Talk:Female Nobel Prize laureates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why there are fewer women laureates

I looked through these comments and everyone seemed to be missing the blindingly obvious. Yes, you can probably make an arguement that there is discrimination going on, but, just as with the "gender wage gap", there are far more important factors in play here than just that. This is a matter of intelligence differences between the two sexes. That is not to say men are on average more intelligent than women, on the contrary, they have almost exactly the same average intelligence, although with different strengths of course. What makes the difference is that men have a higher standard deviation, as with many other aspects of human characteristics. This means that whilst they have the same average, there are more men on the fringes of the distribution curve, ie, you will find that the vast majority of the world's smartest, stupidest, tallest, shortest, skinniest, fattest, slowest, fastest, etc etc, people are men. And thus, it is because men have a higher standard of deviation in their intelligence distribution than women, that you find more men than women attain the highest academic achievements. --82.43.47.6 17:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

We still suffer the effects of old discriminiations, it cannot be undone within one afternoon. One hundred years ago such banal opinions like yours were closing the way to universities for women just because they were women. Did you know that Marie Curie received finally her doctorat on Sorbonne AFTER she was granted with Nobel Price? "As the Swedes ridiculed themselves first for granting a woman, it would be not such a big shame for Sorbonne anymore to honour a woman with just a doctorate" that was the reasonning of French professors that time. "Women have a brain too weak for education", "Kinder, Küche, Kirche", and as I can see in your comment, such clichees are still alive.... Merewyn 21:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
I understand if you feel emotionally incapable of viewing this arguement rationally, but please make an effort not to put ridiculous words (such as "Women have a brain too weak for education") in my mouth. You also need to be aware of the difference between judging individuals as individuals and using statistics to analyze a population.--82.43.47.6 12:15, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Women are not discriminated against in today's career world. Things such as the "gender wage gap" can be almost entirely explained by looking at the work habit differences between the sexes. In fact, if anything, men are discriminated against in today's society and Feminism is looking set for a backlash. --129.31.204.169 11:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


I took the liberty of renaming and redirecting from the Nobel page from "Women Nobel Prize laureates" to the more correct "Female Nobel Prize laureates". 6-14-2005


This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not. ~cryout 10-22-2205

Yeah, this is an opinionated essay. I've added the POV tag accordingly. Fredrik | talk 15:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings on this one. I'm not sure that Wikipedia should whitewash the truth just because it's uncomfortable or controversial. On the other hand, the writing did appear a bit non-encyclopaedic. I took a stab at editing the article to make the same point in a somewhat more restrained matter. I won't be presumptuous by removing the POV tag, but if others think it's good enough now, then go for it. Michaelbluejay 18:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both minor and confusingly presented, and changed one sentence to read less combatively. IronDuke 22:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, the figures seem to tell something that is at odds with what the Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences are claiming. This being the case, the figures are the main evidence that have to be presented. These figures are objective statements of facts, not an opinion as in "minor and confusingly presented" which is subjective, LOL. What IronDuke has done is to replace facts with personal opinions when editing the article. If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL. — PM Poon 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I have to agree with PM Poon. The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis, and removing them definitely make the article weaker, not stronger. I don't see the figures as "confusingly presented", but if so, the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely. Michaelbluejay 18:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Figures should definitely be there, but need to be presented neutrally and not argumentatively. The current revision seems fine to me, so I've removed the tag. Fredrik | talk 12:23, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

First off, let me apologize if my edits were abrupt or uncalled for. To that end, I am not going to revert or edit the article at this time, but present my case. To begin with, I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article), nor have I suggested that the facts in question are anything but facts. But there are neverthless numerous problems with this article. Maybe the clearest way to express this is to take something Michaelbluejay wrote: "The figures that were excised are central to the article's thesis." This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis (however correct that polemical thesis may be) is central to what makes it so problematic. I'll try to take this point by point.

1. "Critics contend that the low number of female laureates is due more to male chauvinism and sexual discrimination than to a lack of qualified female candidates. They point out that no woman has been awarded the chemistry prize in the last 42 years..." This may be perfectly true, but who are the critics? Who are these people who are "pointing things out" and "contending?" Citation?
2. "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it. Merely countering that "the percentage of female laureates has actually decreased" does not refute the Academy's contention. What it does do is insinuate that the Academy may be lying, or sexist, or both. Again, that may well be true, but being true does not mean that it conforms to wikipedia NPOV. It is, in fact, argumentative.
3. "from 2.6 for 1901-1950, to 2.3 for 1951-2001." Why are the statistics broken down in this manner? And again, this is argumentative, not encyclopedic. Also, when did women begin to enter the sciences in substantially greater numbers? What percentage of Nobel-worthy scientists are women? Authors? Is it possible that they are in fact over-represented, that they have received more than their "share" of Nobels? I would tend to think this is not the case, but no evidence is presented to support the idea that is being (improperly) insinuated: that women in science are the victims of sexism and this is reflected in a low Nobel count.
4. "Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature." All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up? (See also point 3 above.)
5. "There is an ingrained system whereby established researchers and scientists tend to recommend other men for positions, and not women." This quote tends to contradict the insinuation that the Swedes are sexist liars: it affirms the Swedes' contention that there are simply not enough female scientists out there (due to institutionalized sexism) and that men will therefore tend, by sheer dint of numbers, to overwhelm female candidates.
6. "If this is called justice, then all the best, mutilated this article as much as you want, LOL." PM Poon First, I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se, and that I have no desire to see women fail or get anything less than their due in any way. As for use of the word "mutilate," I think that's a rather strong way of disagreeing with an edit that was made in good faith (even if I am wrong).
7. Last point: the link at the end is dead. Mattias Karen. Among Nobel science prizes, women lose out, The Canadian Press, October 6 2005

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_Nobel_Prize_laureates" Category: Nobel IronDuke 00:51, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Own research

This section represents partly own research by the editor. While the presentation of opinions on disputed issues is a legitimate encyclopedic topic, it has to be backed by sources. The presentation of statistics does not belong to this section, except if it is a citation from such a source. Moreover, if an opinion is only marginal, for example, appears only in very few editorials or other published texts, it does not belong here. Andreas 02:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to IronDuke

First and foremost, I wish to declare that I have no intention to enter into a debate. What I will do here is just to present my views, without any intention to defend them. Just read it for what it is worth, and if you do not agree, just throw it away... just as you would, with any garbage, LOL.

I have practically left Wikipedia English and am now in another Wikipedia website. However, as I always think in English first, and therefore have to write out my articles in English before translating them (guess you can figure out the standard of my translated articles, LOL), I have two options:

  • Post my English language draft in en-Wikipedia; or
  • Just throw the first draft away.

I decided on the first option, thus explaining why I am still around.

Given this brief background, you can understand why I do not have any strong opinions about this article (or any articles that I wrote after my decision to leave), and should anyone wants to delete my edit (even if unjustified), it is perfectly alright to me. Personally, what cheesed me off when I read this talk page were some of the arguments presented.

You mentioned: ..., I have not, as PM Poon suggests, inserted my personal opinions into the article (I added no facts whatsoever to the article)...

Had you made this statement in court, I have no doubt that you would be mauled by the defence attorney. You have made a grossly erroneous assumption that if you have not added any facts, then you have not inserted any personal opinions. The selection of which facts to present, and WHICH TO OMIT, is itself an opinion. Thus, your sentence: I also did some editing. I removed some of the statistics about female laureates, as they were both MINOR and CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED... (emphasis added) tantamounts to insertions of personal opinion.

Let me elaborate on this point:

I agree with Michaelbluejay when he said that if the figures are "confusingly presented", the solution is to make the presentation clearer, not to throw the presentation out the window completely. It seems to me that after you had identified what you think is the problem, you applied the wrong solution. In any case, CONFUSINGLY PRESENTED is a personal opinion and not a statement of fact. Michaelbluejay, for example, did not find the figures confusingly presented. Thus, by deleting the parts that you personally found to be "confusingly presented", you have thereby inserted your own personal opinions.
The word, MINOR, is again a subjective conclusion. How do you measure whether a point is major or minor, except by perception? Do you have a measuring instrument? A weighing machine or something? In any case, does one delete a sentence, merely because it is minor? I would think so only under circumstances where there is space constraint or where you have a word limit, in which case, you decide which points to keep and which to drop, RELATIVE to each other. If, as you contend, "minor points" ought to be deleted, a lot of stuff in Wikipedia would have to be deleted, LOL.

To me, I see that your main disagreement is that you did not like the article. This explains why your "reasons" come after you decided that you did not like it, not before. You mentioned: This article ought not to have a thesis, and the fact that it does have a thesis is central to what makes it so problematic.. This "thesis" argument seems to be an afterthought, after Michaelbluejay raised it. There was no hint of it at all in your post of 4 November, LOL. (This is the reason why I do not intend to go into any debate in a forum. When one argument falters, a new one is created, LOL.)

I ought to stop here before I get drawn into a long argument, but off the cuff, I will express my views on some of the points that you have raised:

  • Point No. 2 and 7:
    • Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, which selects the laureates in physics and chemistry, have countered that "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." I do not know if this quote is true...
    • Last point: the link at the end is dead.
The link was put in by Petaholmes after she edited my addition which merely quoted Associated Press (AP) without any link. You may like to read the same article (also the same one that Petaholmes was trying to link to) in: http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Features/2005/10/06/1251150-ap.html.
It is very easy to search for articles in the internet. Just cut and paste a key phrase in the quotation into Google's search engine and presto!!! Don't just say: "I do not know if this quote is true", LOL.
(Note: I used the phrase, "Officials of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences the prizes reflect a long body of work", to search the article in Google. Verify it yourself, since you don't trust me, LOL. Actually, I didn't even read the internet article. I merely read the Associated Press report in a newspaper. Every word in the newspaper is exactly the same as in this web page.)
  • Point No. 4: Also, only ten out of 101 women have won the literature prize, which is non-scientific in nature. All right, perhaps I am just being dense here, but what does this mean? What does "101" refer to? Candidates? Runners-up?
My original edit reads: Out of 101 awards conferred as of 2005, women received only ten, amounting to a mere 9.9% of all literature awards conferred as of 2005.
  • Point No. 6: I'm not really sure what the word "justice" means in this context. Does it mean that this article defends the rights and accomplishments of women and that I wish to undermine that? If so (and please, please correct me if I am wrong) then I would say that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to defend the rights of anyone per se...
No wonder you see so many problems, real and imagined, but more of the latter, LOL. Does it ever cross your mind that justice simply means "doing justice to an article?"

Lastly, I would like to apologize for the use of the word, "mutilate", for want of a better word. After my edit, I chanced to see this article again immediately after your edit, and my first response was "Oh dear!!! Look at what they have done to this article!" LOL. Please accept my sincere apologies. Honestly, I still can't think of another word that is more suitable, but I guess my edit ought to be deleted to if this is not the right place to post it.

While you were poking holes at this article, Cryout was more succinct when he said: This article more than obviously builds an argument. Is it a true argument? Yes, of course. Is its place on wikipedia's pages? No, definitely not. ~ cryout 10-22-2205

There is a vast difference between saying that the article is biased, and saying that this article is not suitable for a portal like Wikipedia. I have just reverted the article to the original version posted by Petaholmes, and I presumed there is no necessity to debate on my expansion of her article anymore. No hard feelings, okay? — PM Poon 05:53, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all. I might quibble with the way you interpreted some of my statements (e.g., when I wondered if the Swedish quote was "true," I was not questioning whether it had in fact been uttered, but rather whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion). I won't bore everyone with a point by point response to you detailing again everything I meant (unless people really, really want me to). I would also add that I completely support your reversion, and that it makes the article stronger. IronDuke 06:26, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the revert makes the article weaker. I think encyclopaedia readers will be interested to know more about female laureates -- such as their percentage compared to total laureates, and how and whether that figure has changed much over time. A mere list seems grossly inadequate for an article that could be truly informative. Michaelbluejay 08:31, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, seems like we are always misinterpreting each other, LOL. Honestly, I did not understand the second part of your sentence: "I do not know if this quote is true, but I see no refutation of it." When you said, you "see no refutation", what do you mean by "see"? From the context of the sentence, it is not clear to me whether "see" should be interpreted literally or figuratively. In any case, it makes no sense to me either way as I will explain later.

But I thought the first part was pretty straight forward. "To quote" means "to repeat a passage". When you say, "I do not know if this QUOTE is true", you are actually asking whether "the repetition of the passage" is true. In other words, you are questioning the act of quoting, NOT its contents. Thus, if I say, "Hey, I wonder WHETHER HIS QUOTE IS TRUE. For all I know, he may just be pulling a fast one?" Was I referring to the act of quoting or its contents?

I believe most readers would construe what you had said as meaning that I might have misquoted the Swedish Academy. Had you wanted to know whether the Swedes themselves were correct in their own assertion, it would be more apt to say, "I do not know if the Swedish contention is true".

Yet, had you truly wonder, you didn't seem to have acted as if you did, LOL. What would a person normally do when he wonders? He tries to find out the truth, no? And that was exactly what I did when I read the newspapers. Andreas had contended that "this section represents partly own research by the editor".

Actually, I won't call it research. I just went into Wikipedia and search for the "List of Nobel laureates". I analysed the figures to see if the critics had any case, and I must regret to say this: "Yes, there seems to be a prima facie case against discrimination." Rather than throwing away my findings, which I should have done, I thought that I might as well share it as it does take time to work out the computation and trend analysis. I did not do any research at all, unless "studying the list of Nobel laureates" tantamounts to "research". If this is so, I would tend to think that Wikipedia is not against this kind of "research", but against those involving the collection of primary data.

The very fact that you did not want to look at those figures when presented, makes me wonder whether you were truly wondering. Aren't you interested in the truth? LOL.

Now, coming to your phrase, "I see no refutation of it". If the Swedish assertion is what you really meant, then "see" cannot be literal, because as you can "see", I am refuting it. And if it is figurative, I wonder how you "see" when you didn't even bother to find out the truth, LOL. — PM Poon 00:04, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you and I are destined to continually misunderstand each other. But let me take a stab at clearing up some confusion. What I meant to say (and again, apologies if I phrased it in a sloppy manner) was that the statement made by the Swedes, indicating that a lack of female Nobels was due to an overall, historical lack of female scientists, was not refuted. To quote it one more time: "the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories"[1]." What part of the preceding quote is untrue? The statistics that followed the quote (and I question whether it was necessary or desireable to make one's own computations to "counter" the quote) seemed to me to be implying (in an oblique and "confusing" way) that the Swedes were attempting to justify a sexist dearth of female Nobels by pointing to the historical lack of female scientists while ignoring the fact that women continue to receive a significantly smaller number of Nobels than men. I found the whole paragraph was essentially an excercise in POV (even if every single part of the section was "true"), which is contrary to wikipedia guidelines, as I understand them. If left to my own devices, I would simply have cut the whole section out (as you ended up doing) but I felt that perhaps a compromise on the section and a discussion of it, rather than a unilateral deletion, would be more useful. IronDuke 00:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi IronDuke, you mentioned: "... the prizes reflect a long body of work, often dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories[1]. What part of the preceding quote is untrue?"

To determine the truth of the statement, we need to verify against known facts. Yet, in order to verify, we must first be very clear what "long" means. What does "long" means to you? How long is "long"? 50 years, 100 years? If you have not defined how long is "long", and then verify it against known facts, how do you know that the statement is true? On what basis did you arrive at your verdict? I truly wonder, LOL.

Yet, given the ambiguity to work with, I did try to make an attempt to determine its validity by relying upon circumstantial evidence. I wrote:

In the first half of the 20th century (1901-1950), 2.6% of the awards in the three science categories of physiology/medicine, chemistry, and physics were conferred upon women. Yet, in the second half of the 20th century (1951-2000), despite much progress being made by women since then, the figure had dropped to 2.3%, a diminution of almost 12%.
The words, "dating back to times when women were rarely seen in laboratories" are too ambiguous and ought to be defined. Notwithstanding, the argument put forth by academy officials is hardly defensible. In the past 20 years, from 1986 – 2005, male recipients under the age of 50 in the three science categories accounted for 13.6%, as compared to 2.4% for woman of all ages since 1901. Those aged under 50 entered the laboratories only towards 1980. If an apple-to-apple comparison were to be made, the answer would have been even more appalling: 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women.

From my findings, it does seem that 13.6% of Nobel prize winners in the last 20 years were men aged below 50 who had spent less than 30 years in the labs. Does "long" includes 30 years? What I am trying to infer is that if we take the most recent 20 years when women have made the most progress in all the ages, the score for winners under the age of 50 is 13.6% for men, versus 0% for women. — PM Poon 07:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion by the guy that caused the discussion

First off, i am glad to see that my one-liner caused such a debate. But I am not quite sure that the ultimate result should be a total removal of anything but the names of the female laureates. I am a male, and I have been called a chauvinist indeed. Still, the fact that so few women are awarded the Nobel prize strikes me every time I think about it. And this, I believe, is among the few things that undermine the mythological status of the award. Hence, the existance of the debate about female winners should be stated in the article. The versoin that I read in the beginning, and then criticised, did teach me some facts and I would appreciate it if they are brought back in a suitable way (best by the original author).

[edit] Request for Comment

I have just had a look at the article and it looks fine to me. It currently just lists all the female winners for each prize, but it may be in the middle of an editing war and so I might have caught it at a minimalist moment. Speculation about why there are so many female laureates, or so few, is not a suitable subject for this article because there are so many other fields where a similar discussion could occur eg professions, sport and the arts. This shows that female achievement is not related to Nobel Prizes but is a separate topic in its own right. A fact-based Wiki article that analysed the reasons for and barriers to female achievement in all fields in each of the past ten or twenty decades would probably be difficult to write, though it may provide a topic for several tedious PhD theses. JMcC 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that speculation as to the low number of female laureates is inappropriate for this article. It might be inappropriate for an article about *nobel laureates* in general, but certainly not for an article about *female nobel laureates*. Much good information has been excised from this article. That makes it less useful, not more. Michaelbluejay 15:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Michaelbluejay. A small section properly sourced discussing the low number of female laureates would be appropriate in this article. HGB 04:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
I couldn't disagree more. A small section on why or how there are so few(?) female laureates has no place in this article. That is strictly an opinion on a larger debate. An article about the female laureates should not be a place for an editor to make statements of a political nature. The article should contain a short bio on each laureate and the reason for the award. It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit. It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get. The opinions about why their were not 35 as opposed to 34 female laureates is subject for discussion and debate and has no place in an article about these great women. You degrade these great women and their achievements by inserting your meaningless and small opinions. You should have great same for dishonoring the memory of these persons who's achievements will be documented throughout history for rest of time.


Oh by the way a few edits are needed. The picture of Marie Curie is covering the table. Their is a logic error as well. If Bertha von Suttner was the first to win the award in 1905 then how is it that Marie Curie won the Physics award in 1903??


Hi, Mr Anonymous, I "agree" with your opinion that we should not have opinions. I also "agree" with your statements:
"It is a tragedy that everyone feels they have to insert their preposterous opinions in everything they edit. It is a sad day when one cannot restrain oneself pushing their beliefs onto others at every opportunity they can get."
The only one thing that I cannot agree is why you are doing the very thing that you object so strongly to. :) — PM Poon 05:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The current version of the article (just statistics and list of female Nobel winners) is far more NPOV than what I see in the history. event 03:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Franklin

I'm perplexed as to why this was added. Franklin was not a laureate. Perhaps it could be part of a new "Women who should have won the Nobel Prize" article. Also, I removed the dead link the graf referenced. IronDuke 00:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)