgment.
"Unfortunately", something I didn't know when I wrote my version turns out to be clear: that the use of the term reflects Uexkull's dissatisfaction with the Nobels, the rejection of his proposals by the those responsible for the Nobels, and his org's choice to associate itself unilaterally with the Nobels. Our bio of hims states:
He created the awards out of a recognition that Nobel prizes were relatively narrow in scope and usually recognised the work of those in industrialised countries.
(Never mind that you can't "recognize" something that is not true, so that passage endorses his PoV: "out of a recognition" must be replaced by "because he believed".)
I am reverting NG's entire edit with an undo, and will deal with the evidence that is new since my previous edit of the article "at my leisure", which in this case will begin in about 5 hours.
NG, i advise you, when you like something, and "[think] the text was pretty much criticizing it", to make more effort to distinguish between facts that invite conclusions you dislike, on one hand, and expressing a PoV on it, on the other. It's crucial here.
--Jerzy•t 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The edits that have been replaced appear to require citations. There seem to be citations evidencing a connection with the Buddhist path, however tenuous; there are no citations evidencing a lack of connection - on this basis, I have removed a claim that the connection does not exist. There was also a mass of repeated material; I have removed duplications and condensed (and made more precise) the text.
--Hgilbert (talk) 00:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The most important thing to say is what i said above: you can't have a proper article on the "Right Livelihood Award" without a link to Noble Eightfold Path (since Right Livelihood is a Rdr to that article). There was one, and you removed it.
As a close second, it should be said that there was no "claim that the connection does not exist" in the removed sent:
(It uses its name without prominently explicating any relationship between the name and the Right Livelihood element in the Buddhist Noble Eightfold Path.)
but rather a verifiable fact: on their entire site, the only reference to 8-fP is a personal statement by a Buddhist recipient. Facts speak for themselves, and should not be excluded just bcz awareness of them will persuade most readers to opinions that are not immediately verifiable facts; much less may a fact be excluded on the basis of "tenuous" "evidence" of something that the solid fact does not rule out.
If the facts are insufficiently relevant that can be a reason for exclusion, including facts that are so awkward to state that doing so distracts from more important aspects. I think in the long run, that would be true of the sentence in question, but it seemed to me a good work-in-progress line that is true, and gives a reader a handle on an aspect that should in the long run be dealt with better, when better information is at hand.
As to better information, Die Erfolgsgeschichte einer Briefmarkensammlung, or "Success Story of a Stamp Collection" was a program of de:Westdeutscher Rundfunk (call it "Radio Cologne, Germany" if you like). That page lks to a transcript in which Jakob von Uexkull says (in relevant part)
Es gibt sehr viele falsche Livelihoods, das muss man ganz klar sehen, es gibt sehr viele Menschen, die heute so falsch leben, dass für andere nichts mehr übrig bleibt, und besonders für unsere Enkel nichts mehr übrig bleibt. Und Right Livelihood, das ist ein Begriff, der aus dem Buddhismus kommt, ich bin also kein Buddhist, ich schätze aber sehr diese Einstellung dass man nun sein gesamtes Leben richtig führen sollte, dass ich leicht auf der Erde lebe, nicht mehr als meinen fairen Anteil der Ressourcen er Erde verzehre, das war für mich dieser Begriff.
My rough translation is
There are a great many wrong livelihoods -- one can't help but see that clearly -- there are a great many people living so wrongly, that nothing is left for others, and especially for our grandchildren. And Right Livelihood -- that is a concept that comes from Buddhism; I am not a Buddhist, but I value greatly this attitude that one now must lead the whole of his own life correctly, that I live lightly on the earth, consuming no more than my fair share of the earth's resources -- that was what this concept came to for me.
That is not a confident translation, but IMO it points the way quite concretely to an improved way to deal with the Right Livelihood elephant in the Right Livelihood Award living room:
(The organization's founder has said that the Right Livelihood doctrine in Buddhism is a compelling ethical idea for him.)
That avoids the potential for suggesting to Four Noble Truths-aware readers that this is a Buddhist foundation, and to the rest that the foundation invented the "Right Livelihood" concept. My inclination is to insert something along those lines now, and seek verification from a more competent linguist that the transcript fully supports it (thru en:'s translators, or on the talk page for the German-WP version: since we are fully aware of that need, it would seem silly to me to stick a {{fact}} tag on it. (But i can live with silly.)
--Jerzy•t 08:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good solution. Better than my cite, above, which you describe as "Bullshit"! Genuine apologies if it was the cause of the contended edit by User:Ninjagonzo, which has rightly been reverted. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tnx, but my biting NG, and perhaps you, suggests that any apologies are due from me. I've been coming on pretty strong on this, and i hope others can carry the work on.
Jerzy•t 17:34, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent] I don't feel bitten—apologies absolutely not necessary for what I took to be a light-hearted remark. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That the name of the organization is based on the Buddhist principle is clear from the organization's own website, which explicitly cites the Noble Eightfold Path on this page: https://www.rightlivelihoodaward.org/honour/about-the-right-livelihood-award/what-is-right-livelihood/ In my opinion a reference to this effect (e.g. citing the Noble Eightfold Path as the source of the prize name) would be entirely appropriate--indeed it seems remiss not to have it in the article somewhere.Chillowack (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion[edit]

{{Prod}} notice removed from the article page:

"...Little known award with big ambitions, but little actual notability. Manages to get space in the Parliament building once a year, but is it really otherwise notable? Also, its attacks on the Nobel Prize to raise itself up don't seem the actions of a really notable award. Adam Cuerden talk 19:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

I can agree with much of the above, but speedy deletion criteria do not seem to apply. The piece could, of course, be nominated for the normal WP:AFD procedure. If haven't seen any evidence of attacks on the Nobel, merely attempts, quite possibly without merit, to latch on to the fame surrounding the major prize. The movement's claim to notability lies chiefly in the recipients: there is a substantial list in "What links here". Should it come up for discussion, I will offer a weak "Keep". --Old Moonraker 21:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Afterthought: If the Wikipedia article goes, the www loses one of the few places where you can read that the award is presented in a room in the Swedish Parliament building, and not an award from the Swedish Parliament. Perhaps that needs to be given more emphasis. --Old Moonraker 22:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. you have a good point. (though it wasn't actually a speedy deletion, just a proposed deletion, which is not quite the same, though you were quite right to remove it since you think it should be kept) And I feel guilty for nominating it, because, well, a lot of the people who won it (with a couple really out there exceptions - George Vithoulkas?!?!) are indeed doing good work. But, still, even though the people it's awarded to are largely worthy of awards, and notable, is the award itself notable? Adam Cuerden talk 18:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your measured reply to my action in deleting your proposal. I did read WP:AFD (twice!) but I'm still a bit hazy about the different deletion categories. It seems that I have misunderstood your intention — my apologies.
I would certainly like to see some new, sourced information to determine your point concerning the organisation's notability: as you say there could be a risk of the organisation being famous because of its winners, and the winners being famous only because of the award! I looked at the page a few months ago and I tried to determine this at the time, without success. I'd be very pleased if someone else could have a look around. Ultimately, if the article were deleted, its purpose might be filled by the existing "Right Livelihood Award Winners" category, but the category is pretty meaningless without its article and presumably would go as well. At present my view remains at "keep".
As regards Vithoulkas — well, this is an alternative award, isn't it! Old Moonraker 19:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In a nutshell (Yes, it's confusing)
  • "speedy" means "usually as soon as an admin takes note, and with no discussion needed"
  • "ProD" means "not for 6 days, and not at all if any objection is raised"
  • "AfD" (which often follows an objection to ProD) means "substantial consensus, tested over 5 days' discussion, unless early discussants find early discussion makes the ultimate consensus blindingly obvious"
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
   A colleague noted to me today this ancient discussion, prompting me to reread it. I belatedly note that my contrib of "05:54, 29 October 2007" (just above, at this writing) is in part vague, and possibly misleading (not abt Anth'y, but about ProD and my saying amibiguously
"ProD" means "not for 6 days, and not at all if any objection is raised"
I might better have said
"ProD"    means [This is a] proposal to delete [the article on which the template is invoked, but "not [until] 6 days [have elapsed], and not at all by reason of this proposal if any objection is raised by any editor -- even if only the creator objects. (And a failed ProD does not IMO preclude another ProD on the same article, rare tho that is; further, an AfD is a very common response, by the same or another nominator, to a ProD failing bcz of an objection, and hard to imagine if no reason has been offered for objecting.)"
--Jerzy•t 18:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see this article has previously evoked puzzlement from neutral editors trying to figure out (basically) WTF???? "Right Livelihood" award or "Alternative Nobel Prize" is an anthroposophical project, it's followers of Rudolf Steiner. Moonraker wrote: "a risk of the organisation being famous because of its winners, and the winners being famous only because of the award!" - You put your finger on it. There are obviously many well intentioned, even prominent people involved. The "award" itself is essentially bogus.

I have proposed for deletion numerous other articles posted here by anthroposophists promoting their own projects, and attempting to create a public image of anthroposophy as noble and socially beneficent. The reality is quite a bit more complicated. This article too should be deleted - it apparently only got away the first time because it takes quite a bit of digging to uncover the tangle of associations that explain who these people are and what their gig is, passing out "awards."DianaW 15:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe that the quality of some of the beneficiaries warrants the WP:NOTABILITY of this article, although I accept DianaW's point that the organisation could well be a vehicle for self-promotion or self-fulfilment, rather than any genuine attempt to save humankind through their "alternative lifestyles".
Potential readers may hear of the award, look it up and come upon the (hopefully) objective study on Wikipedia. If this article weren't available, there is nowhere else that offers even our limited degree of scepticism. I asked, above, if some clearsighted editor could take a fresh look at the piece. Incorporating Diana's point, if suitable citations were found, would be an edit in the right direction towards an overall balance. --Old Moonraker 21:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The organization is both a vehicle for self-promotion *and* a genuine attempt to save humankind, IMO, but I don't think that's what determines whether something is notable per wikipedia standards. You may be right that the notability of some of the beneficiaries makes the article itself worth keeping. The other issue, however, is that this is one of a "family" of Steiner/anthroposophy-related articles that were the subject of an arbitration back in January. Anthroposophical editors were instructed to remove all material that could only be sourced to anthroposophical sources. Anything published by anthroposophical presses, anthroposophical web sites, etc., would for these purposes be considered "self-published." I doubt it is going to be possible to keep some of these articles, because as in this case, there aren't many other references - the rest of the world just doesn't agree that they are notable. There are dozens of articles in this family of articles that have sat here for months or years in this condition; this is why I've been putting up notices saying they need to be brought up to speed with appropriate references or it's time to start deleting them.DianaW 01:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're overdoing it, Diana. Waldorf- or anthroposophy-related articles are articles describing activities in some sense coming out of anthroposophy.
This article, as far as I'm aware of is not such an article, as little as it is an Astrid Lindgren-related article, belonging to a "family of Astrid Lindgren articles", or a "family of Daniel Ellsberg-related articles" because Astrid Lindgren and Daniel Ellsberg at different times have been given the Right Livelyhood Award. The only relation it has to anthroposophy is that the organization it describes at one time (2003) gave its award to some activities coming out of anthroposophy, the same way it has given its award to all sorts of activities and persons. That's all.
The only thing your comment reveals is the depth of the personal antipathy you seem to have towards anything expressing the slightest sympathy or appreciation of things related to anthroposophy and your efforts to semingly have any article even mentioning something related to anthroposophy deleted from Wikipedia. Thanks,
Thebee 13:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments (that cut in the opposite direction from some of my comments in a subsequent section):
  1. WP:ArbCom decisions are the only case where i for one can imagine myself approving of exceptions to the following principle:
    WP never requires for its success that anyone make an edit that it is not their choice to make, and no one should ever be told to do so (AFAI can imagine) except by ArbCom, applicable to a specified list of users (and perhaps their socks) and as a condition for avoiding blocking or banning, for the purpose of demonstrating good faith when it has appeared to be absent.
    If there was a decision that a class of edits are unacceptable, fine if you remove them, and fine if editors who have previously made them are threatened with blocking or banning if they should continue. But no statement should ever appear on an article talk page that a group of "editors were instructed to remove all material that could only be sourced" in a certain way. That is off topic here. If the ArbCom's order is being flouted, go to WP:ANI, not saying "... were the subject of an arbitration back in January", but instead with a lk to the ArbCom case and to the edits in question, and request enforcement of the penalties specified in ArbCom's verdict.
  2. The tone of the negative characterizations above of the authors in question disturbs me, and i remain incredulous of it being justified. As i hint below, i'm not a much of a "spirituality" fan: i consider that disciplines that emphasize such a focus, beyond what is typical of people who are doing their part to make the physical basis of their society run smoothly (and is also common among many -- perhaps most -- people who instead have other livelihoods, callings, or personal enthusiasms), present their adherents with serious intellectual, cognitive, and moral pitfalls. And i don't find it unreasonable to examine the evidence of hidden intentions of writers whose work benefits such hate- and greed-filled phenomena as scientology and neo-nazis. But i await any evidence that such scrutiny would be justified because anthroposophy's reputation would be enhanced by the articles in question. (I hasten to note that it is not clear that the need for scrutiny is being attributed to the fact that the authors are anthroposophists: i may be misreading the tone that makes me read the intention behind speaking of "digging to uncover the tangle of associations that explain who these people are and what their gig is", and if so IMO the author would be wise to make more specific allegations.)
    In any case, i'd like to describe my own limited hearsay understanding of anthroposophy, which makes it seem to me unlikely that there is a significant group of anthroposophists attempting to use WP to propagandize on behalf of anthroposophy, even to the extent that i have noticed Christians (especially creationists), Jews, Hindus, and Buddhists doing for their respective beliefs. I made it sound (below) as if i had known parents of anthroposophical-school students. Excavating memories decades old, i find myself in fact unclear whether i spoke to present or former students, their parents, parents who knew parents of such students, or peers of such students. In any case, i did speak to members of one family about the content of the curriculum of the nearby anthroposophical school, and learned that:
    • teachers taught one grade at a time, but followed the same class of students thru the grades;
    • cultural subjects were taught in an unusually unified fashion, focused on a form of immersion: a given class learned language, music, literature, and i suppose politics, geography, and customs (and perhaps history of philosophy) through the lens of a single culture over multiple years (if not for their entire studenthood); the example i heard of was a European culture (that appeared to have no particular relationship to Steiner's life).
    More strikingly, a liberal activist and technical professional i knew, with a history of third-world development work, a very straight job, and a strong interest in meditation, had personally explored a number of forms of at least semi-intentional communities, at least in many cases centered on religious and philosophical models, and found it worth remarking that the anthroposophists had a doctrine that taught them that their role was to operate anthroposophical schools, teaching a secular curriculum in a way that fostered a sense of community among the students, but not teaching about anthroposophy, in the belief that the mode and content of the education bettered the world, but presumably that the propagation of their doctrines was either better done by other means, or less important than the educational calling.
    I mention these matters because it suggests to me that anthroposophists as a group are unlikely to try to promote anthroposophy in the sort of dogged way that would lead to a ArbCom process, and that the editors who are the subject of any such ArbCom ruling are more likely to be some sort of fringe or former or heretical ones (even if encouraged by anthroposophist ideas about the spiritual to manipulate WP "for the greater glory of" something), than part of a body or movement whose associations it would be fruitful to trace. If i am right, the effort to "dig out" the editor's "gig" becomes tricky and probably ill-conceived.
--Jerzy•t 07:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's an invitation (above, 15 July) to provide evidence of anthroposophists using RLI to promote their own projects. None was forthcoming and, in view of Jerzy's explanation of anthroposophist philosophy, there probably isn't any. My question below regarding its inclusion is answered completely. --Old Moonraker 07:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Widely known as" ==> "Sometimes called"[edit]

2 citations do not serve to establish wide usage. GTests show

  • 121K hits on "Right Livelihood Award" -"Alternative Nobel Prize"
  • 20K hits on "Alternative Nobel Prize" -"Right Livelihood Award"
  • 30K hits on "Alternative Nobel Prize" "Right Livelihood Award"

Which is to say,

  • 70% don't use the Nobel ref
  • 60% of those who use the Nobel ref omit the predominant name, and account for 18% of articles mentioning either or both.

I think it is an objective fact that what we have here is most people who consider "Alternative Nobel Prize" applicable are among the 2 out of 11 who prefer to avoid the overwhelmingly accepted name.
IMO that objective fact strongly suggests an effort to create confusion and increase the award's apparent significance, via deception about how significant it is generally considered. Can such a thing work? Well, "Fortunately Dr. José Antonio Abreu has just got the Nobel prize for his notable achievement" (a false assertion in an essay, by an international professional musician from the Abreu program, on a substantial-looking site for a theatrical film) seems to be a case of such confusion and exaggeration.
And (tho I've known some very principled people to send their children to Steiner schools), the core emphasis on producing natural-science-like certainty about a "spiritual world" heightens my sense of the "Alternative Nobel Prize" term being part of a willingness to lie "for the greater glory of" some god-talk.
--Jerzy•t 05:54, 29 & 03:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC) ( supplying forgotten ext lk)[reply]

Jerzy's suggestion for the minor change to "Sometimes called" better reflects usage, and should be implemented. Now, what please is the back-story with "anthroposophy" and "Steiner"? There's a conversation above on the issue but nothing in the article explaining it. Is it significant? --Old Moonraker 07:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By implementing my own suggestion, i pretty much finished a very long suite of edits on this and José Antonio Abreu and El Sistema, about 5 minutes before you finished your comment. Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy both have articles, which i haven't read beyond the phrases i cribbed in my first sentence of my last graph (above) in my 05:54 edit. I don't know what the basis is for asserting that ANP is connected to them, and i hope i didn't imply more than my working assumption that those who asserted the connection have something that looks like evidence.
--Jerzy•t 03:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Old Moonraker 07:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no institutional connection whatsoever between the Right Livelihood Award and the anthroposophical movement; however, as stated above, in one particular year several anthroposophical organizations and individuals received the award on the basis of their public service work. Hgilbert 17:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent] Thanks, again. --Old Moonraker 18:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names states: "Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it instead uses the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources."

This prize is most frequently referred to as the Alternative Nobel Prize in English-language reliable sources.

For example:

Google News Archive:

  • 2,850 results for "alternative nobel prize"[2]
  • 2,010 results for "right livelihood award"[3]

A standard Google web search:

  • 904 000 results for "alternative nobel prize"
  • 368 000 results for "right livelihood award"

Der Spiegel and the BBC state that the prize is "widely known as the Alternative Nobel Prize"[4][5]. The prize is described as "commonly known as the "alternative Nobel prize" in the The Guardian[6]. The IANS describes it as "widely known as the Alternative Nobel Prize"[7]. The Globe and Mail describes the prize as "known as the alternative Nobel Prize"[8]. The Toronto Star describes the prize as "more commonly known as the alternative Nobel Prize"[9]. The Jerusalem Post describes the prize as "known popularly as the Alternative Nobel Prize"[10]. The Canadian Encyclopedia describes the prize as "known as the 'Alternative Nobel Prize'"[11].

I also note that the prize is titled Alternative Nobel Prize in the French and other Wikipedia editions.

Per Wikipedia:Article titles, I'm moving this article to its common English name. Kjellgno (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with that move and consider it a very bad idea. The "alternative Nobel prize" is NOT the common name of this award. There is actually a reason why English news media use this name mostly in quotation marks. The whole thing is not much more than a marketing coup of the RLA foundation. They like to call themselves "alternative Nobel Prize" (in quotation marks), use it in press releases, and so it ends up in the media (in quotation marks). The only media that really go for that are the German media (actually the only ones really paying attention to the RLA), which explains why Der Spiegel does it without quotation mark. It may be commendable that this foundation gives out such a prize. But it is a prize which draws little international attention (except for Germany) and tries to make itself bigger than it is. This prize never had what it takes to be a Nobel Prize. Von Uexküll had only 1 million dollar when he started the prize, which would have required a 20% interest rate to hand out a Nobel Prize ever year. It is simply not true that the proposal only failed because of the Economics Prize debate. Even if the Nobel Foundation had been willing, there would have never been enough money to add a new prize. --Hansbaer (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sources cited above demonstrate that Alternative Nobel Prize is the common English name of the award. Kjellgno (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Four years ago a very similar identical discussion took place just one chapter above this one. The same arguments were used. Now you come four years later and make the move without any discussion. You gave other users exactly 2 minutes to give their opinion on your decision! Sorry to say that, but this is pretty bad style. You could have at least waited for some discussion to take place. And, by the way, the word "necessarily" leaves room for interpretation. The press sources are in most cases based on the press releases of the RLA which in turn use the ANP wording in quotation marks. I'll stipulate that this marketing activity has been successful, but I still disagree with the whole style changes of the article which have been introduced lately. The whole thing has become too much a comparison with the real Nobel Prize. Besides the introduction of this more or less self-chosen name the RLA has virtually no parallels with the Nobel Prize. To compare it even to the Economics Prize is ludicrous. --Hansbaer (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is ludicrous, both because it mostly focuses on some false idea that the prize is somehow part of the Waldorf movement and some absurd speedy deletion proposal (it's one of the world's best known prizes with articles in 27 Wikipedia editions). Also, the discussion does not cite sources to any significant extent and is not based on policy (such as the policy on article titles), and in any event, such an old discussion is of limited relevance today. If Alternative Nobel Prize is the most widely used name as multiple sources state, then there is really only one acceptable solution per naming policy (Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names) and hence not really need for further discussion, unless someone come up with arguments based on sources and policy that contradict this -- in that case, I would be happy to agree to move the article to whatever name is most widely used. The article was moved right away because the evidence for the current title being the common English name was very strong, and I've not seen any sources contradicting this in this discussion either. How the prize became most widely known under the name it's most widely known, is not really interesting in this regard (again, see Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names), even if it was the result of "marketing", it wouldn't change the fact that it is the most common English name, to be used as article title per Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names. As far as I'm aware, however, the name was initially adopted by the press in the 1980s. Kjellgno (talk) 08:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the discussion above makes one important point: it is not necessarily sufficient to simply make the Google searches. Your results do not reflect to which extent the two names are used alongside, and it is not sure that the term "alternative nobel prize" does always mean the RLA. To move an article is a big step and should have been done after a discussion not before one. Anyway, as I said I'll stipulate that the introduction of the name - by whose force is open for interpretation - has been quite successful. The few journalists that actually attend press conferences of the RLA spread it effectively. Nobody has ever dug further into the real background of the whole thing, and so we have to take the word of the RLA foundation about the origins of the name. As I mentioned before, my objections are now first and foremost on the article's content. If we base the entire article on sources which come directly or indirectly from the RLA itself - and that is most certainly the case with agency-based press articles - we follow the RLA foundation's interests, as noble as they may be. The article shouldn't be a RLA self-presentation and certainly not a comparison with a prize which it aspires to match but has otherwise nothing to do with. --Hansbaer (talk) 08:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the move and calling for a RV. The article specifically lists the organisation's differences from the Nobel. Some of Hansbaer's points are new to me, but I find them very persuasive. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "organisation's" differences from "the Nobel" (foundation? prize? Alfred himself?) are irrelevant for the article title. The only thing that's relevant for the article title is what is the common name in English, per Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names, not whether it's "official" and not whether you think it's "correct". For example, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences is titled "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, which is not the official name of the award, nor is it a Nobel Prize, and which is a very "incorrect" title indeed. Kjellgno (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not entirely true. If the common name of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel would be the article title in that case, it would be Nobel Prize in Economics, because that's the overwhelmingly used name. Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is simply a shortened version of the name, not an alternative name for it. Furthermore, a considerable share (if not the majority) of the sources which use the ANP as name do it in quotation marks, which indicates that they are not really comfortable using it as it is not the "real" name of the prize. The Economics Prize however is frequently called Nobel Prize in Economics without any distinction to the real Nobel Prizes. --Hansbaer (talk) 11:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As having been to most of the major press events in connection to prizes in Stockholm, I also strongly oppose the move of the article. Even though media persistantly calles it a Nobel price, it is far away from it. It is not even presented by the king or any other member of the royal family, which all big prices in Sweden are [Crafoord, Göran Gustavsson, Astrid Lindgren ('Children's Nobel prize'), Polar music prize ('Music Nobel Prize') etc.]. --Prolineserver (talk) 09:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"it is far away from it" -- That appears to be just your opinion, i.e. not supported by any sources and not even relevant to the discussion on the article title, which should be based on what reliable sources say is the common English name. If the media "persistantly calles it a Nobel price" (actually, they call it the Alternative Nobel Prize, not a Nobel prize as such), then that's the title we need to use. What's relevant is sources and the naming policy, i.e. Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names. The sources, for instance the Toronto Star, say that the award is "more commonly known as the alternative Nobel Prize"[12]. Whether the prize is presented by Carl Gustaf has nothing to do with the article title either; actually, I would imagine the RLA foundation would not want to be associated with Carl Gustaf, in light of the nature of the award. Kjellgno (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Article titles#Common_names suggests a search in scholarly sources. The vast majority of these name the award "Right Livelihood Award"; some but by no means all then add that it is also, or better, known as the Alternative Nobel Prize. The fact that they name RLA first implies to me that it is the primary name of reference. Still, the fact that many quality sources do say the award is better known as the ANP gives a level of support that cannot be ignored to using this as the title.
In the end, since both names appear to be used, I don't think it matters much which is chosen as a title; it may be a case to flip a coin. Either way, the first line should mention that the award is also known as...hgilbert (talk) 18:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which scholarly sources do you mean? I'll admit it is a borderline case, but it has to be taken into consideration that the name is to significant parts manufactured and that it is in a large part of cases used in a non-distancing manner, i.e. without quotation marks. If its really flip a coin, than the actual name should count.--10:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hansbaer (talk • contribs)
Wikipedia:Article titles does not support the notion that names are disqualified if they are "manufactured" (most names could probably be said to be "manufactured"), and I've not seen any sources supporting the claim that the popular name of the award is "manufactured" either. I think the current solution is a sensible compromise that gives both names the prominence they deserve, mentioning the official name before the popular one in the main text and infobox, while using the popular name as title. Kjellgno (talk) 13:16, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I meant - I'm aware that the origin of the name is not relevant. The name is used in many cases side by side to the official one, and if it is really flip a coin as Hgilbert stated, then the official name should count more than the PR name. --Hansbaer (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for moving this award from its actual name to something it is sometimes called are not convincing. "Alternative Nobel" is something for headline writers and popular press, not exactly the WP:RS that we need. "Alternative Nobel Prize" is a suitable redirect rather than a suitable article name in an encyclopedia for this article. The POV-ish character of the "Nobel" name is also rather obvious (wish to "tag on" something more famous...), and I note that the move was made by something of a WP:SPA with few edits. Tomas e (talk) 00:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also oppose changing the title to "Alternative Nobel Prize". The phrase is not unique. Other prizes that sometimes are called "Alternative Nobel Prize" are "Ig Nobel Prize", "Confucius Peace Prize" and "America Award in Literature". David A se (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Oppose for similar reasons. No doubt the prize owners or fans want to magnify its importance, but it has no connection to the Nobel prizes - please don't mislead readers. I would also point out that many google hits for "Alternative Nobel" actually discuss other prizes, not this one, so the WP:COMMON argument fails too. bobrayner (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I saw this on my watchlist due to David A se's edit, but it looks like this thread is much older. I should have noticed that before. Sorry. My opposition still stands. bobrayner (talk) 19:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's absolutely no way the article should be moved to "Alternative Nobel Prize". That's not what it's called. It does have an actual name. Having a redirect, as we do, may possibly be appropriate, but I'm not even sure about that. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Edward Snowden in the lead[edit]

Snowden is one of the most widely known Right Livelihood laureates, as well as one of the most recent. I don't understand why User:Bobrayner removed him from the list in the lead.[13] The edit summary ("meh") doesn't explain it very clearly. I've restored him. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Right Livelihood Award. 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) 22:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:52, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of flags[edit]

SOS Méditerranée is one of the 2023 laureates - at the moment I've added the European flag as the organisation is described as being European on its own Wikipedia page - but wondering if this is best practice, or if I should replace the Europe flag with the flags of France, Italy, Germany and Switzerland, where its headquarters are located? Marluliaq (talk) 19:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Belaboring the issue.[edit]

I took the liberty of adding clarity - several sentences repeated the NP connection - OR not - I left this as an NPOV article but repeating the same thing in a different way - seemed to add no apparent value - the point was made in the first statement about the subject. BeingObjective (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Right_Livelihood_Award&oldid=1209658885"