Talk:List of prizes known as the Nobel or the highest honors of a field

Criteria for inclusion
According to the discussion at Articles for deletion/List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field, I'd like to propose some inclusion criteria, for discussion. Generally, an entry on this list should, IMO: If you agree with these, we can start enforcing them to guarantee the quality of this list. Let me know what you think :) --Waldir talk 06:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * be backed by several independent, reliable sources
 * be mentioned by the sources as "commonly referred to as Nobel of X" (or some variation thereof), rather than simply being asserted as such by them, for example "Prize Z is the Nobel of X"


 * I agree with the first dot point, but not the second. We are looking for sources that describe it as "the Nobel of X". That is all, and if we have several, that is even better. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  07:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you're right. If there are several sources affirming the same thing, it is assumed that these prizes are indeed commonly known as "the Nobel of X" (as opposed to the case where a single source says that) --Waldir talk 08:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bduke and Waldirs decision.--ÅlandÖland (talk) 12:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * A further caveat I would suggest is that the multiple sources should not just be republishing the same news story that makes mention of a certain "Nobel prize of" whatever. I.e. the origins of the label also need to be independent. In addition the prize must be serious and significant in nature, and not a satirical label or award.&mdash;RJH (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. I agree with that, too. --Waldir talk 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but on some conditions. First of all; List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field cannot be called that, as its Tone may be unsuitable for Wikipedia. After that is fixed, you will have my full support.-- RM ( Be my friend ) 15:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I named the article following the format of List of persons considered father or mother of a field; What name would you suggest instead? --Waldir talk 20:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "List of awards equated to the Nobel prize"?&mdash;RJH (talk) 22:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not bad, but I can't say I'm thoroughly convinced that it's better than the current title... --Waldir talk 23:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yup, I have no issue with the current title.&mdash;RJH (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * One thing needs to be pointed out. If a prize awarder would call their prize "the Nobel Prize of thisorthat", they would have a lawsuit on their hands. So the sources for the label would hardly ever be primary. Too bad I didn't see the AfD in time. Tomas e (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I support this. A single source calling it a Nobel Prize offhand should not suffice, but multiple independent sources (or a source that shows that the consideration is common) should establish is as common. Cool Hand Luke 16:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea to me. The main point would be the necessity of multiple sources, of course, so there just needs to be a way to make that clear in the lede as well.  — fetch ·  comms   17:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This Wikipedia page should be deleted. It is just a list of what people "consider" as a Nobel prize. People can consider virtually any prize given out for contributions to be equal to a Nobel prize, it's too subjective.


 * A better Wikipedia page would be a list of prizes that are as prestigious as Nobel Prizes.


 * In order to be considered as prestigious as a Nobel prize the prize must be given out by a group that is at least as prestigious as the group on the Nobel Committee.


 * The Nobel Committee is composed of mostly Swedish professors so it's not surprising that Sweden has so many Nobel laureates.


 * Lots of people who make Nobel Prize winning contributions are ignored by the Nobel Committee so it would be good for people to see other prizes that are just as or more prestigious than Nobel Prizes.


 * Going by how prestigious the group that gives out the prize is rather than by what people consider as a Nobel is much more objective.--96.255.71.164 (talk) 20:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Right livelihood award
Is known as the alternative nobel. Not the nobel of a field. Which is what this article is about. So it does not belong in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.58.51 (talk • contribs)


 * 1) I temporarily protected the page and restored the version prior to the recent changes regarding the Right Livelihood Award. Let's reach a consensus here and only then we shall update the article accordingly.
 * 2) I also called Liftarn to this discussion, as he was the editor who added that entry to the list
 * 3) I tend to agree with 89.100.58.51, but I also feel we shouldn't be too strict in the requirements for inclusion. This is a case where it seems some commons sense must be applied rather than interpreting the article title by the letter. I'll await further comments to take a definitive stand. --Waldir talk 09:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a name to change to "list of prizes compared to the nobels", or something along those lines? 89.100.58.51 (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The name change sounds reasonable (and as a bonus, it's shorter than the current one). I'd support that. --Waldir talk 11:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that is nitpicking. Call it the Nobel of alternatives if you want. // Liftarn (talk) 10:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that would be original research. Are there any sources that call it that (or another similar name)? Otherwise, please comment on the rename option above. --Waldir talk 08:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Real Nobels
I suggest the the real Nobel prizes also be listed. Jfgrcar (talk) 13:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Nevanlinna Prize is equivalent to a Nobel Prize in Computer Science
Someone keeps editing it out and deleting it, but why? The Rolf Nevanlinna Prize Committee is chosen by the Executive Committee of the International Mathematical Union and is arguably more prestigious than the Turing Award. It is like the Fields Medal for Computer Science. --96.255.71.164 (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No one has given any valid reason for not considering the Rolf Nevanlinna Prize as equivalent to a Nobel Prize. Many sources I provided equate the Nevanlinna Prize to a Nobel Prize, so why is it not included?--96.255.71.164 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The Rolf Nevanlinna Prize is given out by the International Mathematical Union which is much more prestigious than the ACM which gives out the Turing Award so why is it not considered equivalent to a Nobel Prize like the Fields Medal is?
 * --96.255.71.164 (talk) 05:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Probably because the references you used are not strong enough. One only says a recipient felt it was winning a Nobel. Another compares it to the Fields Medal which in turn is compared to a Nobel, but not directly. Only the third says that some people think it is equivalent to a Nobel. I think you need more and better sources that says it equivalent to a Nobel. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:27, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The references cited are at least as strong as almost all the other items listed. "the Rolf Nevanlinna Prize, considered by many to be the Nobel Prize of computer science". Basically all awards given out by the IMU are considered to be as prestigious as a Nobel Prize. I guess Wikipedia is just a joke. The criteria for listing items shouldn't be what people say is like a Nobel it should be by what is just as prestigious as a Nobel Prize. People can consider virtually any prize to be Nobel. The International Mathematical Union is at least as prestigious as the Nobel committee. The Nobel committee is composed of mostly Swedish professors where as the IMU committees consists of the top professors in the world. Wolf Prizes should also be added to the list.--96.255.71.164 (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't the title read "List of prizes known as the Nobel Prize of a field"? Is the word "Prize" excluded for some reason? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology
I found this prize in list:Virtual Nobel Prize in Psychology, but when I search for it in web I didn't find a lot of references except this page, so how could be a famous prize in Psychology (supposed known as the Nobel) and there is no news or any page about it , I think it doesn't has sufficient notability. -- Ibrahim.ID »» 16:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * It's probably not extremely notable, but a few sources discuss it: Establishing notability the way I think you want may be difficult, since we have little more than one or two sources for every one of the prizes listed here. Ladril (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Whom-tag
Hello.

deleted a whom-tag I have put up in the "The list" section. I don't feel the tag was understood, even though I supplied a detailed reason, so in order to progress from here, I have explained the problems in more details below.

It is very important to explain a bit about who has created these "extra" Nobel prizes of X, as they are plentiful and often referred to as ordinary Nobel prizes in the media without any distinction between them. As I stated in my tag, it might be too overwhelming a task to include precise descriptions for each and every prize, but at least some general information could and should be provided. It is also important to answer the natural question "Can anyone make their own Nobel price of X?".

It is possible that the article on Nobel Prize answers all these questions and that I have overlooked it. some people might also argue that the answers are best included in the Nobel Prize article and not in this article. Anyway, the questions needs some kind of answer. RhinoMind (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I modified the entire passage to try to make clear that there is no one group that launched these awards. They are not mentioned at the Nobel Prize article because they are not Nobel prizes; the point of this article is to list prizes that are considered the equivalent of Nobels in fields where there are no Nobels. As such, the tag was inappropriate, as there's clearly no single group that can be said to be the "whom" that can be in one sentence.
 * That said, wow did this list grow out of control. Firstly, within any obscure field, there's likely a prize that is considered the most prestigious prize in that field. But that's not the point of this list; this list is supposed to list prizes that are considered equivalent or near-equivalent in prestige as the Nobels to the general public, not to the closed area of the field itself. Also, as seen above, each prize listed is supposed to have multiple, independent sources calling it the "Nobel Prize of X" or some such equivalent. Some of the entries that had been added were red links, which are clearly too obscure to be equally prestigious to the general public. Some one had only one source, thereby failing to establish widespread recognition. And some of which were solely sourced to the awarding group, which is utterly unacceptable, as that's just inherently promotional. I trimmed out a lot, and probably could remove more easily.
 * And that somewhat answers your question as well. It's not the awarding group that seems a prize the equivalent of a Nobel in prestige, but general acclaim as evidenced by multiple, independent sources. I tried to explain that better, but I think it's an issue that should be addressed in the lead. And I think I'll trim some more obscure prizes, too. oknazevad (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Great. I didn't knew what you just explained.


 * I think that what you say should be presented in the article. That there isn't one common authority behind these prizes, etc.. That the recognizement of these prizes as "Nobel prize of X" is only based on a general consensus in the media, not by the Nobel Prize Commitee itself.


 * It is mostly up now I can see. RhinoMind (talk) 21:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Crafoord Prize
Shouldn't this one be added ? Its laureates are picked by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, receive the reward from the king of Sweden, and the funding is quite comparable to an actual Nobel Prize. Closest thing to a Nobel Prize there is in those fields (geosciences, astronomics, ecology/evolution, mathematics and polyarthritis).
 * Not without multiple reliable sources making the comparison. It's not about the prize money, or who awards them, it's about the prestige as recognized by the general public. And it needs sources. oknazevad (talk) 12:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of prizes known as the Nobel of a field. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081230233653/http://www.acm.org/press-room/news-releases-2007/turingaward/ to http://www.acm.org/press-room/news-releases-2007/turingaward/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110505040746/http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/entertainment/2011-05/03/c_13857238.htm to http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/entertainment/2011-05/03/c_13857238.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:14, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Adding the equivalent of a “Nobel Prize for neurosurgery” from "Herbert Olivecrona Award" ?
Hello, Do you think it is correct to add to the list the "Herbert Olivecrona[] Award" as an equivalent “Nobel Prize for neurosurgery” ? Thanks in advance Jurbop (talk) 10:30, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I think there are several reliable sources that describe it as such. I suppose there is no problem with adding it.Ladril (talk) 01:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Boldface
Some awards are listed with boldface font, while most are not. The article says that "Some most important prizes in the world are presented in bold." However, it does not seem very clear (to me) how to determine which prizes should be considered the most important among this list, when the whole list is supposed to include only the highest honors. Using boldface for emphasis also seems contrary to MOS:BOLDFACE, which says to "Avoid using boldface for emphasis in article text." Personally, I don't think the use of boldface is really accomplishing much here, and I suggest considering its removal. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 16:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Agree that it is not clear what is the criteria for determining which these prizes are most important. I do believe the boldface of the Turing Award and Fields Medal could provide value to the reader to distinguish those prizes from others listed in the same category if a objective criteria could be established. But it’s now very problematic as it is subjective.
 * From my limited perspective, I was surprised to see neither the Pulitzer Prize nor the Academy Awards in bold. My guess that these two would be among the most recognizable prizes on the list (if we surveyed all Wikipedia readers, for example). A Carbine Flash (talk) 10:50, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Dan David Prize
The information on the Dan David Prize is outdated; cf. Dan David Prize. Thatsme314 (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)