Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Freedom Award/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 00:09, 21 May 2010 [1].

Freedom Award

Featured list candidates/Freedom Award/archive1

Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because I took it looking like this and expanded it approximately sevenfold, with illustrations, sortable table, infobox and reliable sourcing. Thanks for your time and efforts in any reviews you make. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aung San Suu Kyi shouldn't have a flag and a link to Burkina Faso next to her name. 78.84.9.164 (talk) 11:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, that was one heck-of-an-oversight. Good spot. Fixed now. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Comments

Why is Václav Havel identified as 'Czechoslovakian', when Czechoslovakia hadn't existed for years by the time he won?
- It was the place of his birth. I couldn't (easily) find a guideline that said what nationality someone should be attributed with if the country he/she was born in no longer exists. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has the flag and link to Lebanon, but is from Liberia
- Tsk, flags, hate 'em. Fixed. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More later. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 18:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just a couple more quibbles to fix or tell me I'm wrong on, and then I'll support.

"The first multiple recipients" I'd usually associate this phrase with someone winning twice, not two winners in the same year. Perhaps the "joint" you use in the next sentence is a better phrasing?

Okay, there could be grounds for confusion so I've used "joint" here. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"the majority of awards has been to politicians" Would "have" work better here?

Yeah, interesting grammar thing that one. I'll go for have, I think I was trying to be too clever. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing. Why do you not give publishers for the newspapers, and locations for the more obscure ones? Ref 24- the Australian, lists Bret Harris as a co-author, yet he is not mentioned in the template, as well. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:51, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that adding a publisher of a reputable newspaper adds anything to this article and any "obscure" references I've chosen are wikilinked because, once again, I don't see that the location of publication of a source has any real direct bearing on this list. Co-author added. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:50, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

;Comments:

Finally a chance to get back at the vigorous reviews from TRM :P

I find the lead somewhat short. Could there be mention of, for instance, nationalities of winners (particularly the US dominance), the background of winners (there seems to be a lot of politicians, but I also spot some entertainers and diplomats), and a mention of why there is no award many years.
- The IRC don't say themselves why there are no awards every year. I guess it's down to just waiting for someone particularly worthy to pop out of the background. As for dominance, etc, I'll certainly look into including a couple of sentences with this in mind. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the lead should mention the first laureate and the first double laureates, but is there a reason it mentions all instances of double winners, and none but the first single? Are the double somehow regarded as more important?
- Just "more unique" (I know, you can't be more unique than just unique)... I'll look at noting other "more notable" recipients. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lead gives a quoted rationale for the awards for the mentioned winners. Are such quotes available for all, and could thus be incorporated into the table? For instance, Soros is perhaps most known as "the Man Who Broke the Bank of England", although I doubt that is what he won the award for.
- No, the IRC haven't published the rationale for any winner but the speeches that precede the acceptances usually contain some of the rationales. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At least from my European view, the list of winners seems extremely pro-US and right-winged. About half the winners are Americans, and the rest seem to be very pro-US. Is there consensus amongst commentators that the prize is such, or is this only "coincidental". Is there any controversy surrounding the award? Since the article not only covers a list of winners but also the award itself, I feel it is important to have some depth and balance in the article.
- No controversy that I've found in my extensive digging around, it seems to be country-neutral (although yes, I concede many US and right-wing recipients are noted). The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything notable surrounding the award ceremony? (I'm thinking down the line that the Nobel Peace Prize has a concert) Is it always awarded in NYC?
- Nothing more than it's a formal dinner which is attended by folks who pay a premimum for charity to attend. Again, the IRC haven't published where the very early awards were made, recently, however, it has been New York. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who is it that formally takes the decision? Is it a separate committee, or is the IRC board?
- Sorry to sound dull, but once again the IRC don't go into details, it's awarded "by the IRC". The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is 'Czechoslovakian' used for a 2003-award to a person from the Czech Republic? Should it not be simply 'Czech'?
- See above, when he was born, it was Czechoslovakia. I'm trying to tread that fine line between getting a birth nationality correct vs a modern, politically correct nationality... what do you suggest? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As mentioned below, the list is of nationalities, not countries. Please correct me if I am wrong, but Czechoslovakia was a union of sorts between two ethnic groups, the Czechs and the Slovaks, which had two different (albeit similar) languages. The few Czechs I know would be insulted or at best accuse me of ignorance if I called them "Czechoslovaks". Even during the Czechoslovakian Era, the two would have been distinguished as two ethnicities, although not necessarily nationalities. To use an different example: if a person from Eire was born in Dublin in 1915, should they be called Irish but British? Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find it "easier" to read the names of countries instead of their demonym, for istance 'United States' instead of 'American'. It seems to be most common in the featured lists I checked (at random, more or less), but I cannot find anything in the MOS, so feel free to do what you like.
- Yes, but interestingly enough for me, a lot of lists have "nationality" with a list of countries. "United States" is not a nationality. I did go to some extra work to make sure this was correct (apart from the stupid flag errors), if you really think I should list "nationalities" which aren't, in fact, nationalities, but nations, then I'll need to reconsider. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where there are two winners, are they in a random order, or is this the order they were officially presented?
- They're listed (I think) in the order in which the IRC list them. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some references wikilink the work/publisher, others don't.
- I linked those who perhaps are less prominent than others. If you have a guide to what you'd prefer to see linked, unlinked (or perhaps just all or nothing) then I'd be glad to hear it. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about using a more cropped version of Bush, given the small size of the image?
- Well, it's a licensed and half-decent image, could you suggest a better alternative, or would you just advocate cropping the one I'm currently using down to a pure mugshot? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If you look at the file page for the Bush portrait, there are two cropped versions of that image. The images are small, and some are difficult for me to see, so more head and less body-and-flag would be nice for some of them. I'll pursue this no further, as I am confident your discretion is as good as mine on this issue. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, image copyright, disambiguation links and external links all check out good.
- Thanks for checking. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note A is fine, but I don't understand what is meant with notes B through D. Are they "upgraded" awards? If so, can this be mentioned in the lead.
- These are additional notes to the award, as included by the IRC. They didn't go into additional detail. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overall nice, simple, yet elegant list. Arsenikk ^(talk) 18:24, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. I will look at expanding the lead a little further in the next day or so, the other comments I think I've either addressed, refuted (how rude) or asked for more debate. I appreciate the time you've spent looking at the list and your kind words. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Except for the Czech thing, I'm happy with your answers, but not quite so impressed with the IRC's website. Just make a comment when you've amended up the lead and I'll check back again. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've fixed the Czech thing, the Bush thing and tried to add a tiny bit more into the lead without moving too far into original research. Let me know what you think, and thanks again for your interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Arsenikk ^(talk) 10:34, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Sandman888 (talk) 11:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing a column with rationale makes the list incomplete. This is what I really find missing. For Bush/Clinton a quick google gave this, which can be done for all:
- http://www.theirc.org/news/irc-honors-former-presidents-bush-and-clinton-tsunami-katrina-relief-efforts-3690
  - No, it can't be done for all, by any means. That's precisely why I haven't included the rationale because there's no source or set of sources which provide this information. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you tried contacting the IRC? Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't want this to sound odd, but I think the IRC have better things to worry about than updating their website on the request of a Wikipedian. Even reading the link you gave doesn't give an official citation. And many of the earlier references for previous recipients are extremely vague, hence the overall infobox saying that it's awarded for... "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". A little bit like our recent MusiCares Person of the Year which says is given for "artistic achievement in the music industry and dedication to philanthropy". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not talking about their webpage but about the rationales. And you'll never know if you don't try. Anyway, just because you can't find information for all doesn't imply that nobody shd have it. You can just leave a note for those where you can't find it.Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        But the rationales would still have to be published, even if they did have them. THe bottom line is that the award is made for "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Maybe they do have them accessible somewhere. And you should still include the rationales that are accessible. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Nowhere accessible I could find. And no, it seems of little point to include the paraphased rationales of 10% of the list, particularly as, like the MusicCares list, there's a overarching principle for the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Outdented) That may be so, but the MusiCares is a much more specific award. "extraordinary contributions to the cause of refugees and human freedom" that cd include just about anything, and many people will be confused, and rightly so, as to why some of the winners won. By including rationale, where possible, you'll at least minimize that confusion.Sandman888 (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how people can be confused by that reasoning? These people worked in the field of refugees and human freedom. The musicians were awarded "for dedication to philanthropy". What's the difference? Equally confusing, or not (in my opinion). The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Because the list includes well known public figures, not known for the contributions to refugees and human freedom. A rationale for 10% is better than for 0%. But I'll see what the rest of the reviewers say on this before pressing it further. Sandman888 (talk) 14:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - This list includes well known public figures too. It depends on your perspective. Besides, looking at the other links from the IRC page like the one you included, it'd be synthetic of me to "create" a rationale where, in nearly all cases, a clear and concise one is not provided. It's not quite like the Nobel Prize citations which are clear and concise and published, this is more about the overarching principle of contributions to refguees and human freedom. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Larger picture(s) on the right wd look better. On 27" its all very small.
- I'm sure that's true but we cater for the smallest resolution, not the greatest. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've increased the images to 75px. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure there exist information on who exactly gives the award.
- The IRC gives the award. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I mean whether it's a permanent or ad-hoc committee or something else. Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's presented by the IRC, which was founded in 1933. It's a permanent group. As for who within the group selects it, that information is not provided by the IRC. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps country of birth wd be a better (more sensitive) way of describing the countries associated with the winners.Sandman888 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, nationality works fine for me and the other reviewers. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - There seems to be other reviewers who prefer countries instead. Sandman888 (talk) 13:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Not really, just a query over Czechoslovakian vs Czech. Which has now been resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Re-read the comment reg. demonyms. Sandman888 (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        No need to, it was "resolved". The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me, though the images are difficult to see imo.—Chris!_c/t 23:51, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've increased them all to 75px, is it better? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, better.—Chris!_c/t 20:05, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - all looks good to me. If the IRC don't publish specific rationales as to why they have given each award, I don't see how the absence thereof from the article can be an issue -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- at above link the IRC states that Bush & Clinton were given the award for their contribution during the Katrina Hurricane incident. Isn't that useful information somehow? Sandman888 (talk) 12:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's one indirect citation from a list of dozens. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - A compromise? I've removed a reliable secondary source (the United Nations) and replaced it with your particular reference for Clinton/Bush. Since that's the only source with a kind-of citation, I can see no more I can do. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - No I don't care much for the source if they're of equal reliability, I'd just like the information as to why they won the award. But since other editors don't care for it I've dropped the matter.Sandman888 (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Crystal Clear x3 19:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.