text:
Talk:Booker Prize

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

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

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

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

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

 * I've no objection with the page currently being named as Man Booker Prize. My suggestion is Booker Prize (as is commonly known) be a better arrangement. There is absolutely no problem with redirecting Man Booker Prize to Booker Prize and at the very begining of the page stating:
 * Man Booker Prize, commonly called Booker Prize, ...
 * and editing a 'Status of the name' section to explain that the official name is currently such and such, cf the page Bertie Ahern for a supporting example.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For detailed rejoinder, C. S. Lewis (and other examples) was intended, at least, to disprove the following statement by an anonymous (as the IP username construes) user:
 * I don't agree that we should redirect to an article where the bolded term does not match the title.

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

and be redirected to from search of Man Booker Prize.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unclear

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

Does this mean that Mr. Rushdie won the prize twice, in 1981 and 1993? That seems odd. 140.90.208.79 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * He won the Booker in '81 and the Booker of Bookers in '93. Two separate awards. --Steve 23:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Link
Why was the link to the betting for the 2007 Booker Prize removed?? This is clearly a very relevant link. The official Booker Prize website even has articles about the betting market, which have been listed in each of the last 25 years, as an important indicator of a likely winner. If you think it is spam, then you should remove the TurboBookSnob.com external link which is deriving commercial benefit as an affiliate to several e-commerce sites such as Ebay.
 * I removed the other one, as well, you are quite right about that. María ( críticame ) 16:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following images also have this problem:

 * File:The White Tiger.JPG

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

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

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

Winning novel template
There's already a Man Booker Prize Winners for Booker Prize winning authors; why not have one for the novels as well, to replace those horrid succession boxes? GiantSnowman 05:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Man Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090904052840/http://www.brookes.ac.uk:80/library/speccoll/booker.html to http://www.brookes.ac.uk/library/speccoll/booker.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:58, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

[Closed] Proposed merge with The Best of the Booker
The Best of the Booker was one time sub-category of the main award Man Booker Prize with no fixed criteria of repeating in future. Also a small article size wise and can be easily merged into the parent Man Booker Prize. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Do not agree. This was/is a huge topic in the literary scene as can be further read here, here, and here. Notably, it was a public vote, and is seen as a vindication of the whole Booker craze before which the juries were accused of nepotism and playing favoritism. Booker prize is a controversial topic and we need comprehensive, separate articles for the readers to show its importance in modern English literature. I might be wrong, but we should discuss this thoroughly before merging. I think would like to comment on this, too. Cheers,  Mr. Nair   Talk  11:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The merger in no way would sensor any of the information. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 11:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest merging the content of The Best of the Booker as a section of this article with a redirect, without removing any of the content per Dharmadhyaksha. It doesn't make sense to have to curate this information in multiple locations -- but certainly appears like a notable subtopic of the broader topic. Sadads (talk) 15:43, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Requested move 22 December 2016

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

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

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

Survey

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

 * Oppose - Man Booker Prize is long established and how the prize is best known. Some just say "Booker Prize", "Man Booker" or even just "Booker" but in this case Man Booker Prize is really the best known name and pretty concise as it is. --  Green  C  18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A Google News search of intitle:"Booker Prize" has 2890 results (includes "Booker" and "Man Booker"). A search for intitle:"booker prize" -intitle:man has 863 results (includes "Booker" but not "Man"). That is, 70% of news stories use the headline "Man Booker". Google News headlines are not authoritative but they are indicative and the sample size of reliable sources is large and diverse. Per WP:COMMONNAME, and based on data analysis vs. personal assertion (or the bias of picking out only a few sources), I believe the prize is most commonly recognized as "Man Booker". --  Green  C  16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 18:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

 * Support per overwhelming usage stats in books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * (click 'case insensitive' for it to work.) Man Booker changed its name in 2002, and many books are from before that date, so have to set the date from 2002 to 2008 to be fair. But the results are not right. Here is the Google Books search on The Booker Prize. Notice most of the books are actually "Man Booker Prize" .. Take this one for example, it says 47 "the booker prize" results but it's all "Man Booker Prize".  Same holds for most of the others.  --  Green  C  06:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:

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

The current name seems contrary to policy, see the explanatory essay at wp:official names. See also discussion at Talk:Folio Prize which cites this page name as a precedent for adding the sponsor name there. Andrewa (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an essay giving someone's interpretation of policy and is not specific to the Man Book Prize except to say you don't have to use the full official name, but it doesn't say you shouldn't or can't either. Sometimes sponsors name are brand new and not well established like with the Folio Prize, but with the Man Booker it's well established and best known (IMO).
 * The essay is largely (but by no means entirely) my work actually! It certainly doesn't say you can't use the use the full name, in fact it explicitly gives cases and situations where the official name should be used. And it does have a little more standing than most essays, in that WP:AT links to it.

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

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

 * See below. Andrewa (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

 * BTW now I'm afraid of bringing up other examples in case you try to RfM them also - a situation not conductive to collaborative editing. You have the right to RfM, but there are better ways to go about it. -- Green  C  18:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What better ways? Always happy to try something new.
 * I'm very sorry you feel that way. Please reconsider. We can't have rational discussion if people are going to deliberately withhold the evidence that supports their views.
 * You need only fear if this RM succeeds. And if it does, that indicates to me that it was good to raise it.
 * And if not, then the essay and perhaps also WP:AT will need some work. Because you're right, it's a relevant example. I'm not trying to be pointy. I'm trying to resolve the issue you raised. Andrewa (talk) 09:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A better way is hold off until the previous RfM concluded or has clear consensus. Otherwise it just creates a situation the stifles co-operative editing and trust. -- Green  C  16:49, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I could have done that, and simply foreshadowed at the previous RM that I intended to RM your (very relevant) example. I don't see that as a better way... the issues with respect to the two articles are similar but not identical. Here we also have the previous consensus and the subsequent undiscussed move in defiance of it, for example. Andrewa (talk) 18:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

 * No. From the set that includes both words (2890 results) subtract "Man" leaving the "Booker"-only set (863 results). Those using just "Booker" are less than those using "Man Booker". BTW I understand concise, but per your essay, that doesn't negate WP:COMMONNAME. -- Green  C  19:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929040559/http://www.turbobooksnob.com/ to http://www.turbobooksnob.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Long/Shortlist is not defined and article rambles.
I'll not be drawn into the longlist v long list debate. There should be no debate at all because it should be spelled exactly as Booker uses it. It's that simple. What I will say is that this article tells us nothing about the awards. What are the long/shortlists? What does it signify? How has it shaped the way listed authors are perceived? I don't know because I don't live in the UK but these are the things readers new to the Booker Prize want to know. This is largely a rambling article with nothing but dates. I myself am new to the prize (I've never cared who won what, I prefer to make my own opinion) but someone asked me yesterday about it and so I looked it up and realized that this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 10:00, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * this tells me absolutely nothing except that it's a book award I disagree. The lead and infobox alone tell you for what it is awarded, when it was founded, who presents it, where it's presented, and then there's all the rest of the article, including all the winners and their books.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. As for terms like "shortlist" not being "defined", it's just plain English really. You could even just link short list if it's not clear what it means.  That article even tells you what a "long list" is.  The Rambling Man (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Booker Prize. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101202172535/http://themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1317 to http://www.themanbookerprize.com/news/stories/1317
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050227170112/http://sawnet.org/news/news220.html to http://www.sawnet.org/news/news220.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Travancore was not part of British-India
QUOTE: From its inception, only novels written by Commonwealth, Irish, and South African (and later Zimbabwean) citizens were eligible to receive the prize; END OF QUOTE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

title: Talk:Booker Prize


text: User talk:217.44.151.91

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User talk:217.44.151.91


text:
Battle of Fort Oswego

The Battle of Fort Oswego was one in a series of early French victories in the North American theatre of the Seven Years' War won in spite of New France's military vulnerability. During the week of August 10, 1756, a force of regulars and Canadian militia under General Montcalm captured and occupied the British fortifications at Fort Oswego, located at the site of present-day Oswego, New York.

In addition to 1,700 prisoners, Montcalm's force seized the fort's 121 cannons. The fall of Fort Oswego effectively interrupted the British presence on Lake Ontario and removed it as a threat to the nearby French-controlled Fort Frontenac. The battle was notable for demonstrating that traditional European siege tactics were viable in North America when applied properly in the right circumstances and terrain.

Background
Following the beginning of open conflict between French and British colonists in 1754 with the Battle of Jumonville Glen, the governments of Britain and France both sent regular army troops to North America to further contest the disputed territories of the Ohio Country and other border areas, including the frontier between the French province of Canada and the British province of New York, an area in present-day Upstate New York that was then largely controlled by the Iroquois nations. Part of the British plans for 1755 included an expedition to take Fort Niagara at the western end of Lake Ontario. Under the direction of William Shirley, the governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, the original Fort Oswego was reinforced, and two additional forts, Fort George and Fort Ontario, were built in 1755. The planned expedition to Fort Niagara never took place due to logistical difficulties, and the fortifications around Oswego were manned during the winter of 1755–56.

The French in 1755 had the only large naval vessels on Lake Ontario, and moved freely about the lake, between Fort Niagara in the west and Fort Frontenac at the head of the Saint Lawrence River. In March 1756 they launched a winter attack on Fort Bull on Wood Creek. Fort Bull was a key depot on the supply line for the Oswego forts, which was the waterway leading up the Mohawk River and crossing over to the Oswego River watershed. In the successful attack, they destroyed many provisions intended for the Oswego garrison, and effectively ruined Shirley's plan to attempt the expedition against Fort Niagara in 1756. Following orders of the Governor of New France, Pierre François de Rigaud, Marquis de Vaudreuil-Cavagnal, in May 1756 French and Indian raiding parties under the command of Louis Coulon de Villiers began harassing the Oswego garrison from a camp on Henderson Bay (south of present-day Sackett's Harbor, New York).

General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm arrived in Montreal in May 1756 to lead the French army troops. He and Governor Vaudreuil took an immediate dislike to one another, and disagreed over issues of command. Concerned over the massing of British troops at the southern end of Lake George, Montcalm first went to Fort Carillon on Lake Champlain to see to its defenses. Vaudreuil meanwhile began massing troops at Fort Frontenac for a potential assault on Oswego. Following favorable reports from the raiding parties, Montcalm and Vaudreuil decided to make the attempt.

Governor Shirley received word in March 1756 that he was to be replaced by John Campbell, 4th Earl of Loudoun. Loudoun's second in command, General James Abercrombie, only arrived in Albany in late June, and Shirley spent the intervening time shoring up the supply line to Oswego in anticipation of leading an expedition against the French forts on Lake Ontario. In June William Johnson traveled to the Iroquois headquarters at Onondaga, and successfully negotiated support for the British side with the Iroquois, Shawnee, and Delaware, forces that Shirley also hoped to use for his expedition. Shirley also hired 2,000 armed "battoemen", men experienced in sailing and shipbuilding. Under the command of John Bradstreet, these men successfully resupplied the forts at Oswego in July, although they were attacked by a French raiding party on their way back, suffering 60 to 70 casualties.

When Loudoun arrived in Albany in late July, he immediately cancelled Shirley's plans for an Oswego-based expedition.

Defenses at Oswego
The complex of defenses at Oswego consisted of three separate forts. On the east side of the Oswego River lay Fort Ontario, a log fortification which was constructed in 1755, was sited on a rise overlooking the mouth of the river. It was garrisoned by 370 men from Pepperrell's Regiment, and was in fairly good repair. Fort Oswego was on the west side of the river, and had a central structure of stone and clay surrounded by earthworks to the south and west, but fully exposed to Fort Ontario, across the river. A recently constructed Fort George (called "Fort Rascal" by one of Shirley's Regiment, which occupied Fort Oswego) consisted of an incomplete wooden palisade fort that lacked even loopholes through which defenders could fire, and was occupied by 150 New Jersey militiamen. The latter two forts did not have very much shelter for the occupying garrison, and there were only a few cannon for the entire complex of defenses.

Significant elements of the two Massachusetts regiments, which were under the overall command of Colonel James Mercer of Pepperrell's Regiment, had overwintered there, and suffered significantly due to the shortage of supplies, especially food. Many men died during the winter from diseases such as scurvy, and there had been serious discussion of abandoning the position for want of supplies. While the garrison nominally approached 2,000 men in size, less than 1,200 men were fit for duty.

French approach
Montcalm left Carillon on July 16 under the command of the Chevalier de Levis, reaching Montreal three days later. Two days later he left for Fort Frontenac, where French troops were gathering along with a large company of Indians. French forces included the battalions of La Sarre, Guyenne, and Béarn, troupes de la marine, and colonial militia, while Indians, numbering about 250, came from all over the territories of New France. The total size of the force was reckoned to be 3,000 men. The governor's brother, François-Pierre de Rigaud, led an advance force of 700 to meet with Villiers' force at Sackett Harbor before the main force set out on August 4. Crossing at night to what is now called Wolfe Island, the vanguard of the main body spent the day there before crossing at night to Sackett's Harbor. By August 8 the entire force was assembled there, and set out the next day for Oswego.

On August 9, troops under Rigaud and Villiers marched overland toward Oswego, while Montcalm and the remaining force moved close to the shore in bateaux, landing about 2 mi east of Fort Ontario early on August 10. Their stealth in movement was successful, and the British did not discover them until a small patrol boat spotted them the next morning. Larger boats sent by the British were driven away by the French field artillery.

Battle

Montcalm's engineer went to survey the British defenses, accompanied by other officers and party of Native Allies. Montcalm asked Pierre Pouchot to continue with the work of determining how to besiege the British positions.

On the night of August 11–12 the French opened siege trenches and began working toward Fort Ontario. The fort's defenders exchanged cannon and gunfire with the French colonists and Indians until late in the day on August 13, at which point, under orders from Mercer, they abandoned the fort even before the siege trenches had reached their goal.

Immediately capitalizing on this, Montcalm occupied the fort and began the construction of batteries on the western edge of the height, where they could reach Fort Oswego's exposed east side. Moving with all speed, the French had nine working cannon established by the morning of August 14. When these opened fire on the exposed stonework of Fort Oswego, the walls crumbled under the onslaught. The garrison, whose cannon were all pointed away from the river (not expecting enemy fire to come from that direction), eventually turned their guns around, and the French fire was returned to some effect. However, Montcalm had ordered Rigaud to lead some men across the river upstream from the fortifications, and these men, who made an unopposed crossing under somewhat difficult conditions, appeared on the edge of the clearing outside Fort Oswego about the same time that Colonel Mercer was struck and killed by a French shell. After a short council Lieutenant Colonel John Littlehales, who took over command from Mercer, raised the white flag.

Aftermath

The British surrendered about 1,700 people, including laborers, shipbuilders, women and children. Montcalm refused to grant the defeated army the honours of war, as he felt that Littlehales had failed to earn them by not putting up more of a fight. When the fort was opened to the Canadian militia and Indians, they rushed in and began plundering the fort, opening the barrels of rum and getting drunk on the contents.

Amid the confusion some of the British tried to escape, and were tomahawked and killed by drunken French or Indians. Colonel Littlehales was seized by a group of Abenakis and badly beaten because "he was a coward and had behaved ill." General Montcalm, shocked by the behavior, was eventually able to prevent further killings, although he claimed it would "cost the King eight or ten thousand livres in presents." He then ordered the destruction of all the supplies the French did not take, as well as the boats under construction, after which the entire company, including the prisoners, traveled to Montreal.

On August 12, Loudoun finally dispatched reinforcements from the 44th Regiment of Foot and Bradstreet's battoemen toward Oswego. When these troops reached the Oneida Carry they learned that Oswego had fallen; after destroying the fortifications there, they retreated to German Flatts, where Loudoun ordered them to stay to prevent further French advances. Loudoun spent significant effort over the following months to pin the blame for the loss on William Shirley. He was cleared of all formal charges in an inquiry, but numerous irregularities were highlighted. Shirley's political connections in London enabled him to acquire other desirable posts later in his career.

Oswego was effectively abandoned until 1758, when the British reoccupied the area, and Bradstreet led an expedition that captured and destroyed Fort Frontenac. It was used again in 1759 as a departure point for a successful expedition against Fort Niagara, and in 1760 by Jeffery Amherst's army as it moved toward Montreal.

title: Battle of Fort Oswego


text:
List of weight training exercises

This is a partial list of weight training exercises organized by muscle groups.

Overview
The human body can be broken down into different muscles and muscle groups, which can be worked and strengthened by exercise. This table shows major muscles and the exercises used to work and strengthen that muscle.

Squat
The squat is performed by squatting down with a weight held across the upper back (below the neck) and standing up straight again. This is a compound exercise that also involves the glutes (buttocks) and, to a lesser extent, the hamstrings, calves, and the lower back. Lifting belts are sometimes used to help support the lower back. The freeweight squat is one of the three powerlifting competition exercises, along with the deadlift and the bench press.
 * Equipment: Squats can be performed using only the practitioner's body weight. For weighted squats, a barbell is typically used, although the practitioner may instead hold dumbbells, kettlebells, or other weighted objects. Individuals uncomfortable performing freeweight squats may use a Smith machine or hack squat machine.
 * Major variants:
 * Common variations include front squats, in which the weight is held across the upper chest, and box squats, in which the practitioner rests briefly on a box or bench at the bottom of the movement.

Leg press
The leg press is performed while seated by pushing a weight away from the body with the feet. It is a compound exercise that also involves the glutes and, to a lesser extent, the hamstrings and the calves. Overloading the machine can result in serious injury if the sled moves uncontrollably towards the trainer.
 * Equipment: Leg press machine.

Leg extension
The leg extension is performed while seated by raising a weight out in front of the body with the feet. It is an isolation exercise for the quadriceps. Overtraining can cause patellar tendinitis. The legs extension serves to also strengthen the muscles around the knees and is an exercise that is preferred by physical therapists. Needs citation
 * Equipment: Dumbbell, cable machine or leg extension machine.

Wall sit
The wall sit, also known as a static squat, is performed by placing one's back against a wall with feet shoulder width apart, and lowering the hips until the knees and hips are both at right angles. The position is held as long as possible. The exercise is used to strengthen the quadriceps. Contrary to previous advice in this section, this exercise is NOT good for people with knee problems because the knees bear most of the load, especially when they are held at right angles (90 degrees).
 * Equipment: Body weight, wall or other flat vertical surface, exercise ball placed behind the back is optional as well.

Deadlift
The deadlift is performed by lifting a weight off of the floor until fully upright. This is a compound exercise that also involves the glutes, lower back, lats, trapezius (upper back), and, to a lesser extent, the quadriceps and the calves. Lifting belts are often used to help support the lower back. If performed with a barbell, it can be held with both hands facing backwards or with one hand facing backward and one facing forward. Both hands should not face forwards because this puts excess stress on the inner elbows.
 * Equipment: Dumbbells, barbell, trapbar or Smith machine.
 * Major variants:
 * Sumo (wider stance to emphasise the inner thighs); stiff legged (emphasizes hamstrings); straight-legged (emphasizes lower back).

Stiff-legged deadlift
The stiff-legged deadlift is a deadlift variation where little to no knee movement occurs, increasing hamstring, glute, and lower back activation. The bar starts on the floor and the individual sets up like a normal deadlift but the knees are at a 160° angle instead of 135° on the conventional deadlift.

Leg curl
The leg curl is performed while lying face down on a bench, by raising a weight with the feet towards the buttocks. This is an isolation exercise for the hamstrings.
 * Equipment: Dumbbell, cable machine or leg curl machine.
 * Major variants: Seated (using a leg curl machine variant); standing (one leg at a time).

Snatch
The snatch is one of the two current olympic weightlifting events (the other being the clean and jerk). The essence of the event is to lift a barbell from the platform to locked arms overhead in a smooth continuous movement. The barbell is pulled as high as the lifter can manage (typically to mid [ chest] height) (the pull) at which point the barbell is flipped overhead. With relatively light weights (as in the "power snatch") locking of the arms may not require rebending the knees. However, as performed in contests, the weight is always heavy enough to demand that the lifter receive the bar in a squatting position, while at the same time flipping the weight so it moves in an arc directly overhead to locked arms. When the lifter is secure in this position, he rises (overhead squat), completing the lift.

Bulgarian Split Squats
The Bulgarian Split Squat is a squat variation and is performed by resting the back foot on an elevated surface, such as a bench, with your other foot out in front of you on the floor. With a dumbbell in hand or body weight, you bend and lower your front leg until the dumbbell reaches the floor, and then using your front leg, push up into starting position. This exercise targets the hamstrings, glutes, and quadriceps, making it a great full-body movement. This movement also requires good balance and stability, so core strength is also an important aspect.
 * Equipment required: Bench, dumbbell or body weight.
 * Variations: leaning the upper body forward slightly puts more stress on the glutes, while keeping the body straight upright targets more quadriceps.

Standing calf raise
The standing calf raise is performed by plantarflexing the feet to lift the body. If a weight is used, then it rests upon the shoulders, or is held in the hand(s). This is an isolation exercise for the calves; it particularly emphasises the gastrocnemius muscle, and recruits the soleus muscle.
 * Equipment: Body weight, dumbbells, barbell, Smith machine or standing calf raise machine.
 * Major variants: One leg (the other is held off the ground); donkey calf raise (bent over with a weight or machine pad on the lower back).

Seated calf raise
The seated calf raise is performed by flexing the feet to lift a weight held on the knees. This is an isolation exercise for the calves, and particularly emphasises the soleus muscle.
 * Equipment: Barbell or seated calf raise machine; can also be done on a leg press machine.

Pectorals (chest)

 * The bench press or dumbbell bench-press is performed while lying face up on a bench, by pushing a weight away from the chest. This is a compound exercise that also involves the triceps and the front deltoids, also recruits the upper and lower back muscles, and traps. The bench press is the king of all upper body exercises and is one of the most popular chest exercises in the world. It is the final exercise in 'The big 3'.
 * Equipment: dumbbells, barbell, Smith machine or bench press machine.
 * Major variants: incline ~ (more emphasis on the upper pectorals), decline ~ (more emphasis on the lower pectorals), narrow grip ~ (more emphasis on the triceps), push-up (face down using the body weight), neck press (with the bar over the neck, to isolate the pectorals), vertical dips (using parallel dip bars) or horizontal dips (using two benches with arms on the near bench and feet on the far bench, and dropping the buttocks to the floor and pushing back up.)

 * The chest fly is performed while lying face up on a bench or standing up, with arms outspread holding weights, by bringing the arms together above the chest. This is a compound exercise for the pectorals. Other muscles worked include deltoids, triceps, and forearms.
 * Equipment: dumbbells, cable machine or "pec deck" machine.
 * Major variants: incline ~ (more emphasis on the upper pectorals), decline ~ (more emphasis on the lower pectorals), cable crossover.
 * Cable crossovers
 * Dips

Lats (mid back)

 * The pulldown is performed while seated by pulling a wide bar down towards the upper chest or behind the neck. This is a compound exercise that also involves the biceps, forearms, and the rear deltoids.
 * Equipment: cable machine or pulldown machine.
 * Major variants: chin-up or pullup (using the body weight while hanging from a high bar), close grip ~ (more emphasis on the lower lats), reverse grip ~ (more emphasis on the biceps).

 * The Pull-up is performed by hanging from a chin-up bar above head height with the palms facing forward (supinated) and pulling the body up so the chin reaches or passes the bar. The pull-up is a compound exercise that also involves the biceps, forearms, traps, and the rear deltoids. A chin-up (palms facing backwards) places more emphasis on the biceps and a wide grip pullup places more emphasis on the lats. As beginners of this exercise are often unable to lift their own bodyweight, a chin-up machine can be used with counterweights to assist them in the lift.
 * Equipment: chin-up bar or chin-up machine.

 * The bent-over row is performed while leaning over, holding a weight hanging down in one hand or both hands, by pulling it up towards the abdomen. This is a compound exercise that also involves the biceps, forearms, traps, and the rear deltoids. The torso is unsupported in some variants of this exercise, in which case lifting belts are often used to help support the lower back.
 * Equipment: dumbbell, barbell, Smith machine or T-bar machine.
 * Major variants: cable row (using a cable machine while seated).

Deltoids (shoulders)

 * The upright row is performed while standing, holding a weight hanging down in the hands, by lifting it straight up to the collarbone. This is a compound exercise that also involves the trapezius, upper back, forearms, triceps, and the biceps. The narrower the grip the more the trapezius muscles are exercised.
 * Upright rows are prone to injure the shoulder through internal rotation and elevation of the ball and socket joint.
 * Equipment: dumbbells, barbell, Smith machine or cable machine.

 * The shoulder press is performed while seated, or standing by lowering a weight held above the head to just above the shoulders, and then raising it again. It can be performed with both arms, or one arm at a time. This is a compound exercise that also involves the trapezius and the triceps.
 * Major variants: 360 Degree Shoulder Press (wrists are rotated while weights are lifted, then weights are lowered in front of the head before being rotated back to the first position).
 * The military press is similar to the shoulder press but is performed while standing with the feet together. (It is named "military" because of the similarity in appearance to the "at attention" position used in most militaries) Unlike the seated shoulder press, the military press involves the majority of the muscles of the core as stabilizers to keep the body rigid and upright, and is thus a more effective compound exercise.
 * Equipment: dumbbells, kettlebells, barbell, Smith machine or shoulder press machine.
 * Major variants: Arnold Press (dumbbells are raised while rotating the palms outwards).

 * The lateral raise (or shoulder fly) is performed while standing or seated, with hands hanging down holding weights, by lifting them out to the sides until just below the level of the shoulders. A slight variation in the lifts can hit the deltoids even harder, while moving upwards, just turn the hands slightly downwards, keeping the last finger higher than the thumb. This is an isolation exercise for the deltoids. Also works the forearms and traps.
 * Equipment: dumbbells, cable machine or lateral raise machine.
 * Major variants: front raise (lift weights out to the front; emphasis is on the front deltoids), bent-over ~ (emphasis is on the rear deltoids), 180 degree lateral raise (weights are held slightly in front of the body and lifted over the head in a circular motion).

Triceps (back of arms)

 * The pushdown is performed while standing by pushing down on a bar held at the level of the upper chest. It is important to keep the elbows at shoulder width and in line with shoulder/legs. In other words, elbows position should not change while moving the forearm pushes down the bar. This is an isolation exercise for the triceps.
 * Equipment: cable machine or pulldown machine.

 * The triceps extension is performed while standing or seated, by lowering a weight held above the head (keeping the upper arms motionless), and then raising it again. It can be performed with both arms, or one arm at a time. This is an isolation exercise for the triceps. It is also known as the french curl.
 * Equipment: dumbbell(s), barbell, cable machine or triceps extension machine.
 * Major variants: lying ~ (lying face up with the weights over the face), kickback (bent over with the upper arm parallel to the torso).

Biceps (front of arms)

 * The Preacher curl is performed while standing or seated, with hands hanging down holding weights (palms facing forwards), by curling them up to the shoulders. It can be performed with both arms, or one arm at a time.
 * Standing barbell curl
 * Alternating rotating dumbbell curl
 * Hammer curl
 * The Zottmann curl gives a stronger focus to forearm training compared to the traditional curl.

Abdominals

 * The crunch is performed while lying face up on the floor with knees bent, by curling the shoulders up towards the pelvis. This is an isolation exercise for the abdominals.
 * Equipment: body weight, dumbbell or crunch machine.
 * Major variants: reverse ~ (curling the pelvis towards the shoulders), twisting ~ or side ~ (lifting one shoulder at a time; emphasis is on the obliques), cable ~ (pulling down on a cable machine while kneeling), sit-up ~ (have [chest] touch your knees), vertical crunch (propping up to dangle legs and pulling knees to the [ chest] or keeping legs straight and pulling up legs to a 90 degree position). Reverse hanging crunch (using gravity boots or slings to hang head down and pulling to a 90 or 180 degree form)

 * The leg raise is performed while sitting on a bench or flat on the floor by raising the knees towards the shoulders, or legs to a vertical upright position. This is a compound exercise that also involves the hip flexors.
 * Equipment: body weight or dumbbell.
 * Major variants: hanging ~ (hanging from a high bar), side ~ (lying on side), knee raise (lying on back, drawing knees to chest).

 * The Russian twist is a type of exercise that is used to work the abdomen muscles by performing a twisting motion on the abdomen. This exercise is performed sitting on the floor with knees bent like in a "sit-up" position with the back typically kept off the floor at an angle of 45°. In this position, the extended arms are swung from one side to another in a twisting motion with or without weight.
 * Equipment: body weight, kettlebell, medicine ball, or dumbbell.
 * Major variants: back kept off the floor at 45° angle, back rested on exercise ball, feet resting on the floor, anchored or kept off the floor.

Back extension
The back extension is performed while lying face down partway along a flat or angled bench, so that the hips are supported and the heels secured, by bending down at the waist and then straightening up again. This is a compound exercise that also involves the glutes.
 * Equipment: Body weight, dumbbell or back extension machine.
 * Major variants: Without bench (lying face down on the floor).

Deadlift
The deadlift is a very effective compound exercise for strengthening the lower back, but also exercises many other major muscle groups, including quads, hamstrings and abdominals. It is a challenging exercise, as poor form or execution can cause serious injury. A deadlift is performed by grasping a dead weight on the floor and, while keeping the back very straight, standing up by contracting the erector spinae (primary lower back muscle). When performed correctly, the role of the arms in the deadlift is only that of cables attaching the weight to the body; the musculature of the arms should not be used to lift the weight. There is no movement more basic to everyday life than picking a dead weight up off of the floor, and for this reason focusing on improving one's deadlift will help prevent back injuries.

Wrong technique and forward lean posture with a flexed spine can lead to discal injuries of the lower back. Correct technical performance with a slightly hollow or extended back and a hip hinge to keep the normal curvature of the spine is of utmost importance.

Good-morning
The good-morning is a weight training exercise in which a barbell, two dumbbells, or no weight at all is held on the shoulders, behind the head. The person bends forward and bows at the hips and recovers to upright. The good-morning is so called because the movement resembles bowing to greet someone. It involves the hamstrings but is primarily used to strengthen the lower back; the degree of knee bend used will change the focus – nearly straight-legged involving the hamstrings most.

Wrong technique and forward lean posture with a flexed spine can lead to discal injuries of the lower back. Correct technical performance with a slightly hollow or extended back to keep the normal curvature of the spine is of utmost importance.

title: List of weight training exercises


text:
Rózsa Péter

Rózsa Péter, born Rózsa Politzer, (17 February 1905 – 16 February 1977) was a Hungarian mathematician and logician. She is best known as the "founding mother of recursion theory".

Early life and education
Péter was born in Budapest, Hungary, as Rózsa Politzer (Hungarian: Politzer Rózsa). She attended Pázmány Péter University (now Eötvös Loránd University), originally studying chemistry but later switching to mathematics. She attended lectures by Lipót Fejér and József Kürschák. While at university, she met László Kalmár; they would collaborate in future years and Kalmár encouraged her to pursue her love of mathematics.

After graduating in 1927, Péter could not find a permanent teaching position although she had passed her exams to qualify as a mathematics teacher. Due to the effects of the Great Depression, many university graduates could not find work and Péter began private tutoring. At this time, she also began her graduate studies.

Professional career and research
Initially, Péter began her graduate research on number theory. Upon discovering that her results had already been proven by the work of Robert Carmichael and L. E. Dickson, she abandoned mathematics to focus on poetry. However, she was convinced to return to mathematics by her friend László Kalmár, who suggested she research the work of Kurt Gödel on the theory of incompleteness. She prepared her own, different proofs to Gödel's work.

Péter presented the results of her paper on recursive theory, "Rekursive Funktionen", to the International Congress of Mathematicians in Zürich, Switzerland in 1932. In the summer of 1933, she worked with Paul Bernays in Göttingen, Germany, for the long chapter on recursive functions in the book Grundlagen der Mathematik that appeared in 1934 under the names of David Hilbert and Bernays. Her main results are summarised in the book and also appeared in several articles in the leading journal of mathematics, the Mathematische Annalen, the first in 1934. Publication was under the name Politzer-Péter as she had changed her Jewish surname Politzer into Péter that same year. For her research, she received her PhD summa cum laude in 1935. In 1936, she presented a paper entitled "Über rekursive Funktionen der zweiten Stufe" to the International Congress of Mathematicians in Oslo. These papers helped to found the modern field of recursive function theory as a separate area of mathematical research.

In 1937, she was appointed as contributing editor of the Journal of Symbolic Logic.

After the passage of the Jewish Laws of 1939 in Hungary, Péter was forbidden to teach because of her Jewish origin and was briefly confined to a ghetto in Budapest. During World War II, she wrote her book Playing with Infinity: Mathematical Explorations and Excursions, a work for lay readers on the topics of number theory and logic. Originally published in Hungarian, it has been translated into English and at least a dozen other languages.

With the end of the war in 1945, Péter received her first full-time teaching appointment at the Budapest Teachers' Training College. In 1952, she was the first Hungarian woman to be made an Academic Doctor of Mathematics. After the College closed in 1955, she taught at Eötvös Loránd University until her retirement in 1975. She was a popular professor, known as "Aunt Rózsa" to her students.

In 1951, she published her key work Rekursive Funktionen, the first book on modern logic by a female author, later translated into English as Recursive Functions. She continued to publish important papers on recursive theory throughout her life. In 1959, she presented a major paper "Über die Verallgemeinerung der Theorie der rekursiven Funktionen für abstrakte Mengen geeigneter Struktur als Definitionsbereiche" to the International Symposium in Warsaw (later published in two parts in 1961 and 1962).

Beginning in the mid-1950s, Péter applied recursive function theory to computers. Her final book, published in 1976, was Rekursive Funktionen in der Komputer-Theorie (Recursive Functions in Computer Theory). Originally published in Hungarian, it was the second Hungarian mathematical book to be published in the Soviet Union because its subject matter was considered indispensable to the theory of computers. It was translated into English in 1981.

Honors
Péter was awarded the Kossuth Prize in 1951. She received the Manó Beke Prize by the János Bolyai Mathematical Society in 1953, the Silver State Prize in 1970, and the Gold State Prize in 1973. In 1973, she became the first woman to be elected to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

title: Rózsa Péter


text:
User talk:Julie1984

You're making some serious changes...welcome to Wikipedia but please take the time to get to know the protocol before moving and renaming pages... :) --kizzle 00:03, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

 * Please stop moving pages to controversial names - the names you are moving pages to are not neutral. Please see our NPOV policy.  Thank you  -- sannse (talk) 00:12, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * PLEASE stop moving pages. Thank you. Wolfman 00:16, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * If you continue you will be blocked. Please discuss any more moves you want to make first -- sannse (talk) 00:26, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * You've been blocked for causing enormous problems and wasting a lot of a developer's time with page-move vandalism. Rdsmith4— Dan | Talk 05:36, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Julie1984


text:
Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School

The Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School umpires for professional baseball is an independent umpire training program recognized by the minor leagues and major leagues. It is located in Ormond Beach, Florida. It runs for five weeks each early January through early February. The school is open to both men and women; the only woman ever to work a Major League Baseball (MLB) spring training game, Pam Postema, graduated from the school, as have a number of other female professional umpires. The school was previously known as the Bill McGowan School for Umpires and the Al Somers Umpire School.

History
Umpire Bill McGowan founded the program as the Bill McGowan School for Umpires in 1938. The school was run by former umpire Al Somers after McGowan's death in the 1950s. Harry Wendelstedt was the chief instructor for the Somers school, acquiring the school in 1977, where it has stayed in family ownership, with son Hunter Wendelstedt in control since 2012.

Facilities
The Wendelstedt Umpire School leases the Harry Wendelstedt Jr. baseball fields at the Ormond Beach Sports Complex. The school's lease is good through 2027 after being renewed for a decade in 2017. Students stay in a hotel offsite, and must commute to the classroom and fields for coursework.

Curriculum
While the Wendelstedt Umpire School is in session, students work six days a week, Monday through Saturday, usually starting at 9am. Students train in a classroom and on the fields. Training on most days begins in a classroom, where students learn from two instructors, one reading from the Official Baseball Rules while the other interprets the rules. Students take 25 tests, and to qualify for advancement, must score a 70% or better. All tests are mostly multiple choice and true/false, and are all based on the teachings of the rules.

Following training in the classroom, students walk to the fields. Students learn from instructors on how to apply the rules on the baseball diamond. They also learn proper umpire mechanics. Students work in batting cages, where they learn how to track pitches and effectively call balls and strikes. Students will also participate in simulated games where instructors control certain situations to help teach and evaluate the students.

Staff
The Wendelstedt Umpire School has produced more MLB umpires than all other schools in history combined. It has fourteen full-time MLB umpires and a number of minor league umpires on its staff. The current MLB umpires that have been instructors at the school include: Lance Barksdale, Gerry Davis, Dana DeMuth, Doug Eddings, Bruce Froemming, Greg Gibson, Brian Gorman, Ed Hickox, John Hirschbeck, Sam Holbrook, Ron Kulpa, Jerry Layne, Randy Marsh, Chuck Meriwether, Paul Nauert, Charlie Reliford, Larry Vanover, Tim Welke, and Hunter Wendelstedt.

title: Harry Wendelstedt Umpire School


text:
Roger Deakins

Sir Roger Alexander Deakins (born 24 May 1949) is an English cinematographer. He is the recipient of five BAFTA Awards for Best Cinematography, and two Academy Awards for Best Cinematography from sixteen nominations. He has collaborated multiple times with directors such as the Coen brothers, Sam Mendes, and Denis Villeneuve. His best-known works include The Shawshank Redemption (1994), Fargo (1996), O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), A Beautiful Mind (2001), Skyfall (2012), Sicario (2015), Blade Runner 2049 (2017), and 1917 (2019), the last two of which earned him Academy Awards.

An alumnus of the National Film and Television School, Deakins was named and serves as an Honorary Fellow of the school in recognition of his "outstanding contribution[s] to ... British film". He is a member of the British Society of Cinematographers and the American Society of Cinematographers, and in 2011 received a Lifetime Achievement Award from the latter organization. Deakins was bestowed a CBE by the Palace for his services to film in 2013, and was knighted as a Knight Bachelor in the 2021 New Year Honours.

Early life
Deakins was born in Torquay in the English county of Devon. His father ran a construction company, while his mother was an actress and amateur painter. Deakins attended Torquay Boys' Grammar School. He took up painting from a young age, and subsequently enrolled in the Bath Academy of Art in Bath, Somerset, where he studied graphic design. While studying in Bath, Deakins developed a passion for photography; he cited the photographer Roger Mayne, a guest lecturer at the academy, as a major source of inspiration.

After college, Deakins applied to the newly opened National Film School, but was denied admission as his photography was considered not "filmic" enough. He spent the following year wandering the countryside, photographing rural life in North Devon, before finally being admitted to the National Film School in 1972. Director Michael Radford was one of Deakins's schoolmates.

Early career
After graduating, Deakins found work as a cameraman, assisting in the production of projects for about seven years. An early project of his involved filming a nine-month trip on a yacht as an entrant in the Whitbread Round the World Race, titled Around the World with Ridgeway. Deakins was hired to film two documentaries in Africa. His first, Zimbabwe, was a clandestine documentation of the Rhodesian Bush War, while his second, Eritrea – Behind Enemy Lines, depicted the Eritrean War of Independence. He also shot anthropological documentaries in India and Sudan.

During the late 1970s and early 1980s, Deakins was involved in a number of music-related projects, including Blue Suede Shoes, a music documentary about the British rockabilly scene, the concert film Van Morrison in Ireland, and the Ray Davies musical film Return to Waterloo. He also made short music videos for Herbie Hancock, Eric Clapton, Marvin Gaye, Tracey Ullman, Madness, Level 42 and Meat Loaf.

Feature films
Deakins's first dramatic project was a miniseries titled Wolcott, about a black detective working in the East End of London. The camerawork of the miniseries impressed his former schoolmate and frequent collaborator Michael Radford, who enlisted Deakins for their first dramatic feature, the 1983 film Another Time, Another Place. The film screened at the Cannes Film Festival and was well-received; subsequently, Deakins and Radford teamed up again on Nineteen Eighty-Four (1984), based upon George Orwell's novel of the same name. The film was praised for its bold, unusual palette, which Deakins achieved through a process known as bleach bypass, where the silver is retained in the print, creating a washed-out look that reflected Orwell's bleak vision. Deakins was the first Western cinematographer to use the technique, which has since become highly influential and can be seen in films such as Seven (1995) and Saving Private Ryan (1998). Throughout the 1980s, Deakins continued working in Britain, serving as cinematographer for films including Defence of the Realm (1986), Sid and Nancy (1986), White Mischief (1987; his third feature film with Radford), Stormy Monday (1988) and Pascali's Island (1988).

In 1991, Deakins began his long-term collaboration with the Coen brothers, starting with the film Barton Fink. The Coens had been impressed with Deakins's work, and reached out to him after their previous collaborator Barry Sonnenfeld left to pursue a career in directing. The film won the Coens' the Festival de Cannes 1991 Palme d'Or and Best Director awards (and John Turturro the award for Best Actor), and earned Deakins best cinematography awards from New York, Chicago and Los Angeles film critics circles.

In 1994, the year Deakins was admitted to the American Society of Cinematographers, he served as cinematographer for The Shawshank Redemption, which earned him his first Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography, and his first American Society of Cinematographers Award. He received two further Academy Award nominations in that decade, for Fargo (1996) and Kundun (1997).

For the Coen brothers film O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), Deakins spent some two months fine-tuning the look, turning the lush green Mississippi landscape into a burnt, autumnal yellow and desaturating the overall image. This feat made O Brother the first ever feature film to be digitally color-corrected in its entirety, and earned Deakins his fourth Academy Award nomination. The following year, for his work in the Coen brothers' The Man Who Wasn't There (2001), Deakins received his fifth Oscar nomination and won his first BAFTA Award for Best Cinematography.

In 2008, Deakins received dual Oscar nominations—his sixth and seventh—for The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford (2007) and No Country for Old Men (2007). He was the first cinematographer to achieve such a feat since Robert Surtees, who was nominated for The Last Picture Show and Summer of '42 in 1972. Deakins served as director of photography for Stephen Daldry's The Reader (2008) but left mid-production due to delays and previous commitments, and was replaced by Chris Menges. The two cinematographers received a shared nomination for Best Cinematography at the 81st Academy Awards.

Deakins worked with the Coens on the 2010 western True Grit—their eleventh collaboration—for which he received his ninth Oscar nomination.

Deakins signed on as cinematographer for Skyfall (2012), having previously worked with director Sam Mendes on Jarhead (2005) and Revolutionary Road (2008). For his work, Deakins received another Academy Award nomination for Best Cinematography, eventually losing to Claudio Miranda of Life of Pi—his 10th nomination without securing a win.

In addition to his live-action work, Deakins served as both cinematographer and visual consultant on the 2011 animated film Rango (2011), and also served as a visual consultant on animated features, including WALL-E (2008), Puss in Boots (2011), Rise of the Guardians (2012), The Croods (2013), the How to Train Your Dragon trilogy (2010, 2014 and 2019). and Vivo (2021).

Starting with Prisoners (2013), Deakins began working with director Denis Villeneuve. The two proceeded to collaborate on Sicario (2015) and Blade Runner 2049 (2017), with Deakins earning Oscar nominations for all three films. For his work on Blade Runner 2049, Deakins received his first Academy Award for Best Cinematography on his 14th nomination.

Deakins reunited with Sam Mendes on the 2019 war film 1917, filmed and edited to appear as one uninterrupted take, for which he received his second Academy Award on his 15th nomination.

Personal life
Deakins married Isabella James Purefoy Ellis (b. January 1954, professionally known as James Ellis Deakins and often referred to simply as James ) on 11 December 1991. They had met in 1991 in Los Angeles on the set of David Mamet's Homicide, where she was working as the script supervisor. The two began dating after the Homicide production finished and were married within about six months. Since then, James Ellis has "ovesee[n] the digital workflow of... film[s]", and they have worked together on various projects, including The Goldfinch and 1917. As of February 2020, they reside in Kingswear, Devon, and Santa Monica, California.

Deakins has kept a boat since beginning such activities with his father as a child—with him, first a sailboat, then a motorboat—and he currently keeps one in Torquay, his hometown, to which he often goes (and from which he fishes) when in Britain.

When in Devon he enjoys running, and has maintained a passion for still photography. In 2021, Deakins released a book of his black-and-white still photographs, Byways.

Since 2005, Deakins has maintained a website through which he frequently communicates with admirers and other industry practitioners. His correspondence includes answering fan questions and offering cinematography tips. Since April 2020 he and his wife have hosted the Team Deakins podcast, whose guests have included Sam Mendes, John Crowley, and Denis Villeneuve.

Film
Short film

Television
Miniseries

TV movies

Documentary works
Short film

Film

Television

Critical reception
Deakins is often cited as one of the greatest and most influential cinematographers of all time. His consistent output led fellow cinematographer Robert Elswit to jokingly suggest that the American Society of Cinematographers should establish a special award for "films shot by Roger Deakins." Deakins received 13 Academy Awards nominations without a win, a fact often lamented by journalists and film critics. His first Oscar win (on his 14th nomination) for Blade Runner 2049 at the 90th Academy Awards was widely reported and met with great enthusiasm.

Deakins is among the most respected and sought-after cinematographers in the film business. His involvement in a film could secure the casting of established stars—a distinction usually reserved for auteur directors. He was hired to shoot The Shawshank Redemption at the insistence of Tim Robbins, who had previously worked with him on the Coen brothers film The Hudsucker Proxy. Josh Brolin agreed to join the cast of Sicario only after hearing of Deakins's involvement. When Ryan Gosling accepted his role in Blade Runner 2049, he cited the involvement of Deakins as a factor for his decision.

Awards and recognition
He has been nominated for sixteen Academy Awards, winning the Academy Award for Best Cinematography twice—on his fourteenth and fifteenth nominations—for Blade Runner 2049 (2017) and 1917 (2019). He has been named as an Honorary Fellow of his alma mater, the National Film and Television School in Beaconsfield, Buckinghamshire, an honour which recognises "outstanding contribution to the British film and television industry" On 28 February 2020.

Deakins is the recipient of five BAFTA Awards for Best Cinematography, for The Man Who Wasn't There (2001) in that same year, and for No Country for Old Men (2007), True Grit (2010), Blade Runner 2049 (2017), 1917 (2019), each in the year following their release. As well, two films that he shot, Fargo (1996), and A Serious Man (2009), won Independent Spirit Awards for Best Cinematography in the year after their release.

He received the Royal Photographic Society's Lumière Award for major achievement in cinematography, video or animation in 2009. The National Board of Review, a group of New York-based reviewers whose organization dates to 1909, honoured Deakins in 2007 with its award for Career Achievement in Cinematography. Deakins went on to receive the American Society of Cinematographers and the British Society of Cinematographers Lifetime Achievement Award in 2011 and 2015 respectively.

Deakins was appointed Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) in the 2013 Birthday Honours for services to film. He was knighted in the 2021 New Year Honours, also for services to film.

title: Roger Deakins