This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Mathematicians winning Nobel Prizes
I think it is wrong to call Andrew Fire a "mathematician". He only has a B.A. in mathematics. Even Max Born and Walter Bother were always physicists, even if they were both accomplished mathematicians, especially Born. One credible case in the list of mathematicians winning the Nobel Prize is John Nash, who was truly a mathematician; in fact his discoveries in pure mathematics are regarded by mathematicians to be more accomplished than his discovery in game theory, which after all constituted only a minor part of his career. Other credible cases are Russell, Aumann and Arrow. I think the article should reflect the above points. Ashujo, March 14, 2007
Be WP:BOLD and edit the article. If someone disagrees, they will hopefully comment on your edits here. –panda (talk) 08:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
John Nash won the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" which is not o Nobel prize so even though his contributions to Mathematics are impressive he is not in the category of mathematicians that won a Nobel prize.
Why is Wolfgang Ketterle singled out for being an exception in the "Time lag" section? "However, there is one exception in the history: Wolfgang Ketterle from MIT won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2001 on a paper he published in 1995 [1]; Ketterle was recognized only six years after his reaching absolute nano-Kevin temperature." I don't think he is the only one this is true of; Bednorz and Muller, von Klitzing, and K.G. Wilson, to name a few, also won the prize in physics within a few years of the contributions for which it was awarded.130.113.172.200 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Nobel funding in 2007 US dollars
I've changed the existing statement that the Nobel prize money was only 114 million 2007 US dollars. The details of the calculation are in Alfred Nobel discussion. People could argue until the cows come home and leave again how to make that historical conversion, but saying it's several hundred million is almost certainly conservative. To give a "gut" feel, this man was incredibly rich. He was the largest shareholder in the Branobel oil company, which at one point was producing 50% of the oil in the world! I.e., think billions, not a hundred million.
Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 01:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Wolf Prize in Mathematics
On criticism section, there's noted that mathematics has no Nobel Prize. The list does not contain Wolf Prize in Mathematics, which I will add to the list. 86.50.9.167 (talk) 20:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Article doesn't mention Al Gore
Al Gore recently received the Nobel Peace Prize, but the article doesn't mention him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knightskye (talk • contribs) 06:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Why should it? It is about the prize, not Al Gore. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The "Nobel Prize medals" section has some very interesting notes on the medals themselves, such as what they are made of... however I can find no mention of the physical size of the Nobel Prize medal. What are the physical dimensions? diameter? thickness? Azoreg (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
To quote the Nobel Prize website: "each weighing approximately 200 g and with a diameter of 66 mm [...] made of 18-karat green gold plated with 24-karat gold."G913 (talk) 01:23, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Focus of Nobel Prize
I've reworded the section here Nobel Prize#Emphasis on Discoveries over Inventions because IMHO it is an inaccurate summation. In the opinion of the two authors of the studies mentioned, the focus on discovieries over inventions moves the prize away from it's purpose. However no evidence is provided that this opinion is widely held. Most likely, in the opinion of the Nobel Prize foundation and probably quite a lot of other scientists, they are still fulfilling the intention of the prize and the reason for the discrepency is because significant discoveries usually have far more profound effects then inventions and so they are still "rewarding the greatest contribution to society in the preceding year". (Of course, whether editors agree with view is irrelevant.) Note that no where in the will does it say Nobel expects these to be 50/50 split. Nil Einne (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
"In his one-page testament, he stipulated that the money go to discoveries or inventions in the physical sciences and to discoveries or improvements in chemistry. He had opened the door to technological awards, but had not left instructions on how to deal with the distinction between science and technology. Since the deciding bodies he had chosen were more concerned with the former, it is not surprising that the prizes went to scientists and not to engineers, technicians or other inventors. In a sense, the technological prizes announced recently by the World Technology Network (not funded by the Nobel foundation) indirectly fill this gap." from the Alfred Nobel page, while unsourced may be relevant here Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Why do searches for "NobLE" prizes get rerouted here?
I wish strongly to protest that wikipedia reroutes "Noble Prize" to this page about "Nobel Prizes". I sought the Alfred Noble Prize, not Nobels. I had given up, and gone to google, and found wiki's Noble prize page there. It SHOULD have been findable from WITHIN wiki. Even if users seeking the Nobels mistype "Noble" and so arrive at the Noble prize page, that page will inform them that seekers of Nobels have erred, and they will thus learn that they were not spelling correctly, and will change, rather than have their ignorance seamlessly reinforced by a wiki-engine that makes "the correction" "for them", while users genuinely seeking Noble prizes (who are stymied by wiki's "correction" being made "for them") will actually find the Noble page they seek. By alleviating the adverse consequences of not being correct and precise, you fail to cultivate a community of users who gradually become correct and precise. 64.131.188.183 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson
Instead of complaining, you could always edit the redirect page yourself.--CodeGeneratR (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Not everybody is aware of the Noble Prize, so for anyone who is not aware, it seems a relevant redirect against mispelling. Quite old question though… As suggested by CodeGeneratR you'd better have edited it yourself. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
How is grant given if more than one winner?
It isn't quite clear from the article whether, in the case where there is more than one winner in a category, the grant is shared or does each winner get the full grant. So if there are three winners is 1.5million given to each winner?
The prize is divided amongst the winners. How it is divided depends. If 3 persons win the prize that prize can either be given equally with one third to each person, or it can be given one half to one person, and one quarter each to the other two. It is decided on a case by case basis, with the giving insitutions weighing how much each person have contributed.G913 (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
For two laureates they always get one-half each. For three laureates (the maximum) two cases are possible - each get one-third, or one gets one-half and two get one-quarter each. The second case happens when a prize is given for two discoveries, but where two laureates share the credit for one discovery and one laureate is alone for the other one. The mathematics never gets more complicated than this. The prize announcements spell out the shares fairly clearly, with small pie chart diagrams on their webpage. The 2008 Physics Prize is an example of a 1/2 - 1/4 - 1/4 prize, while the 2004 Physics Prize is an example of a 1/3 - 1/3 - 1/3 prize. Tomas e (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
looking for last man
i want to know last man who was awarded by nobel prize —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.72.243.134 (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
The prize is still being awarded, so there are no 'last winner'. But if you mean the latest winners of the prize you should check out the 2008 laurets on the List of Nobel laureates.G913 (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
The prizes are generally announced in early October each year. For example, the press conference for the 2009 Physics Nobel Prize has already been scheduled for October 6, 2009. Tomas e (talk) 13:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Sections
Why is there a "Ceremony" section at the top, and an "Award ceremonies" section later? They seem to be about the same thing... Shreevatsa (talk) 21:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Economics Nobel
This article implies there is a Nobel prize for Economics, there is not, there is only the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel which was inaugerated in 1968. This is not a Nobel prize, and was not mentioned in his will. It has nothing to do with Alfred Nobel except by the attempt at association with the Nobel Prizes. I propose that mention of this prize is removed from the article to avoid confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.183.34 (talk) 15:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
Why "2009 Peace Prize" part was removed for Cristisim section??
Why this section titled "2009 Peace Prize to U.S. President Barack Obama" (check it on this history link) was removed from the "Controversies and criticisms"?? Isn't it a HUGE controversy!!?
--M.shady (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I've checked the article history, & it seems like the change was done by a onetime editor who never checked the talk page again, I'll be adding the session again just as soon as I have time.. I think Recentism is not enough issue to delete a section, is it? Please if I need validation, reply :) --M.shady (talk) 05:22, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobel Peace Prize Article Omits Obama Criterion
What is missing in the article as it pertains to President Barack Obama, is that he in fact, was awarded based in great part on his quest for nuclear disarmament. It lacks crediting him with "the most sweeping" nuclear arms proliferation legislation in U.S. History. It also misses the point that criticism of his award is cloaked in staunch partisan opposition. Furthermore, what is also critical is that with reference to opposition, it is evident that most individuals do not understand the nominating and selection process of the Nobel Prizes, specifically those who believed that President Obama was selected for 12 days of work as President of the United States (they do not take into account Obama's legislative efforts as a Senator and several years of work for world peace and nuclear proliferation).
Deborah Grimes
The Sacramento Observer Newspapers —Preceding unsigned comment added by
98.208.102.246 (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
It's probably fair to say that if Barack Obama hadn't been elected as President of the USA, his "legislative efforts as a Senator and several years of work for world peace and nuclear proliferation" probably weren't sufficient to get him nominated. In fact, the continued atomic efforts of N. Korea and Iran imply that his "efforts" and "work" have been insufficient and misdirected. It seems more likely that, in spite of what they've cited as their reasons, the Nobel committee awarded President Obama the prize to try to influence his decision about whether to commit 40,000 more American troops to Afghanistan—just like they awarded prizes to Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, and Yasser Arafat to try to influence them to end the conflicts in the Middle East (a gesture which failed miserably). Obama has acknowledged this himself:
"Throughout history, the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honor specific achievement. It's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes," he said. "And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action — a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century." (source)
Overlooked Scientist
Seymour Benzer made huge contributions to the study of genetics and some feel that he should've been awarded a Nobel Prize for Medicine. (source)
Norway/SwitzerlandSweden
Could there be a clarification as to why all prizes aside from the Peace prize are given in Switzerland, while the Peace prize is given in Norway? And don't say because the selection committee is in Norway. Why is it in Norway in the first place?--RossF18 (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You mean Sweden not Switzerland! --Bduke(Discussion) 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I mean Sweden not Switzerland. Good catch. The question still stands. Why Norway v. Sweden for the Peace prize?--RossF18 (talk) 02:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
The Swedish/Norwegian Union flagI have heard that Alfred Nobel not fully trusted the Swedish goverment, but I'm not sure. Also there is the thing that Sweden and Norway was a union when Alfred was alive.--Christoffre (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Criticism of Obama's awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't belong there, it belongs in the controversy section. I'll delete that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.151.84 (talk) 05:08, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Nobel Prize as a foreign policy tool.
In the section "Controversies and Criticisms", a reference to its political implications is missed, concerning the Literature and Peace Nobel Prizes. These implications were pretty evident during the Cold War era. Moreover, fairness would have it to acknowledge the coincidence between the Prize's political orientation and timing and Swedish/Scandinavian foreign policy priorities. While this could be largely coincidental, or completely logical inasmuch as one can assume natural like-mindedness between Nobel committees and Scandinavian policy-makers, the last two Nobel Peace Prizes can be seen as particularly politically-targeted, and have been subject, for this reason, to heavy criticism in some parts of the world. Maremon (talk) 19:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
"Some parts of the world" is meaningless. We need the who and the where, and some backup for the assertion of "heavy". --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Nobel prize far less respected than in the past
Wikipedia looks silly when it becomes a tool of international leftism and refuses to admit how nearly every Nobel prize is now given as a political statement, a constant reaffirmation of the dogma of intolerant international leftism.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.109.145.28 (talk • contribs)
I invite the reader to compare this blatant slander with the rational posting by the editor who had the courage to post non-anonymously just above this. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
Make this page better.
This page should be a "Good" article at least. If possible it should be a "FEATURED" article since it is quite important. How should we do this?
- Add a list of recent persons being awarded the nobel prize in the different catagories.
- Add structure to the page
Anybody else got some suggestions?Esuzu 15:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Making this page better
Have added 2 part to the intro section of info that I think you should know about the Nobel Prize before you read the whole article. Also the info now leaves you knowing more than before. If anybody feels something is missing in the intro write it here! Esuzu 16:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
New Categorization
I've made this as a suggestion of how this page could look since the current look is far too confusing. Please comment if you have any ideas.
1. Intro
2. History (Founding, Will, )
3. Awarding Process (Nomination + Guidelines for Selection/Nomi, Selection, Announcement)
4. Award Ceremony ( Banquet, NightCap, )
5. Prizes (Medals, Diploma, Sum of Money)
6. Controversies and Criticism ( Overlooked, lack of nobel prize in mathematics, emphasis on discoveries over inventions)
7. Specifically Distinguished laureates (Multiple, Family, Refusals, Constraints)
I would like to write something about the Nobel Prize's recent history but I can't really find any links that are good. Overall there is basically only the nobelprize.org site I have found which has good info on this article. Do anybody know more links? Esuzu 16:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
GAN nomination
Hi, I came across this article whilst fixing the nomination and article history. Looking over the article I feel I must say it is not well written, in fact the prose is very poor, ungrammatical, inconsistent in tense. Please enlist the help of someone to thoroughly copy-edit it otherwise it will undoubtedly fail again. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, but why not be bold and fix it when you see it? Esuzu 13:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
You want me to rewrite the entire article? Sorry, but I do have other things to do, such as GA reviewing, GA Sweeps, WP:EAR, a peer review and a featured article review. I have no particular interest in the topic, but thought I should point out a glaring fault with the article when I saw it. You may be able to get help at the Guild of Copy Editors. Cheers. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up anyway. Is there any more concrete you could tell of the problems you've encountered? Esuzu 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
Yes:
Consistency in tense, e.g. In 1968 Sveriges Riksbank celebrated it's 300th anniversary thus being the world's oldest central bank
English grammar, e.g. In its first stage nomination forms is sent , The deadline for the return of the nomination forms is 31 January the next year, that is, the same year the prize is awarded.
Abbreviations such as wasn't
One sentence sections, .e.g Awarding Process
Lead should fully summarize the article, read WP:LEAD
Whole article needs a thorough copy-edit to turn it into reasonably good prose.
Frankly if I reviewed it it would fail. Suggest you enlist the help of others to turn it into a worthy candidate. Your best step would be to withdraw the nomination and put it up for WP:Peer review. You could also ask for help at the projects listed above. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much! Will try to fix what you said as much as I can. Esuzu 00:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
By the way. At some places I have both primary sources and secondary. Should I reference to both or just use the secondary? --Esuzu 00:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
I have removed you addition of the under review tag to the klisting at WP:GAN. Wait until someone reviews it and try and get it into shape. If you need more help ask at the relevant projects. I am sorry but I just do not have the time to mentor you through this. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
History
I have been thinking about adding a secion under "History" called "Recent History" where the latest named laureates could be written down perhaps? That is, this year we would write about the 2009 laureates until this years laureates is revealed.
Perhaps there could also be a section with notable event for the noble prize since the economics prize was made. Do anybody have an idea? --Esuzu 15:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
Sources
This article need more reliable sources! That is, no more sources from the nobelprize.org site. If you know any good sources post them here:
This part of the award ceremony is not linked to the others in that way as the section is written. The after party seems to be only a student party and not much for the laureates. So if nobody disagrees I will remove that part soon. -- Esuzu 00:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Esuzu (talk • contribs)
The section is now removed. --Esuzu 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Several prizes in mathematics have some similarities to the Nobel Prize. The Fields Medal is often described as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics", but it differs in being awarded only once every four years to people not older than forty years old. Other prestigious prizes in mathematics are the Crafoord Prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences since 1982; the Abel Prize which has also been called the "Nobel Prize of mathematics" and has been awarded by the Norwegian government annually, beginning in 2003; the Wolf Prize awarded once a year by the Wolf Foundation; the Shaw Prize in mathematical sciences awarded since 2004; and the Gauss Prize, granted jointly by the International Mathematical Union and the German Mathematical Society for "outstanding mathematical contributions that have found significant applications outside of mathematics," and introduced at the International Congress of Mathematicians in 2006. The Clay Mathematics Institute has devised seven "Millennium Problems," whose solution results in a significant cash award:[3] since it has a clear, predetermined objective for its award and since it can be awarded whenever a problem is solved, this prize also differs from the Nobel Prizes.
If anybody feels this should still be on the article explain why and we should discuss it. At the moment it it feels like it is representing Mathematicians opinions wich isn't very neutral. Not noteworthy enough to be on the main page imo. --Esuzu 16:10, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
This section may be rephrased and reduced since you moved it to Nobel Prize controversies. However an article on the Nobel Prize without a single mention of the absence of a prize in mathematics is not conceivable, since it has been the most controversial point since the creation of the prize. This is not a representation of mathematicians opinions (I am not a mathematician at all), but a fact. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 18:40, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
The most controversial? I don't think it is mentioned that often, or at all. For me the most controversial things about the Nobel Prize is that it usually focuses on the western world. That's what I hear about the most. But I might very well be wrong.
Maybe we should keep it but as you say it really needs a rephrazing/reducing. You seem more into that math section than I am, do you have the possibility to work on it? --Esuzu 01:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, a third opinion would be welcome… Anyway, the word "controversial" was probably not well chosen, "the most mentionned fact" would probably have been better. What I meant is that for instance the urban legend stating that the reason for which there is no prize in mathematics because of jealousy story is probably better known that the names of the 5 last presidents of the USA. However I see that this point is not even mentionned on the English article… I may try to find some time in the afternoon to reduce this section. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 10:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh? Interesting. I guess there are much differences then between what I hear about the Nobel Prize in Sweden and what you hear about in the US. So it might be the most mentioned in the US then perhaps? We should be careful with that though, the article has to reflect the world not only the US. Though I also feel the US is the country that critizize the Prize most, especially since Herta Müller got her prize.
Great about the reducing part. Looking forward to see the changes. More sources might perhaps be in place too, don't you think? --Esuzu 11:14, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually I am from France… I was about to mention it since I also thought it may have an influence, but a quick check showed me that this is also widely mentioned in English language. Concerning the changes, don't expect too much from me since I am dramatically lacking of time. So cutting off may be feasible, but probably not adding much… ;-) Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh, well that changes things somewhat. Though I didn't feel any of the sources there were very reliable to be honest. But I guess that doesn't matter since it an urban legeng :) I'll see if I can add some sources after you are done then. --Esuzu 12:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
I added the urban legend, removed the bunch of examples and most mathematics prizes, let me know your opinion. Skippy le Grand Gourou (talk) 15:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Just read it. Looks good to me. You incorporated the ubran legend without focusing on it too much which I like. Nice job :) (Oh, and I noteced you had written the french "and" (et) instead of and so I changed that) Cheers --Esuzu 15:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Most Recent Winners
I think the most recent winners have to be mentioned somewhere on the page. The question is where. I've thought of something that could link to the List of Nobel laureates and just be mentioning the recent winners. That would be a new section.
My other suggestion is to add it to the "Specifically distinguished laureates" section but I don't feel it would fit very much there.
My third suggestion is that we make a new title under the "History" section with "Recent laureates/Recent winners".
What do people think? I need some opinions on this. --Esuzu 16:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Added it under "History" until I get more opinions. Should that section perhaps also refer to the article List of Nobel Laureates? Please advise --Esuzu 23:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
The "Emphasis on discoveries over inventions" section
Is this section really needed to be on the Nobel main page? Or is it perhaps enough that it is on the Controversies page? Don't take me wrong, it is really interesting to read but the section does not say WHY it is noteworthy (at least not explaining it like the other controversies sections). Neither does it mention that it has been mentioned many time or something like that.
Anybody has opinions? --Esuzu 16:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
"Although not technically a Nobel Prize its winners are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients and it is presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony." This must be referring to the Nobel Memorial prize, but it needs to be clarified and structured better.
There's a template for the US dollar, I believe, and that should be used for the value of the prize. I haven't been able to find it quickly, though.
I looked at the first few paragraphs just now, and will return later to continue on. Enigmamsg 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Will look into the dollars aswell and see if I can find a template. --Esuzu 20:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I will try to finish this tomorrow, if this is still necessary. I'm sorry I haven't been able to do it sooner, but I've gotten pretty busy recently. Enigmamsg 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, we got a reviewer now so if you don't have time you certainly do not have to check :) Only do it if you really feel you're not busy! --Esuzu 19:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
New addition on Albert Einstein's 1921 Nobel Prize for Physics
My reasoning: Einstein's Theory of Relativity, which he devised in 1905, can be effectively treated as an 'unproven invention'
It wasn't until he made the discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect (which proved the Theory) that he was then awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921.
I think this information is important enough to be included in this article
It's just the wording or grammar (or something) in this new paragraph is not yet 100% right. I'm not sure if I've explained it all that well. Please feel free to change/improve it.
Do you think this info should possibly go under another heading? (I'm not sure)
Any comments would be appreciated -- Marek.69 talk 17:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I see your point. If it is as you say it should probably be where it is now. If we should keep it it will probably needs some clarifying, the problem is that it doesn't explain how it is connected to the section.
Now, I think I understand why you would like that part to be on the page and I see your reasoning somewhat. However, was this very controversial? I mean, he didn't get a price for something he hadn't proven, he got the price for a discovery which also happened to prove his theory. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
That paragraph is fine except for the last sentence: "The discovery of the photoelectric effect effectively proved his Theory of Relativity,[178] so with this discovery the prize committee were given definite validation for Einstein's original theory.[175]". The photoelectric effect essentially has nothing to do with the theory of relativity. He was given the Nobel for the former, not the latter; a point that many do not understand and that has puzzled people who do. The first reference in that sentence has a footnote saying it does not mention the photoelectric effect. That sentence should be removed. I think it is quite wrong and I challenge it unless you can give an exact reference to "The discovery of the photoelectric effect effectively proved his Theory of Relativity". Bduke(Discussion) 20:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
I have now removed the last sentence entirely. It needed to be rewritten anyway.
The source for this information is Wilhelm, Peter (1983). The Nobel Prize. London: Springwood Books. ISBN9780862541118. Retrieved 15 February 2010. Page 86 (as I stated in the article)
The paragraph in the source article reads:
'Albert Einsten won the Nobel Prize, but not until 1921 and not for his Special Theory of Relativity which had come forth 16 years earlier. He won the Nobel Prize for "his services to Theoretical Physics"' in particular his discovery of the photoelectric effect which proved the Theory of Relativity, giving the Committee the definite substantiation it required for his revolutionary theory.'
Regards Marek.69 talk 01:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I do not know where Peter Wilhelm got that idea from. The photoelectric effect is good evidence for quantum theory, not relativity theory. I'll try to check this out but I'm pretty busy right now. -Bduke(Discussion) 02:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Marek: Do you think you could try to connect it to the main section a little bit more? We just need some conjunction or something like that I think :) --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I've given it a go. It now reads:
One example where 'discovery' has been preferred over 'invention' (or theory) is in the case of Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize. In 1922 Einstein was awarded the 1921 Nobel Prize in Physics, but not for his Special Theory of Relativity which he had postulated 16 years earlier. His award was actually given "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This discovery was one proof for his Theory of Relativity.[4]
It could probably still do with some improvement. -- Marek.69 talk 19:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
I still do not see how "This discovery was one proof for his Theory of Relativity" is supported by that reference or the new one that you have now added. Relativity, as far as I can see, is not mentioned in the Nobel citation. That sentence should be removed. --Bduke(Discussion) 21:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
That version is much better, it at least connects the sections. However, I haven't been able to look at the sources yet so I can't comment on that. ----Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
Peter Wilhelm is quoted correctly by Maerk69. It is a good source, verifiable, supports the statement and everything else Wikipedia likes, but I have to agree with Bduke. I am no expert on Physic but I think Wilhelm got it wrong. The Photoelectric effect does not prove relativity, although Einstein may have used ideas from his relativity theory to help explain the photoelectric effect. The paragraph still has use in describing how discoveries are preferred over theory.
One example where 'discovery' has been preferred over 'invention' (or theory) is in the case of Albert Einstein's Nobel Prize. In 1922 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". He had in fact come up with the law sixteen years earlier, but was not awarded the prize until Arthur Compton provided proof in 1922 after studying X-ray reflection patterns. [5]
Or something to that effect. I am sure there must be a better source out there describing Einstein and the Photoelectric Effect, but that was the best I could come up with at the time. You could tack on something about relativity at the end to emphasis your point.
The 'theory of relativity', arguably Einsteins greatest contribution to Physics has never been recognised with a Nobel Prize. Historian Robert Friedman proposes this to be partly due to discrimination against pacifists and Jews, but mostly against theoretical scientists.[6]
Now it reads like Compton also provided proof for the Theory of Relativity. I don't believe the theory of relativity has been 'proved', but more that no experiments so far have been able to disprove it. Apart from Wilhelm I have not found any other sources that says that the Photoelectric Effect proves Relativity. I am over my head here so I have left a message on the Relativity Wikiproject talk page. It would be good if someone who knows more about this can comment and possibly provide a reference either way. The confusion about Einsteins Nobel Prize is understandable as his acceptance speech was about Relativity and it was mentioned at the presentation [1]. This could be a nod to the "for his services to Theoretical Physics" part, but as it was "especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect" it has to be assumed that was the main reason for the Nobel Prize. I am not convinced it belongs in the emphasis on discoveries section either. It appears to be more following their protocol of "withstanding the test of time". The Photoelectric Effect was proven so they were able to give the Award without worrying it would later be discredited, while the Theory of Relativity was not. AIRcorn (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Aircorn asked for additional input. What I'd like to know is whether Wilhelm is a physicist knowledgeable in relativity. If not, he cannot be considered an RS for this particular claim. And even if he was, WP:REDFLAG would apply. The way it looks currently, we can use the quote only to say that Wilhelm made that claim. I'd try to contact him to clarify, this looks like a mistake to me. Pais[7] has a 10 page appendix "How Einstein got the Nobel Prize". Give me a few hours, and I can say more. Paradoctor (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Pais, Abraham (1 November 1983). Subtle Is the Lord: The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein (3rd printing ed.). Oxford University Press. p. 511. ISBN0195204387. OCLC8195995. Retrieved 19 February 2010. Why did Einstein not get the Nobel prize for relativity? Largely, I believe, because the Academy was under so much pressure to award him." ... "It was the Academy's bad fortune not to have anyone among its members who could competently evaluate the content of relativity theory in those early years. Oseen's proposal to give the award for the photoeffect must have come as a relief of conflicting pressures
On page 503, we find the following:
"On November 10, 1922, a telegram was delivered to the Einstein residence in Berlin. It read, ‘Nobelpreis für Physik ihnen zuerkannt näheres brieflich [signed] Aurivillius.’* On that same day, a telegram with the identical text must have been received by Bohr in Copenhagen. Also on that day, Professor Christopher Aurivillius, secretary of the Swedish Academy of Sciences, wrote to Einstein: 'As I have already informed you by telegram, in its meeting held yesterday the Royal Academy of Sciences decided to award you last year’s [1921] Nobel prize for physics, in consideration of your work on theoretical physics and in particular for your discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect, but without taking into account the value which will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future.’"
Pais' translation of the telegram: "*N.p. for physics awarded to you more by letter". Paradoctor (talk) 09:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that Aurivillius' letter will be reprinted in the next correspondence volume in the Einstein Papers Project. HTH, Paradoctor (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
I think we can dismiss the Peter Wilhelm quotation as confused and in a minority of one.
it says Einstein wasn't awarded the NP for relativity, and then that he was.
he's wrong, the photoelectric effect does not prove or require relativity.
all the other sources say Einstein did not get the NP for relativity.
^Lars Gårding and Lars Hörmander, "Why Is There No Nobel Prize in Mathematics?", Mathematical Intelligencer 7 (1985): 73–74. [They suggest that, primarily, Nobel did not consider Mathematics as "practical" as the other disciplines in which he established Prizes.]
^John E. Morrill, "Nobel Prize in Mathematics", American Mathematical Monthly 102.10 (December 1995): 888-92. JSTOR doi:10.2307/2975266. (5 pages.) (Restricted access.) [Summary of various speculations about reasons for Nobel's omitting a Prize in Mathematics, including possibly apocryphal ones.]
I moved the reason for no prizes being awarded between 1940 and 1942 from the start of the paragraph to the middle of the previous one, after the text "between 1940 and 1942 no Nobel Prize was awarded in any category". I think that's a more logical location. I also had to move the two refs after that statement, and one of those refs contains a very long quote; that is why the diff looked so strange. Graham87 00:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Oh! I see. I was just so confused stared at the diff for a while and didn't notice it at all. Sorry for that and thanks for helping with the article :) --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
Recent laureates
I added a few more photos to the Recent Laureates. I decided to just use pictures for the 2009 Laureates. We are missing pictures for quite a few so it would be good to be able to add them to keep everything fair. They are Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas Steitz, Willard S. Boyle, George E. Smith, Elinor Ostrom and Oliver E. Williamson. Using the template I could only add five so Barack Obama is also missing. If someone knows how to add him to the template that would be great. If this can't be done we could just have him by himself until we get pictures of the rest and then use another template. If others agree we could also add to the hidden text that only the most recent Laurettes pictures should be used AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
It looks good I must say. However, we should not aim to add one of every laureate, most years that will be impossible. It will probably just look stupid as well I think. Five should be enough. If people want to see additional photos they can just go to the laureate's wikipage. --Esuzu(talk • contribs) 07:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
Fair point, that would mean over twelve photos this year. I guess there could be an argument over which get chosen and which don't, but that is not too much of an issue at the moment as most do not have pictures available. AIRcorn (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I did a quick check. That might be something for the Literature Prize article (or the controversies page perhaps) but I am not so sure it needs to be included in this article. Esuzu(talk • contribs) 15:02, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
The Nobel Committee
The name "Nobel Committee" appears many times in the article, and I think it varies what is meant. That needs clarifying, IMO.
"Norway's Nobel Committee" ought to be clear enough, but it isn't. "The Norwegian Nobel Committee had appointed prominent figures including Jørgen Løvland, Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson and Johannes Steen to give the Nobel Peace Prize credibility." Appointed to what by whom? I believe that the parliament appointed these men to be the Nobel Committee, as it is still done today. Am I wrong?
"First prizes (....) Once the Nobel Foundation and its guidelines were in place, the Nobel Committee(s?) began collecting nominations for the inaugural prizes; ..." What body was this? Also the present day nomination process could be more clearly explained. Is there really a central committee which culls the nominees, before the awarding institutions get the list? Perhaps there is, but maybe only for the Swedish awards?
"Among other criticisms, the Nobel Committees have been accused of having a political agenda, ..." Is this one committee per prize? Needs to be specified/clarified. IMO. --Hordaland (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
Article on Nobel Prizes with lots of relevant statistics
There is a very interesting paper by Jürgen Schmidhuber (2010): Evolution of National Nobel Prize Shares in the 20th Century, arXiv: http://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2634 , web site http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/nobelshare.html , with lots of previously unpublished statistical analysis that seems relevant for this article. For example, it shows that in the early 1900s each laureate on average got much more of a Nobel prize than today, especially in the sciences, presumably because nowadays there is more teamwork or parallel work, and so prizes are frequently shared, which causes a "laureate inflation", according to the study. It also analyzes migration patterns of scientists by "comparing the temporal evolution of national Nobel Prize shares by country of birth and by citizenship" (quote from the article). And it shows how English over time replaced German as the dominant language of Nobel laureates. Ornithologician (talk) 19:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of the Order of the ever Smiling and Jumping Frogs?
It's not just another story from Richard Feynman. [2]67.243.7.240 (talk) 01:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Definite form
"the Karolinska Institutet" sounds wrong
Karolinska Institutet is already in definitie form 83.177.85.76 (talk) 20:57, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
Nomination
"Nomination to the Nobel Prize in XX is by invitation only." (From nobelprize.org.)
Define nominate! As I see it anyone can nominate. Try it and I'm sure you will live through it. You will probably not even get a fine. The awarder will most likely not care, but that's another story.Laelele (talk) 22:16, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Too fast on the reverts
Please not so fast on the reverts. As you admonished me, at least listen to the reasons for my revert, which was merely to post a note to go to the discussion page, to be followed by a revert. But you were a little to quick. Anyway, I prefer my edit, which has clearer syntax. But I'm not going to get into an edit war over something so trivial. So have it your way. Judyholiday (talk) 23:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Both versions are Ok, its just a mistype of Hew which I reverted. My mistake is that I haven't explained it. No need to spend time on this. Happy editing. Materialscientist (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
An example where discovery has been preferred over theory is Albert Einstein's prize. His 1921 Physics prize recognised his discovery of the photoelectric effect rather than his Special Theory of Relativity. Historian Robert Friedman proposes that this may be due to the Nobel Prize Committee's prejudice against theoretical science.[Reference: Hughes, Virginia. "Einstein vs. the Nobel Prize". Discover Magazine.]
This appears to be wrong on more than one count. Einstein did notdiscover the photoelectric effect (<<<< see the WP article for a better history!), he explained it, that is, he developed a theory (quantization of light, aka photons). Thus this example, at least, actually undercuts the point the editor was trying to make in that paragraph! The editor was also a bit confused in this entire section. The first paragraph makes the point (which may well be correct) that the Nobel committee has given preference to "discovery" (= science) over "invention" (= technology). But in the second paragraph discovery is counterposed to "theory" which is totally different. Some "discoveries" are purely theoretical, and others are empirical but the discoverer would only be highly regarded if a theory to explain it were also proposed (as Einstein did for the photoelectric effect, which had previously been discovered).
The editor also misinterpreted the reference (above) in Discover magazine. The "intentional snub" referred to in that article wasn't in relation to Einstein having received the prize for the photoelectric effect (a theory!) instead of the theory of relativity, but rather that he had been passed over for so many years even though he was the most brilliant physicist in the world and had made several overwhelming contributions (all theoretical!) to physics many years earlier. And that this was probably a result of antisemitism and an aversion to theoretical physics (according to that article). Again, there is no issue regarding "theory versus discovery" as these are closely connected (and overlapping), but distinct from "invention," the original point of the section.
That Einstein got the Nobel prize for a somewhat less sinificant theory than relativity is another issue altogether (look it up!) but not supportive of the thesis in this article section: all of Einstein's work was in theoretical physics. I'd suggest removing that paragraph as irrelevant in this section. Interferometrist (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Correct. Einstein won for his interpretation of the photoelectric effect, not for discovering the effect itself. I'll see about changing it, unless someone beats me to it. Fizicist (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
It's nice you accept the fact that I mentioned: Einstein didn't discover the photoelectric effect, rather he developed a theory which explains it. Unfortunately you missed the broader context of this little error! The first paragraph makes a point which I believe is probably true: that more awards have been granted for discoveries (= theories!) than inventions. But the second paragraph in its original form argued AGAINST that very point, and badly misconstrued the meaning of an article that was referenced in order to advance the (confused) thesis. The section was confused on a few different counts, and I wish you had thought this through rather than making a quick edit to reverse a single error in one sentence.
I'll just lay this out quickly and will edit the article accordingly. The TWO possible criteria for a Nobel prize in physics were: 1) "DISCOVERY" and 2) INVENTION. The entire section was erroneously entitled "Emphasis on discoveries over inventions and theories." I am changing it to "Emphasis on discoveries over inventions." In the context of physics, a "discovery" generally MEANS a theory! Yes, there are empirical discoveries, aka observations. But in physics a significant discovery is when you come up with a theory which either: 1) Explains a phenomenon which has been known about (as in this case); or 2) PREDICTS a phenomenon which you (or someone else) later shows to be true in an experiment. The term "discovery" is often applied to the "discovery" of a physical law, in other words a THEORY. These terms are thus somewhat interchangeable: they both have to do with the progress of science.
INVENTION, on the other hand, might or might not involve new science, but it involves TECHNOLOGY, that is, USING physical principles (or sometimes just intuition) to build a useful object that can be manufactured. For instance, black body radiation was DISCOVERED long ago when a hot iron was observed to glow red, and it was further measured and quantified by physicists who tried (and failed) to explain it properly. Finally Max Planck came up with a THEORY that did explain the observation! But even before that explanation, a number of inventors including Edison USED the known fact of black body radiation to INVENT the incandescent light bulb, which was a feat of TECHNOLOGY: the issue wasn't that a hot object would radiate (as had been known for centuries) or even why (this was before Planck's theory), but the challenge of making something do that using an electrical current and which wouldn't burn out quickly.
To me it isn't even surprising that the Nobel prize in physics is more often awarded for discoveries/theory than for inventions, given that most inventions do not involve new science whereas all theories do. And again, the only "discoveries" that would be awarded are ones that either ARE theories or are accompanied by theories. Just discovering something isn't science. So the title of this section isn't very surprising. But I'll leave the section, and only take out the errant paragraph. (And the reference goes away too, I'm afraid. It just doesn't help the article in any way). Interferometrist (talk) 23:16, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:I am in general accord. I was just trying to avoid deleting the whole paragraph, particularly the cite. Still, if there are no other objections, your changes are OK with me. Might try to reintroduce the cite under a different context, if I get around to it. Fizicist (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, it was of interest (but I don't know if and how it belongs in the article). Just make sure that the point of the article in Discover magazine isn't distorted (as I had pointed out it was in the previous version). Or perhaps it belongs rather in the page on Einstein. Interferometrist (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Thanks for making these overdue changes. BTW, I had noticed this matter before, but didn't want to stir up still another useless edit war with the "owners" of the page. See the above threads. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, very interesting! Well I'm ignorant on the subject and don't want to get in the middle of any crossfire ;-) But I have found out myself how frustrating editing WP can sometimes be: you edit a few words, thinking you're doing the article a favor, and wind up in a huge controversy you couldn't have possibly predicted. I always hold my breath after editing a page I haven't previously been involved with. And then other times I make huge substantive changes, adding many paragraphs, but then not a peep from anyone (even when it says 200 editors are watching the page!). You just never know.....
Also, just a tiny technical point, in case you are still dealing with conductive polymers in any regard. The unit of bulk resistivity is not ohms/cm but rather ohms-cm (or for most of us, ohms-m). This may be of little importance to you but in case you even need to convert units, you would have expected that 20 ohms/cm (wrong unit!) would be 2000 ohms/m. But using the correct units of resistivity 20 ohms-cm is equal to .2 ohms-m (also known as a conductivity of 5 Siemens/m or .05 Siemens/cm). Anyway, I'm probably done watching this page. Good luck! Interferometrist (talk) 21:02, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Associated prizes
I think the article should either include information on both prizes that are publicly associated with the Nobel prizes, or restrict itself to the proper Nobel prizes only, i.e. Alfred Nobel's prizes (there are two prizes widely associated with the Nobel prizes to varying degrees, the economics prize and the Alternative Nobel Prize/Right Livelihood Award). The Right Livelihood Award originated from a discussion in the 1970s on the creation of a Nobel prize for the environment, sustainable development and human rights. This particular discussion is relevant to the history of the Nobel prizes, as is the fact that the Right Livelihood Award is publicly associated with the Nobel prizes (being presented in the Riksdag during the same week and being publicly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize) and understood as a critique of the traditional prizes. 193.157.137.162 (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
I am aware some people associate the Right Livelihood award with the NP. However, that prize is not officially recognized by the Nobel Foundation. On their web-page you can see that they have included the economics prize as an associated prize but not the Livelihood award. It is not a "real" Nobel Prize but it is so closely associated it is considered a Nobel Prize, only not established by Alfred Nobel. The right livelihood award is considered as an "alternative Nobel Prize" by critics and people who would like the right livelihood to achieve the same status as the Nobel Prizes just by being associated to it; not by the foundations who run the Nobel Prizes. Esuzu(talk) 21:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Esuzu. Going to the official site, Nobelprize.org, it's clear that Economic Sciences is listed as a prize but that Right Livelihood is not. I don't think there should be a Nobel prize in Economics, but I have to set aside my opinions and go with the sources. The Right Livelihood Award is worth a See also, but it's an Alternative Nobel Prize, not a Nobel Prize. MartinPoulter (talk) 22:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
This is not a question of whether the Alternative Nobel Prize/Right Livelihood Award is a Nobel Prize (it's obviously not), but of whether the 1970s debate on a possible Nobel prize for environmental issues etc. (a proposal that was turned down following the debate regarding the economics prize), and the result of that debate (an independent prize that is widely referred to as an alternative Nobel by the media) is sufficiently relevant to be (briefly) mentioned in this article, as a part of the history of the prizes (debate) and a related topic (prize). It is clear from the sources that the RLA is publicly associated by reliable sources such as the BBC and most other mainstream media with the Nobel prize to a high degree; what reliable sources say is what primarily matters, not what a private foundation says. I note that the economics prize, which isn't even a real Nobel prize, is the one single prize that gets the most attention in the lead section, more than the actual Nobel prizes. That is really out of place.
"It is often said that the greatest compliment is when someone tries to imitate you. By now we already have what the media often refer to as the "alternative" Nobel Prize (The Right Livelihood Award) and the Prize in Economic Sciences given out by the Swedish National Bank in memory of Alfred Nobel—two prizes that try to borrow some of the lustre from the real Nobel Prizes".
Again, the RLA is publicly associated with the Nobel prize, and part of the prize's history, because
reliable sources refer to it as the Alternative Nobel Prize and relates it to the Nobel prize (as a critique)
it originated from a debate on a new proper Nobel Prize
the high-profile prize ceremony takes place in the Riksdag immediately preceding the Nobel prize ceremony, adding to its public association with the Nobel prizes (the same kind of argument is the most common argument for associating the economics prize with the Nobel prize).
The fact that the private Nobel Foundation accepted the economics prize makes it more closely associated, but even if the foundation never accepted the RLA, it doesn't change that fact that the public relates it to the Nobel prize (viz., reliable sources do). This article should of course not be written exclusively from the point of view of a private foundation, but cover different perspectives. 193.157.137.229 (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that it is a alternative Nobel Prize and should not be on this page. The debate on a new Nobel Prize might be relevant for the RLA page but I don't think it needs to be here. The main difference here is that RLA is not acknowledged by the Nobel Foundation while the economics prize is. Esuzu(talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Assorted copy-edits, etc.
I have changed some of the text to make it read a little better and correspond to proper English usages. Judyholiday (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you Judyholiday Esuzu(talk) 16:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Recent laureates
I think we should remove the section about recent_laureates. It has been outdated for several months, and will probably be for long periods every year. I can't see the point of having the section at all. We don't have a "recent section" in FIFA World Cup or Academy Award. Why should these laureates be given more space in the article than others? Iusethis (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
I Have been thinking about this as well and I agree. It is problably too hard to keep up with. Let's see if anyone else has something to object before we remove it. Esuzu(talk) 08:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
That was fast! BTW, thanks for all your good work on this article, as well as the Linnaeus article. I hope we will see more of yore edits in the future! Iusethis (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! As soon as I get more time I hope to finish both those articles. Whenever that happens is another question entirely... Esuzu(talk) 12:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
.svg)