Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Naming (again) 1.1 Those who do not care, please make your comment here 1.2 Alternative names for the prize 1.2.1 Expand "History and name controversy" 1.2.2 About the name 2 Michael Nobel Energy Award 3 Name again 4 The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize 5 neoliberalism and the prize 6 Edit war 7 Lawsuit 8 More controversy/criticism about the prize 9 Proposal on template talk to rename 10 = 11 Introductory paragraph 12 HILARIOUS! People keep ignoring that this was not set up in Nobel's will 13 Definition of Nobel Prize 14 Removed facts 15 Clarifications to Nobel's will 16 Anthon.Eff's edit summary 16.1 Intro text 17 Suggesting mediation 18 Page name 18.1 Compromise move 18.1.1 survey 18.1.2 Discussion 19 RfC 20 Update: Consensus for Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 21 Template? 22 Persistent reverting 23 What Nobelprize.org say about the name...

[edit] Naming (again)

[edit] Michael Nobel Energy Award

I would like to move the paragraph about the Michael Nobel Energy Award to the Nobel Prize page since it seems to be the more appropriate location for this. Since Victor falk and Liftarn have contributed to this section, could you please let me know if you agree? –panda 19:18, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the "Michael Nobel Energy Award" administred by the Nobel Foundation in relation to the Nobel Prize? --Camptown 21:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It's irrelevant if the "Michael Nobel Energy Award" is administered by the Nobel Foundation or not. If you are implying that it shouldn't be included in the Nobel Prize article if it is not administered by the Nobel Foundation then you should take up that discussion with the editors that have added text about why there is no Nobel Prize in mathematics & engineering and applied science. –panda 22:28, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Copied over text about the prize:

In 2007 Dr. Michael Nobel, a great grand nephew of Alfred Nobel, attempted to start a prize called the Michael Nobel Energy Award that would award innovations in alternative energy technology.^[3][4] The plan was announced at nanoTX 07. The Nobel Foundation quickly reacted with a lawsuit for infrigment of their trademark.^[5][6][7]

I like that list of what the laureates have called the prize --victor falk 00:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Correct, it should be in the Nobel Prize article instead. // Liftarn

[edit] Name again

I can see this was discussed last year, but I'm bothered that this is referred to as a "Nobel prize" when it is not. I'm aware that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the most common name, but that's what redirects are for, and I don't think Wikipedia should be reiterating popular inaccuracies. If anything, an encyclopaedia is somewhere people come for the truth. —Ashley Y 07:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that some people are very interested in promoting the inaccuracy. // Liftarn

I'm still baffled by how this ever became an issue. If the foundation itself is not considered a reliable source for the name of their own award then I have to say that seems like edit warring for the sake of edit warring. A redirect to the official name would solve this. We are an encyclopedia, what is so horrible about being accurate even if the name is long. Like Ashley Y says, that's what we got redirects for. Nobel prize or not, this is a huge honor. To those who recieve it it isn't about the name, it's about the honor of being awarded the prize. Just use the official name and move on. EconomicsGuy 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone here really needs to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT EconomicsGuy 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move it. As long as the current "official" name and the more common variant (N P in E or whatever) is included, the title of the page does not matter. /SvNH 11:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more and I would move it myself if it wasn't for the fact we already have 2 AN/I threads about this and given the current situation I would be reverted instantly and more drama would follow. EconomicsGuy 11:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok... but if you agree with me, then the current name is also fine :-) I'm not concerned with the name as such, but I am concerned that the quality of the article is diminished when editors think like "hm, ok, we lost, but if we can't have it our way we should at least have our own section of alternative names for compensation". /SvNH 11:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay let's see if we can settle this. How many object to the move proposal? How many object to the article being trimmed to the bare facts regarding the name? I agree that blocking one of the disputes because the other one was lost is very disruptive. A sourced list of what the award has been called is fine but that's as far as we should go. The other stuff is bordering OR and SYNTH in my opinion. EconomicsGuy 12:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not object to moving the page to a more correct title. Ever since the page was moved to "Nobel Prize in Economics" on 18 September 2006, the title has been under discussion (this is the 4th time), and moved 4x, which has been disruptive towards article development. Those opposed to the page move have, for the most part, not contributed to the article's development and/or have removed text from the article, regardless of whether or not the text has been cited. –panda 15:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want to know how many object to the move proposal see Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Economics#Rename_the_page. --Uriel 16:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

...and you'll see that there is no consensus, partly because certain editors refuse to compromise. I'll be happy to copy my analysis of the two previous move requests here, which the closing admin has not commented on yet. –panda 16:52, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

This is actually two issues

1. The name of the article
2. The name used in articles

Regarding the first issue the article name benefits from being short as long as it don't violate NPOV (as the current name may do). Regarding the second issue it is covered by WP:NCON that says "Where self-identifying names are in use, they should be used within articles." so that the full name (or official short form) should be used in articles (and templates) is obvious. // Liftarn

The name used in articles is actually the big issue. If we use the long name the readers will probably think: "OK, so this guy didn't won the Nobel Prize in Economics, as I've heard somewhere else. He just got some Bank of Sweden award, so probably someone else must have got the NP in E that year." And THIS is misleading. BTW, reading the looong discussions above, most of the editors who are for the long name for the article consider that the winner pages would use the common name (NP in E), thus arguing that the redirect would be sufficient AdamSmithee 13:30, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then the readers would be more informed than earlier, since that goy didn't win the Nobel Prize in Economics since there is no such thing. However if that is an issue (I don't think it is as it still included the Nobel name) it can be fixed by appending an 'aka "Nobel Prize in Economics"'. And compare with for instance Clint Eastwood where it says "Eastwood has been nominated for the Academy Award for directing and producing eight times, winning for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby." Huh, so he didn't win an Oscar... // Liftarn

No, they will leave thinking that there is a NP in E, only that the guy didn't get it. Whatever you believe of the name, this is less informed than before AdamSmithee 13:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

See the above example with Clint Eastwood. Did he win an Oscar? And I'm not opposed to giving the long version, like "In 20XX Nnn Nnnn won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, aka "Nobel Prize in Economics", for his theory about widgets...". Saying "In 20XX Nnn Nnnn won the Nobel Prize in Economics for his theory about widgets..." would leave the using thinking that Nnn Nnn did win the Nobel Prize in Economics and that ther is such a prize and that would be even more wrong. // Liftarn

I wouldn't mind the "aka" version in the lead. I myself have put that version in some articles as a nice compromise AdamSmithee 14:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn's suggestion to list the official name + the aka is already being used in some articles about Economics Laureates and I personally see that as the best compromise. If AdamSmithee's concern is true, then it can be concluded that many people don't know the real name of the prize. Thus, it would be educational and instructive to also include the real name of the prize in articles that only state "Nobel Prize in Economics". –panda 14:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK it is not the job of wikipedia to be 'educational', but to represent reality, and in reality everyone calls the prize 'Nobel Prize in Economics'. We don't have an 'aka' in every article that mentions the 'United States of America' as 'United States' (or any other of the hundreds of such examples all over wikipedia). --Uriel 15:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that the prize is called "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", that some people use a slang term for the prize may be good and well in casual communication, but not in an encyclopedia. // Liftarn

Hm, see above (EB etc) :-/ /SvNH 16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Same comment, see above. EB isn't always correct and relying on incorrect sources here is bizarre. –panda 16:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

In reply to Uriel (aka Lost.goblin), there are indeed articles in WP that list the different names used for the topic, e.g., yoghurt and filmjölk (I wrote the section). The interesting thing about the name here is that it has been called so many different names in English both officially and unofficially. –panda 17:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing common name from introduction. According to WP:LEAD, The article's subject should be mentioned at the earliest natural point in the prose in the first sentence, and should appear in bold face. -- Vision Thing -- 17:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing content from the article that you do not like. This is the second time that you have removed several edits from an article for no reason. [18] The first was with the Nobel Prize article, where you removed 17 edits by 9 different editors. If you didn't like the common name being removed from the introduction, all you had to do was replace it, not remove 6 edits by 5 different editors. Your edits are a sign of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm reverting your edits and giving you a second chance to edit the article properly. –panda 18:10, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My personal preference would be "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics". It is still (somewhat) short, yet indicates that there is a distinction between it and the other (real) Nobel prizes. Cardamon 19:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. –panda 19:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding point 1., Bank of Sweden Prize and Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics are both short accurate neutral names. —Ashley Y 23:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That's true. A third reason why I like "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is that in addition to showing that there is a distinction, the similarity in names gives a hint that there is a relation between it and the other Nobel prizes. Cardamon 00:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Any name except for "Nobel Prize in ..." is fine with me. –panda 00:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I also could go for Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics. —Ashley Y 03:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I also support "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" (we could also use "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" as I think that is the official short form, but now I can't seem to find the link). // Liftarn

If someone wants to try moving the page again, feel free to do so. The current title may be a possible trademark infringement since "Nobel Prize" is a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation and there is no Nobel Prize in economics. –panda 14:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize

Since I'm pretty sure my edit to the first paragraph will get removed from the article shortly, the Nobel Foundation does in fact state:[19]

"The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."

–panda 05:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no one cares about that since this is still an issue. I give up here. EconomicsGuy 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you said it so well before: "Someone here really needs to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". –panda 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] neoliberalism and the prize

Please consider that 80% of the winners are american or englich. This is totally out of proportion, when compared with other prizes. And the vast majority of these winners are clearly in favor of a strong liberalism.

This is a big unfair bias towards economists of other nations, and to those who support other visions of economics.

I wish someone adds a thing on it rather than the dubious questions of the "Controversy" section.

Can I point you to the fact that, this is because most Economists have been white, male and English speaking until recently. Though obviously (as you can see yourself), this is changing as the composition of Economists change. Amartya Sen for example? There is no more inherent bias in the Economis prize than there is any of the others, for example I believe women make up only about 5% of recipiants thus far (excluding peace), as more women take leading roles in science this will increase. If you believe your criticisms are valid, they are valid for all the subjects (except for peace definately, literature maybe).

I would have thought that the argument for a bias is not generally associated with the Anglo-American centric winners of the prize, but also with the right wing economic bias within that set of winners. Also, the involvement of Assar Lindbeck is an ancillary support. The argument is explained further in this article. I think this should be expounded on in the criticism section and certainly if the naming issue is to be mentioned then this should. SlaineMacRoth 13:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you feel that this should be added, then be WP:BOLD. If someone removes it, they will hopefully explain why here. If they have no valid reason for removing it, then you can replace it. This article is the scene of multiple edit wars but don't let that stop you from contributing. –panda 15:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It would need reliable sources. // Liftarn

The article Slaine links us to is pretty thoroughly footnoted, and I believe qualifies as a reliable source. What's your thinking? --Orange Mike 15:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The footnotes probably. Don't know about the article itself. Seems to be an FAQ or personal site. // Liftarn

Some of the text is factually incorrect so I would personally be very careful about what part of the text can be used as a resource for an argument here. However, looking instead at the sources in the footnotes may be worthwhile. –panda 16:06, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• SlaineMacRoth: Could you modify the wording of the text since it's still not clear to me how everything is related to each other and what the neo-liberal bias has to do with the rest of the text. –panda 18:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

@Orange Mike - that article is well referenced and some of the points are backed up by those references so I've included some of those. @panda. I'll look at it again and try to make it clearer. The bias is further outlined by a post-autistic economics review article - An IgNobel Scandal by Dr Alex Millmow, an Australian economist at the Ballarat University. SlaineMacRoth 19:10, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• I question the validity of "Assar Lindbeck was the chair of the selection committee from 1980-1994". According to the Nobel Foundation, "Election [to the committee] shall be for a period of three years." and "The chairman may be re-elected twice".[20] This was a part of an amendment made to the statutes in 1996 so I'd have to find the previous version to know for sure. –panda 20:27, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nevermind -- I found the text supporting this in An Interview with Assar Lindbeck: "As a member of the Committee for the Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel for 25 years (1969-94) and its chairman for 14 years (1980-94), how do you respond to these voices?" [21] –panda 20:48, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Text: "Some critics claim the prize has a neo-liberal bias." is unsupported by reliable sources. Articles in the New York Times and Post-Autistic Economics Review talk about favor toward mainstream economists (that hardly can be described as a bias, especially as a "neo-liberal bias"), while "The Long FAQ on Liberalism" is not a reliable source by any standard (it's a personal, extremist web page). Rest of the section is attempt of synthesis and original research. -- Vision Thing -- 17:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias against an alternate to a neo-liberal or neoclassical view is supported by the links and reliable sources. The inclusion of such an obvious bias within a criticism section is perfectly valid even if it were, currently, a bias against a non-mainstream minority. Many criticism sections of wikipedia articles contain valid minority critiques, this is similar. One which is vouched for by the Post-Autistic Economics Review and further by Milton Friedman with respect to Joan Robinson, and others, is certainly mentionable. Therefore the bias critique is valid, should remain and is comparable to the naming issue. The FAQ on Liberalism is well referenced but the critique does not rest on it as the references support the claims, therefore WP:SYN is not applicable. I shall revert the complete deletion. SlaineMacRoth 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

SlaineMacRoth must stop questioning the integrity of Assar Lindbeck, at least here on Wikipedia. The claims which are implicitly made does not make sense. If one should talk about biases one would rather make the argument that Asser Lindbeck is one of the most effective defenders of the core values of the Swedish welfare state. In large thanks to the reforms suggested by Lindbeck in 1994 Sweden is still able to publicly provide a large set of goods, incl. health care and education, for free to all citizens. SlaineMacRoth must also stop mixing up Keynesianism with ideology. Keynesianism is a set of tools to analyze economic questions and recommend policies. It is also wrong to claim that no economists using Keynesian analytic tools have been awarded the prize. A stark example of the contrary is Robert Mundell. 128.111.225.205 01:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Robert Mundell won the prize in 1999, which is after 1994 when Assar Lindbeck stopped being a member of the prize committee and after they made changes to the statues due to criticisms about the committee members being biased. Do you have any example from before 1994? –panda 03:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry to write this, but this is a really disturbing question when it comes from a so frequent editor of this article as User:Panda. Economics 101: Keynesianism is primarily a macroeconomic concept. Almost all macroeconomist who received the prize prior to 1994 would be labeled keynesians, with obvious outstanding examples as Hicks, Tobin, Solow, and others. 128.111.225.205 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

@ 128.111.225.205 I'm not saying no 'Keynesian' economist or, one awarded for using such techniques, ever won the prize (as I would have thought, the sources make clear). The accusation is a one of bias against this or other alternate views. Separating ideology from economics, or from a 'set of tools' within same, is a curious charge to make in a field such as economics - as opposed to Physics or Chemistry say. And I don't think I'm really questioning Lindbeck's integrity, merely mentioning his mainstream, neoclassical or neoliberal viewpoint and the fact that he was involved with selection over such a long period of time. Perhaps this needs editing and I see some of this has already been done. This is not to say that a bias no longer existed after 1994, but the recent statues changes show that a change was required to remove even the perception of a bias and to respond to criticisms. While the whole question of its validity and narrow focus remains. Either way, the critique is there and should be expressed in some form I feel, i.e. edited but not just completely deleted.

* "The accusation is a one of bias against this or other alternate views" – would you raise similar objections agains the prize in physiology for not awarding more prizes to alternative treatment forms like acupuncture. It's obviously a bias towards good, serious research which is recognized by the leading universities of the world. But to prominently place a "critique" of that "bias" on Wikipedia is just wrong.

* "[Lindbeck's] neoclassical or neoliberal viewpoint" – this is a really curious statement. Again SlaineMacRoth mixes up neoclassical and "neoliberal", which reveals a lack in insight in the matter. These are two widely different things and should not be confused, at least not by a frequent contributer to Wikipedia.

* The way it is written now, the article is clearly questioning Lindbeck's integrity. If SlaineMacRoth thinks Lindbeck's integrity was questionable, he can write an op-ed article and submit it to a newspaper and not use this place to express it. 128.111.225.205 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I would also point to the Dagens Nyheter article in the More controversy/criticism about the prize section of this talk page. Particularly the fourth option on,

"4 Try to gradually adjust the prize so that it better reflects the viewpoints of all the social sciences for how economics functions in different types of societies. The problem then is that reality comes into play and the difficulties to agree will be large. On the other hand, the Swedish Academy has for the most part managed to find worthy recipients for the Prize in Literature, so it should not be completely impossible."

The hypothetical situation of Sweden's provision of public goods not being possible without Lindbeck's policy prescriptions is just that, hypothetical. Sweden has certainly performed well in the past in bucking the mainstream trend [22]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlaineMacRoth (talk • contribs) 11:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

@ 128.111.225.205

The acupuncture analogy is a snide irrelevancy as alternate economic views are common and valid. It is not wrong to mention the quite obvious bias, which resulted in changes to the statutes. If a criticism is to be included on the naming issue then there certainly should be an inclusion of the bias issue.

The articles on neoclassical and neoliberalism may clear things up for you. This is another strawman point, as I'm not directly equating the two.

To repeat again, Lindbeck's integrity is not under question, the question of bias is. The bias criticism section is supported by a number of statements of fact. Finally, please refrain 205 from removing the entire, perfectly valid, critique with the same explanation used every time. SlaineMacRoth 19:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edit war

Personally, I support using the short term Nobel Prize in Economics, along with an elaboration of the name in the main article. The naming issue has been under continious review and a rather broad majority has repeatedly found the short form correct and relevant enough to be used in templates and articles covering the topic. For some reasons, not known to me, there are editors who, from time to time, are forcefully and with bad faith trying to change the established/agreed short form of the Nobel Prize in Economics in violation to agreements reached during the discussion. The editor's cause may be good, but they should inititate new votes, explaining their reasons, convincing other editors that they have a point - instead of fueling unproductive edit wars which don't lead anywhere. --Camptown 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated on your talk page and one of the templates, there is no agreement about using "Nobel Prize in Economics" here. All discussions here have ended with no consensus. Your claim that there is a majority is false and misleading so please stop. –panda 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lawsuit

I removed following text: The nickname "Nobel Prize in Economics" has been the issue of a lawsuit. In 2004, a book publisher was sued for stating that Amartya Sen was a Nobel Prize winner in the Bengali translation of a book by Sen. The petitioner claimed that "There is no Nobel Prize for economics. So it is wrong to describe Sen as a Nobel Prize winner." Mentioning this lawsuit in not suitable for encyclopedic article. According to this article, lawsuit was dismissed as "totally misconceived". -- Vision Thing -- 17:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then it makes sense to also include the outcome in the article seeing how there's nothiing not encyclopedic about it. Thanks for finding it! –panda 17:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

On second glance, I noticed that it's a separate issue from 1998, so I've included it in the article appropriately. –panda 18:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the courd did not say the Prize in Economics is a Nobel prize. // Liftarn

You are giving undue weight to these lawsuits. Anybody can start a lawsuit against anybody. Just the fact that lawsuits were started doesn't merit an inclusion into this article. -- Vision Thing -- 17:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I would agree that it is a bit insignificant to merit mention in the article. If the lawsuit went any further and garnered more international attention then maybe different but I don't see a need every friviolus lawsuit every filed. Think of all the "crimes" and lawsuits that have been filed both domestically and internationally against George W. Bush. If we included those we would probably need a splinter article to accommodate them. At most I think this lawsuit may merit inclusion in the Amartya Sen article but certainly not here. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 18:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More controversy/criticism about the prize

• The Prize That Even Some Laureates Question, New York Times, 2007-10-20 [23] –panda 04:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Right for the Wrong Reasons: Why Galbraith Never Got the Prize, New York Times, 2006-05-11 [24]

• The Nobel Prize in Economics – barrier for new thinking, post-autistic economics review, 2004-10-25 [25] (originally published in Dagens Nyheter, "Nobelpriset i ekonomi hinder för nytänkande", 2004-10-10 in Swedish) Written by Peter Söderbaum, a professor (emeritus since 2006) of ecological economics at Mälardalen University.

• Nobel by association: beautiful mind, non-existent prize, openDemocracy, 2007-10-15 [26] (originally published 2002-10-23)

–panda 06:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

More from Peter Söderbaum:

• Västerås 2005-10-24 [27] (in Swedish). He writes:

För ett år sedan ungefär skrev jag en artikel i Dagens Nyheter (DN) om Riksbankens pris i ekonomi till minne av Alfred Nobel. Min åsikt var och är att detta pris spelar en olycklig roll och även skadar bilden av Sverige utomlands. De normala Nobelprisen är naturligtvis inte oproblematiska men mindre kontroversiella.

...Ett viktigt steg i nuvarande läge är att avskaffa Riksbankens ekonomipris eftersom det bidrar till att cementera det neoklassiska monopolet i Sverige och internationellt.

which means:

About one year ago I wrote an article to Dagens Nyheter (DN) about Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. My opinion was and is that this prize plays an unfortunate roll and even damages Sweden's image abroad. The normal Nobel Prizes are naturally not without problems but are less controversial.

...An important step in the current situation is to abolish the Riksbank's Prize in Economics because it contributes to cementing the neo-classical monopoly in Sweden and internationally.

• 2007-09-24, he was at the Nobel Museum debating about this topic. [28] His seminar was "Ekonomipriset under debatt: Den neoklassiska nationalekonomins otillräcklighet i förhållande till hållbar utveckling" which means: The Prize in Economics under debate: The insufficiency of neo-classical national economics with respect to sustainable development.

–panda 06:34, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• Ekonomipriset förminskar värdet på alla Nobelpris, sv:Vägval Vänster, 2004-12-24 (in Swedish) [29] (originally published in Dagens Nyheter, 2004-12-10) Translation: The Prize in Economics decreases the value of all the Nobel Prizes

They write in the article:

Det går inte rimligen att hävda att priset i ekonomi har gått till så stora och banbrytande insikter i samhällens funktionssätt att de kan motsvara till exempel priset i fysik när det gäller att förstå materiens inre. Ekonomipriset devalverar de övriga priserna.

Så vad göra? Som vi ser det har de tre ansvariga - Riksbanken, Nobelstiftelsen och Vetenskapsakademien - fyra alternativ:

1. Inget görs. Nobelprisen devalveras gradvis.
2. Priset avskaffas.
3. Behåll priset, men koppla loss det helt från Nobelprisen. Dela ut det någon annan dag.
4. Försök gradvis vrida priset så att det bättre svarar mot den samlade samhällsvetenskapens syn på hur ekonomin fungerar i olika typer av samhällen. Då skulle en historiker eller statsvetare lika väl kunna få priset som en ekonom eller en matematiker eller statistiker, som har gjort en verklig insats för förståelse av samhällsekonomin. Problemet är då att verkligheten tränger sig på och svårigheterna att enas kommer att vara stora. Å andra sidan har Svenska Akademien i det stora hela lyckats med att finna värdiga mottagare av litteraturpriset, så helt omöjligt borde det inte vara.

Vi som skriver detta förordar alternativ fyra. Men när Riksbanken nu genom årets pris fått sitt behov av självständighet matematiskt bevisat borde väl banken kunna kvittera med ett initiativ som en gång för alla befriar oss från Riksbanksprisets sammanblandning med Nobelpriset.

Johan Lönnroth

Docent i nationalekonomi, fd riksdagsman (v)

Måns Lönnroth

Docent i teknik och social förändring, generaldirektör

Peter Jagers

Professor i matematisk statistik, Chalmers

which means:

It's not reasonable to claim that the prize in economics has contributed as large and pioneering insights into how society functions that it can equal, for example, the prize in physics when it concerns understanding a material's properties. The prize in economics devalues the other prizes.

So what to do? As we see it the three responsible groups - Sveriges Riksbank, the Nobel Foundation, and the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences - have four alternatives:

1. Do nothing. The Nobel Prizes gradually devalue.
2. Abolish the prize.
3. Keep the prize, but detach it completely from the Nobel Prizes. Hand it out some other day.
4. Try to gradually adjust the prize so that it better reflects the viewpoints of all the social sciences for how economics functions in different types of societies. The problem then is that reality comes into play and the difficulties to agree will be large. On the other hand, the Swedish Academy has for the most part managed to find worthy recipients for the Prize in Literature, so it should not be completely impossible.

We who write this recommend alternative four. But now when the Riksbank, with this year's prize, has their need for independence mathematically proven, the bank should be able to counter with an initiative that would once and for all free us from confusing the Riksbank's prize with the Nobel Prize.

Johan Lönnroth

Associate Professor in national economy, former member of the parliament (Vänsterpartiet)

Måns Lönnroth

PhD (+ 4 yr) in technology and social change, general director

Peter Jagers

Professor in mathematical statistics, Chalmers

–panda 07:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• A complete translation of the above text (Ekonomipriset förminskar värdet på alla Nobelpris or "The Prize in Economics decreases the value of all the Nobel Prizes") can be found here. I don't know where the translation originated from, but I did notice some wording changes (e.g., the authors never state "Nobel Prize in Economics", they simply call it the "Prize in Economics") and the addition of a lot more text than what's in the original in another place (you'll see the discrepancy if you compare my version with their version). Anyway, the general idea is the same. (For those who care, a Docent is an academic title that you can acquire after the PhD, after completing 4 additional years of research. There is no equivalent in English that I know of and it doesn't always mean that someone is a professor a university.) –panda 17:03, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

• If it didn't make sense what the comment about mathematically proving the Riksbank's need for independence refers to, this article explains it. (It's a reference to the reason given for the 2004 economics laureates.) –panda 17:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Panda can't seriously mean that all obscure viewpoints on any given topic should be mentioned. The link above clearly falls into that category. 128.111.225.205 00:36, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Of course, you may find academics everywhere with different opinions about everything. The article "Right for the Wrong Reasons" (NYT) doesn't really speak against the name Nobel Prize in Economics. User:Panda forgot to tell that the remaining academics referred to are all closely related or still active members of the Västerpartiet Party (the former Communist Party of Sweden, which current leader still labels himself as a "proud communist"). It is, therefore, hard to take User:Panda seriously, as the alleged "criticism" and "controversy" of the Nobel Prize in Economics is mainly politically biased and has very little to do with genuine concern for the Nobel Prize in general. --Camptown 23:39, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
    • After reading this talk page again it seems rather obvious that we have two groups of people who oppose the current name for two very different reasons. One group consists of people with an axe to grind. Not really opposed to the article as such they are more concerned with making their political opinions about economics and the award heard on every possible occasion. One way to do this, of course, is to halt all progress on the article by violating WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - which is exactly what is going on. The other group is concerned that the article isn't using the right name according the the foundation. This is the group I would say is right here. This isn't about criticism of the award - it's simply a matter of using the official name and officially this is not a Nobel prize, it's a huge honor which is awarded at the same ceremony as the other awards on the same terms as the other awards. That's all we need to say and that is perfectly NPOV.Do you realize that we could have that exact same debate about criticism on the Nobel peace prize article? And that is a real Nobel prize. All the other politically motivated, nitpicked WP:OR is a gross violation of WP:SYNTH and should be removed with prejudice. Wikipedia is no place to push your political views. Please take this thinly disguised POV pushing elsewhere, thank you. It's getting very disruptive now. EconomicsGuy 06:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• I actually have no idea why certain editors are getting worked up about the references listed above. First, I listed nine references and certain editors have chosen to focus on only one of them. (Why do you think a translation for a Swedish text would be necessary for the English Wikipedia?) Second, I haven't included any of them in the article. Third, I haven't stated an opinion about any of them. I'm pretty sure that none of the articles are about the name of the prize, so try reading them first before commenting on them. It's a reality that there are criticisms and controversy about the award -- it's be amazing if there weren't any since all of the Noble Prizes do. So there's no reason why this article shouldn't explain the criticisms related to this prize, for the same reason why there is a similar section in the Nobel Prize, Nobel Peace Prize, and Nobel Prize in Literature articles, as well as the entire Nobel Prize controversies article. –panda 07:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • My comment wasn't aimed at you. It was a reaction after reading the entire talk page and noticing how some seem to have irrelevant agendas here. EconomicsGuy 08:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Could someone tell me how this: He has advocated drastic cutbacks in Sweden's welfare state,[11] has criticised Sweden's attempt to have "capitalism with-out capitalists"[12] and favours the introduction of a voucher system in education. He has also worked with Michael Walker, Douglass North, Gary Becker and Friedman in constructing an Economic Freedom Index. This is claimed to create either a bias or an appearance of bias against candidates with an alternate view, such as Keynesian or Neo-Keynesian candidates. Even Friedman stated that Joan Robinson was 'blackballed' because of her espousal of Keynesianism belongs in the article. Everything up to that point is fine but this is a) synthesis and b) a coatrack argument against neo-classical economics and not the award itself. EconomicsGuy 08:38, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I really don't see this as an either synthesis or coatrack argument EconomicsGuy. And I'd appreciate it if you did not completely remove this perfectly valid critique on the quite obvious bias . The discussion is on the The_Prize_in_Economics_is_not_a_Nobel_Prize section btw. Sure try and edit but not a complete deletion. I just noticed your comment here by chance after seeing yet another complete reversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SlaineMacRoth (talk • contribs) 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal on template talk to rename

[edit] =

The first paragraph sounds like it's all about some kind of controversy, instead of what the prize is, who awards it, and to whom and why. Instead, it launches into some defensive crap about why the prize has lots of names, how it's just as good as the regular nobel prize.(just because it is the same prize being awarded by the same entity) Instead, we hear the whining from someone who's mad because someone he hates got the prize and now has created a "stink" over the name. oohh! Alfred didn't say economics in his will, therefore, this isn't a "real" nobel prize. oh my! Never mind that the Nobel foundation is the executor of his will, and therefore speaks for him, not the 2nd cousin's great grand uncle's friend's former room mate. We have to be treated to this flap in the first paragraph?SecretaryNotSure 21:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you see now how this ended up on WP:LAME? This isn't even about the award - if that was the case then the only real disagreement here is that the editors cannot agree that they basically do agree that the foundation is the most reliable source for the name of their own award. Damn now my head hurts again... happens everytime I review this dispute. EconomicsGuy 07:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering how many versions of the first paragraph can be created before the factual errors and half-truths are corrected. Can someone please tell me why it's so important for some editors that the prize be called the "Nobel Prize in Economics"? (Apparently that is more important than getting the text correct.) –panda 16:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK good point so let's try again: How many are against using the official name? Can we agree to separate the naming dispute from the other dispute so that we can solve the problems one at a time? It makes no sense to me why we can't use the official name. As for those who are here to argue against economics in geneneral you have found the wrong article to disrupt. EconomicsGuy 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with either the 'official' (in Swedish) name or 'Nobel Prize in Economics' being used first in the first paragraph, followed by a mention of the other version of the name and perhaps a list of other laternative names. I'm personally much more worried about standarizing the usage of the name in articles that refer to this article, but seems people are not too interested in solving that issue once and for all, *sigh* --Uriel 17:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

There are at least 3 editors above who have agreed that using both the official and common name in articles is the best compromise. As stated elsewhere, the problem has only been when only one name is used in an article. –panda 17:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, this frames the issue nicely. Both names obviously apply, but the article can only sit at one title, and small templates should only use one name. For these another compromise seems appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 18:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

What on earth happened to this article? It used to be quite ok, now it is just full of factual errors. Now it says the prize is "called" "Sveriges riksbank ..." , and by the Nobel Foundation no less?? This is not true. The Nobel Foundation did not name the prize, Sveriges Riksbank did (after being in told in no uncertain terms by the Nobel Foundation that "Nobel Prize" was not OK). The prize is not "called" "Sveriges riksbank ...", that is its proper official name. If anything is "called" something, it is "The Nobel Prize in Economics". It now also says that a Nobel Committee selects the laureates, also that is a lie. Also further down in the text a number of insertions have changed the meaning into implying it is a Nobel Prize (in comparison with the "other" Nobel Prizes). It is not [30]. It is one thing to use "common" names when naming articles (for ease of navigation), but when "common" use also dictates the content of the articles, in blatant disregard of factual circumstances, then Wikipedia siezes to be a source of information and becomes a vehicle for the perpetuation of misconceptions. --Lensor 10:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

There's an interesting article in the New York Times (A History Department Bans Citing Wikipedia as a Research Source) that's relevant here. –panda 15:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

A look at the history shows who it is that won't play nice. // Liftarn

In the new first paragraph, it actually says "though it was never endorsed by Nobel." Someone stop me from adding "because he was dead at the time." This just an example of .... how do I say it graciously... "not so great prose?" This is just an example of how silly this "name" dispute has gotten, if nonsense statements like that are in the first paragraph.SecretaryNotSure 04:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out [31] where it says: December – Economics Laureates receive their prize. The Nobel Prize Award Ceremony takes place on 10 December in Stockholm, where the Nobel Laureates receive their Nobel Prize, which consists of a Nobel Medal and Diploma, and a document confirming the prize amount.

Which leads me to the next question, if this prize isn't "really" a nobel prize, why is it on the website called "The Official Web Site of the Nobel Foundation Copyright © Nobel Web AB 2007"? SecretaryNotSure 04:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's on the Nobel Foundation's website because Sveriges Riksbank pays the Nobel Foundation to put it there -- see the statutes. It's crystal clear that it is NOT a Nobel Prize since the Nobel Foundation states "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize". The Nobel Foundation holds the "Nobel Prize" trademark so they are the ones that can decide if something is a Nobel Prize. I believe someone wrote something earlier about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT... If you don't want to believe it, that's fine. But the article should be based on facts, not personal beliefs. Stating:

Because the prize in economics was added to the list of prizes specified by Alfred Nobel the prize is not a technically a "Nobel Prize."

is blatant WP:OR and/or WP:SYNTH. As you said, "This just an example of .... how do I say it graciously... "not so great prose?" This is just an example of how silly this "name" dispute has gotten, if nonsense statements like that are in the first paragraph." –panda 07:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, fine. I'm sure there's money involved. No one's holding a gun to the head of the Nobel Foundation, I presume they want this prize to be part of the "whole Nobel thing." Who am I to argue with the King of Sweden? He gives out the prize, I never heard him complaining. But that's fine, I don't want to seem obstruction-izing. There IS a story to be told here, knowledge to impart about the history of the prize, the reason for the naming dispute, etc.

The reason for complaining about the "bad prose" - and I meant that in a light hearted way - is with statements like "Alfred Nobel would never have approved of this ..." it sounds like the wikipedia is somehow channeling the ascended spirit of Alfred Nobel and divining his wishes.

There's just one thing bugging me. Every book and writing I have talks about this nobel prize in economics. It's been that way for like, 40 years. It seems to me if there was some dispute then they should have argued over it 40 years ago, not now, in 2007. I don't see it as my place to tell "the world" hey! you've been calling it the wrong thing all these years!SecretaryNotSure 07:45, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I thought that was, you know, kind of the point of an encyklopedia, to tell people when they are factually wrong.. I think the current revision actually is quite nice. It states that the real name is "Sveriges riksbank..", that it is often called a Nobel Prize, but that it really isnt. There is very little orating about this, just a statement of facts, with a paragraph about the naming controversies separate at the bottom of the page.--Lensor 14:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I have intentionally removed the part about how the prize was never endorsed by Nobel and then moved a couple sentences around to improve the continuity of the text. –panda 15:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I like it even better now (that was actually the only part I was not fully happy with). It is enough to say that is not a Nobel Prize, that it was not instituted by Alfred Nobel therefore goes without saying.--Lensor 15:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory paragraph

The name Sveriges Riksbank appears 6 times in the first paragraph. The word economics appears 3 times. Let's not lose sight of this article's topic. --Anthon.Eff 16:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Bizarre comment. I don't think anyone has lost sight of the article's topic -- it's Sveriges Riksbank's prize in economic sciences (which includes economics). –panda 16:26, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that you are only using a single variant of economics when counting, skewing the results). "Sveriges Riksbank" - 1st time = name of price, 2nd time =Swedish translation of name of price, 3rd time = who created the prize, 4th time = who instigated the prize (ok, this one might be redundant, but I dont see how to cut it), 5th time = who pays for the prize. There is no 6th time. "Economic" - 1st time = in name of prize, 2nd time=Swedish translation ("ekonomisk"), 3rd time = what it is for, 4th time = that it is an honor, 5th time ="Nobel Prize in economics", 6th time = who select the laureates

"The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (in Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is a prize created by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) and awarded each year for outstanding intellectual contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics. It is not a Nobel Prize,[1] though it is often called the "Nobel Prize in Economics". The award was initiated some 70 years after the death of Alfred Nobel by Sveriges Riksbank on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The economics laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in accordance with the guidelines for the Nobel Prizes. The laureates receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the same December 10 ceremony in Stockholm as the Nobel laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. Sveriges Riksbank pays the Nobel Foundation to administrate aspects of the prize and provides the cash award for the prize."--Lensor 16:30, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bizarre comment. Only bizarre thing here is the version of introduction quoted above by Liftarn. I have changed intro into version that should be acceptable to both sides. -- Vision Thing -- 16:42, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. The claim that I am either Panda or Liftarn and not actually myself has already been refuted, so give it a rest. I just pointed out the obvious flaw in Anthon Eff's comment. Or are you claiming that his counting (the paragraph quoted by me is the one that was live at the time) was correct?--Lensor 23:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

It's entertaining that Vision Thing likes to claim that his edits are compromise versions. [32] [33] Seeing how he's making his edits without discussion, that's obviously not true. VT has once again removed facts from the article in his so-called "compromise" version and that is not acceptable. –panda 16:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

What facts? -- Vision Thing -- 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Try comparing the versions to find out what you've removed, again, for the Nth time. –panda 17:02, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are referring to lawsuits, they were removed for a good reason. -- Vision Thing -- 17:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't referring to that but that is text that several editors (not just Liftarn and I) have added back to the article so there is no good reason to remove it. –panda 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm ... I just noticed that Vision Thing still claims that Lensor is Liftarn, which is blatantly assuming bad faith. Personally I don't see how that's possible since they've both been online editing different articles at the same time. This article, and Wikipedia in general, doesn't need editors like that so please move on to elsewhere. –panda 17:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"Bizarre comment". "please move on to elsewhere". wikilawyering. Why are you constantly battling everyone? If we can't work together on this article then we should all agree to stay away and let other people work on it. --Anthon.Eff 17:57, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I say it as I see it -- That's not WP:Wikilawyering, which I invite you to reread so that you understand what it actually means. Considering your comments and that you've also accused Lensor of being my sockpuppet [34], I'd say you're more interested in trying to discredit me than getting the article correct. If that's the case, then please move on to elsewhere as well. –panda 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, if it's "commonly known as" then that's the name of it.

Why does that sentence still say "some 70 years after..." Can't someone count how many years it was? Why the vagueness?

Who "initiated" the prize? Where is this coming from? Is that the whole story? So, in other words, the Nobel Foundation didn't have anything to do with it? Or is there more to the story? Then why are we saying someone "initiated" something?

Why does it say it's "not a Nobel Prize?" Who are we to say that? There's some fine print somewhere in the documents but that's just some legalese. The King of Sweden never told anyone it's not a "nobel prize" and Alan Greenspan calls it the nobel prize in economics, no one complained. Obviously the nobel foundation wants to give out this prize as a nobel prize even if it's not technically one of the original prizes. Did Alfred Nobel ever say "and no one shall ever give a prize out other than the five I've specified?" No, he didn't. The name of the prize is fine, the controversy is fine to include, but the lead doesn't need to launch into a defensive rant about how wrong this is and how wrong everyone is to think of this like a "nobel prize"

Obviously, some people don't like the fact that that guy in India got the prize, so they want to now, retroactively, make the nobel prize in economics disappear. Some others don't like some others that got the prize, so they join in and try to make the nobel prize go away... they are on some kind of crusade. As if any of us knows what Alfred Nobel wanted or we know better than the Nobel Foundation or the Central Bank of Sweden or the King and all the nobel laureates.

I guess the bottom line is the time to argue was 40 years ago, when they made the new "nobel prize." People didn't argue then. It wasn't until they gave the prize to someone some group didn't like, then, all of a sudden "it's not a real nobel prize!" What a load of crap.

And to those who say "isn't that what an encyclopedia is supposed to do? NO! The purpose of the encyclopedia is not to change reality to something some group "likes better."SecretaryNotSure 02:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

There is an official name, end of story. Or do you now also want to change the "Academy Award" to "Oscar"? The "some 70 years after" I suppose is the editors way of writing accessible prose, not that they cant count, if you want to change it to the exact number, please do so. Regarding the who "initiated" the prize, the precise information you want were in the version quoted by me above, but it was removed (who created the prize). If you want it back, join the club. The prize was created by the Svenska Riksbanken. The only part the Nobel Foundation played was to allow the prize to be presented with the Nobel Prizes and to administer some aspects of it. Who are saying it is not a Nobel Prize? What about the Nobel Foundation! They actually say "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize".[35] How more clear than that can you possibly get? On every single occation there is mention of the economics prize, it is always as "Prize in Economics" or similar, never ever "Nobel Prize in Economics". Besides, during the award ceremony, the economics laureates are given the "Svenska riksbankes pris.." from the King of Sweden, so yes, he does say it is not a Nobel Prize. I for one dont care about the "guy in India", I only care about getting the name right. The only ones who are on a crusade here are the ones who are desperate to pretend it is a Nobel Prize when it really isnt. Why is that one can ask. And it is not "all of a sudden" that it is not a Nobel Prize. It never ever was one. You are the one trying to change reality here, not me.--Lensor 08:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with SecretaryNotSure's point, that behind all of this "not a REAL Nobel prize" ranting there must lie a dislike of who receives the prize (otherwise, why this relentless crusade?). Since the prize has swept the political spectrum from as far left as Gunnar Myrdal to as far right as Friedrich Hayek, these folks must lie beyond the two extremes. My guess is that they are to the left of Gunnar Myrdal, since the sources they cite include Swedish Communist Party parliamentarians. The grounds for calling it not a Nobel prize are very weak: it was not specified in the will of the Swedish industrialist Alfred Nobel, so the money doesn't come from his estate. Otherwise it is just like any other Nobel prize: the Nobel Foundation takes care of arranging the ceremonies and public relations; the Swedish Academy of Sciences selects the committee that nominates candidates and ultimately votes on the winners; and the press and the public call the prize a Nobel Prize. Only in Sweden is the press careful to use the official name, but even in Sweden the public continues to call it the Nobel Prize in Economics. I, for one, am tired of this campaign to make the English WP conform to the position of the Swedish Communist Party.--Anthon.Eff 13:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Honestly.. Swedish Communist Party... This is just getting sillier by the minute. Since when did it become "communist" to want an encyclopedia to stick to the facts? It is not a "position" that it is not a Nobel Prize, it is an undeniable fact. Or do you dispute this fact? My "position" that it is not a Nobel Prize is not something I just made up, it is what the Nobel Foundation itself states, with no room for interpretation whatsoever[36]. Where is your support?--Lensor 13:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The accusation of being a member of the Communist Party by Anthon.Eff is beyond a joke and is just truly appalling behaviour. A cursory look at the history of this article would show one -- Vision Thing (a self proclaimed Anarcho-capitalist) as one of the most ardent editors of this article. However, I would try and ignore any differences I have with his far-right politics and assume good faith with respect to his changes. They should be talken merely on their merit and not on his political views. Wikipedia is not the place for McCarthyite faux lawyering, tarring and feathering. SlaineMacRoth 23:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HILARIOUS! People keep ignoring that this was not set up in Nobel's will

This is a prize set up by the Swedish central bank. It is not dispersed from Alfred Nobel's will.

"Unlike the physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace prizes, a prize for economics was never requested by Alfred Nobel in his will. The award was established some 70 years after his death by the Bank of Sweden on its 300th anniversary in 1968."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize_in_Economics&oldid=165444217#About_the_name

Isn't it funny how people (where are their IPs from?) keep wanting to remove this tiny little detail, as well as this one:

"The nickname "Nobel Prize in Economics" has been the issue of a lawsuit. In 2004, a book publisher was sued for stating that Amartya Sen was a Nobel Prize winner in the Bengali translation of a book by Sen. The petitioner claimed that "There is no Nobel Prize for economics. So it is wrong to describe Sen as a Nobel Prize winner."[41][42]"

LEt's look at the Nobel web site:

http://nobelprize.org/nomination/economics/nominators.html

"Nobel Prize in Physics
Nobel Prize in Chemistry
Nobel Prize in Medicine
Nobel Prize in Literature
Nobel Peace Prize
Prize in Economics

... The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden's central bank) instituted "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", and it has since been awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm."

Oh wow! The Nobel Prize foundation itself...must be communist. Right? Or perhaps those insults of yours, calling people communist, is in fact simply trying to shut down debate and create your own reality.

Hmm...do you see something different about the last "prize"? I do. THERE'S NO "NOBEL" IN FRONT OF IT! So where does Wikipedia's interest lie, in promoting fact or revisionist history? 99.237.107.128 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone answer this simple question: "What is a Nobel Prize?" When you define that, then you can include "this is not a Nobel Prize." Just making that statement alone, out of context misleads the reader. Because by some definitions it is a nobel prize, and by another definition isn't not, it's...SecretaryNotSure 00:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Nobel Prize: A prize established by Alfred Nobel in his will.--victor falk 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OR....

• Nobel Prize: A prize established by the Nobel Foundation.--SecretaryNotSure 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Someone criticized my version... demanding that there is a correct name of the prize, etc, and how this is "a known fact." etc. Duuuhhhhh.... did you read my version? It tells the reader the correct name of the prize and the "not a nobel prize" ... so what's the problem? I'll tell you, you don't like it because my version didn't "harp on it" as much as the version you like. You are the one who wants to change reality.SecretaryNotSure 01:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

p.p.s. Also, read the "history" at [37] The Central Bank made the donation to the Nobel Foundation, then Nobel Foundation then authorized this new nobel prize, which no one complained about till 4 decades later. Notice they said they decided then and there they weren't going to create any more new Nobel Prizes. The econmics prize was the last one they would add to the list of nobel prizes, in other words. There must have been some questioning then about if this was a good thing to do. But they did it -- like it or not! And then suddenly, four decades later there this legal dispute about the name and "real-ness" of the new nobel prize.

Note also how the Nobel Prizes didn't just spring into existence. There was what they euphemistically refer to as great disputes over the will.... who would administer it? All of that wasn't spelled out. Where does the authority of the "nobel foundation" come from? Alfred didn't say who was supposed to administer the prizes ... and there were all sorts of details left ambiguous. All he did was leave the funds in his estate and express his wish that some prizes be established -- somehow -- by some mysterious means. The actual nobel prizes were established by the Nobel Foundation, after the legislature of Sweden took some action that established the nobel foundation as the ones who do this. Otherwise, I could give out the nobel prizes in my basement. (why not? -- did Alfred Nobel ever say I can't?). All these things are complex issues.

These people who are on the crusade to pretend, now, after 40 years, that the nobel foundation "shouldn't have done this" are on their own political agenda. No, I'm sorry, but the issue is more complicated that simply pointing to a website that says "this is not a nobel prize" and then spinning that into a whole doctrine that "the nobel prize doesn't exist!" and all those who got this prize from the Nobel Foundation, well they didn't really - it was a fraud -- fraud I tell you! --- etc... just POV pushing.SecretaryNotSure 01:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I really doubt there's anyone here that doesn't know this. Please assume good faith. The issue if vernacular usage v. factual accuracy. The latter does not always win on Wikipedia. At any rate, the article should state, as it usually does, that it's not "really" a Nobel Prize, but that English language sources commonly call it one anyway. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The name of the prize is what it is, we aren't in the business of deciding how "real" something is. In the English speaking world the nobel prize in economics is called The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. We can't change that.SecretaryNotSure 03:08, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. We can't change the fact that it's rarely called that. We can note that's the official title, and we can note that many (most) reliable sources don't use it and prefer to call it the "Nobel Prize in Economics." The article can and must note these things. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

SecretaryNotSure; Your last edit is not acceptable. The sanctioning of it being a Nobel Prize aside, it also introduced other factually mistakes; The Nobel Foundation does NOT award the prize, the Svenska Riksbanken does, and the laureates are selected by the Prize Committee selected from the Swedish Royal Academy of Sciences. The Nobel Foundation has absolutely nothing to do with the awarding of the prize, apart from arranging the actual ceremony. The prize was NOT established by the Nobel Foundation (they just said OK to it and agreed to present it with the Nobel Prizes, for a fee). So even using your definition above, it is still not a Nobel Prize. Besides, it does not matter how you arbitrarily define a Nobel Prize. "Nobel Prize" is a trademark held by the Nobel Foundation, and they are the only ones who get to say that something is or isnt a Nobel Prize. There is just no way of escaping this fact. Any other sources claiming it to be a Nobel Prize are therefore by definition not reliable (most often they are just lazy, not bothering to write out the proper name). The Nobel Foundation did "add" the prize to the award ceremony, yes, but they never sanctioned the name "Nobel Prize", not even 40 years ago. So stop pretending that it is anything sudden about the proper name. And your quote from the Nobel Foundation above is wrong (hopefully not on purpose). It does not say they weren't going to create any more new Nobel Prizes it is The Board of the Nobel Foundation has subsequently decided that it will allow no further new prizes.. [38] Notice the distinct lack of "Nobel" there? Regarding your section about the "fuzzyness" of the Prizes to begin with, the will of Alfred Nobel was crystal clear. The controversy at the time was mainly about his heirs being upset that they didnt get any money (and the King being upset that the prizes were not limited to Scandinavians). Here is an English Translation of the will (I have bolded the relevant parts);

"The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not."

You see, Nobel DID say that is was supposed to be a fund to distribute the prizes (ie the Nobel Foundation), he DID say exactly who were to award the prizes (So, no, you cant give a "Nobel Prize" out of your basement). And he DID say how many prizes there were to be (five). The only thing in his will that is not kept, is that nowadays it is not the benefit from the previous year only, as that is impossible to adhere to.--Lensor 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Those are great arguments. And if we were the law making body of Sweden charged with interpreting the will and implimenting it that would be great, but we're not. I'm not going to pretend to have knowledge of what the problems were in interpreting the will.

The only parts I'd quibble with is that you sort of diminish the role of the Nobel Foundation, in two ways. Yes, they don't give out the prizes, but they do administer the thing. The exact body that selects the prizes is different than the Nobel Foundation, that much we know for sure. The other part you're diminishing is that, for some reason, the Nobel Foundation did establish this "prize in economic sciences." We can argue that it was that huge wad of cash from the Bank of Sweden that made the Nobel Foundation people think "gee, that idea they have to establish a new prize isn't that crazy after all... just look at all that cash..." But at the end of the day, it's the Nobel Foundation that did it, for whatever reason. To quibble with that is like saying some group lobbied congress and congress passed a law -- and then argue that congress didn't really pass that law, they only did it because that group lobbied them and gave them money. You're probably right, the Nobel Foundation probably was swayed by the huge wad o'cash that flew their way, but, they still did it. (and I think that's pretty clear to the reader) That's why I say it's not really fair to say "it was really established by the Bank of Sweden" -- in our minds the bank of sweden did it, but legally and in reality, it was the foundation because they are the only ones who could do it. After all, the foundation could have said no, they but they choose to make the new nobelesque prize.

Actually, are some things I like about the lattest stab at how to phrase it, but it's not perfect. I think we're moving toward some kind of way of telling this interesting story without perpetuating ignorance of how this prize became what it is, whatever it is, and also without pushing a pov that snarks at the world by telling them this isn't a real prize, and the people who won this prize are frauds because there is no such thing, etc.SecretaryNotSure 11:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You are right that it is not up to the Wikipedia to interpret the will (I included the section above just because you said there was fuzziness, which I dont agree with). Anyways, is the current version more or less acceptable? (I am talking about the revision by me, not the one by User:Liftarn. Even though that version is even more correct, I suppose it will never be agreed upon) It does say that the Nobel Foundation administers the prize, and even though they dont administer it to 100%, it is still an acceptable approximation. I dont think it should say that the foundation awards the prize, because they dont. Now it just says that it "is awarded", and then further down it is detailed exactly how the awarding process works. I still dont think it should say that the Nobel Foundation "established" the prize, as that is misleading and implies that the Nobel Foundation somehow out of the blue chose to "add" a prize. Not to mention that the Nobel Foundation webpage actually states that it was Sveriges Riksbank who "established" the prize. [39]. I really dont want to diminish the honor of those awarded the prize (despite Anthon.Eff's snide communist remark above), but at the same time I think the article should be factually correct. It is doing noone any favours to be unclear about the name, nature or origin of the prize.--Lensor 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Add: I made two suggestions now. The first was revisions to SecretaryNotSure's version (removing some factual flaws), the other revisions to Liftarn's version (softening up the tone a bit). Both are acceptable to me.--Lensor 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed something in the quotation from the will: shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. Interesting, as none of the prizes is currently conferred to contributions from the previous year. So, according to the people who insist on Nobel's will as definitory for the prizes, there is no Nobel Prize! AdamSmithee 13:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

You just noticed this? It has been like that since...forever. The exact timing of the awarding of the prizes is an extremely minor issue compared to which prizes are actually in the will to begin with. It is not possible to within one year know which discoveries will be of the most benefit to mankind (with the possible exeption of Peace, which actually often is awarded very close to the "deed"). It is possible to award the prizes in the subjects specified by the will. See the difference?--Lensor 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The most disturbing fact about this thread is that no one appears to have understood that it is trolling. The title and language used is a clear giveaway. This is going around in circles and you all just grabbed the bait from some useless ÏP troll who just wanted to cause more trouble. EconomicsGuy 13:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Not since forever, since 1895 :) Anyway, it's still a double standard, deciding ad hoc that some parts of the will are debatable and others are not. Anyway, I'll keep trying to stay away from the discussion (though it's not easy), as IMO not only the thread, but the whole discussion is in part ignited by trolling AdamSmithee 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Heh, arent you the clever one ;). The thing is, it is not up to us here at Wikipedia to decide which parts of the will are "debatable", that decision has already been made in accordance with Swedish law by the Nobel Foundation, using the rationale I outlined above. They have already decided that it is within the bounds of the law to give the prize several years after the discovery (to be able to actually identify the important discoveries), and that it is not within the bounds of the law to add more prizes called "Nobel Prize in X". I agree that trolls are igniting the discussion needlessly, but as long as there is no consensus I dont see how not to continue the discussion.--Lensor 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

So we say that they disfavor the common English term "Nobel Prize in Economics." What's the problem here? Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out the answer to that question for quite some time now. I think it all boils down to a) arguing for the sake of arguing and b) unwillingness to just accept the most simple and easy to source solution which is the one you just mentioned. EconomicsGuy 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not quite as simple as that. The first problem is that there are still editors who claim that the prize is a Nobel Prize, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is also why there is still a wild discussion, but that is almost besides the point of the article itself. The most important problem here is how to be factually correct in the article without "belittling" the laureates. It is a great honor to get the prize, no matter the name, and the article should reflect this. I actually think the current version does this quite well.--Lensor 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Right. That was my initial understanding of the situation before this became very confusing. Like you say, all evidence/reliable sources supports the fact that officially it isn't a Nobel prize. As long as we do not add our own belittling, politically motivated OR I don't think that's a problem because the table with all the different names it has been given pretty much speaks for itself. What I object to is using the article as a coatrack by turning it into an attack against neo-classical economics. That's actually my main concern here. EconomicsGuy 16:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Nobel Prize

From the Nobel Foundation's website:[40]

Question: Sir, Why this Prize is not recognized as Nobel Prize in Economics? Does the Committee treat Economics as a field of basic science as they treat Physics, Chemistry and Medicine?

Answer: The Nobel Prizes are only those that are specifically mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace). The Economics Prize came much later and is a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. In all relevant respects the committee understands and treats economics as a field of science.

Thus, the Nobel Prizes are only the 5 mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will and the prize in economic is not a Nobel Prize. Not to mention that the Nobel Foundation already has stated elsewhere that it is not a Nobel Prize, even though some editors here still want to deny this fact. –panda 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed facts

Vision Thing has been removing facts from this article:

• removed Sveriges Riksbank (the Bank of Sweden) pays the Nobel Foundation to administrate the prize, a statement that is supported by a citation and directly from the statues for the prize – [41] [42] [43] [44] [45]
• removed the official Swedish name of the prize: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne – [46] [47] [48]
• removed a multitude of other facts in Vision Thing's last major revision.

Please stop removing facts! –panda 18:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The Bank of Sweden doesn't pay the Nobel Foundation to administrate the prize. It pays their administrative expenses. There is a difference.
• You are free to add Swedish name of the prize in the names section with the rest of them. -- Vision Thing -- 20:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

And the difference that you are claiming is...? –panda 21:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Your version implies that Nobel Foundation was bought off and that it receives payment beyond expenses for administering. -- Vision Thing -- 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The text only states that Sveriges Riksbank/the Bank of Sweden pays the Nobel Foundation to administrate the prize. How in the world did you arrive at such a ludicrous claim??? That's the most ridiculous piece of WP:OR that I've seen yet -- talk about assuming bad faith. Perhaps you should consider a long vacation from this article as your comment shows that you're obviously having difficulties separating fact from fiction. –panda 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages. What does apply to talk pages is WP:NPA.-- Vision Thing -- 17:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Original research is original research, regardless of where it is written. Stating that ludicrous comments are ludicrous is not a violation of WP:NPA, which you may wish to read. Do everyone a favor and take a vacation from this article. –panda 18:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a note; the native translation of a prize is usually included in the opening paragraph, it is not something Panda just made up specifically for this prize. I really don't see why Vision Thing is so dead set against including it in this case. --Lensor 10:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Do you know Swedish name of Nobel Prize in Economics? -- Vision Thing -- 17:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

The Swedish name of the prize is Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne. Also, what's your reason for removing so many facts from the article again, for the Nth time? –panda 17:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clarifications to Nobel's will

This should really go in the Noble Prize article but since AdamSmithee commented about it here,[49] [50] I'm writing the reply here. Before the Nobel Foundation could be founded, certain "clarifications" were made, according to "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes" (relevant text is on pp 69-70 of the 3rd edition). Some of these clarifications were (copied from the Nobel Foundation statues, Objects of the Foundation [51]; emphasis mine):

§ 2.

The "Academy in Stockholm," mentioned in the will, shall refer to the Swedish Academy.

The term "literature" shall comprise not only belles-lettres but also other writings which, by virtue of their form and style, possess literary value.

The duties devolving upon Karolinska Institutet under the will shall be performed by the Nobel Assembly of Karolinska Institutet.

The provision in the will that the annual award of prizes shall be intended for works "during the preceding year" should be understood in the sense that the awards shall be made for the most recent achievements in the fields of culture referred to in the will and for older works only if their significance has not become apparent until recently.

The rest of the clarifications are in the statues. If you're interested in this topic, I would recommend reading the statues or "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes". –panda 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthon.Eff's edit summary

Anthon.Eff wrote in an edit summary on 18:31, 3 November 2007: "There was no consensus for the change in introduction, despite extensive talk page discussion". There was no consensus for the current introduction so your edit summary doesn't say anything useful nor explain your revert. Lack of consensus is not a valid reason for removing cited text. If you simply don't like the edit, that's not a valid reason to remove it since it contained several references. What's your reason now for removing the cited text? While I'm at it, Vision Thing: what's your reason for removing the cited text? –panda 18:48, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring WP:NPOV. A lot of people do consider this prize a real Nobel Prize and in your edits you are ignoring this. -- Vision Thing -- 19:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not ignoring WP:NPOV. The facts state that it is not a Noble Prize, and I'm simply adding facts to the article. Also your comment is simply a red herring -- you still haven't explain why you removed cited text. I'll also add that the text I added came directly from articles published by economists, not me. –panda 19:19, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Panda, the current version sufficiently states that in some respects the prize is not like the other Nobel prizes. You wish to belabor that point to absurd lengths in the article, as if the only important point about the prize is that it is illegitimate. Now why are you doing that? --Anthon.Eff 19:32, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating that the prize is "mistakenly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"" is a POV. Whether it is a mistake to refer to this prize as a "Nobel Prize" is a judgment that should be left to the readers. -- Vision Thing -- 19:33, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The text VT quoted came directly from one of the references, written by an economist, and is not a POV since the prize is not a Nobel Prize. It is, however, a POV to state "Technically it is not a Nobel Prize" as the reference only states "it is not a Nobel Prize." There is simply no reason to include the word "technically". Anyway, I changed more than just that one part of the text so your accusation is once again a red herring for not explaining why you reverted the text. –panda 19:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Since Nobel Foundation is saying that this is not a Nobel Prize, de jure it is not. But since it is awarded in accordance with the principles of Nobel Prizes, by the same institutions and at the same ceremony, de facto it is a Nobel Prize and many sources classify it as such. So it is a POV to say it is mistakenly called "Nobel Prize". If you want, you can add that Auke R Leen thinks that "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is "mistakenly referred to as the "Nobel prize in economics"" latter in the body of the article. To what other "facts" are you referring to? -- Vision Thing -- 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Many sources may classify it as a Nobel Prize but that does not make it a Nobel Prize. You're confusing a verifiable definition of the prize with urban legends and misconceptions. We can certainly state that many believe it is a Nobel Prize although it isn't one. Remember that the Nobel Prize is a trademark of the Nobel Foundation and they have clearly stated that "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize." It is not up to you, me, or anyone else (other than the Nobel Foundation) to redefine what is a Nobel Prize. See below for a reply to your other comment. Also, a reminder that you haven't explained why you removed the cited text, copied below for your convenience. –panda 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If you keep removing "Technically" I will start adding reliable sources which say that this is a Nobel Prize. I created this version of the introduction as a compromise between two sides, and it's where I draw a line. -- Vision Thing -- 17:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Stating "I created this version of the introduction as a compromise between two sides, and it's where I draw a line." is a sign of WP:OWNERSHIP. If you can't work with other editors on the text in this article, then please don't work on this article at all. I believe this is your third warning about WP:OWNERSHIP in relation to the Noble Prize and Nobel Prize in Economics articles. –panda 18:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You are the one who is showing signs of WP:OWN since you are refusing all compromises. -- Vision Thing -- 22:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Four different editors have removed "technically" from the text and you or Anthon.Eff kept re-adding it.
• Three different editors opposed using the word "commonly" in the article and removed it while you or Anthon.Eff kept re-adding it.
• Another editor has already mentioned tag-teaming.
• All of our verifiable sources should be allowed in the text, but you seem to only allow your sources in the text or those that you approve of in the text.
• Primarily you, but also Anthon.Eff, tend to revert my edits without explanation (in your case) or by claiming "There was no consensus for the change in introduction, despite extensive talk page discussion" (in Anthon.Eff's case). I shouldn't have to get your or Anthon.Eff's permission to make changes to the text.

All of those are signs of WP:OWN. Is no one else allowed to make changes to the intro except for those who subscribe to your POV?

I actually haven't edited the text during the latest edit war. I've also compromised by saying that if you want to keep "common" in the article, then you should also include "mislabelled" and "mistakenly referred to" since they're all verifiable. Otherwise remove all three of them. I've also stated that you can go ahead and add more sources to the article, which you did. So I obviously am not showing signs of WP:OWN, and your accusation is WP:WL.

If you haven't read WP:OWN, please do so before claiming otherwise. –panda 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I showed more than my share of readiness to compromise when I agreed to change introduction in such way to include a line "it is not a Nobel Prize". That is not mentioned in any articles on this prize and even Nobel Foundation doesn't mention it in its main article. So this version of article is already giving undue weight to that "fact" by mentioning it in the lead. Your insistence to add "mislabeled" or "mistakenly referred to" to that is clear example of unwillingness to compromise and POV pushing. -- Vision Thing -- 18:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm not POV pushing since I'm not insisting that "mislabelled" or "mistakenly referred to" have to be in the text. I've stated that either all 3 verifiable claims should be in the text or none of them should be. So your accusation is another example of WP:WL. OTOH, you are insisting that they should not be in the text -- that is POV pushing. It's not a compromise to include the text "it is not a Nobel Prize". That is a basic fact that describes the prize and should be included in the introduction, along with the name of the prize. –panda 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so compelled, add sources that claim it is a Nobel Prize. We can verify that many claim it is a Nobel Prize. We can also verify that the Nobel Foundation states that it isn't. Once again, the Nobel Foundation are the ones who can definitely state if it is a Nobel Prize or not. The text would only end up as something like: "Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"[8][9] and called a Nobel Prize[your refs], it is not a Nobel Prize[4] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".[5]" –panda 18:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. -- Vision Thing -- 23:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

"universally perceived as a Nobel Prize"? That's just being pointy. Also, that's easy to disprove. We only need one example to show that it is not universally perceived as a Nobel Prize and we have one -- the Nobel Foundation states it is not a Nobel Prize. Q.E.D. –panda 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Source (How to Win the Nobel Prize: An Unexpected Life in Science – a book about Nobel Prizes) says it is universally perceived as a Nobel Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 18:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've already disproved that statement, thus it's obviously an unreliable source for that statement. So please stop re-adding it. Doing so is another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, which another editor has already mentioned. –panda 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Besides not explaining the reason for reverting cited text, Anthon.Eff is now that claiming: [52]

"commonly" is much more accurate than "sometimes". "Technically" conveys the sense in which it is not a NP. This version is more NPOV."

Including the word "technically" is not NPOV -- it's an unnecessary descriptor that misrepresents the citation and implies that the prize can still be a Nobel Prize. So it does neither of the claims: it neither convey the sense that it is not a Nobel Prize nor that it is NPOV. Also, its interesting how Anthon.Eff insists on accuracy for the descriptor of "Nobel Prize in Economics" ("common" vs "sometimes") but insists on a less accurate text for when it is not a Nobel Prize. Double standards or POV pushing? I would argue that the article should be accurate throughout, not only when it benefits someone's personal opinion. –panda 01:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Panda, one of your own sources says that this prize is commonly called Nobel Prize ([53] at the end of the article). -- Vision Thing -- 22:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the text states that the prize is commonly called a Nobel Prize, but not the Nobel Prize in Economics:

The prize was created (and funded) by the Swedish central bank and has been progressively confused with the regular Nobel set up by Alfred Nobel; it is now mislabelled the “Nobel Prize for economics”.

and

It will be dying with us, unless we discredit that absurd Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel commonly called the “Nobel Prize”.

Anyway, I also have references stating that the prize is mislabelled and mistakenly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics". So I see no reason why those qualifiers can't be added to the same sentence if you insist on keeping "common" in the article. Either we should use all of the qualifiers or none, since that would be the most NPOV. –panda 23:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

That it's mistake to call it a Nobel Prize is a value judgment. To say that it's commonly called Nobel Prize is not a value judgment. -- Vision Thing -- 17:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It's your personal opinion to claim that one is a value judgment while the other isn't. Both are verifiable and if you insist on keeping one, then the others should also be included as that would be the most NPOV version of the text. –panda 18:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with you panda is like dealing with someone with a very strange set of ontological beliefs. The prize is like a Nobel prize in all characteristics except one (I think I said this before). Therefore it is technically not a Nobel prize. I think my edit summary was concise and accurate. Your rebuttal is not concise. It's too long to read and doesn't make sense. I can see however that you agree that "common" is more accurate than "sometimes". So we are left with disagreement on "technically." Try being more concise in your next explanation. --Anthon.Eff 17:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you don't want to read other's comments, then please don't participate at all in this article. I haven't agreed that common is more accurate, I've only stated what you claimed it was. Also, your comment that "The prize is like a Nobel prize in all characteristics except one" is like saying that all Elvis impersonators must be Elvis since they are like Elvis in all characteristics except one (they're not Elvis). You're applying the duck test to something that is well-defined. Try not to mix "ontological beliefs" with well-defined facts. I've already objected to including "technically" in the article and see that you've replaced it again -- it is still a misrepresentation of the citation and the well-defined fact that it is simply not a Nobel Prize. Anyway, you haven't explained why you removed cited text, included below for your convenience. So just a reminder that I'm still waiting for your reply. –panda 19:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe herein lies our difficulty, panda, that you confuse your ontological beliefs for "well-defined facts." And you see, it is hard to figure out what you are saying: now it turns out that you don't think "commonly" is more accurate! --Anthon.Eff 20:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Panda and I have reverted. Commonly is a weasel word and is not supported by the sources. The criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth. We can verify that it isn't a Nobel prize, we can verify what the official name is, we can verify what the recepients have called it and we can verify that it has been called a Nobel prize. What we cannot verify is the claim that it is commonly reffered to as the Nobel prize. Also, you are getting very close to 3RR and appear to be tag team reverting so protection might be ther next logical step here. EconomicsGuy 20:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The prize isn't commonly called Nobel Prize in Economics? Are you serious? Here is a table introduced by another editor in a discussion on Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. I think you can see that sometimes is incorrect--the prize is almost always called Nobel Prize in Economics. --Anthon.Eff 20:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

name	google.com	google.co.uk "in UK"
"Prize in Economics" includes all of "Nobel Prize in Economics"	578,000	46,300
"Nobel Prize in Economics" includes all instances of "Nobel Prize in economics"	512,000	43,200
"Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences"	42,000	540
"Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"	39,700	343
"Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"	32,200	185
"Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics"	25,300	816
"Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science"	22,900	318

Table introduced by Cool Hand Luke 14:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC) in Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics

What I said was that the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth per WP:V. Google is by no stretch of the word a reliable source. What is it about this dispute and people who still haven't read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. EconomicsGuy 20:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are tired of this EconGuy, imagine the rest of us, who have been at it long before you ever showed up! But back to the gist of your revert: that sometimes is better than commonly. I could perhaps offer evidence that everyone I know, in every university that I've worked or studied, calls it the Nobel Prize in Economics. But that would be anecdote. So I offer a measure of the number of times it is called Nobel Prize in Economics on web pages. If such a datum isn't a verifiable measure of whether commonly is the correct qualifier, then it is hard to imagine what datum would work. The prize is almost always called Nobel Prize in Economics, especially outside Sweden. To use the word sometimes suggests that it is called Nobel Prize in Economics by a few people, once in a while. Commonly is more accurate, and I believe Ghits verifies that. Capiche? --Anthon.Eff 21:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro text

Here is the entire text that Vision Thing and Anthon.Eff removed on 3 November 2007 without explaining why:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is a prize "awarded annually to a person who has written a work on economic sciences of the eminent significance expressed in the will of Alfred Nobel drawn up on November 27, 1895."^[8] The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often mistakenly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[9] or the "Nobel Prize for economics",^[10] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was instituted by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. Sveriges Riksbank pays the Nobel Foundation to administrate aspects of the prize and provides the cash award.^[8]

Comments? –panda 15:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally I think Panda's version is more accurate than the current one. At the very least the Swedish name should be present somewhere on the page (it is not at the moment). I would however make a couple of changes:

• Remove the section about Alfred Nobel's Will, as it just clutters the text without actually adding any vital information (could be re-added to the "Award Process" for the interested).
• Remove "mistakenly". IMO it is enough to just clarify that the prize is often called a Nobel Prize but really isnt one, and leave it at that. I however think that "often" is a better and more neutral term that both "commonly" (implying that most people call it a Nobel Prize) as well as "sometimes" (implying that most people dont)
• Remove the mention of "Nobel Prize for Economics", as it feels redundant (the ref can still be used though).
• Change that the prize was "established" by the Bank, not "instituted", as this is the wording the Nobel Foundation uses [54].
• Change the wording of the administative payment. I would rather use a wording that the Bank reimburses the Foundation. To say that they pay them is too prone to interpretation. (As demonstrated by Vision Thing above).

Hence, my suggestion is the following:

"The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is awarded each year for outstanding intellectual contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[13][14] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. Sveriges Riksbank reimburses the Nobel Foundation for administration expenses for the prize and provides the cash award.^[8]"

--Lensor 09:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I think Lensor's suggestion is quite good. Some additional comments:

• re: "outstanding intellectual contributions" – "intellectual" should not be included and, before everyone assumes the wrong thing, here's why:

• The Nobel Prizes are not awarded for an "intellectual" contribution, but instead the prizes "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."[55] In the shortest form, it is for "outstanding achievements" in xxx.[56] It may often happen to be an intellectual contribution, but that was not the intent of the prizes and is an interpretation made by someone else that can lead to other misinterpretations...
• ...It would imply that the prize is related to someone's intelligence and claims whether or not someone's contribution has intellectual value. When others criticize certain laureates, some mistakenly may believe that the criticisms are related to a laureate's intelligence or the contribution's intellectual worthiness. The criticisms largely have to do with how this person's work has contributed to the benefit of mankind, not whether or not their work is intellectual and certainly never about their intelligence.
• The reason why I didn't just remove the word the first time was because I know that certain editors here would have automatically assumed that panda thinks that economists are not intellectual or intelligent. This has nothing to do with the case. And yes, I would remove "intellectual" from any of the Nobel Prize articles if it were included as a reason for any of the Nobel Prizes.

• re: "pays for" and "reimburses" – Alternative suggestion below. Reimburse isn't the best word since the bank has a fixed amount they pay the Foundation each year (currently an annual amount of 6.5 million SEK + 1 million SEK for including info about the econ prize in the NF's internet museum [57]), and if the costs exceed the amount paid, the Foundation would not be reimbursed for the excess. Below is the relevant text from Sveriges Riksbank (Framställning till riksdagen, 2006/07: RB1, Årsredovisning för Sveriges riksbank för räkenskapsåret 2006):

I posten ekonomipris ingår prissumman om 10 miljoner kronor samt administrationskostnader för detta pris om 6,5 miljoner kronor. Dessutom har bidrag givits till det interaktiva Internetmuseum som Nobelstiftelsen byggt upp. Bidraget avser täckande av kostnaden för information om ekonomipriset. Bidraget ska enligt avtal utbetalas årligen med 1 miljon kronor till och med 2008.

• re: "established" vs "instituted" – the Nobel Foundation uses both terms and here they mean the same thing. Established is the more normal word so I agree that the text should use "established".
• I just noticed we forgot to include the current amount of the award so I'll add that.

So here's another version:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics that "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."[58]. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[15][16] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. Sveriges Riksbank pays for the administrative expenses for the prize incurred by the Nobel Foundation and for the cash award,^[8] which has been 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) since 2001.^[17]

–panda 16:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that introduction should be a concise overview of the article, and not the only place to mention certain things. -- Vision Thing -- 17:08, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quoting from WP:LEAD:

The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article.

So it's acceptable to have up to four paragraphs, and my example is only 2 paragraphs so its far from not being concise. And if you want to be concise, then "technically" shouldn't be included as it makes the text less concise.

Anyway, I'll remind you that you still haven't explained why you removed cited text from the article. If your reason was because the lead should be concise, then my text was far from not being concise according to WP:LEAD, and your reason is not a valid reason. –panda 18:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You should have read it beyond introduction. "The appropriate length of the lead section depends on the total length of the article." For articles less than 15000 characters suggested length of the lead section is one or two paragraphs. Without tables, body of this article has less than 6000 characters. So, one paragraph is more than enough. -- Vision Thing -- 22:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You said it yourself, "one or two paragraphs". So there's nothing wrong with two paragraphs. The text can also be combined into one paragraph by simply removing the carriage return, which is how it was previously. The only reason why this article is so short is because you seem to revert everything I add to the article, regardless of whether or not it is cited. Which reminds me that you still haven't explained why you removed cited text. –panda 01:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Panda's version is actually in perfect range compared to those of the Nobel Prizes (whereas the current one is really small and seem "empty" in comparison. If anything, that conveys the feeling that the Prize in economics is "less worth"):

• Nobel Prize in Chemistry - 1035 characters including spaces
• Nobel Prize in Literature - 2525 (heh, big surprise that this one is the longest)
• Nobel Peace Prize - 1539
• Nobel Prize in Physics - 1016
• Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine - 2103
• Nobel Prize - 1405
• The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (current version) -829
• The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Panda's version)- 1261

Also note, that currently the Prize in Economics is the ONLY one without the Swedish name in the lead paragraph.--Lensor 09:03, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed that another reference was removed from the text in Vision Thing's latest version: ^[12] (the text that states that the prize is "a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel.") –panda 17:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Vision Thing: Do I really need to comment on you taking other people's text and adding it to the article as if it were your own vs discussing the above text? Your behavior only demonstrates that you think you are the only one who can decide what does and doesn't go into the introduction, a sign of WP:OWN. Ignoring my question about why you removed cited text (and another reference) violates WP:EQ and is another sign of WP:OWN, which states "Ownership examples: The discussion can take many forms; it may be purely negative, consisting of threats and insults, often avoiding the topic of the revert altogether." (my emphasis) –panda 19:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version, although inprecise, is still acceptable and factually more or less correct. The changes Vision Thing just tried to pass off (again), are not. For one, to claim that it is universally perceived as a Nobel Prize is just plain wrong and blatant POV-pushing. For something to to be universally perceived as anything, everyone has to agree on it. One single person disagreeing, and it is no longer "universally". And we all know it is way more than one person disagreeing. Also, to claim that it really is a Nobel Prize that is just "officially referred" to as "The Svenska Riksbankens prize.." is also factually wrong and just pushing this editors POV. He tried to pass off WP:MOS#First_sentences as reason for this change. However, the guideline (not policy mind you) states, as the two very first words: "If possible". If Vision Thing finds it impossible to adhere to the guideline without introducing his own personal POV-pushing, then clearly the first sentense should not be altered.--Lensor 09:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is the use of weasel words like "often" (how often?), "generally considered" (by who?), "often perceived" (how often? by who?). // Liftarn

In this case most "weasel" words are attributed to cited sources (in which case it is OK to include them according to WP:WEASEL. It is also stated that "uncontroversial" weasel words can be included for brevity and clarity. I dont think it is controversial to state that it is considered an honor to get this prize, or that a lot of people call it a Nobel Prize (that is after all the entire premise for calling the article "Nobel Prize in Economics" to begin with). However, some cleanup is probably in order.--Lensor 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary one of the meanings of universally is "embracing a major part or the greatest portion". -- Vision Thing -- 20:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The use of "universal" does imply that everyone agrees, as that is the main definition of the word. If you dont mean to imply that everyone agrees, another word than "universial" that carries less risk of implying things can just as easily be used. Full definition of "universial" (using your dictionary), including the main definition:

• 1: including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception; especially : available equitably to all members of a society <universal health coverage>
• 2 a: present or occurring everywhere b: existent or operative everywhere or under all conditions <universal cultural patterns>
• 3 a: embracing a major part or the greatest portion (as of humankind) <a universal state> <universal practices> b: comprehensively broad and versatile <a universal genius>
• 4 a: affirming or denying something of all members of a class or of all values of a variable b: denoting every member of a class <a universal term>
• 5: adapted or adjustable to meet varied requirements (as of use, shape, or size) <a universal gear cutter> <a universal remote control>

--Lensor 09:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

So, so far the proposed introduction has been worked out to the following (plus some minor changes I just made to the last sentence, another ref, and minor technical modifications to the references):

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics that "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."[59]. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[18][19] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11][20] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. Sveriges Riksbank pays for the cash award,^[8] which has been 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) since 2001,^[17] and the Nobel Foundation's administrative expenses associated with the prize.^[8]

Any additional comments? –panda 16:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Should probably include the reference that it was the bank who established the prize, as User:SecretaryNotSure at least twice has edited in that it was established by the Nobel Foundation (without citing any source of course).--Lensor 16:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Several references are now included:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics that "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."^[21] The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[18][22] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11][20] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969.^[23][24][25] The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,^[8] and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature.^[26] Sveriges Riksbank pays for the cash award,^[8] which has been 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) since 2001,^[17] and the Nobel Foundation's administrative expenses associated with the prize.^[8]

–panda 17:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This version fails on following points:

• it does not satisfy Wikipedia Manual of Style which states that an article title (in this case "Nobel Prize in Economics") should be the subject of the first sentence of the article and that it should be in boldface.
• it states that Nobel Prize in Economics is the most prestigious honor "along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists". Mention of John Bates Clark Medal is unwarranted. If needed, I can provide sources for that.
• it states that this prize is "often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"". It is "commonly" called NPiE as determined in previous requests for page rename discussions and as stated in several sources.
• it doesn't mention that NPiE is universally perceived as a Nobel Prize which obvious from articles in Britannica, Encarta, and from the front page of Nobel Foundation's official site. Same is said in a book on Nobel Prizes – How to Win the Nobel Prize: An Unexpected Life in Science.
• there is some redundant information is second paragraph, but this is a minor problem.

I'm going to revert to SecretaryNotSure's version, as the most neutral. -- Vision Thing -- 20:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Not only is SecretaryNotSure's version not more neutral, it contains factual errors that he's reinstated a few times already.

• As Lensor has written elsewhere, WP:MOS#First_sentences states (my emphasis): "If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article". It is not a requirement.
• If you feel that mentioning the John Bates Clark Medal is unwarranted, then please provides the sources for that. And if you believe that it is not of equal merit, then go change the John Bates Clark Medal article.
• I will ask that you kindly drop the "commonly" discussion. As stated before, if you want "commonly" in the article, then "mislabelled" and "mistakenly referred to" should also be in the introduction, which are also verifiable.
• It doesn't matter if one source claims that it is "universally" perceived to be a Nobel Prize when it is already disproved. You've also taken Bishop's statement out of context. The text makes it clear that it's not trying to be factual, but humorous, since it gives counterexamples right away. From "How to Win the Nobel Prize" by J. Michael Bishop, on pp 10-11:

The bequest of the Nobel Prizes was spelled out in a single handwritten paragraph that named physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, and peace , in that order, as the themes for the prizes. A prize for the work in economics was established by the Bank of Sweden many years later (1968), in celebration of the Bank's three hundreth anniversary. The gesture caused great consternation among the Swedish stewards of the Nobel Prize, who saw it as an effort by a "non-rigorous discipline to cloak itself in the trappings of an objectivity it did not and could not posses."¹² To this day, the prize in economics is known as the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" to distinguish it from the "real" Nobels, and is administered by the Nobel Foundation but not paid by the Nobel endowment. It is nevertheless universally perceived as a Nobel Prize, to quiet acquiescence by the Nobel Foundation and the "authentic" laureates (with the exception of an occasional physicist who voices a complaint).¹³

     Nobel himself never accepted economics as a science, and even some of the laureates in economics have expressed doubt about the prize. In protest against the award to the outspoken and controversial Milton Friedman in 1975, a previous economics laureate, Gunnar Myrdal, wrote an open letter to a Swedish newspaper calling for an end to the economics prize. Myrdal's colaureate and ideological opponent), Friederich Hayek, toasted the kind and queen of Sweden with a remark that he would have recommended against establishing the prize in economics had he been asked—in his view, the discipline was not sufficiently rigorous and objective. One authority on Alfred Nobel and his prizes has suggested that too many of the "Nobelized achievements" in economics "seem perilously close to scientizing the commonsensical"¹⁴

¹² Michael A. Bernstein, "The Faux Nobel Prize," San Diego Union Tribune, October 13, 2000, p. B11.

¹³ Sylvia Nasar, "The Sometimes Dismal Nobel Prize," New York Times, October 13, 2001, p. C3.

¹⁴ Feldman, Nobel Prize, p. 353

and from p 27:

     As for economics, only its immediate practitioners seem capable of appreciating the merits of its Nobelists. One perennial joke is that mere membership on the faculty of economics at the University of Chicago is sufficient to procure a Nobel Prize. Another is that although the prize for economics was instituted only in 1969, the field of eligible candidates may already have been exhausted. One administrator of the prize has told the press that "all the mighty firs have fallen; now there are only bushes left."³⁶

³⁶ Nasar, "The Sometimes Dismal Nobel Prize."

There's quite a lot in Bishop's text that could go into the controversy section.

• I've added the statement that it is perceived as a Nobel Prize.
• If you explain what is redundant in the 2nd paragraph, then that can probably be fixed.

New version below:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne) is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics that "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."^[21] The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics along with the John Bates Clark Medal for American economists. Although it is often referred to as the "Nobel Prize in economics"^[18][27] and perceived to be a Nobel Prize,^[28][29][30] it is not a Nobel Prize,^[11][20] but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel".^[12]

The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969.^[23][24][31] The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,^[8] and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature.^[26] Sveriges Riksbank pays for the cash award,^[8] which has been 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) since 2001,^[17] and the Nobel Foundation's administrative expenses associated with the prize.^[8]

–panda 00:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• It is possible. If you don't see how, please click here.
• John Bates Clark Medal article doesn't imply that they are of equal merit – you can be second best and still claim that you are among the top two. However, if you are first then it doesn't make sense to claim that you are among top two. Still, I will add requested source. Source is already provided - Encyclopædia Britannica, and intro of Nobel Prize states the same.
• New version doesn't mention "commonly", "often" or any other qualifier. However, your version does.
• If anything is disapproved it's Lensor's claim that everyone must agree on something for "universally" to be applied.
• Bishop's statement was not taken out of context. I don't see how he is trying to be humorous. Please keep your personal interpretations for yourself. He clearly says that NpiE is universally perceived as a Nobel Prize and that Nobel Foundation is accepting such perception without protest. Which is, as I must point out again, quite clear from the front page of their official site.
• Detail about establishment of the prize on 300th anniversary of Sveriges Riksbank is unnecessary for the introduction, and I would phrase last sentence differently: The prize is administered by the Nobel Foundation in accordance with rules and principles laid out in Alfred Nobel's will. The Swedish Central Bank provides the prize amount of 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) and covers administrative expenses associated with the prize. On a second thought maybe this talk about administrative expenses is too technical for the intro. -- Vision Thing -- 21:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

• The version you quoted is not acceptable, as it pushes the POV that the real name of the prize is "Nobel Prize in Economics" and it is just "called officially" "Sveriges Riksbanks...". Refer to my comment about this version above.
• I agree that the reference to the John Bates Clark Medal does not have to be included.
• As stated above, some qualifyers are ok if they are uncontrovesial according to WP:WEASEL. It is hardly controversial to state that the prize is often referred to as a Nobel Prize, after all that is the premise of the naming of the article in the first place.
• Please read my statement above about your use of "universal". The main definition of the word is "including or covering all or a whole collectively or distributively without limit or exception" (my emphasis). If you actually do mean it in the one lesser definition that fits your agenda, then another word less prone to misinterpretation is more suited.
• If you dont see the humour in Bishop's text, that is up to you. However, one person stating it is "universal" dont make it so. Your interpretation (careful with WP:NOR) of what the Nobel Foundation "thinks" is irrelevant in comparson to the written statements of the Nobel Foundation which say "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize".
• I disagree that who established the prize is irrelevant for the introduction. It is on the contrary extremely central for explaining what the prize is. Furthermore, to remove who pays for the administration but keep that the Nobel Foundation administers is is borderline misleading. Either both stays or both goes, keeping only one gives the false impression that the Nobel Foundation pays for the administration themselves.--Lensor 09:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• "Not acceptable" is not the same as "not possible". New version follows Manual of Style, Panda's version does not. Also, what is the difference between real name and official name?
• It is controversial to state that the prize is often referred to as a Nobel Prize because that twists the truth. The prize is commonly (or universally) called a Nobel Prize.
• Note that new version does not use universally.
• I'm not interpreting what Nobel Foundation thinks, Bishop is doing that and he says that the Nobel Foundation is accepting perception of NPiE as a Nobel Prize without protest. What I am interpreting is that NPiE is listed as a Nobel Prize on the front page of the official site of the Nobel Foundation. We don't have to be more Catholic than the Pope.
• That the Swedish Central Bank established the prize is relevant, what is not relevant is that it was established on its 300th anniversary. -- Vision Thing -- 18:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For all reasons, including the sources which were provided, I think this version is the most neutral:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, often unoffically referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics",^[32] is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics. The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics.^[33] Although it is often perceived as a Nobel Prize,^[34][35][36] it is not a Nobel Prize but rather a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel.^[11] The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) in 1968, and first awarded in 1969. The economics laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the Swedish monarch at the December 10 ceremony in Stockholm with the laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature. The prize is administered by the Nobel Foundation and the Swedish Central Bank provides the cash award for it.^[8]

Bye bye. Miguelzinho 23:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

• Besides a minor spelling and grammatical error, the above version is missing several important references and facts, and the last sentence is misleading, as Lensor has already pointed out.
• Re: comments by Vision Thing. My version above doesn't violate WP:MOS#First sentences as there is no requirement that the title of the article must be in the first sentence. Anyway, the version below contains the Nobel Prize name in the first sentence. Also, it is actually very relevant to point out that the prize was established on Sverige Riksbank's 300th anniversary since if it hadn't been their 300th anniversary, we don't know if they would have established the prize. It is also always mentioned on both Sverige Riksbank's and the Nobel Foundation's websites.

Below is another version:

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Swedish: Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne), often unofficially referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics",^[37] is awarded each year for outstanding contributions in the field of economics that "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind."^[21] The prize is generally considered the most prestigious honor in economics.^[38] Although it is often perceived to be a Nobel Prize,^[39][38] it is not a Nobel Prize^[11][20] but rather a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. ^[12] The prize was established by Sveriges Riksbank (the central bank of Sweden) on its 300th anniversary in 1968, and first awarded in 1969.^[23][24][40] The Economics Laureates are selected by the Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,^[8] and they receive their diploma and gold medal from the King of Sweden at the prize award ceremony in Stockholm on December 10, with the Nobel Laureates in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, and literature.^[26] Sveriges Riksbank pays for the cash award,^[8] which has been 10 million Swedish kronor (Oct 2007: approximately 1 million Euro) since 2001,^[17] and the Nobel Foundation's administrative expenses associated with the prize.^[8]

–panda 06:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Miguelzinho 18:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Prize is not " often unofficially referred to as..." but "commonly called" just as the source at the end of the sentence says. Also, it is not "often perceived" but "universally perceived", again per source. In short you are abusing sources to accommodate your POV. -- Vision Thing -- 17:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, a lot of things happened over the weekend.. I am not too sure of the intro as it currently stands. To me it reads like a wordier and more "snide" version of Panda's suggested intro. Especially that it now says that the Economics prize is specifically not to those who "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind". Is that not more than a bit rude, not to mention probably false? After all, Svenska Riksbanken did institute the Prize to be given in the same way as the Nobel Prizes. --Lensor 17:48, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting mediation

I am really discouraged that this the same points are still being argued here and that the dispute has been continuing without interruption since the requested move. At this point, I think it might be a good idea to file a request for mediation, if the editors here are willing to accept it. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was advised to file a WP:RFC if the opposing parties didn't start talking with each other but it looks like everyone is doing so now. So unless someone else thinks there is a need for a WP:RFM, it looks like that might be too hasty. –panda 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was once participant in mediation and it was total waste of time. Mediator was of no use at all, and case was just closed due to inactivity. -- Vision Thing -- 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page name

I've moved the article to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" for now because we know there is no consensus for "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences," which is unfamiliar to many English speakers. I think there are several advantages to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences," which Panda proposed as a good faith compromise at Template talk:Nobel Prize in Economics. It includes the name "Nobel," so is recognizable to English speakers, but it correctly conveys that the award is different from the regular "Nobel Prizes"; it's a "Memorial Prize." This title also has the advantage of being the de facto official English short form.

In any case, I think there's a good chance for a practical consensus under this title (see WP:PRACTICAL), much more so than "Sveriges Riksbank Prize," at any rate. Cool Hand Luke 23:38, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

That's okay with me. I've had trouble getting the precise name of the prize to post for this article. "Nobel Prize in Economics" perpetuates a misnomer. "Memorial" is important in the name of what the Nobel Foundation itself refers to as "The Prize in Economics" in its descriptions of it, as well as by its full correct name. I prefer its exact full name "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" but it would not post, perhaps because of previous editing changes to the name. There are plenty of prizes and awards that have their proper names in Wikipedia, but this one won't post (currently). --NYScholar 23:45, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the name. Just wanted to point out that there are a ton of redirects that need fixing. –panda 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

No less than 58 redirects for this article. Amazing... They're all fixed now, I hope. –panda 00:13, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why have you disregarded the many past discussions about this subject? What justifies this move? --Uriel 00:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no past consensus, but discussions show not even majority support for "Sveriges Riksbank Prize...", so the article couldn't stay there. Rather that simply revert NYScholar, I thought I'd move the article to an actual compromise which considers the concerns of people like NYScholar, but is also very recognizable to English speakers. Cool Hand Luke 00:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And you're right. Should have handled as RM. See below. Cool Hand Luke 01:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am fine with Luke's editing changes and with those of Panda relating to the name change. (I had read the previous discussions about the name of the article. "Nobel Prize in Economics" was inaccurate and perpetuated a misnomer. I have generally agreed with Panda's position on the matter of the name.) --NYScholar 01:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [added sentence in prev. edit; sorry for typographical corrs. (tc) needed. Updated. --NYScholar 01:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Compromise move

[edit] RfC

Current intro says that the Nobel Prize in Economics is currently "often unofficially referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics"" while the reliable sources which were removed say "commonly called" and "universally perceived as". According to articles in Britannica, Encarta, front page of the Nobel Foundation website, and some others reliable sources Nobel Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize. However, according to two articles on the Nobel Foundation website (1, 2) this is not a Nobel Prize but a "prize in memory of Alfred Nobel". Should the introduction of the article promote "the truth" that this a not a Nobel Prize or should it be based on verifiability? Does the current intro satisfy NPOV? -- Vision Thing -- 10:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica says "These prizes as established by his will are the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, the Nobel Prize for Literature, and the Nobel Prize for Peace." (no mention of economics) it also says "An additional award" (note: not "an additional Nobel prize") so I don't understand how you can interpret that to that there is an actual Nobale Prize in economics. The Nobel Foundation is quite clear on the subject. I dpn't see how "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."[65] can be interpreted that it is a Nobel Prize. The article should based on verifiability and in this case both the truth and what is verifiable is the same thing. // Liftarn

Britannica right at the beginning of the article says: "any of the prizes (five in number until 1969, when a sixth was added)", also see their Guide to the Nobel Prizes. -- Vision Thing -- 11:11, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The (conveniently ommitted) end of that sentence reads: "that are awarded annually from a fund bequeathed for that purpose by the Swedish inventor and industrialist Alfred Bernhard Nobel". As the economics prize is not paid by the fund, even your own references dont support the notion that it is a Nobel Prize.--Lensor 11:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Why do you call it "the truth", as if it was up to debate? It is the undeniable truth that it is a not a Nobel Prize, no ifs or buts whatsoever. Nowhere on the Nobel foundation website is the prize called "Nobel Prize in Economics", on the contrary, every single mention of the prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" or in short "Prize in Economics". So the most reliable source of all say it is not a Nobel Prize. Then it dont matter if foreign (compared to Sweden that is) encyclopedia out of convenience lump all the prizes under the "Nobel Prize" tag. One should also realize that the encyclopedias you mention do not have separate entries for the individual prizes, so they quite frankly do not have the space to go into detail about the economics prize (even so, they do say that the prize was a later addition and "not technically a Nobel prize"). Wikipedia do not have this limitation, and therefore do not have an excuse to being "lazy". However, I agree that the current intro version reads non-NPOV to me. Especially the part about the economics prize specifically not being given to those who "have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind", in contrast to the other prizes. Both rude as well as incorrect as The Royal Academy is supposed to give the prize under the same premises as the Nobel Prizes are given. The details on what weasel words (if any) to use is a smaller point. "Commonly" is verifiable, as is "often", whereas "universal" is not. This due to the very definition of the word "universal" (see above) which makes that word obviously untrue even if you can find a single source who say that it is.--Lensor 11:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• There are three verifiable references in the text that support that the econ prize is not a Nobel Prize: (1) from the Nobel Foundation, (2) from the Secretary of the Prize Committee that selects the candidates for the prize, and (3) from "A Beautiful Mind", on p 358 of Syvia Naasar's book about John Nash: "It is, in fact, not a Nobel Prize, but rather "The Central Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel." At least two of these references are more authoritative references than Encarta or Encyclopaedia Britannica.
• The Nobel Foundation never states that it is a Nobel Prize, they only group the econ prize with the Nobel Prizes. It's WP:OR to assume that grouping makes it a Nobel Prize, especially when they make it clear elsewhere that it isn't.
• There is an article about Wikipedia:Errors in the Encyclopædia Britannica that have been corrected in Wikipedia. This error should be added to the list.
• The article does/did make it clear that the prize is often considered to be a Nobel Prize, which is what Vision Thing's references support, but that it is not a Noble Prize. So it satisfies WP:NPOV.

–panda 16:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

• Comments about what the Encyclopaedia Britannica states are misleading: Here is the direct quotation from the source, cited in note 1 of the lead currently; keep in mind that that source relies on the official website of the Nobel Foundation for its information because that website is the most authoritative source for information about the five Nobel Prizes and the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel:

“

In the will he drafted in 1895, Nobel instructed that most of his fortune be set aside as a fund for the awarding of five annual prizes "to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind." These prizes as established by his will are the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, the Nobel Prize for Literature, and the Nobel Prize for Peace. The first distribution of the prizes took place on Dec. 10, 1901, the fifth anniversary of Nobel's death. An additional award, the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was established in 1968 by the Bank of Sweden and was first awarded in 1969. Although not technically a Nobel Prize, it is identified with the award; its winners are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients, and the Prize in Economic Sciences is presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony.

”

--NYScholar 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article lead is currently consistent with that source and with the official website of the Nobel Foundation, from which that Encylopedia draws. The online encyclopedia Encarta is not as reliable a source. The statements in the lead are documented with reliable and verifiable sources, following WP:V#Sources. Self-published websites and wikis cannot be used as sources in Wikipedia articles; special criteria pertain with regard to still-living Nobel Laureates and Laureates in Economics: WP:BLP#Sources. --NYScholar 03:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It appears that whoever first took the material from Britannica may have left some quotation marks off; more quotation marks may have been or still be needed to avoid the appearance of plagiarism from that site. Again, the information from Britannica comes from the Nobel Foundation website; these are established facts about the Prize in Economics; it is not a "Nobel Prize" per se; it is a prize established not by the will of Alfred Nobel (the definition of a "Nobel Prize"); it is a prize established by a bank in his memory; thus, it is a "memorial" prize, not a "Nobel Prize". Newspaper article headlines may use "Nobel prize in economics" as shorthand, but the first paragraph or lead of such articles and press releases tend to identify the Prize in Economics properly to make clear what they are talking about; one does not consider a "newspaper headline" a definitive authoritative verifiable account; the whole source (the article) is the account that one reads to verify the information in it. Headlines are attention grabbers and often inaccurate and generally not written by the writers of the articles themselves. --NYScholar 04:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From Q&A posted by Peter Englund, who is listed as the "Science Editor" for the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences website, as featured on the nobelprize.org (Nobel Foundation) official website, and as cited as source in the Wikipedia article (current version):

“

Question: Sir, Why this Prize is not recognized as Nobel Prize in Economics? Does the Committee treat Economics as a field of basic science as they treat Physics, Chemistry and Medicine? Answer [Englund]: The Nobel Prizes are only those that are specifically mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace). The Economics Prize came much later and is a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. In all relevant respects the committee understands and treats economics as a field of science. [Italics and bold print added.]

”

--NYScholar 04:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [Updated descr. of Englund from site added in "Exernal links" sec. --NYScholar 04:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]

Info: one Peter Englund is "Member of the Prize Committee for the Prize in Economic Sciences to the Memory of Alfred Nobel 1993 - 1995. Secretary of the Prize Committee 1996-97, 2002- " according to his CV linked on his website. He is obviously more relevantly a member of the Economics Prize Committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. I don't know if this is He is not the same Peter Englund who is stated to be a member of the Swedish Academy in [linked] Wikipedia article. The Swedish Academy chooses the Nobel Laureates in Literature. Englund's CV listing him as a member of the Economics Prize Committee says that he is a Finance professor at the Stockholm School of Economics. --NYScholar 04:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) There may be two [or three?] different Peter Englunds(?). [Updated. --NYScholar 04:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)] [updated; clarifications. --NYScholar 03:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]

"Not technically" a "Nobel Prize" and being "identified with" the five Nobel Prizes is obviously not the same thing as being a "Nobel Prize"; Britannica is quite clear: plenty of things are "identified with" other things that are not "identified as" the same as those other things; it is a matter of the Prize in Economics being given "in the context" (at the same award ceremony) as the five Nobel Prizes and being (almost) as prestigious (though not equally prestigious for many observers); yet, it is still considered (socially and professionally) to be the most prestigious prize one can receive in economics and the fields of the economic sciences (as expanded) [for non-Americans over forty: I replaced previously-excised pertinent content in lead relating to the Clark Medal [correction of my typographical error here]. The current article's lead tries to make these points clear, and I believe that it does so. It seems absurd to run counter to reality and to name the article misleadingly "Nobel Prize in Economics". It perpetuates a mistaken notion about the Prize in Economics that Wikipedia, an encylopedia, not an opinion mill, should try to correct. --NYScholar 04:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [updated w/ respect to recent addition. --NYScholar 06:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)][corrected my typographical error above. --NYScholar 03:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)] The sources currently in the article do verify the statements that the Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize per se and that it has been commonly misreferred to as such ["identified with" the Nobel Prizes], while it is not actually one. The core editing principle in Wikipedia is WP:V, which the lead upholds by providing reliable and verifiable sources for its statements (source citations in notes). --NYScholar 04:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [Added direct quotations in the lead and in the source citation. --NYScholar 04:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]

[edit] Update: Consensus for Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

I may have missed CoolHand Luke's rationale for prior change; unfortunately, it was changed to "Nobel prize in Economics" with no consensus for doing so. "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" seems to be current consensus. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is a misnomer and its inaccuracy should not be perpetuated by Wikipedia. The "support" exceeds the lack of support for this change of name. Authoritative reliable and verifiable sources in the text of the article and the official Nobel Foundation website and most news accounts support it. I changed some of the links in Nobel Prize which had been altered without consensus to the proper names and links. --NYScholar 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See earlier sections on the Request for Move and following discussion. A small minority with lack of authoritative sources or convincing interpretations of Wikipedia policies cited favors "Nobel Prize in Economics" as the name of the article; a greater number of editors citing more authoritative sources and Wikipedia policies support the move to "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". If Coolhand Luke et al. prefer "Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", I would do so too. (I actually prefer that over "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" and over "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" [Added: though of the two, I am uncertain of which is better for Wikipedia to use as the name]; but I prefer all three over "Nobel Prize in Economics", which is just plain inaccurate. See above Request and discussion. --NYScholar 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [updated; links added. --NYScholar 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]

Given Cool Hand Luke's intention (and assuming his good faith [which I believe is the case]: WP:AGF), I've restored Nobel Prize in Economics as the title of the article (temporarily as he suggests) while the process to achieve consensus on the name of the article is apparently ongoing. (How do we know when it is completed?) --NYScholar 02:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [added link. Updated. --NYScholar 02:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]

As noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, proposals are usually handled after five days (although there is a backlog at the moment). They fall to the bottom of the "other proposals" list and then someone uninvolved takes care of them. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for reply; I had just returned to post that I was informed that "An admin will close the RM debate after 5 days" also in answer to the same question. --NYScholar 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template?

That template (Template:Lame) is literally a joke; it is not factually accurate: is there anything to verify that this particular article's editing war is among the "lamest" in the "history" of Wikipedia? Hard to believe. See the message linked via the template (Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars): "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose." So why include it? There may be a more accurate template; the talk header gives appropriate guidance. If there is a more factually-accurate editing war template for a talk page, could you substitute that? This one reeks of POV (a comment on people's views in the edit warring process [which some, lacking the requisite sense of humor, could take offense at]). Some more serious warning would be warranted if one is really concerned about avoiding further edit warring (like this particular disagreement about the usefulness and viability of this "joke" template. ;-) ). --NYScholar 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC) [It really doesn't meet the "addition guide" here? There are serious discussions ongoing about the name of the article of what is, for most people, a really important subject relating to Nobel Prizes. --NYScholar 07:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)]

WP:V doesn't apply to talk pages. Otherwise, we would have a hard time finding sources to rate the articles. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The {{lame}} template isn't that big of a deal. The edit war about the title of this article is in fact listed in WP:LAME, and it's been referred to in a few of the previous threads here. If you're having a bad day, it's a good page to read, especially the hilarious entries about the "Cat" and "Cow tipping" articles. For some of the editors here, they could use the direct link... –panda 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict): The article is only listed because this template is on its talk page. --NYScholar 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't refer to WP:V; I referred to the very addition guide on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars#Addition guide [its spirit/principles]; this template will not deter edit warring; it didn't deter the reverting of the deletion of the template! It's a stupid template. --NYScholar 07:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

For the curious:

• 12:56, 9 October 2007: article added to WP:LAME by an uninvolved editor
• 13:09, 9 October 2007: {{humorous}} template added, intended to refer to its WP:LAME listing
• 16:43, 9 October 2007: template {{lame}} recreated (deleted 22:29, 2 October 2006)
• 16:47, 9 October 2007: template changed to {{lame}}
• 18:19, 26 October 2007: text modified in WP:LAME by one of the warring editors
• 10:06, 14 November 2007: {{lame}} template listed for deletion since it is considered disruptive because of this thread (listed by the original uninvolved editor who added this article to WP:LAME) ← That's funny!

None of the editors here have cared much about it. But if someone thinks it shouldn't be listed in WP:LAME, you can always post a comment in Wikipedia talk:Lamest edit wars where others have discussed removing articles that shouldn't be listed. –panda 16:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

p.s. Vote to delete the {{lame}} template if you think it should be deleted (again). –panda 19:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the above comments are not in keeping with discussing making improvements to this article. The proposal to change its name is a serious proposal; I would prefer that you remove the lame template; whether or not you or someone else listed this article in Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars some time ago is not relevant to the current discussion about the name change. Most of us commenting on changing the name from "Nobel Prize in Economics" to one of the other proposed names ("Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences"; "Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel"; or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" have been taking time to discuss the serious rationales for the name change. To post a template that suggests otherwise and mocks the discussion currently going on (in which Panda him/herself has participated) is off the topic of improving the article. I added the talkheader template at the top of this page because it appears to be needed. Please delete the lame template that you added recently. I removed it because a serious discussion is ongoing and it detracts from that fact. (Who added this article to the lamest editing wars page and when? It is not easy to find that out via the editing history, which is very long.) --NYScholar 03:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC) [The user who added it: ";Nobel Prize in Economics : should this article (and other articles and templates that mention this award) use the common name of the award, or the official name, Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel? The debate has involved endless discussions, requested moves, revert wars, blocks, and more." also is a user who requests deletion of this template from Wikipedia (and from this talk page). I added my vote for deletion. --NYScholar 04:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)]

Hello, I'm the user who added this topic to WP:LAME, but as you can see I oppose the template. First, let me say that I don't mean that the topic is not serious or that the people discussing it are not serious. Seriously, I do have a position regarding the title of this article, but we can leave that for later. That said, I do think that if one looks at the debate from a distance, one can look at it humorously and wonder how such a long and sometimes visceral controversy can arise over the name of an article. Put in the context of WP:LAME, I thought it fit well with the other examples on the list, which often also involve serious and well-meaning disputes, but that seem to disproportionately long and bitter. However, I don't think adding a template to this page labeling it as a Lame War helps, but rather disrupts, because it insults the parties involved. Listing it at WP:LAME is different IMO, because that page is meant to be humorous, and read when one is in a mood for humor (I hope). --Itub 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Persistent reverting

There is no "consensus" for the changes as claimed in the edit summary provided by Vision in his/her continual reversions of my edits. Those changes are actually counter to consensus. Scroll up to earlier discussions; his/her position is a minority POV on the matters, and s/he has been deleting properly-sourced verifiable information from the lead in favor of his/her (singular) position. That is not in keeping with WP:V#Sources either, and it violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:NOR. I've added the "controversy" template; please see the material linked via it. Thank you. --NYScholar 08:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yesterday I made four "major" edits:

1) – I removed "in the mass media" which is original research and added a source for statement "commonly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics"".

2) – I removed mention of "John Bates Clark Medal" (which is unsourced) per previous discussion with Lensor and Panda, who both agreed with not mentioning it [66] [67].

3) – I removed two additional names for the prize and one for the Bank of Sweden since I felt that they are overcrowding the intro.

4) – I removed attribution of the fact that criteria for awarding this prize is same as for the rest.

I would like explanation from NYScholar and Lifran why are these edits POV and OR. -- Vision Thing -- 09:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest you also edited in the word "original" when talking about the econ prize in comparison with the Nobel Prizes, pushing the POV that the Econ prize is in fact a Nobel Prize, so it was not quite as uncontroversial edits as you pretend [68]. However, I must agree with Vision Thing on most of his other edits on this occation.

• The prize is not referred to as a "Nobel Prize" only in the mass media, actually it is almost the countrary; The mass media has become better and better at using the correct name whereas the misnomer is still used among the "people".
• I agree that the mention of the John Bates Clark Medal does feel out of place, at least for the introduction. It could be added in another section though.
• I agree that there is no need for a pile of different names already in the introduction. The proper official name, its Swedish translation, and the misnomer "Nobel Prize in Economics" is quite sufficient. There is a whole section devoted to the multitude of names further down, to put them all in the introduction just creates clutter.
• I can agree that the specifics about what Assar Lindbeck has said might not be relevant, at least not for the introduction. It is better suited for the Award Process section in my opinion. --Lensor 12:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Assar Lindbeck in the preface of "Nobel Lectures: Economic Sciences" (1999) says: "The award, established on the basis of an economic commitment by the bank in perpetuity, is given by the Royal Academy of Sciences according to the same principles and rules as the original Nobel Prizes." (emphasis mine) -- Vision Thing -- 15:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

After considering above comments, I've performed some clean up of citations format throughout some of the article; added an infobox; provided updated info. in the lead, and so on. Most are minor edits. I think that they are in keeping with general consensus throughout recent comments (scroll up and see editing summaries in editing history). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that the also very common names for this Prize (including the ones used by the official organizations involved in awarding and presenting it) do belong in the lead, as an aid to those who are searching for it via the various common names. The most-informed people will know that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not the proper name for the Prize in Economics/Prize in Economic Sciences/Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, etc. and be searching for it via one or other of these various (more proper names); therefore, having them in the lead is useful for most readers. An advantage is that pieces of the lead show up in search engines and move the entry to the top of those searches as well. Try to maintain Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and think of readers. Much earlier versions of this lead were far more cluttered than the current version, which has the advantage of factual accuracy from authoritative and verifiable sources. --NYScholar (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• I will kindly ask Vision Thing to not make up stories about what others have said. I never agreed that the John Bates Clark Medal shouldn't be added to the intro. If you need a reference to substantiate the prestige of the JBC Medal, here's two:

1. Instituted in 1947 by the American Economic Association and awarded every second year to a promising young economist - i.e. "to that American economist under the age of forty who is adjudged to have made a significant contribution to economic thought and knowledge". Named after early Neoclassical economist, John Bates Clark, it is widely considered to be the profession's most coveted award -- exceeding, perhaps, even the Nobel Memorial Prize in prestige. (History of Economic Thought)
2. His abundant accolades include the John Bates Clark Medal, awarded biannually to an outstanding economist under the age of 40 — a distinction said to be predictive of, and perhaps even more prestigious than, receipt of the Nobel in economic science.. (NY Times)

Also, I've noticed that the JBC medal isn't just for Americans, e.g., David Card (1995 JBC Medal, Canadian, permanent US resident).

• I don't understand why Vision Thing now doesn't want info about how the prize is awarded using the same principles as the Nobel Prizes since this was acceptable before. (Two examples of text VT reverted to that contained this info: 18:40, 25 October 2007, 20:15, 16 October 2007) So it seems that VT is edit warring just for the sakes of edit warring.
• Considering how many times Vision Thing has reverted other's edits and removed citations without explanation (the long history can be seen both here and in Talk:Nobel Prize), it's interesting that VT expects better treatment than what he's been giving to other editors.

–panda (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see John Bates Clark Medal, now listed in the "See also" section; an "American economist" according to its award procedure may be an economist who resides in the United States and works there so as to be considered an "American economist" (one who works as an economist in America); American residency rather than American citizenship may be the criterion. Please check into that if it interests you. A link in "See also" probably suffices for this article; the lead makes clear that the Prize in Economics is "one of the most prestigious awards" not necessarily "the most" prestigious award in economics. --NYScholar (talk) 09:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The American residency requirement should probably be clarified in the John Bates Clark Medal article since it's not obvious there. –panda (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

• Panda, I see that you are fascinated by me, but keep in mind AGF when posting comments. I didn't remove part about same principles but just an attribution to Assar Lindbeck. He was a chairman of the Economics Prize Committee and his views are just as official as those of Peter Englund. -- Vision Thing -- 15:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Read what you wrote: "I removed attribution of the fact that criteria for awarding this prize is same as for the rest." And you had an incorrect link earlier, that you just fixed. So my comment was in reference to your previous comment. Try keeping in mind AGF yourself when posting comments. –panda (talk) 15:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the attribution, not the fact. I'm tempted to ask how I'm not assuming good faith here, but I won't since talk page should be used only for discussion about the article, and not about the editors. -- Vision Thing -- 16:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What Nobelprize.org say about the name...

A few months ago I sent an email to the people at Nobelprize.org and asked them what the official short name is (I couldnt be bothered to read or enter the heated debate above). Here is their late reply (I've replaced names with XXXX):

Dear XXXX, Many appologies for the very late response to your question. The official short name for The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred is The Prize in Economics. Yours sincerely, XXXX Executive Editor Nobelprize.org

Their official short name is hardly useful but it shows it should not be referred to as a Nobel prize. I can see the title has already been changed to "Nobel memorial..." so I hope this helps to keep it from being changed back to "Nobel prize...". Albinth (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think we assumed that they disliked calling it a Nobel Prize. I hope this has been settled. See #Compromise move. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)