Talk:Nobel Prize/Archive 5

In the section Recognition time lag is written  this paragraph: 

<<Nobel's will provides for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year". Early on, the awards usually recognised recent discoveries.^[1] However, some of these early discoveries were later discredited. For example, Johannes Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his purported discovery of a parasite that caused cancer.^[2] To avoid this embarrassment, the awards increasingly recognised scientific discoveries that had withstood the test of time.>>

The story concerning the work of Johannes Fibiger is more complex than this paragraph implies. See the wiki article on Johannes Fibiger himself. This paragraph above in the main article appears to present the view that Fibiger's work for the Nobel prize was "discredited". But this is certainly not the case. I have not made any change to the original text and and am simply inviting discussion on this point as this above paragraph appears to present Fibiger unfairly. The paragraph does not say explicitly "The work of Johannes Fibiger for the Nobel Prize was discredited" nor does it say the opposite that "The work of Johannes Fibiger for the Nobel Prize was credited".

ComtedeMonteCristo (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that in the family laureates section, there is no mention of Wieland/Lynen: Heinrich Otto Wieland (Chemistry, 1927) had a daughter who was married to Feodor Lynen (Physiology or Medicine, 1964). Are relations by marriage not enough for this section? I don't mind that view, but I will note that paragraph about the Curie family mentions Frederic Joliot-Curie and Henry Labouisse, who married into the family. 74.51.115.100 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Under "First Awarded" it says, "Up Lady Gaga's Butt". Not sure how this was overlooked, but if someone can fix it, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.255.56 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph claims that "the Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace, and economics", while a later section says that the Economics prize is, in fact, not a Nobel Prize as such. I would like for the introduction to make the differences between the actual Nobel Prizes and the later Nobel Memorial Prize clearer. Muad (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

You are right, there is no such thing as "Nobel Price for economics", I am deleting it form the introduction section Kamamura (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The article section "Award Ceremonies" states:

Since 1902, the King of Sweden has presented all the prizes, except the Peace Prize, in Stockholm.

However the 1939 prize for Physics was awarded (in 1940) to Ernest Lawrence in a ceremony in Berkeley, California, USA, by the Swedish Consul in San Francisco. The reason for this is cited as The Second World War (at least in Europe, if not specifically Sweden), so I suspect that this award ceremony is not alone in being neither in Stockholm nor by the King of Sweden. ChrisJBenson (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have references/sources to go with that? Esuzu (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also in 1972 the prizes were presented by the crown prince Carl Gustaf who would later become king Carl XVI Gustaf.Laelele (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding the Nobel prize. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

This input about Dr. Omerbashich's claim was removed by some obnoxious self-styled "editor" (just another user but who has an agenda). It's a perfectly legit claim put forward by a scientist. Science is changed by insightful individuals, not by hordes otherwise there would be no Nobel Prize at all: In January 2013, accusations were made against Wineland and Haroche for stealing the idea that brought them the Nobel Prize. Crown Prince of Bosnia, who is a scientist himself, offered proof to the Nobel Committee and police that he submitted the now rewarded discovery to Wineland and NIST for verification back in 2008: Did David Wineland and Serge Haroche Steal Idea For The Nobel Physics Prize? 68.69.169.131 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think politics is as important as economics, do you think so?119.85.245.211 (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Because Nobel didn't endow a "political prize" (whatever you mean by that).

2. There is not a Nobel Prize for Economics, but rather a pseudo-Nobel. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

We do have a prize for politics - it is the Peace Prize. Span (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please, in the section "Overlooked achievements" can you remove this obscure fellow Simon Vestdijk because it is ridiculous to list him with all these great names? If there is a fixed number of "entries" in this "list" you may put George Orwell, for instance.

Also, in the "Refusals and constraints" section, there should be a reference to Carl von Ossietzky, who suffered pretty much the same with Liu Xiaobo.

Thank you

94.65.129.216 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Not done for now: Thanks for the suggestions, but per Wikipedia's policy on original research, we can't determine who we list based on contributors' opinions, but must abide by what reliable sources say. Simon Vestdijk is (I presume) listed in The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige, and Carl von Ossietzky should only be included if we can find a source explicitly supporting his inclusion. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's your data: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1935/ossietzky-facts.html and there's a detailed and sourced account in the article.

Now, on Vestdijk, who's famous and who's not is a matter of fact and I believe that many wikipedians will agree with me that determining if a relatively unknown person is famous depending on if a source says that they are famous and having them listed between universally known people, is a very dogmatic approach of wikipedia's policy of sources.--94.65.129.216 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Closed the edit request, since this page is not protected and any interested editor can make the change. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Nobel was not a philanthropist. This is akin to claiming Bill Gates' profession is 'Philanthropist'. Nobel manufactured DYNAMITE and cannon (Bofors). His profession was not philanthropy, it was WAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.246.140 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Why is the Pais / Einstein book in the "see also / further reading" section? It doesn't seem to be all about the Nobel, which is what I would expect for that reference. If it just happens to be about Einstein who is one of many recipients of the Nobel, even if it's focused a lot on his personal experiences of the Nobel, I would submit it's not an appropriate link for this page. Any contrary or additional thoughts on this? (I'm asking rather than deleting because I'm not actually personally familiar with this title.) --Lquilter (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Can people come to Talk:Jacob Barnett and then read the article, we need rules about speculation of who is to win a Nobel Prize. Speculation like this is not encyclopedic and more of fan gushing. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe someone can add this external link to this article: http://mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/ - it lists videos, CVs and Research Profiles of the Nobel Laureates (Requested 01.07.2014). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.3.136.181 (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

In the FA discussion it was brought up that this article has no "Controversial Recepients" section under "Controversies and..." so I began piecing one together. You can see it Nobel Prize controversies#Controversial Recipients. I'll also insert it here:

"Although not a Nobel Prize, it is intimately identified with the other awards; the laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients, and the Prize in Economic Sciences is presented at the Swedish Nobel Prize Award Ceremony." That bears a distinct resemblance to the fecal matter of an adult male bovine. If it a) contains the name "Nobel" and the word "Prize" in the name, b) is announced with the Nobel Prize recipients and is c) presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony then it IS a Nobel Prize. Admittedly it is not one of the originals, but saying it isn't one at all is nonsense.--Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

• "Admittedly it is not one of the originals, but saying it isn't one at all is nonsense." That is of course an example of a broken logic. Imagine you have somebody paint a replica of a Rembrandt painting and then sell it to anyone as a genuine Rembrandt, imagine arguing: "Well, people talk about it as a Rembrandt, they paid as much as they would for the genuine article, therefore, it's a Rembrandt, though not one of the originals." There is a word depicting the deed of intentionally creating a duplicate or look-alike of a valuable or prestigious article in order to profit from the similarity and confusion - and that word is fraud. Watches called "Lorex", shoes called "Abidas", cheap nasty brandy called "Napoleon", or a "Nobel Memorial Prize" having nothing in common with Mr. Nobel, they all have one thing in common - they are fakes created with an ulterior motive, and the fact that people confuse them with the original does NOT legitimize them. Kamamura (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster

• And you ignored the points that it is announced with the recipients of the other prizes and is presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. And that doesn't even cover the fact (which I left out) that nobelprize.org lists it alongside the others on their list of Nobel Prizes and Laureates. If the official website of the Nobel Prize includes it, who are we to say different? --Khajidha (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
• And your analogy falls flat on its face because the Nobel Prizes are not the personal works of Mr. Nobel himself, they are the creations of a foundation that he set up. The Economics prize was instituted by an endowment to that foundation. There was no intention to defraud involved. Your example makes no more sense than saying that new films cannot be Warner Bros. films because all of the Warner brothers are long dead and had no hand in their creation.--Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha - it's generally referred to as a Nobel Prize in economics, even though technically it's a got a more complicated name. Volunteer Marek  13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

In the intro, the article states that the award money is "worth SEK 9,000,000 or about US$1,110,000, €944,000, £836,000, INR 72,693,900 Or CNR 376,000" (bold, mine). What does CNR stand for? This is the only time the abbreviation is found in the article, so it should be explained or interlinked with its corresponding article. Coinmanj (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Can editors at this page take a look at my rename proposal at the literaure prize article and let me know if they'd prefer a wider discussion before the move is implemented? Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Note that this research was not done by me, it was done by a YouTuber and blogger who goes by kathylovesphysics who did some thorough research on the subject. I occasionally quoted her article verbatim here.^[1] I recommend everyone take a look she dug pretty deep on the subject and came to the conclusions from primary sources.

The well-known story of Nobel being motivated to create the prize after reading the obituary mistaking his brother's death for his does not seem to be entirely accurate. There was a mistaken obituary published in the French newspaper Le Figaro on Sunday, April 13, 1888. The actual content of the obituary, translated from French, reads "A man who cannot easily pass for a benefactor of humanity died yesterday in Cannes. It is Mr. Nobel, inventor of dynamite. Mr. Nobel is Sweedish".^[2] The same paper posted a retraction the next day.^[3] Specifically, the often used phrase "Merchant Of Death" was not used here. History.com also notes that the "Merchant Of Death" obituary has never been found and that many historians contest whether Nobel reading his obituary played the leading role, or even any role, in the creation of the Prize.^[4] We have access to many of Nobel's correspondence and there is no record of him mentioning the probably apocryphal "Merchant of Death" obituary. ^[5] For example, his letter 1889 letter to Sophie Hess, his mistress, expresses his melancholy about the "sad end" he was going towards but makes no mention of the obituary or public opinion.^[6] It is important to note that there is no evidence whatsoever that Nobel was bothered by the content of the obituary. Nobel's relationship with the French press was quite contentious anyhow, so it does not seem to follow that he would put much stock into its opinions of him.^[7] He is also quoted as saying “Who has time to read biographies, and who can be so naïve or fatuous as to take an interest in them?"^[8] which further supports the point that Nobel would not have cared what a short obituary had to say of him. Nobel had a firm belief that being the creator of dynamite made him a merchant of peace, not death. He is quoted as saying “I wish I could produce a substance or a machine of such frightful efficacy for wholesale devastation that wars should thereby become altogether impossible."^[9] Essentially, he is espousing the principle that what we today call "mutually assured destruction" would prevent states from waging war. This shows that Nobel actually believed that his invention was an instrument of peace and that he would have simply disagreed with those who considered him a "merchant of death". The first mention of the story in which Nobel was motivated to create his peace prizes too change his legacy after reading the "Merchant of Death" obituary (which I cannot emphasize enough, has not been found anywhere) was not until a 1959 biography of him by Nicholas Halasz.^[10] It seems as though the first use of the term "merchant of death" in the media was not even used until 1932 in an article about Basil Zaharoff, not Nobel.^[11] Two years later, another author “borrowed” that phrase for his book on arms dealers, which he titled “Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry.” The New York Times reviewed this book and after that the phrase “Merchant of Death” was often used to describe people who sell weapons. By the late 50s, Halasz must have heard the term “Merchant of Death” for arms dealers but had not investigated and found that the term was only 25 years old and therefore could not have been in Alfred’s premature obituary.^{[12][13][14][15]}The evidence actually points to the fact that Bertha von Suttner, who also inspired Nobel to become active in the peace movement, inspired him to create his prizes. ^[16] In fact when Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, learned he was being awarded the prize he wrote to Bertha saying "“This Prize, gracious lady, is your work; for through your instrumentality Herr Nobel became devoted to the peace movement, and at your suggestion he became its promoter.” ^[17] Once again, I implore everyone to read Kathy's article where I got this information. I understand and agree with skepticism about blogs but in this case, the historical review using primary sources is extremely compelling. At the very least, we should edit the history section to say that there is no actual evidence that the story of Nobel creating his prizes to change his legacy after the "Merchant of Death" obituary is true, and that the "Merchant of Death" obituary has not even been recorded anywhere.(Huismank (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

Quick question:

Is an "In Popular Culture" section appropriate for this page?

Mn1548 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems like Bob Dylan should be mentioned in the section on "controversies and criticism". Not everyone was sanguine about a musician receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature is 2016, nor, if they were willing to go that far, about Dylan receiving it. There was also his non-responsiveness to the Committee, which prompted two of the committee members to comment publicly that he was "impolite and arrogant". Surely this deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Can we add that the first prize was December 10th, 1901 rather than just the year. https://www.nobelprize.org/ceremonies/from-the-first-nobel-prize-award-ceremony-1901/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.106.50 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

The 2012 Peace Prize was controversial, because it was awarded to the European Union, for work it never did, reintegrating Europe since 1945 and creating Peacemaking. However, if you examine the Press Release, an interesting circumnavigation of the Rules appears - the words "and its forerunners" are added. And Gandhi was among them. The evolution of Peacemaking is documented in the article on the Western European Union.

The ECSC was the EU's earliest incarnation, from 1954, becoming the EEC in 1957, and the EU in 1993. It did not finally take on crisis management from WEU until 2010.

WEU, by contrast, was formed from certain elements of the Western Union in 1954, the latter having arisen from thetail end of WW2. In 1984, it was activated as the end of the Cold War was possible, and became a political reality in 1987, when I gave the heads-up to SG van Eekelen the Iron Curtain was about to collapse, which it duly did over the next year. It was therefore decided to move WEU to Brussels to become the defence diplomatic arm of Europe, halfway between NATO and the EU. This happened in early 1993, becoming operational at Easter: I double-hatted HQ Accountant and Crisis Management finance reponsibilities in a very polyvalent environment. As Head of Finance from 2001, I undertook the last official act, depositing the closure accounts, on 30.6.2011. The confusion arose because the WEU SG double-hatted as the EU's Head of CFSP from 1994-2009, the first period under SG Cutileiro unofficially as the CFSP concept evolved.

How does Gandhi fit? My training in the area was partly from my mother, who was Krishna Mennon's PA while High Commissioner in London during the Independence Talks in 1946-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

I have edited the lead for this article. I see I might have created a problem.

I happened upon this article, read the Lead and thought to myself, that this is confusing. It fails to create a logically constructed topic sentence. So I decided that I would edit it so a reader could understand the essence of a Noble Prize. After quite a bit of checking references and such, I created a good start. I looked further and there were a lot of words that weren't well constructed to easily communicate the content. So I worked on those parts and on and one. There was a lot of detail, so I organized it. And then it seemed that those details were not actually Lead content, so I created sections. Ooops. I guess I should not have done that. But it seemed logical considering all the details.

So from the Lead I created the following "new" sections

Establishment of Nobel Prizes

Economic Sciences Prize Established in 1968

Awarding of Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Too much info, too much detail. And I have a bit of a quandary.

To keep all of that detailed information in the Lead is not appropriate.

Wikipedia guidance about the structure of the lead is:

It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on.

A concise overview of the article's topic

As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs

Conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic.

To write a lead section and follow these guidelines, especially the one about "four paragraphs" for a long complex article is a challenging exercise. It seems this guidance was created by a committee (it's like the platypus--an animal that was designed a committee).

But, in any case, So now I need to go back to the article and re-edit the Lead. A lot of the information can not remain. Just saying because I imagine some editors will want all the detail in the Lead. It will not be possible to do that and contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs, be a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. Oh well, I will try.

Osomite ^hablemos 01:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

• Have done some work on the lead, thanks for the inspiration. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

there is a section which lists misc information. should it be there?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections

Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

I did a text search on the whole text and did not found any mention of mathematics on the whole text. As it is a surprising omission of the list of disciplines, it should be mentioned somewhere in this article no ? Xavier Combelle (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathematics is not one of the awarded fields, that is why, if you wish to look at an award for mathematics then I refer you to the Fields Medal, which is widely considered the most prestigious mathematical award. The Theory of Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I recently watched an episode of Young Sheldon where Sheldon listens to the announcement of the winners on shortwave radio and since then I've been wondering, is that option still available (assuming it's a true fact)? Because if so, it could be an interesting fact to add to the article.--190.231.102.112 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I swear I reported this before, but a search doesn't find my name on this page so I guess I just didn't. Wikipedia seems just horifically broken to me. If I search for "Noble Prize" what SHOULD happen is that I get to the prize named in honor of Alfred Noble and THERE SHOULD BE TEXT that says "Not to be confused with The Nobel Prize". ALTERNATIVELY, this article should begin with text "For the prize named after Alfred Noble, see _________" with the blank filled in by a link to the article on the Noble Prize. It seems that there is some kind of concerted effort on the part of Wikipedia to utterly deny the fact that the Noble Prize EXISTS and that Aflred Noble did at one time exist. This is engraging to the point that if Wikipedia were a paid service I'd drag you into a court of law. You've no right to reroute "Noble Prize" to "Nobel Prize" and then not acknowledge what you're doing.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

The page Noble Prize redirects to the Alfred Noble Prize. — HTGS (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Right, and that's the spelling the IP used. However, Noble prize and Noble-prize redirected to Nobel Prize. I have changed them to Alfred Noble Prize. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

I added a line on Peter Nobel's disapproval of a 'Nobel' prize for Economics, citing remarks by Hazel Henderson, which has just been removed. As Ms Henderson appears to be notable in her own right, her assesment (particularly when she reports others sharing Peter's viewpoint) certainly seems to be a valid as a citation for his view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

"Ms Henderson appears to be notable in her own right" Literally citation needed for this. There is a Wikipedia biography, but it is sourced to her own publications and is a bit of a car-crash. One of the occupations given in that biography is "economic iconoclast" which isn't an occupation, is it? What are her relevant credentials such that a post on her personal blog can be counted as a reliable source? I point to WP:BLOGS, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." There does need to be a section in the article on criticism of the Prize in Economic Sciences, but not right in the introductory paragraph about the prize; there is a section later in the article for controversies and criticisms. There are other critics of the prize such as Nassim Nicholas Taleb who probably deserve a mention. Peter Nobel's opinion is stated without showing why his opinion matters; merely being in the Nobel family does not make someone an expert. It needs to be spelled out who these people are and why their judgement matters, and it needs to be in the proper part of the article, not the part that defines what the prize is. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@John Maynard Friedman: The edit summary for your reversion of my deletion reads "No engagement with BRD at talk page". Since the above Talk page text was created in response to my deletion, what "BRD at talk page" are you referring to here? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter: My bold edit was to add Peter Nobel's criticism; you (partially) reverted it by removing the Henderson citation. This is the discussion. Perhaps I should have headed it "BRD:Hazel Henderson citation".

My perhaps simplistic view is that if somebody is notable enough to have a WP article, then they are notable enough to provide a citation since it is not acting a WP:Primary source for that purpose. As I understand wp:blogs, a non-notable person writing at a reliable source (a cub reporter on the NYT, for example) is not accepted. Conversely, a highly notable person certainly qualifies, we don't have to wait until it appears in print. [Personally I draw the line at twitter but others disagree]. To take an extreme example, if Stephen Hawking had written a blog in which he noted the dispute between string theorists and quantum gravitationists, I would see no problem with citing that as a source that says that there is definitely a dispute. In this case, I won't insist because I'm not overly convinced by her credentials either: I just thought it good enough to serve as a citation, better than a minor Swedish tabloid.

Yes, Peter N's criticism can easily be discarded since his only credential to criticise seems to be his blood. But he does have a point that the CBoS prize uses his name and de facto is called the "Nobel Prize for Economics", which is not one AN established; his credentials to call it a pseudo-science are not obvious. It would wander off-topic to get into questions about the scientific rigour of Economics as a discipline, which is a risk if it moves into the body. But if you can find a way to do so, I will happily give way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Alan Hodgkin got the Nobel for Medicine and his first cousin's wife Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin got the Nobel for Chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.88.176 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

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

• The International Nobel Economic Congress 2008.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Chien-Shiung Wu should be added to the section on "Overlooked achievements". Her omission from the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics was very controversial, with Nobel Laureate Jack Steinberger labeling it as the biggest mistake in the Nobel committee's history. See the last paragraph of Wu experiment#History for more info. Nosferattus (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Reliable source? סשס Grimmchild 10:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Page is briefly semi-protected to bring a halt to some disruptive editing. Apologies to any IP or new editors hoping to legitimately add to this page in the next little while. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

The last sentence of the History section is irrelevent. Previosly there was an additional sentence and it read:

In 1905, the personal union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved. Thereafter, Norway's Nobel Committee was responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and the Swedish institutions retained responsibility for the other prizes.

It was changed in Feb. 2015. Someone should fix this. 213.8.112.230 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Have any other Nobel Laureates reached 100?

Possibly 'X was the first NL to reach 100' here and on his page 'HK was the Xth NL to reach 100' would be appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

The article has large sections that tried to MOS:WEASEL suggestions that the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize. This is the Nobel Prize article, and as is clearly stated in the revision, the Prize in Economics is unambigously labeled "Not a Nobel Prize" by the Nobel Foundation. It is often affiliated with the Nobel Prize (because, as the head clearly still states, the Swedish central bank made a donation). But this article is not "Prizes administered by the Nobel Foundation". It is "Nobel Prizes" and the Prize in Economics is not one. This is not up for debate. If someone wants to propose moving the article to "Prizes administered by the Nobel Foundation" for some WP:NPOVTITLE reason, that's on them, and that article should include large sections on the Prize in Economics. I think Nobel Prize the preferred article title. And with that being the article name and title, it doesn't deserve long and repeated tangents to another prize.

Since this is an article on Nobel Prizes, listing a commonly misidentified Prize (because it is administered by the same organization) does belong in the head, and it still does in my revision. My revision did not erase the existence or relationship of the Prize in Economics. Suggesting that the 5 Nobel Prizes are just the "original" prizes is MOS:WEASEL and the whole article was blighted by it. Having the Economics Prize listed under "Awarded for" in the Infobox for Nobel Prize was simply inaccurate.

Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences is linked to in the head, its status is clearly summarized, and more details are available for that commonly associated Prize. I believe revising the article as I did greatly improves readability, clarity, and communicates accurate information to the reader. This is not malicious and doesn't warrant immediate revision as a perfectly reasonable WP:BOLD edit. 2601:547:900:DD70:0:0:0:ACE7 (talk) 09:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Please review WP:EW and WP:BRD. We appreciate your original edits but you are not entitled to use reversions to retain the version of the article that you prefer over the objections of other editors. Reach a consensus here in Talk and then perhaps you can restore your edits if other editors agree with them. ElKevbo (talk) 14:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

There are no other objections of other editors. There's just immediate revisions without any comments from mostly you. 2601:547:900:DD70:0:0:0:ACE7 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

So you have surveyed every other Wikipedia editor and know no one objects? One person does not a consensus make. You need to persuade editors to openly agree with you. 331dot (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

In my reversion, I noted "Several prev discussions there support at least some mention, even if it's not what Nobel originally created/intended." Regarding your edit behavior, "you removed, someone reinstated" is definitely not even a WP:SILENT consensus, as "somone reinstated" means someone disagrees (whether or not they explain why), and now you know that over time, there have been multiple editors who seem they would voice explicit opposition its wholesale removal. DMacks (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It was not a wholesale removal. There is still nearly an entire paragraph in the head of the article (2nd paragraph) addressing the relationship with the Prize in Economics to the Nobel Prizes. Interested readers are made aware and given links to learn more about this related prize. 128.237.82.18 (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I go to the official site nobelprize.org and look up the list of All Nobel Prizes. The Economics prize is listed there, with a distinct title that indicates that it is a memorial prize not created by Nobel himself. The Nobel Foundation seems to think that the English phrase "The Nobel Prizes" (not "the Prizes administered by the Nobel Foundation") encompasses the Economics prize. I look at Britannica; it includes details of the Economics prize in its article on the Nobel Prizes, albeit noting that it "is not technically a Nobel Prize". I look at mainstream media coverage, see articles about the Nobel Prizes such as this one in the New York Times that gives the Economics prize equal coverage to the other prizes. If contributor 2601:547:900:DD70:...etc wants this article to not give the Economics prize equal space with the others, it's not sufficient to argue that technically or historically it doesn't count. They need to persuade the community that speakers of the English language would not commonly regard the Economics prize as encompassed in the phrase "the Nobel Prizes" and would not expect to find information on it in this article. Given the state of the sources, that seems like an uphill battle to put it mildly. MartinPoulter (talk) 18:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Did you read your own link? The Nobel Foundation clearly lists "the Nobel Prizes and the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" winners on that page. But that implies that the Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize (as they explicitly say in the referenced citation). The Nobel Foundation administers 6 prizes: 5 Nobel Prizes & the Prize in Economics. Of course their website lists winners of all 6. The Wikipedia article clearly says in the first sentence that there's only 5, mirroring Nobel's will and what the Nobel Foundation says. Britannica says there are six and that is a clear error.

There is no Nobel Prize in Economics. The Prize in Economics is "Not a Nobel" as the Nobel Foundation clearly says. This article is about Nobel Prizes, and there are only five of those. There is a related prize administered by the Nobel Foundation, and the proposed revision clearly discusses and provides information about that related prizes in the head of the article. 128.237.82.18 (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

As MartinPoulter said, the title of https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/lists/all-nobel-prizes/ is "All Nobel Prizes". They could have placed the economics prize on another page or called the page something like "All prices administered by the Nobel Foundation", but they didn't. If the Nobel Foundation can include the economics prize on a page called "All Nobel Prizes" while explaining the difference then we can include it on a page called "Nobel Prize" while explaining the difference, especially when it's common for other reliable sources to do it (often without explaining the difference). Stop edit warring against consensus. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

On the linked page the following text is at the top. The Sveriges Riksbank Prize is not a Nobel. If it were why would they differentiate it so?

Between 1901 and 2022, the Nobel Prizes and the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel were awarded 108.31.21.117 (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

On the Nobel prize siteNobel prize site, there is a list of Nobel Prizes. It lists 5, all of which it introduces with identical preludes: “The Nobel prize in…”. Economics is not among them, it and it alone has a separate introduction “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”. The committee could have called it the Nobel Prize in Economics, and they deliberately did not. They consistently type out the much longer name to underscore the fact that, while this award is every bit as prestigious as the Nobels, it is not one. This page is confusing and incorrect. 108.31.21.117 (talk) 03:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

This edit request to Nobel Prize has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Use British spelling of the words characterize and organization. 90.228.239.139 (talk) 23:13, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done Pinchme123 (talk) 03:15, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

There's a section pointing out the discrepancy in figures for awards to men as opposed to awards for women, and then notes a perfectly legitimate reason - that there's more men in theese fields So then how is it controversial?

The sentence "reflecting a time when gender bias in the relevant fields was greater" well what is this 'gender bias'? How has it significantly lessened?

21:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Montalban (talk) 21:42, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Since most of the money from the Nobel foundation seems to be going to the partying - isn't somebody else supposed to pay for that if the will states "the interest on which is to be distributed annually as prizes"? 151.40.125.129 (talk) 07:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Why does the "history" part of the article put so much emphasis on that he found an obituary of himself in the newspaper? This feels odd that 40% of the section talks about this. 132.147.140.229 (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)