Talk:Nobel Prize

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Nobel Prize is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: No date specified. Please edit template call function as follows: {{GAnominee|insert date in any format here}}
Peer review This article was externally reviewed on December 14, 2005 by Nature. It was found to have 5 errors.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Nobel Prize as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nobel Prize article.

/archive

Wikipedia CD Selection Nobel Prize is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Contents

[edit] Note on Mahatma Gandhi

If the Nobel Prizes are awarded by Sweden, what is the relevance of Norway not wanting to offend its World War II ally, the United Kingdom, to awarding Gandhi the Nobel Prize?

Because of this:
The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded annually in Oslo, the capital of Norway, unlike the prizes in economics, physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature, which are awarded in Stockholm, Sweden.

[edit] Fictional Nobel Prize Recipients

Would it be possible or encouraged for someone to start a list for Fictional Recipients of the Nobel Prize? (This would cover recipients of the Prize in Movies, Novels, Television and Comics). Orville Eastland 23:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not in this article. You're free to start a separate article, but it will be jumped on by a herd of new pages patrollers, so it's best to have relatively organized product before posting it. savidan(talk) (e@) 06:09, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declined Prizes?

The opening section states that some prizes have been declined. A list of people that did so would be nice. Matt Deres 02:06, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

There's a list of people who declined the prize on the Nobel Prize controversies page. AndrewWTaylor 15:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
What about prizes that were received after initial rejection by the scientific community? Declined papers that won Nobel prizes May be appropriate for external link. Lakinekaki

[edit] Errors

I gave the article a once-over. The only major error that jumped out at me (I'm no expert on the Nobel Prizes, I should add), was a mention that Alfred Nobel was shocked by the use of dynamite for war. This is false; he spent many years working to develop military weapons involving explosives, there could have been no shock. It seems more a case to me that he developed weapons of war but was interested, on the whole, in peace (or at least wanted to settle his moral debts). See this article for more information about this aspect of his career. --Fastfission 19:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I found this to be slightly inaccurate:
Each award can be given to a maximum of three people per year.
At least the peace prize is not necessarily awarded to people but often to organizations. So stating that only 3 people can be given the prize seems inaccurate and could maybe have been counted as an error by the reviewer? Shanes 04:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, corporations are "persons" under the law. Perhaps this is true for organizations as well? --Daev 16:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
And what about this:
It is customary (but not mandatory) for the recipients to donate the prize money to benefit scientific, cultural or humanitarian causes.
Is this really true? What are the percentage of winners who donate all the money? I have no idea myself, but "customary" looks too strong a word to me. Shanes 05:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Customary is definitely the wrong word, it implies that they're expected to do so, which is not true. Which necessitates the "but not mandatory" remark. I'll simply replace this with "It is common", a better word. --BluePlatypus 03:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Errors ID'd by Nature, to correct

The results of what exactly Nature suggested should be corrected is out... italicize each bullet point once you make the correction. -- user:zanimum

  • “The prize is occasionally awarded to those who preserved through critical moments in a process despite the risk of failure.” Not sure what this is supposed to mean, but if it implies that the committees take this criteria into account when deciding upon who shall get a prize, there is no evidence for this. This is part of the mythology and relates to Nobel’s own romantic vision, but not to the actual working of the prizes.
  • The reasoning for why no mathematics prize with respect to mathematics not considered a practical science is historically wrong. We do not know why Nobel chose not to include mathematics; evidence points to issues not mentioned in the entry, which repeats popular mythology and not work of those who studied the issue in detail.
  • Final date for receiving proposals is 31 January not 1 February.
  • Unclear/misleading: Those invited to nominate is unclear. Process of evaluating is unclear. The discussion of criticisms seems haphazardly slapped together; where useful information was found, it was included, but no clear thesis or vision for what should be included seems present. No perspective on why the prizes became significant; no perspective on general use of NP or other prizes for determining the alleged ‘Best’.
  • Omission: The location of the ceremonies has changed over time.

[edit] Changing "commendation"?

The text states "widely regarded as the supreme commendation in the world today." However, the commendation article seems to have little relevance for this prize. Would not "award" or "honor" or something similar be better? Meritus 14:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claims of Nomination

Periodically, a Wikipedia article claims that someone has been nominated for a prize -- generally within the 50-year secrecy period. I feel that such claims should either not be included or severely qualified. At least one other editor strongly disagrees. The instant case is R.J. Rummel, but I have placed a request for input on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Nobel and Other Secret Prize Nominations. Robert A.West (Talk) 06:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Declining Nobel

I want to find a list of prize winners that have declined the award. Also with any reason(s) given by them. Is there any such page in Wikipedia?

I believe this is what you are looking for: Nobel Prize controversies. MiraLuka 20:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, reason(s) are summarized in the section "Nobel Prize controversies#Nominees and recipients who declined."--NYScholar 14:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yasser Arafat

I modified the comment on Yasser Arafat. Originally it stated

Yasser Arafat for signing a peace agreement with Israel which he proceeded to ignore.

Now it states:

Also among the most infamous is the peace prize awarded to Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres and Yitzhak Rabin.

Whether Yasser Arafat ignored the peace treaty or was unable to act or was forced to act due to Israels defiance of the peace treaty (after Rabin was assisinated) is hotly disputed and presenting it as a fact is not NPOV. The main controversies article is probably a better guide to a slightly more balanced assessment of Yasser Arafat and Peres relative merit to the peace prize. However it might be better to leave it as is, and let readers visit the main controveries page or the individual pages for the people in question to get a better assessement of whether there people deserved the peace prize or not. In any case, clearly presenting such a hotly disputed issue as fact is not NPOV. Nil Einne 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of unshared prizes?

Would it be worth the effort to make a list of unshared Nobel prizes? It would be rather short, at least in the sciences, since unshared prizes have become a rarity, because nowadays there are so many scientists and so many parallel research efforts, and most of the research is done by teams, not by outstanding individuals. That's why we have seen this recent inflation of Nobel Prize winners... Science History 16:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial examples of controversies

There are examples of controversies on the page, which might be okay, but unfortunately the examples cited by Pproctor (talk • contribs) just happens by sheer coincidence to be the lack of recognition of a one Peter Proctor (which he whines about here). Such self-promotion is obviously to be frowned upon, but other Wikipedians' input on the matter are welcome, so if consensus is reached here that it should be included then it should. — Dunc|☺ 10:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An organic polymer voltage-controlled switch from 1974. Now in the Smithsonian
An organic polymer voltage-controlled switch from 1974. Now in the Smithsonian
First, you removed references to both of the controversies surrounding exactly who discovered the transistor. Likewise, the fact that high conductivity in Charge transfer complexes was discovered nearly two decades before that in the polyacetylene organic semiconductors. Similarly, these days, the official histories clearly give John McGinness credit for the first organic solid state device. E.g.:

"An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).

  • "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness,(and coworkers) who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

206.180.133.30 02:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations in use of the Nobel medal throughout Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia Commons

See Nobel image talk page. The various image files (.jpg and .png ) used in the Nobel prize articles are not within fair use. The Nobel medal is clearly protected by both trademark and copyright, and it cannot be used without written permission obtained in advance from the Nobel Foundation. [Claims to the contrary on many linked pages throughout Wikipedia and Wikipedia Commons to these images of the Nobel medal (logo) and the images of individual Nobel medals in various fields all seem to be contradicted by the actual copyright notices on the Nobel Foundation Nobel Prize webpages.] --NYScholar 20:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC); updated --NYScholar 08:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

These images are "fair use". Note that "fair use" is an exception to copyright and trademark laws that works regardless of the claims or policies of the copyright or trademark holder.
These images, on the other hand, should not be on commons. David.Monniaux 11:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This use is disputed. The logo and images of the Nobel Medal and all Nobel Medals explicitly require written permission being "granted" by the Nobel Foundation for their use in any such articles. See the talk page of the image. The assertion that these images are within "fair use" is disputed, since the copyright registered to the Nobel Foundation requires written permission to be "granted" for their use and for their use "only" in articles about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize, and Nobel Prize laureates prior to their use and that the registered copyright notice to the Nobel Foundation be affixed on their use IF such permission is granted in writing by the Nobel Foundation. See the talk page of the image. --NYScholar 20:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've suggested several times to this user to e-mail the Foundation's legal team about the issue. He has, to my best knowledge, always declined to do so. David.Monniaux 17:37, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

This user has never suggested that I e-mail the Nobel Foundation's "legal team about the issue." See the Nobel Image talk page and particularly my section called The possible violations of copyright have been brought to the attention of the Nobel Foundation.
There I explained days ago now that the Nobel Foundation ("the Foundation") had already been contacted re: this matter. Early Monday morning, September 4, 2006 (Labor Day in the United States, a national holiday), I received a reply from the copyright contact person in public relations for the Nobel Foundation (from the contact address listed in the copyright notice on the official website for the Nobel Prize), saying that she had referred this matter to the legal department of the Foundation. Responsibility for resolving these potential copyright violations resides with Wikipedia and the Nobel Foundation.
Please also see my current talk page, and follow its link to my Archive 1, for more information, including DM's comment "suggesting" that I contact Wikipedia's "legal use" people (not the Nobel Foundation's "legal team").]
Clearly, as it is his photograph and others' photographs and images relating to and from the Nobel Foundation's website of the trademark and copyrighted design of the Nobel Medal that are uploaded in Wikipedia and posted in this article, it is he and they who need to contact the Nobel Foundation for guidance (and to ask for permission). To avoid potential trademark and copyright infringement, they (not I) need to seek guidance from its legal department re: his and others' claims of "fair use" and various and sundry misstatements about the provenance of the Nobel Medals and the Nobel Foundation's copyright. (The licenses are still erroneously presented throughout Wikipedia; some of the same images have been deleted from Wikipedia Commons, though they are still being featured, in a featured article yet, in some other language versions of Wikipedia, e.g., Czech, with erroneous descriptions and statements.)
Please go to my talk page, archive 1, for the context of what DM actually wrote in my talk page re: e-mail and for my reply there: This is what he wrote:

I believe this image falls under the "fair use" clause of US copyright law for use on articles directly related to the Nobel prize. If you disagree with it, write to legal AT wikimedia DOT org, where your email will be dutifully ignored by our legal staff, which has more serious stuff to do than deal with ridiculous quarrels on copyright. David.Monniaux 11:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Despite my reply there and elsewhere (repeatedly) that I do not use the e-mail feature in Wikipedia or engage in e-mail with Wikipedia because of my own (understandable) concerns about privacy, DM later posted his misleading comment (out of context) above in this article talk page and not on his own image page, where I have already explained that I don't use e-mail in Wikipedia and that I do not wish to do so.
Faulty statements about the policies of the Nobel Foundation regarding its logo, design of the Nobel Medal, images, and photographs of its Nobel Medal are now posted and re-posted throughout Wikipedia and other online sites now displaying Creative Commons and GNU licenses for this article or earlier versions of it. The Nobel Medal images and photographs and Nobel Medal trademark logo and Nobel Medal designs are not licensed freely for "any use" as claimed; that claim (in some of these featured Wikipedia uploaded images) totally distorts the very trademark and copyright policies stated in the copyright notices posted on the website of the Nobel Foundation (as already linked multiple times and quoted in these various talk pages).
As I explain in my archived talk page, I have neither the time nor the inclination to deal with these issues about his and others' uploading of trademark and copyright-protected images of the Nobel Medals any further. My earlier comments in this talk page, my comments in the Wikipedia talk pages of the various uploaded images, and my comments in my own archived talk page should suffice. Please read them in the context of the entire dispute about copyright and Fair use pertaining to Wikipedia's featuring images of Nobel Medals in this and other articles in English and in other languages (See also the second tag at the top of this page for an example of such problems).
Fortunately, at least in this "Nobel Prize" article someone has finally added the registered copyright identifying the Nobel Foundation as the owner of the trademarked Nobel Medal design and copyright ("Original design ®© The Nobel Foundation"). But, unfortunately, permission has not yet been requested or received for featuring the notices (my last information from the Nobel Foundation). But the featuring of the just-quoted credit (throughout this article on the "Nobel Prize") appears to me to suggest that such permission was already granted. That suggestion is misleading, because various claims of "fair use" (of the Nobel Medal images) are still (in my own view) in some doubt. The image pages uploaded by various Wikipedians, however, do not clearly state the current situation.

For comparison, one may wish to consult the featuring of images of the medals in the article on "Nobel Prize" in the Online Encyclopedia Britannica. It's not entirely clear to me whether permission was requested and granted for these (degraded resolution) images (or whether, as in, say, DM's case, there are simply assumptions of "fair use" being made w/o such written requests/permission granted in writing), but the Encyclopedia Britannica articles display a credit to "The Nobel Foundation," suggesting that it was.

The general statement about "copyright" and "trademarks" in "legal notices" of that online encyclopedia ("Photographs and illustrations are copyrighted by their respective owners, as noted in the credits") suggests that such permission from copyright owners is sought and attained if and as deemed necessary; see also the section on "trademarks" there.

The images of Nobel Medals in this Wikipedia article at least now feature the proper symbols re: the "design" of the Nobel Medal in a more consistently elegant and accurate (in my view) manner, following precisely the format that the Nobel Foundation asks when it does grant permission. So maybe the Nobel Foundation will okay these if the images' description/license pages are revised also to represent the NF's trademark/copyright more accurately and more consistently throughout Wikipedia, in all its language versions. --NYScholar 09:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematics prize

In the section on lack of a mathematics prize, we say: "Like the science Nobels, the Crafoord Prize in mathematics is awarded by the Swedish Royal Academy. It is generally considered the mathematics equivalent of the Nobel prize in the sciences." My feeling is that in mathematics the Fields Medal is considered the equivalent of the Nobel Prize. --Jordan

This 2001 press release issued by the Swedish Royal Academy about Alain Connes (who won both the Crafoord Prize [2001] and the Fields Medal [1983]) agrees that the Fields Medal is the most prestigious award in Mathematics. See its similar phrasing: "He received the Fields Medal in 1983 (the most highly regarded mathematical prize in the world)"; cf. Wikipedia article: "The Fields Medal is widely viewed to be the top honor a mathematician can receive.[1]" Maybe the passage could add (for e.g.) the qualification: ". . .; however, the Fields Medal is generally considered the mathematics equivalent of the Nobel Prize in the sciences." --NYScholar 14:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

The Fields Medal can impossibly be considered the top honor mathematics award since there is an age limit on the winner. A prize excluding the majority (age 40+) of the research community can not be considered a serious equivalent of the Nobel Prize. (These days you need a lot of knowledge to do quality research, so it's not even the case that young researchers are "better" - i.e. performing research with higher quality - than old ones. Rather the contrary.) // Jens Persson (130.242.128.85 18:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC))
I thought that mathematicians generally felt they do their best work when young. -- Beardo 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The Field prize is the highest regarded math award, second if is the Wolf prize (with no age limit) and everything else comes after that, possibly with the Clay Millenium problems as third. 195.70.48.242 09:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other prizes

That section really doesn't belong here in such details. Much better to have a separate article on say "International prizes" ? -- Beardo 19:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The section is intended to show similar awards related to the Nobel Prize, it's not a list of international prizes. Since Wikipedia has the list of prizes, medals, and awards, a separate article is completely unnecessary. —Coat of Arms (talk) 22:08, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jews Overrepresented

Perhaps it should be mentioned in this article that, despite their very small number in proportion to the general World population, Jews are highly overrepresented when it comes to Nobel Prizes received. So, this leads me to ask: is it a prerequisite that a person must be Jewish to win a Nobel Prize? --64.12.116.130 03:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Or is it just that Jews are cleverer than the rest of us ? -- Beardo 17:13, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
This is impossible because it would mean the nazi race theory is true, that is some colours of people are genetically superior to the rest! The truth is jews, who lived mainly in Europe and North Africa during the entire Medieval Age and Early Modern Age, were banned by christian kings from owning land or doing agriculture. So they had to find occupation with manufacture, trade or fiscals to sustain themselves and that requires more intellectual skills. So they developed a culture that praised learning, especially the practically useful subjects. Even in the late 19th century, central european jewish youth were most likely to attend medical or natural sciences university, while young "christian" nobleman and bourgeois were more interested about degrees from law or state bureaucracy faculties. There was a period of 15 years near 1900 when the Budapest, Hungary jewish communty produced half a dozen top scientists (Nobel laurates and other big heads like John von Neumann). 195.70.48.242 09:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see some figures on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).
The previous comment is unsigned. As it suggests, the previous anonymous user posted this section with nothing to back it up. Such a comment has no place in this article, in my view. The concept of "overrepresentation" leans away from WP:NPOV and appears to be an inappropriate (potentially pejorative) judgment masquerading as fact. No facts [citations needed] have been presented by the anonymous user; the user's observation requires citation of a reliable source: see WP:Reliable sources. A possible attempt to raise controversy by an anonymous poster is not the same as a citation of a reliable source contributing to development of NPOV in writing an article. As many Nobel Laureates are still living people, WP:BLP applies in relation to this article too. Comments on their religious identification (not part of the criteria for their choice as Nobel Laureates)potentially violates BLP policy. According to the selections committees for the various Nobel prizes, such prizes are awarded on the basis of "merit" in their recipients' fields. Their religious identification (if even known) has nothing to do with their choice as recipients. The idea of a "prerequisite" appears to be facetious and is not to be taken seriously. It appears to be a ruse to start a controversy. I say ignore the post (which is objectionable) and this subject. --NYScholar 20:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
<<Their religious identification (if even known) has nothing to do with their choice as recipients.>> [NYScholar]
Sorrowfully this is not true. One of the undeniable inventors of MRI was controversially excluded from the Nobel award, obviously based on his publicly visible seven-day creationist beliefs. Although creationism is fundamentalist junk that is clearly not up to scratch when compared to darwinism, one's personal beliefs about the supernatural and His revelations must never ban anybody from recognition for good sci-tech he/she did. 195.70.48.242
See what happens when we let Jews in to universities? We get things like atomic bombs, feminism, and American Studies. Jews are grossly over-represented when it comes to winning them - they have won about 18% of Nobel Prizes I believe, despite making up less than 0.25% of the World's population. --172.164.89.46 22:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way: 27% of American Nobelists are Jewish, despite being only 2% of the US population. --172.164.89.46 23:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For some historical contexts for potentially-veiled implications in comments by the anonymous posters above, see the Wikipedia article on Anti-Semitism and W:Guidelines and policies pertaining to offensive speech acts in articles and talk pages. Anonymous users who may be (or not be) trolls tend not to read or follow these policies and guidelines. -NYScholar 03:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American servitude?

Is there a political agenda behind this year's full-american awarding of the medals? Does Dubya control the swedish academy? I'm afraid the prestiege of Nobel medals will drop sharply if the selection is indeed proven biased. Considering how little hard sci education is going on in America nowadays compared to India, Japan or even China plus the seven-day sectarian scandals, these full-american awards could be seen as a cover-up. So Bush can hide America's new Sputnik problem. 195.70.48.242 09:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

American Excellence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]]).

October 12, 2006: The Nobel Prize in Literature for 2006 has been awarded to Orhan Pamuk, who is Turkish, not an American. On October 13, 2005, last year's Nobel Prize in Literature was awarded to Harold Pinter, who is English, and Pamuk was widely thought to be a candidate for it prior to that. Some of the remarks in this section and earlier ones making irrelevant statements about nationality and religious affiliations of Nobel Laureates seem inappropriate; they do not follow WP:NPOV. --NYScholar 03:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Neither literature of those (literature and peace award) are sciences. One is art and the other is politics, which are not objective and thus those are insignificant. The fact is, Nobel Committe is part of a cover-up trying to hide America's growing education quality problem by awarding all science medals this year to people in the USA. If the public woke up and made note of this scandal, USA would actually benefit. In 25 years American science and industry will depend on China and India for even the simplest things, as the Bushite posse forces kids to learn seventh day jesus horse dinosaurs and how condoms are bad. Flat Earth curriculum is not far away in USA and the Nobel Committe is soliciting help for that crime. 195.70.48.242 08:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Where is the evidence for this bizarre claim? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.17.219 (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

For some historical contexts for potentially-veiled implications in some of the above comments by the anonymous posters, see the Wikipedia article on Anti-Semitism and W:Guidelines and policies pertaining to offensive speech acts in articles and talk pages. Anonymous users who may be (or not be) trolls tend not to read or follow these policies and guidelines. -NYScholar 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anonymous users

Before commenting in Wikipedia article talk pages regarding articles like those on Nobel Prizes presented to currently living persons, which must follow WP:BLP, please scroll up to

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Nobel Prize article.

As directed above, please respect Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines; e.g., WP:TPG. Thank you. --NYScholar 03:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)\

[edit] "Winner" vs "Laureate"

Nobel prizes cannot be won, they are awarded by the respective institutions to recipients, called laureates. "Nobel prize winner" implies a competition where none is intended, neither by Nobel himself, nor by the awarding institutions --- and only in very few cases by the recipients. The article should be edited to reflect this, hmm?

Jussi Karlgren 17:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/o/b/Talk%7ENobel_Prize_2814.html"