Talk:Herta Müller

Serious soapboxing problem

A user has added that "Prior to the award, Mueller [sic] was little-known outside Germany". The claim is not supported by the source that is cited. Other sources, including this one, demonstrate that the opposite is the case. A Nobel Prize-winning author whose works prior to her Nobel Prize had been translated into more than 20 languages, and who has received awards like the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award years ago (won against Margaret Atwood and others) is by definition the opposite of "little-known". This is like adding that Barack Obama was a "little-known politician" when he received his Nobel Prize. It is soapboxing and original research, and giving it the same weight as her Nobel Prize is WP:UNDUE. The only cited source is some obscure American op-ed that claims that some American professors didn't know about her, and complains of alleged anti-American bias of the Swedish Academy (which has really nothing to do with Herta Müller). This material urgently needs to be removed from an article that is featured at the main page. Also note that the WP:BLP policy applies to this page. Urban XII (talk) 16:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, see my comments supported by New York Times articles. Other distinguished publications echo the same theme, for example the Washington Times, a very conservative newspaper with a very different editorial policy than the Washington Post and the New York Times,

Herta Mueller, a little-known Romanian-born author...won the 2009 Nobel Prize in literature Thursday...The decision was expected to keep alive the controversy surrounding the academy's pattern of awarding the prize to European writers. [1]

--Zeamays (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox. The fact that some US-centric American newspapers think she is little known and the Swedish Academy hates Americans doesn't make it notable. She's not little known, she's an internationally well-known author: " Seit Anfang der 90er Jahre und der Übersetzung ihrer Werke in mehr als 20 Sprachen gehört Müller zu den wichtigen Autoren im internationalen Literaturbetrieb." [2]. This is an encyclopedia, not an American tabloid newspaper. Urban XII (talk) 17:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Since the early 1990s, when her works were translated into more than 20 languages, Herta Müller has been a major author in international literary circles, with books like Der Fuchs war damals schon ein Jäger (translated as Even Back Then, the Fox Was the Hunter), Herztier (translated as The Land of Green Plums) and Heute wäre ich mir lieber nicht begegnet (translated as The Appointment). She is the recipient of numerous awards and in 2008 was already discussed as a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Her current novel, Atemschaukel (as yet untranslated), has been shortlisted for the German Book Prize."Goethe Institute Urban XII (talk) 17:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, I asked for a third party viewpoint, and the third party, Feketekave, agreed with my position. Please desist from deletion of this material. It is not a soapbox to present additional references to support my position. --Zeamays (talk) 18:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Give me a break, Feketekave is a disruptive editor who's only here to push anti-German POV[3]. It was also explained to you by Goochelaar above that your addition is WP:UNDUE. Please refrain from using Wikipedia as a soapbox. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions! Urban XII (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe myself to be neither disruptive nor anti-German. Incidentally, I am aware only now that a third party opinion was officially called for; my agreement with User:Zeamays is a personal opinion. Feketekave (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, any editor is free to assist with a third-party view. As for Goochelaar, he thought that the discussion should be expanded with views from other countries, which I would support. Urban wrote, "Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions!" However, I honestly do not have a personal opinion of Mueller's opus or fame. I am only quoting from distinguished mainstream publications to point out the fact that there is a controversy. --Zeamays (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as I am being cited, let me put forward my opinion. Either we have a reliable source expressing a worldwide view or we should tone down the quite specific US-related slant of the Washington Post story. In a sense, it is more interesting to just say that she was not very well known in Germany, and the NYT story seems more relevant, while the Post one just quotes the "manager of a bookstore". I hope we find a consensus here in the talk page. Goochelaar (talk) 19:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should do the same that was done in the case of Obama's Nobel Prize, having a separate article discussing the reactions (2009 Nobel Peace Prize). There is no agreement at all that she is "little known", reliable sources establish that she is a well-known author who has received numerous important awards before, including one of the most important awards for English language fiction (how would an author unknown outside Germany do that, when authors like Margaret Atwood were shortlisted?). Urban XII (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC) 

I don't think that's particularly necessary - disagreement on Wikipedia is not the same as disagreement in real life. I'll also say that just because someone won an award doesn't mean he or she is well known. With that in mind, I think the text - which, I might add, is NOT a criticism - is perfectly fine to stay. The NYT article not only states that she isn't well known in America, but also that few of her works have been translated into English (international language) and that she is not well known in her home country (as quoted from a German critic). That's a very valid comment to make, especially as it informs her own quotation about the recent award. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The Goethe Institute and the Deutsche Welle sources, which are a bit more serious than Washington Post, specifically state that she has been an internationally well-known author since the early 1990s. The mere fact that her works are translated into more than 20 languages and that she has previously won prestigious international awards like the International IMPAC Dublin Literary Award against authors like Margaret Atwood, proves that the claim that she is not well-known is nothing but a joke. The Barack Obama article contains very little criticism of his Nobel award, even though there has been a lot (more than in this case) in the newspapers. The current state of the article is unencyclopedic, POV and soapboxing. It may be true that she is not well-known in the United States (even though some of her books which have won English language awards have been published there), but US-centric criticism is really inappropriate in this article. The proposal to create a separate article was more of a sarcasm than an actual proposal. Urban XII (talk) 00:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Urban, let's see, you wrote that the New York Times, the Washington Times and the Washington Post are "tabloids", and that the Post is less serious than a German radio network. I think you are damaging your own case here with such statements. But I'll ignore that for now, and just focus on your core position: that the criticism of the 2009 Nobel literature award is wrong. Your problem here is that Wikipedia does not take positions on serious controversies, such as this. The Wikipedia WP:POV policy is to give respect to various points of view, provided they are based on verifiable sources, "An article which clearly, accurately, and fairly describes all the major, verifiable points of view will, by definition, be in accordance with Wikpedia's NPOV policy." --Zeamays (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I've so far seen no controversy, only your soapboxing. Urban XII (talk) 15:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it's well to remember that the nobel is given for quality of work, not how well-known someone is, therefore to cricitise the award for obscurity is fairly irrelevant. Hopefuly measured pro- and contra- articles will be written (thought mabe not in English) and they can replace the fairly trvial ones linked to in the article. That said, surely an encyclopedia article on a writer should give some indication of popularity - but I'd rather that came in the form of sales figures and the like rather than journos (however respected their organ) scrabling around for copy on an author it's a good bet they know little of. Declan Clam (talk) 02:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Books by Romanian-born writer Herta Mueller, who won the 2009 Nobel Prize for Literature, jumped into the bestseller list on Amazon.com Inc. yesterday.

“The Land of Green Plums” sales ranking climbed to seventh place from 78,235th a day earlier, the biggest jump among books offered by the Seattle-based company. “The Passport” moved to the 209th position from 2,290,352, the company said http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=am1ioGFxxi3I

using these figures, for instance. bogdan (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The new sales figures can and should be in the article, but keep in mind the focus of the controversy we're discussing here is the notability of Herta not being a well-known author prior to the award, not after. --Zeamays (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

An author who has been translated into more than 20 languages and who has received a literary award roughly every year since the early 80s, including one of the major awards for literature published in English, won against such authors as Margarat Atwood, more than ten years ago, is by definition the opposite of "little-known". Sales figures really is a separate issue, authors of Nobel Prize caliber are not necessarily best-selling authors (then the Nobels would only go to authors like Dan Brown, which will never happen). Urban XII (talk) 14:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Let's have a look at the references. The Washington Post cites the manager of a bookstore in the Prenzlauer Berg neighborhood of Berlin as source for "... was little known outside Germany and even there was known only among a minority of intellectuals and literary critics." Come on! The NY Times cites a well known critic for this: "She’s not one of these public trumpeters — or drum-beaters, like Grass." He is right. I'm German. I've never read a book by Herta Müller. But I did read rave reviews about her latest book Atemschaukel weeks before the Nobel decision. The book was indeed shortlisted for the German Book Prize. And lost out because the jury did not want to show deference to the Nobel Committee. (For this I could find reliable German sources.) Prekario (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-communist

Does being anti-Stalinist make a person anti-communist? I'm a Marxist (communist) but I'm against Stalin. Please clarify. --Agusk7 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Müller has always been a fierce critic of the communist regime in Romania and hence an anti-communist. Urban XII (talk) 11:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC) 

I don't know anything about Herta Müller's ideas, but I am not sure that "hence" is so straightforward. Goochelaar (talk) 13:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

An anti-communist is someone who is opposed to communism. In that sense, every democrat is an anti-communist. Müller is notable as both a critic of the communist regime of her native country, and as a person herself persecuted by the communists. Most of her works deal with communist oppression in Romania. Urban XII (talk) 13:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I have two reserves. The first one is logical: being "a fierce critic of the communist regime in Romania" does not in itself makes one an anti-communist, any more than being critic of the actions of somebody called Bob makes one an adversary of "Bobness" in itself. In the second place, filing Müller under "German anti-communists" puts her in the not-so-pleasant company of several Nazi leaders... Perhaps we should create separate categories for people having cultural and political positions contrary to communism, and for people actively persecuting communists? Goochelaar (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The same is true for anti-communism as for anti-fascism. You can be a Stalinist and opposed to fascism, and you can be a fascist and opposed to Stalinism. Category:Anti-fascists includes all sorts of people, from christians to Stalinists. It doesn't mean you share the same ideology. The Bob example is not a valid analogy. You certainly are anti-communist if you devote your life to fight, criticize or denounce the communists (the "communist" part of anti-communist refers to the actual communists, not some theoretical "Bobness"). Urban XII (talk) 10:34, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that Herta Müller is featured in the literature section of the article on Anti-communism. Urban XII (talk) 10:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herta Müller. 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/20110607074727/http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/index.php3?id=884 to http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/index.php3?id=884

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) 18:50, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Herta Müller. 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://archive.is/20120719233051/http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/timisoara-exclusiv-seful-securistilor-care-au-urmarit-o-pe-herta-muller-are-o-psihoza-fabuleaza-mult.html to http://www.adevarul.ro/articole/timisoara-exclusiv-seful-securistilor-care-au-urmarit-o-pe-herta-muller-are-o-psihoza-fabuleaza-mult.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607075533/http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/index.php3?id=977 to http://www.z-g-v.de/aktuelles/index.php3?id=977
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013180057/http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=13&art=4641 to http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=13&art=4641
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://us.macmillan.com/thehungerangel/HertaMüller
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060719103131/http://www.dickinson.edu/glossen/heft1/hertabio.html to http://www.dickinson.edu/glossen/heft1/hertabio.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013180057/http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=13&art=4641 to http://www.rri.ro/arh-art.shtml?lang=1&sec=13&art=4641
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608060141/http://www.yementimes.com/defaultdet.aspx?SUB_ID=34229 to http://www.yementimes.com/defaultdet.aspx?SUB_ID=34229

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) 14:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herta Müller. 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/20140427211018/http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/Supplements/excerpts/Fall 13/9780803245105_excerpt.pdf to http://www.nebraskapress.unl.edu/Supplements/excerpts/Fall 13/9780803245105_excerpt.pdf

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) 05:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Merge of Herta Müller works into this page

Suggest of all stub articles of Ms Muller's work be merged into this article. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 10:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose I have been expanding In der Falle and most of that information would be lost in a merge. Expanding the stubs is a better solution than merging them. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:55, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well there are several other stubs that could be merged. Like Hunger und Seide --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 20:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Wait. Most of these are at AfD right now. 'Merge' is a possible outcome. Exactly those articles that come out 'Merge' should be merged. If there are any that didn't go to AfD, let's discuss them separately. I see you redirected Hunger und Seide when the only comment here was 'Oppose'. There's no rush, and no need to preempt the conversation. (Someone wanting to expand Hunger und Seide or write a section about it on Herta Müller might start with sources like this, this, this, this and particularly this) Mortee (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Oppose per WP:NBOOK and per clear consensus against such mergers at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heimat ist das, was gesprochen wird (3rd nomination). gidonb (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Procedural OPPOSE, there is nothing left to discuss, all AFD discussions bar one has been closed as "keep" and the one remaining is likely to be closed as "keep" as well. May OP be reminded about WP:FORUMSHOPPING so we can avoid wasting time in the future? Also, please discontinue editing against consensus as has been the case in Im Haarknoten wohnt eine Dame. Sam Sailor 16:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Well merging and redirecting is different. Merging keeps the content. Redirect doesn't. So I believe it's not forum shopping as the action is different. Because of this, I think a seperate discussion should be held for merger. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me)

• Oppose. (1) A proposal for blanket merger regardless of notability is no better than the blanket AfDs. (2) The articles should not be merged because in each case their topic satisfies criteria 5 of NBOOK, because Herta Muller won the nobel prize for literature, as was pointed out at the AfDs. (3) The fact that an article capable of expansion is presently a stub is not grounds for merging it. (4) If Tyw7 is unhappy these articles are stubs, he should help expand them, instead of bringing RfCs that stop other people expanding them by wasting their time. James500 (talk) 18:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Later, in 2014 ?

Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Adding the fact that there's a documentary about Muller

Hi, newbie here! I noticed that this wiki page doesn't mention a fantastic 2015 documentary about HM - The Alphabet of Fear [4]https://www.filmfestival.nl/film/het-alfabet-van-de-angst/, [5]https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5671418/. I've looked at how such info is incorporated on similar pages, and saw there are many different ways (usually under Legacy), but I don't know how to apply any of those solutions in this case without making a mess or having more to add under such a new section. Odoni my fren (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)