Talk:Peter Handke

Untitled

I added a bibliography for Handke. Wherever I couldn't find an existing English edition, I translated the titles to the best of my ability. It seems I spent so long on the page that my login timed out. I'll add a list of English translations later. Asav 21:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Added a short biography, leaning heavily on the German Wikipedia. It is rather incomplete and should be expanded. The Works section is still a stub. Also needs weblinks. Asav 15:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the revision of the works section (which I originally compiled) to its former version. There is no point in lumping Handke's work into three categories (plays, novels and misc.), since Handke has a most ambiguous attitude towards literary genres, and most of his "Erzählungen" would normally be considered novels. Furthermore, the new (and erraneous) categorzation placed several of his books, which were marked as novels in the 'Other' category. Lastly, there was no reason to place a 'stub' marker in the section, since the list was complete at the time of revision. Asav 15:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Prize money

"In 2006 Handke was nominated for the Heinrich Heine Prize, but the prize money of 50,000 euros is subject to approval by the city council of Düsseldorf. Members of the council's major parties stated they would vote against awarding the prize to Handke, resulting in the prize being withdrawn]. [2]" -> Well, Handke spent Easter holidays in the Serbian enclave on Kosovo and Metohija (Velik Hoca, precisely) and he gave a gift to remaining Serbs. He stated that it was 50.000 euors that he got as a prize money for winning Heinrich Heine prize.

I'm little confused here, cause this article says that he didn't receive prize money? Dragoljub Kojadinovic 20:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

He didn't receive it, but there was an initiative which collected the money. So he did get the 50 000 Euros, however not for winning the prize, but for the wise decision of Düsseldorf's council members not to award him. --84.152.59.199 22:40, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Maturation

Has he mellowed? Is he still motivated by his adolescent feelings of rebelliousness?Lestrade (talk) 00:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Well, that depends on your perspective on time. His writings about the Balkan wars certainly were seen as rebellious. Asav (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Removed quote

There was a quote section consisting of one (newspaper article?) excerpt with a reference to someone called "Müller" without any further explanations. As it was, the quote was hanging in midair, and the reference link (pointing to the Frankfurter Rundschau web site was non-functional. Searching the FR site for the quote didn't result in anything either. Additionally, the quote related to a discussion with a Slovenian author about the Balkan conflict, which is covered in some depths in the preceding paragraphs. In short, I removed it. There are far more well-known Handke quotes; some of them some of them have even become part and parcel in German, such as "Die Angst des Torwarts beim Elfmeter". If there really is a need for a quote section, one should chose something representative for the author Handke. Asav (talk) 08:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Die Angst des Torwarts beim Elfmeter

I reverted the English version to "The Goalie's Anxiety at the Penalty Kick", since that's the novel's title in the English translation. See http://www.amazon.com/Goalies-Anxiety-Penalty-Kick-Novel/dp/0374531064/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6145910-6414533?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1214231985&sr=1-1 . Asav (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia

I reverted the English version to "A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia", since that's the novel's title in the English translation. See http://www.amazon.com/Journey-Rivers-Justice-Serbia/dp/0670873411 One may well be dissatisfied with certain translations, but an encyclopedia has to state facts, and the fact is that "A Journey to the Rivers: Justice for Serbia" is the book's English title. Also see above para. Asav (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Nobel politics

The article claims that Elfriede Jelinek stated that she considered Peter Handke a more worthy Nobel Prize recipient than herself and that she had been awarded the prize merely because she is female. Is it possible that the Nobel Committee awards prizes for political reasons? Does every nationality and gender get a turn at receiving a prize?Lestrade (talk) 23:57, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

Mind reading

At the very beginning of the article we have the words: According to some of his biographers, his stepfather Bruno's alcoholism and the limited cultural scope in the small town have contributed to Handke's revolt against habitualness and restrictions. Isn't this a presumptuous assertion about the interior contents of Handke's mind? Would anyone, even Handke himself, really know what thoughts and feelings motivate his actions?Lestrade (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Marriage

The article claims that: He has two daughters: Amina, from his relationship with Libgart Schwarz, and another daughter with Sophie Semin. Handke has been living with the German actress Katja Flint since 2001. Is he opposed to the institution of marriage? If so, is it possibly because of his opposition to middle–class morality or has he been influenced by the entertainment industry, which is virulently opposed to traditional marriage?Lestrade (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

Milosevic funeral

"On 18. March 2006, Handke spoke at the funeral of Slobodan Milošević in front of over 20.000 visitors." There were, actually, more than 80000 people gathered.

According to press reports, there were approx. 80,000 people present in Belgrade. But Handke spoke before an audience in Pozarevac, Milosevic's home town. That audience counted approx. 20,000, so the article seems to be correct on that point. Asav14:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Edit of 22 September - Ibsen award etc.

I think the recent edits by User:Bjerrebæk is not totally neutral; there are those who protest the prize, but also those who defend it and both views should be presented. I also believe the current lead has an overemphasis on controversies and am unsure if it's correct to refer to Handke as a history revisionist in the lead, as he isn't primarily know as a historian. Iselilja (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I've tried to balance it a wee bit. Asav | Talk 20:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I further removed the fascist claim per WP:Weasel (some critics) because such a claim needs a clear attribution to someone who are clearly notable (If it is in the body of the article, I have missed it). I wasn't so happy with my own copy-editing of the lead, so I welcome improvements. Most needed is somehing more on his ordinary literary work (I am not familiar with him myself). That's an underlying problem with the whole article, see the German version for comparison. Iselilja (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, his work in this regard (both fiction and non-fiction) concerns mostly the press coverage and Western perception of the war, and while it certainly does not define m major part of his oeuvre, it is the one thing that has caused most controversy since the nineties. But the current version is fairly balanced, I guess. And while a very minor, but vocal, crowd, considers him fascist, his work has been all but right wing, see e.g. 'Publikumsbeschimpfung'. Asav | Talk 22:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Two or more people, or a group

The reference says that "Today several [people] turned out to show their opposition when the author were to accept the prize". The cited reference does not say that it was a group, although it seems that other media has made claims about the ethnicity of the several demonstrators. I can not see that the cited reference indicates a group.

"I dag hadde flere møtt opp for å vise sin motstand da forfatteren skulle motta prisen." Italic text. --Pankycont (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal of information

There is a push to remove information about Handke in this article. The edit remark "revert messy ...", has been used. --Pankycont (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Complaining about a perceived mess, can be quite convenient, when one does not bother coming forth with very specific faults with text in the article. --Pankycont (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Pankycont, I replied to your user talk page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 16:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If my user page [sic!] contacts you, then that will be fine. In the meantime, if you have problems with the text of this article, you are advised to discuss the issues here. Regards, --Pankycont (talk) 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I am sorry if I insulted you by using the word "messy", but I think your edits are too unfocused and little selective. Today, you inserted a line about Handke's speech being published in Aftenposten. I consider that information undue, since Handke has a long, international and notable career; the fact that Aftenposten published his speech is hardly noteworthy information in the long run. There is a lot of similar problems in the current version (Pankycont's). "Norway is a small country in the world" as a former Norwegian foreign minister correctly noted; for the world the controversy in Norway isn't all that much (hardly any international coverage). Iselilja (talk) 19:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Printing an entire speech almost a month after the fact, is notable in this case. Aftenposten has sensed a controversy that has not calmed down, nearly a month after the award ceremony. Can you share with us your check list for what kind of coverage is needed for something to be notable? Can you name a major Norwegian newspaper that has not covered the controversy? --Pankycont (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of "Revert section blanking"-edit remarks

Someone has been removing my edit remark in the article's history.

Yesterday's (and expected future) edit remarks: "Revert section blanking". --Pankycont (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Citing the speech at the Milosevic funeral

The speech at the Milosevic funeral, we have cited with webarchive.org.

Is that an acceptable citation, or is more needed? --Sluccer (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Peter Handke. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archquo.nouvelobs.com/cgi/articles?ad=culture/20060503.OBS6399.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} 02:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Update after Nobel Prize

Sorry that I can begin updating the article only now. Condition as I start is this. My first step will be to take away the tags because they discredit the article and our work in the eyes of a public. I also don't want to add a tag "under sonstruction" but avoiding edit conflicts will be appreciated. I promise to keep edits short. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I believe that it's now formally done, although far away from what he'd deserve. Whoever want to work: expand, polish prose, format references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Maternal grandfather: Slovenian or Serbian?

I can't find any sources stating that Handke's maternal grandfather was Serbian. That claim is currently in the lead section, but not mentioned (or sourced) later. All I found indicates that Handke's maternal grandfather Gregor Siutz/Sivec was Slovenian. If nobody provides a reference within the next 48 hours, I will remove that claim. ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

You are right, I was confused, sorry. Will add the ref (Munzinger). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The ref was already in the body, which said Slovenia correctly. I removed the grandfather from the lead as the relevance may not be obvious without an explanation. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda. I had assumed that part being there before you tackled the article. The relevance is, in fact, far more convoluted, and I think it's better not mentioning that particular heritage in the lead, especially in the context of his stated controversial political positions. Thanks again! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:31, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. There was no lead when I "tackled" the article, look a bit above, for Update. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

How much room for controversies

Re: [1]

1. I have removed the third mentioning of why Handke is a controversial figure. (I would have left it if a different reason had been given than what we already know from lead and article.)
2. I have removed one statement by him, about the prize (2014), while we have no quote from his literature.
3. I have removed "with deep regret" because it says much more on the one wrote it than about the subject of this biography.

What do others think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Your rationales and editing style are very confusing and, more important, apparently biased. It is not same third mentioning nor third mentioning at all thus, because this mention is directly related to Nobel and is in the proper section (directly defining the aspect of the negative criticism). Remove it from other places if needed but I don't think so.

No "quote from his literature" is needed if reliable media say he stated that. His literature is totally other segment.

What does it say about the one that wrote it? It is simple summary of PEN's official statement that, as I have already said, contains much harsher words. I removed deep and left regret only because it is very clear that it is regret. "Deep regret" is actually in PEN's own title on its official website: https://pen.org/press-release/statement-nobel-prize-for-literature-2019/

--5.43.99.155 (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2019 (UTC) [e]

I actually asked "others", but am happy that you are willing to discuss. Thank you for removing "deep". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

What do others think about a link to Serbophilia? Piped to "pro-Serbian"? And what about an offline source given for that term. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

If the media is so "reliable" then how come they have failed to provide substantial proof for Handke denying genocide? No article, video interview, audio recording, nothing. Luka0188 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Per several guidelines, Wikipedia does not go not even close to self research. Your comment questioning largest Muslim media Al Jazeera reliability (even admitting from your side indirectly that it is reliable), and others' reliability as well because others published same info too, is a sort of orig res and gets near trolling so please do not continue that way. We just care about restating (not copying as whole) reliable AND relevant info. (1) PEN statement is such info (regarding relevance of that organization), (2) background on why many people judge choosing Handke is relevant and needed right after the statement on negative criticism in Awards section to get "picture of why" (if available and not orig res nor essay rationale, of course), (3) info on him calling to abolish prize he got five years after is relevant too, etc. There is also a guideline that WP is not truth necessarily but verifiability of relevant statements (not necessarily facts as such). Also, questioning reliable not-online sources is not acceptable; that ref is used on :de: WP in the lede and is valid. Genocide is not mentioned in the part I contributed nor anywhere else so I do not know at all why it was introduced in this discussion by you. --5.43.99.155 (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2019 (UTC)