Talk:Nobel Prize/Archive 5

==The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: Discussion on Talk:polyacetylene == We are having an interesting discussion over on talk:polyacetylene re some issues raised here previously, if anyone is interested. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm.... Maxdlink (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)''
 * Most odd that a talk page posting that looks pretty benign and seems to be related to a previous matter considered here gets into an instant revert war. Materialscientist does seem a little quick on the revert button.  And then claims (perhaps rightfully),  that he was reverting someone else.  See my experience above.   Rather irritating. wp:gaming? Don't want to stir any pots,  but anybody else seen this kind of thing ? Judyholiday (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Materialscientist definitely seems to have taken ownership of several pages, including this one,  which is why this thread is relevant.  In one instance,  he beat down opposition to some deletions on a page by claiming (correctly ) that the material was summarized elsewhere.  He then proceeded to delete the material on the other page.  As others have noticed,  this is specifically used as an example of WP:Gaming.  Left a very bad taste,  but I said nothing about it at the time,  chosing to take the usual course of simply retreating. Moot now.  Anyway, admins are not supposed to do this kind of thing.  Anybody else have more examples ? Drjem3 (talk) 23:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As you seem to have issues with me personally, why don't you discuss it with me rather than go behind my back? Alternatively, if you feel I am abusing my adminstrative functions, you can always post a thread at WP:ANI. I do not recall any action that I took on these articles as an administrator rather than a volunteer editor and thus do not welcome baseless allegations. Materialscientist (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:''This has nothing to do with your actions as an administrator. Rather,  some editors apparently feel that your activities as an editor sometimes seem rather inconsistent with administrator status.  See WP:NOTPERFECT.  For my part-- a gentle chide to 1) Read before you revert (says this somewhere in the guidelines), and 2) Don't substitute personal opinion for WP:Reliable Sources.  Nucleophilic (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in accord with this, FWIW Drjem3 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)''

Nobel Prize by Year
Is there a Nobel prize by year? If not, shouldn't there be? --Ezra Wax (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It's at List of Nobel laureates, and it's already linked in the template at the bottom of this article's page. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Media coverage of Stockholm banquet
I removed a misleading source which, according to its placement, was to assert extensive media coverage of the Stockholm banquet by international media. There was nothing in that article (a Swedish newspaper The Local) about media coverage.

I also strongly question the remaining assertion that that banquet is covered extensively by international media and have added a Says who tag there. To my knowledge it ain't. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:38, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Baruch Aba Shalev?
Why is that author Baruch Aba Shalev named in this sentence: Baruch Aba Shalev, author of a book on the Nobel Prize, has said "the Nobel Prize has come to be regarded as the best-known and most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and economics." I'm pretty sure the sentence in question read something like this before: "The Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and economics." I changed the sentence in question to: The Nobel Prize has come to be regarded as the best-known and most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and economics. If anybody as any objections to my changes undo or improve them  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalabeat (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections to rm of name dropping. SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Because he's trying to sell a book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to: The Nobel Prize is widely regarded as most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace and economics. Objections?
 * My only objection is that you do not sign your comments here. SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No objections, though it'd be interesting to understand why it's so. Aren't adults beyond this kind of foolishness? The answer glares back: "No!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.232.191.16 (talk) 14:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

References Problem (From FA page)
Copied from the FA page to rule out the problems. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. The first thing that strikes me as weird are the references. Practically every reference is at the least terribly formatted or (more seriously) does not appear to be a reliable media source. Examples (currently no. 119 and following ones) According to WP:V "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." None of the following references appears to do that
 * http://www.workersforjesus.com/teresa.htm -- reliable?
 * http://nobelpeaceprize.org/en_GB/about_peaceprize/dress-code/ not third party (imagine an article about, say, soccer club Real Madrid. That article should not cite its own homepage.
 * University home page, not suited either
 * google.books should cite the book, not (only) the link
 * idem
 * you get it

The punchline is: an article like this should cite only books by established scholars and/or news articles from respected media outlets. Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Also in the text, the referencing is not well-done. E.g. four(!) references are given for Skłodowska-Curie getting 2 N.prizes. The "Nominations" section lists reference no. 81 (Britannica) six times in a row, but that reference fails to back up what it is cited for ("All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of that prize.") . With all due respect I suggest that somebody experienced with referencing should thoroughly brush over the article. This is nowhere near what is needed for FAC. (To get inspiration, Film noir is a shining example of good referencing techniques). Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Fixed a lot of these problems now. Some nobelprize.org refs left etc. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 12:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Problems with map showing nobel prices by country. Innacuracy on the cases of Nicaragua and Costa Rica (Nicaragua does not have a Nobel Prize, Costa Rica has 1 Peace Nobel Prize). I wonder if there are more errors. Please check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.1.172 (talk) 05:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Christian Nobel Prize Winners?
Considering we've got a list containing Muslim and Jewish laureates, I undoubtedly believe that a list of Christian's should be added as soon as possible.--Bartallen2 (talk) 17:04, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no such special list. Where is it? SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Or remove those two silly lists. Whenever I hear that stuff I'm reminded of middle school, when almost everyone was still stupid enough to be a bigot.

There's a list for Muslim and Jewish laureates at the bottom of the page under 'Laureates by criterion', being Country · University affiliation · Year · Female · Black · Chinese · Indian · Muslim · Japanese · Jewish. Ergo, I do believe laureates should be added, given they belong to the largest religious group on the planet, even more than Muslims or Jews at that. --Bartallen2 (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Cause of Death
There is an inconsistency.

The Nobel Prize article states "... Alfred Nobel died in his villa in San Remo, Italy, from a cerebral haemorrhage. ..."

Tha Alfred Nobel article states "... He died of a stroke on 10 December 1896 at Sanremo, Italy. ..."

Which one is right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.89.244.67 (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * They're the same thing, more or less: Stroke. --Ben (talk) 10:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Johannes Fibiger/ Recognition time lag
In the section Recognition time lag is written this paragraph:

<<Nobel's will provides for prizes to be awarded in recognition of discoveries made "during the preceding year". Early on, the awards usually recognised recent discoveries. However, some of these early discoveries were later discredited. For example, Johannes Fibiger was awarded the 1926 Prize for Physiology or Medicine for his purported discovery of a parasite that caused cancer. To avoid this embarrassment, the awards increasingly recognised scientific discoveries that had withstood the test of time.>>

The story concerning the work of Johannes Fibiger is more complex than this paragraph implies. See the wiki article on Johannes Fibiger himself. This paragraph above in the main article appears to present the view that Fibiger's work for the Nobel prize was "discredited". But this is certainly not the case. I have not made any change to the original text and and am simply inviting discussion on this point as this above paragraph appears to present Fibiger unfairly. The paragraph does not say explicitly "The work of Johannes Fibiger for the Nobel Prize was discredited" nor does it say the opposite that "The work of Johannes Fibiger for the Nobel Prize was credited".

ComtedeMonteCristo (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Missing family in "Family laureates" section?
I noticed that in the family laureates section, there is no mention of Wieland/Lynen: Heinrich Otto Wieland (Chemistry, 1927) had a daughter who was married to Feodor Lynen (Physiology or Medicine, 1964). Are relations by marriage not enough for this section? I don't mind that view, but I will note that paragraph about the Curie family mentions Frederic Joliot-Curie and Henry Labouisse, who married into the family. 74.51.115.100 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Mistake on Nobel Prize Article
Under "First Awarded" it says, "Up Lady Gaga's Butt". Not sure how this was overlooked, but if someone can fix it, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.96.255.56 (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Economics prize in introduction
The introductory paragraph claims that "the Nobel Prize is widely regarded as the most prestigious award available in the fields of literature, medicine, physics, chemistry, peace, and economics", while a later section says that the Economics prize is, in fact, not a Nobel Prize as such. I would like for the introduction to make the differences between the actual Nobel Prizes and the later Nobel Memorial Prize clearer. Muad (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right, there is no such thing as "Nobel Price for economics", I am deleting it form the introduction section Kamamura (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Location of Award Ceremonies
The article section "Award Ceremonies" states:
 * Since 1902, the King of Sweden has presented all the prizes, except the Peace Prize, in Stockholm.

However the 1939 prize for Physics was awarded (in 1940) to Ernest Lawrence in a ceremony in Berkeley, California, USA, by the Swedish Consul in San Francisco. The reason for this is cited as The Second World War (at least in Europe, if not specifically Sweden), so I suspect that this award ceremony is not alone in being neither in Stockholm nor by the King of Sweden. ChrisJBenson (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have references/sources to go with that? Esuzu  ( talk ) 20:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Also in 1972 the prizes were presented by the crown prince Carl Gustaf who would later become king Carl XVI Gustaf.Laelele (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC input needed
Input would be appreciated at an RfC regarding the Nobel prize. --Noleander (talk) 18:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Accusation of stealing the discovery
This input about Dr. Omerbashich's claim was removed by some obnoxious self-styled "editor" (just another user but who has an agenda). It's a perfectly legit claim put forward by a scientist. Science is changed by insightful individuals, not by hordes otherwise there would be no Nobel Prize at all: In January 2013, accusations were made against Wineland and Haroche for stealing the idea that brought them the Nobel Prize. Crown Prince of Bosnia, who is a scientist himself, offered proof to the Nobel Committee and police that he submitted the now rewarded discovery to Wineland and NIST for verification back in 2008: Did David Wineland and Serge Haroche Steal Idea For The Nobel Physics Prize? 68.69.169.131 (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Why we don't have political nobel prize? We only have nobel prize for economics.
I think politics is as important as economics, do you think so?119.85.245.211 (talk) 23:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Because Nobel didn't endow a "political prize" (whatever you mean by that).
 * 2. There is not a Nobel Prize for Economics, but rather a pseudo-Nobel. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  01:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We do have a prize for politics - it is the Peace Prize. Span (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013
Please, in the section "Overlooked achievements" can you remove this obscure fellow Simon Vestdijk because it is ridiculous to list him with all these great names? If there is a fixed number of "entries" in this "list" you may put George Orwell, for instance.

Also, in the "Refusals and constraints" section, there should be a reference to Carl von Ossietzky, who suffered pretty much the same with Liu Xiaobo.

Thank you

94.65.129.216 (talk) 17:28, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Thanks for the suggestions, but per Wikipedia's policy on original research, we can't determine who we list based on contributors' opinions, but must abide by what reliable sources say. Simon Vestdijk is (I presume) listed in The Nobel prize: a history of genius, controversy, and prestige, and Carl von Ossietzky should only be included if we can find a source explicitly supporting his inclusion. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Here's your data: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1935/ossietzky-facts.html and there's a detailed and sourced account in the article.

Now, on Vestdijk, who's famous and who's not is a matter of fact and I believe that many wikipedians will agree with me that determining if a relatively unknown person is famous depending on if a source says that they are famous and having them listed between universally known people, is a very dogmatic approach of wikipedia's policy of sources.--94.65.129.216 (talk) 01:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Closed the edit request, since this page is not protected and any interested editor can make the change. RudolfRed (talk) 02:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Alfred Nobel was not a philanthropist. This is akin to claiming Bill Gates' profession is 'Philanthropist'. Nobel manufactured DYNAMITE and cannon (Bofors). His profession was not philanthropy, it was WAR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.246.140 (talk) 15:48, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

pais einstein book

 * Why is the Pais / Einstein book in the "see also / further reading" section? It doesn't seem to be all about the Nobel, which is what I would expect for that reference.  If it just happens to be about Einstein who is one of many recipients of the Nobel, even if it's focused a lot on his personal experiences of the Nobel, I would submit it's not an appropriate link for this page. Any contrary or additional thoughts on this? (I'm asking rather than deleting because I'm not actually personally familiar with this title.) --Lquilter (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Jacob Barnett
Can people come to Talk:Jacob Barnett and then read the article, we need rules about speculation of who is to win a Nobel Prize. Speculation like this is not encyclopedic and more of fan gushing. What do you think? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

New Section: Controversial Recipients
In the FA discussion it was brought up that this article has no "Controversial Recepients" section under "Controversies and..." so I began piecing one together. You can see it Nobel Prize controversies. I'll also insert it here:

Controversial Recipients
When a laureate is announced there is often criticism against them. Those who criticise normally believe somebody else deserved the prize more or believe the prizes has a political message. There have also been people who believed the Nobel Prizes are too Eurocentric, the Prize in Literature in particular.

One of the most controversial Peace Prizes was the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Barack Obama. Even Obama himself stated that he did not feel he deserved the award, and that he did not feel worthy of the company the award would place him in. Obama's winning of the peace prize was largely unanticipated and called a "stunning surprise" by The New York Times. According to Irwin Abrams the most controversial Nobel Peace Prize was the one awarded to Henry Kissinger and Lê Ðức Thọ, who later declined the prize, which made two Norwegian Nobel Committee members resign. They received the prize for negotiating a cease-fire between North Vietnam and the United States in January 1973. However, when the award was announced the hostilities were still continuing. To many critics Kissinger was not a peace-maker but the opposite; responsible for widening the war. Al Gore and the IPCC, 2007 winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, have had the validity of their winning of the prize disputed as well as being politically motivated.

A recent example of a controversial Literary Prize recipient is 2004 winner, Elfriede Jelinek, who was protested by a member of the Swedish Academy, Knut Ahnlund; Ahnlund resigned, alleging that selecting Jelinek had caused "irreparable damage" to the reputation of the award. The 2009 Nobel Prize in Literature to Herta Müller also generated some criticism. According to The Washington Post many US literary critics and professors had never heard of her before. This generated a lot of criticism that the Nobel Prizes are too Eurocentric.

Other controversial recipients include, for example, the 2008 prize to Paul Krugman, a major critic of George W. Bush, provoked controversy about a left-wing bias of the award, prompting the prize committee to deny that "...the committee has ever taken a political stance." The Portuguese neurologist Antonio Egas Moniz received the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 1949 for his development of prefrontal leucotomy. Soon Dr. Walter Freeman developed a version of the procedure (the transorbital lobotomy) which was easier to carry out, and due in part to the procedure was often prescribed injudiciously and without regard for modern medical ethics. Endorsed by such influential publications as The New England Journal of Medicine, lobotomy became so popular that, in the three years immediately following Moniz's receipt of the Prize, some five thousand lobotomies were performed in the United States alone.

So, what do people think? Something that is here that doesn't need to be mentioned on the main page? Something that is missing? Errors in the text? Please answer as quickly as possible so we can get it into the article before the FA Nom ends. -- Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Im sorry, but the whole section suffers from horrible case of recentism, surely purpose of the wikipedia article is to mention most notable cases of criticisms in the history, and not just a criticism of the prizes from the last few years. As it stands, it just brings down the quality of the article and should be removed. 84.250.215.196 (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be mentioned in the article that the viewing of the winners as being left on a political scale is mainly American. In Sweden (and Norway, the piece price is primarily Norwegian) most of the winners are considered being quite "right" compared to the political scale in these countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.130.24.174 (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I know there has been some criticism of recentism but it must be time Liu Xiaobo and his Peace Prize got a mention in the Controversial recipients section. Especially since he belongs to that select band of winners who was himself prevented, and even a family member was prevented, by his government from collecting his prize.182.85.128.107 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC) --182.85.128.107 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Obama is another president to kill people in a war (having a nobel prize), that information is public domain, and here are no references... WIKIPEDIA IS POLITICED! --181.112.76.174 (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Economics
"Although not a Nobel Prize, it is intimately identified with the other awards; the laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize recipients, and the Prize in Economic Sciences is presented at the Swedish Nobel Prize Award Ceremony." That bears a distinct resemblance to the fecal matter of an adult male bovine. If it a) contains the name "Nobel" and the word "Prize" in the name, b) is announced with the Nobel Prize recipients and is c) presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony then it IS a Nobel Prize. Admittedly it is not one of the originals, but saying it isn't one at all is nonsense.--Khajidha (talk) 18:59, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Admittedly it is not one of the originals, but saying it isn't one at all is nonsense." That is of course an example of a broken logic. Imagine you have somebody paint a replica of a Rembrandt painting and then sell it to anyone as a genuine Rembrandt, imagine arguing: "Well, people talk about it as a Rembrandt, they paid as much as they would for the genuine article, therefore, it's a Rembrandt, though not one of the originals." There is a word depicting the deed of intentionally creating a duplicate or look-alike of a valuable or prestigious article in order to profit from the similarity and confusion - and that word is fraud. Watches called "Lorex", shoes called "Abidas", cheap nasty brandy called "Napoleon", or a "Nobel Memorial Prize" having nothing in common with Mr. Nobel, they all have one thing in common - they are fakes created with an ulterior motive, and the fact that people confuse them with the original does NOT legitimize them. Kamamura (talk) 20:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC) https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/nobel-prize-economics-not-science-hubris-disaster
 * And you ignored the points that it is announced with the recipients of the other prizes and is presented at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony. And that doesn't even cover the fact (which I left out) that nobelprize.org lists it alongside the others on their list of Nobel Prizes and Laureates. If the official website of the Nobel Prize includes it, who are we to say different? --Khajidha (talk) 20:21, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And your analogy falls flat on its face because the Nobel Prizes are not the personal works of Mr. Nobel himself, they are the creations of a foundation that he set up. The Economics prize was instituted by an endowment to that foundation. There was no intention to defraud involved. Your example makes no more sense than saying that new films cannot be Warner Bros. films because all of the Warner brothers are long dead and had no hand in their creation.--Khajidha (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Khajidha - it's generally referred to as a Nobel Prize in economics, even though technically it's a got a more complicated name.  Volunteer Marek  13:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

CNR?
In the intro, the article states that the award money is "worth SEK 9,000,000 or about US$1,110,000, €944,000, £836,000, INR 72,693,900 Or CNR 376,000" (bold, mine). What does CNR stand for? This is the only time the abbreviation is found in the article, so it should be explained or interlinked with its corresponding article. Coinmanj (talk) 07:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Nobel Prize in Literature article rename
Can editors at this page take a look at my rename proposal at the literaure prize article and let me know if they'd prefer a wider discussion before the move is implemented? Abecedare (talk) 23:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Dispute About Nobel's Motivations In Creating The Prize Mentioned In History Section
Note that this research was not done by me, it was done by a YouTuber and blogger who goes by kathylovesphysics who did some thorough research on the subject. I occasionally quoted her article verbatim here. I recommend everyone take a look she dug pretty deep on the subject and came to the conclusions from primary sources.

The well-known story of Nobel being motivated to create the prize after reading the obituary mistaking his brother's death for his does not seem to be entirely accurate. There was a mistaken obituary published in the French newspaper Le Figaro on Sunday, April 13, 1888. The actual content of the obituary, translated from French, reads "A man who cannot easily pass for a benefactor of humanity died yesterday in Cannes. It is Mr. Nobel, inventor of dynamite. Mr. Nobel is Sweedish". The same paper posted a retraction the next day. Specifically, the often used phrase "Merchant Of Death" was not used here. History.com also notes that the "Merchant Of Death" obituary has never been found and that many historians contest whether Nobel reading his obituary played the leading role, or even any role, in the creation of the Prize. We have access to many of Nobel's correspondence and there is no record of him mentioning the probably apocryphal "Merchant of Death" obituary. For example, his letter 1889 letter to Sophie Hess, his mistress, expresses his melancholy about the "sad end" he was going towards but makes no mention of the obituary or public opinion. It is important to note that there is no evidence whatsoever that Nobel was bothered by the content of the obituary. Nobel's relationship with the French press was quite contentious anyhow, so it does not seem to follow that he would put much stock into its opinions of him. He is also quoted as saying “Who has time to read biographies, and who can be so naïve or fatuous as to take an interest in them?" which further supports the point that Nobel would not have cared what a short obituary had to say of him. Nobel had a firm belief that being the creator of dynamite made him a merchant of peace, not death. He is quoted as saying “I wish I could produce a substance or a machine of such frightful efficacy for wholesale devastation that wars should thereby become altogether impossible." Essentially, he is espousing the principle that what we today call "mutually assured destruction" would prevent states from waging war. This shows that Nobel actually believed that his invention was an instrument of peace and that he would have simply disagreed with those who considered him a "merchant of death". The first mention of the story in which Nobel was motivated to create his peace prizes too change his legacy after reading the "Merchant of Death" obituary (which I cannot emphasize enough, has not been found anywhere) was not until a 1959 biography of him by Nicholas Halasz. It seems as though the first use of the term "merchant of death" in the media was not even used until 1932 in an article about Basil Zaharoff, not Nobel. Two years later, another author “borrowed” that phrase for his book on arms dealers, which he titled “Merchants of Death: A Study of the International Armament Industry.” The New York Times reviewed this book and after that the phrase “Merchant of Death” was often used to describe people who sell weapons. By the late 50s, Halasz must have heard the term “Merchant of Death” for arms dealers but had not investigated and found that the term was only 25 years old and therefore could not have been in Alfred’s premature obituary. The evidence actually points to the fact that Bertha von Suttner, who also inspired Nobel to become active in the peace movement, inspired him to create his prizes. In fact when Henri Dunant, founder of the Red Cross, learned he was being awarded the prize he wrote to Bertha saying "“This Prize, gracious lady, is your work; for through your instrumentality Herr Nobel became devoted to the peace movement, and at your suggestion he became its promoter.” Once again, I implore everyone to read Kathy's article where I got this information. I understand and agree with skepticism about blogs but in this case, the historical review using primary sources is extremely compelling. At the very least, we should edit the history section to say that there is no actual evidence that the story of Nobel creating his prizes to change his legacy after the "Merchant of Death" obituary is true, and that the "Merchant of Death" obituary has not even been recorded anywhere.(Huismank (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC))

Popular Culture
Quick question:

Is an "In Popular Culture" section appropriate for this page?

Mn1548 (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Dylan?
Seems like Bob Dylan should be mentioned in the section on "controversies and criticism". Not everyone was sanguine about a musician receiving the Nobel Prize in Literature is 2016, nor, if they were willing to go that far, about Dylan receiving it. There was also his non-responsiveness to the Committee, which prompted two of the committee members to comment publicly that he was "impolite and arrogant". Surely this deserves a mention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.176.249 (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

More details for first prize
Can we add that the first prize was December 10th, 1901 rather than just the year. https://www.nobelprize.org/ceremonies/from-the-first-nobel-prize-award-ceremony-1901/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.64.106.50 (talk) 16:57, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Gandhi
The 2012 Peace Prize was controversial, because it was awarded to the European Union, for work it never did, reintegrating Europe since 1945 and creating Peacemaking. However, if you examine the Press Release, an interesting circumnavigation of the Rules appears - the words "and its forerunners" are added. And Gandhi was among them. The evolution of Peacemaking is documented in the article on the Western European Union.

The ECSC was the EU's earliest incarnation, from 1954, becoming the EEC in 1957, and the EU in 1993. It did not finally take on crisis management from WEU until 2010.

WEU, by contrast, was formed from certain elements of the Western Union in 1954, the latter having arisen from thetail end of WW2. In 1984, it was activated as the end of the Cold War was possible, and became a political reality in 1987, when I gave the heads-up to SG van Eekelen the Iron Curtain was about to collapse, which it duly did over the next year. It was therefore decided to move WEU to Brussels to become the defence diplomatic arm of Europe, halfway between NATO and the EU. This happened in early 1993, becoming operational at Easter: I double-hatted HQ Accountant and Crisis Management finance reponsibilities in a very polyvalent environment. As Head of Finance from 2001, I undertook the last official act, depositing the closure accounts, on 30.6.2011. The confusion arose because the WEU SG double-hatted as the EU's Head of CFSP from 1994-2009, the first period under SG Cutileiro unofficially as the CFSP concept evolved.

How does Gandhi fit? My training in the area was partly from my mother, who was Krishna Mennon's PA while High Commissioner in London during the Independence Talks in 1946-7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.9.109 (talk) 14:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

A difficulty involved in a edit of the lead section (also known as the introduction)
I have edited the lead for this article. I see I might have created a problem.

I happened upon this article, read the Lead and thought to myself, that this is confusing. It fails to create a logically constructed topic sentence. So I decided that I would edit it so a reader could understand the essence of a Noble Prize. After quite a bit of checking references and such, I created a good start. I looked further and there were a lot of words that weren't well constructed to easily communicate the content. So I worked on those parts and on and one. There was a lot of detail, so I organized it. And then it seemed that those details were not actually Lead content, so I created sections. Ooops. I guess I should not have done that. But it seemed logical considering all the details.

So from the Lead I created the following "new" sections


 * Establishment of Nobel Prizes
 * Economic Sciences Prize Established in 1968
 * Awarding of Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Too much info, too much detail. And I have a bit of a quandary.

To keep all of that detailed information in the Lead is not appropriate.

Wikipedia guidance about the structure of the lead is:


 * It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on.


 * A concise overview of the article's topic


 * As a general rule of thumb, a lead section should contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs


 * Conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic.

To write a lead section and follow these guidelines, especially the one about "four paragraphs" for a long complex article is a challenging exercise. It seems this guidance was created by a committee (it's like the platypus--an animal that was designed a committee).

But, in any case, So now I need to go back to the article and re-edit the Lead. A lot of the information can not remain. Just saying because I imagine some editors will want all the detail in the Lead. It will not be possible to do that and contain no more than four well-composed paragraphs, be a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic. Oh well, I will try.

Osomite hablemos  01:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Have done some work on the lead, thanks for the inspiration. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Facts Section
there is a section which lists misc information. should it be there? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Trivia_sections

Ihfshkahduahkjevrwgaljekdvhrwlhefjkd (talk) 00:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Not a single mention of mathematics ?
I did a text search on the whole text and did not found any mention of mathematics on the whole text. As it is a surprising omission of the list of disciplines, it should be mentioned somewhere in this article no ? Xavier Combelle (talk) 00:57, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Mathematics is not one of the awarded fields, that is why, if you wish to look at an award for mathematics then I refer you to the Fields Medal, which is widely considered the most prestigious mathematical award. The Theory of Knowledge (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Nobel Prizes on shortwave
I recently watched an episode of Young Sheldon where Sheldon listens to the announcement of the winners on shortwave radio and since then I've been wondering, is that option still available (assuming it's a true fact)? Because if so, it could be an interesting fact to add to the article.--190.231.102.112 (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Noble Prize wrongly reroutes to Nobel Prize
I swear I reported this before, but a search doesn't find my name on this page so I guess I just didn't. Wikipedia seems just horifically broken to me. If I search for "Noble Prize" what SHOULD happen is that I get to the prize named in honor of Alfred Noble and THERE SHOULD BE TEXT that says "Not to be confused with The Nobel Prize". ALTERNATIVELY, this article should begin with text "For the prize named after Alfred Noble, see _________" with the blank filled in by a link to the article on the Noble Prize. It seems that there is some kind of concerted effort on the part of Wikipedia to utterly deny the fact that the Noble Prize EXISTS and that Aflred Noble did at one time exist. This is engraging to the point that if Wikipedia were a paid service I'd drag you into a court of law. You've no right to reroute "Noble Prize" to "Nobel Prize" and then not acknowledge what you're doing.2603:7000:9906:A91C:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 03:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson


 * The page Noble Prize redirects to the Alfred Noble Prize. — HTGS (talk) 10:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Right, and that's the spelling the IP used. However, Noble prize and Noble-prize redirected to Nobel Prize. I have changed them to Alfred Noble Prize. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Hazel Henderson
I added a line on Peter Nobel's disapproval of a 'Nobel' prize for Economics, citing remarks by Hazel Henderson, which has just been removed. As Ms Henderson appears to be notable in her own right, her assesment (particularly when she reports others sharing Peter's viewpoint) certainly seems to be a valid as a citation for his view. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)
 * "Ms Henderson appears to be notable in her own right" Literally citation needed for this. There is a Wikipedia biography, but it is sourced to her own publications and is a bit of a car-crash. One of the occupations given in that biography is "economic iconoclast" which isn't an occupation, is it? What are her relevant credentials such that a post on her personal blog can be counted as a reliable source? I point to WP:BLOGS, which says "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." There does need to be a section in the article on criticism of the Prize in Economic Sciences, but not right in the introductory paragraph about the prize; there is a section later in the article for controversies and criticisms. There are other critics of the prize such as Nassim Nicholas Taleb who probably deserve a mention. Peter Nobel's opinion is stated without showing why his opinion matters; merely being in the Nobel family does not make someone an expert. It needs to be spelled out who these people are and why their judgement matters, and it needs to be in the proper part of the article, not the part that defines what the prize is. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The edit summary for your reversion of my deletion reads "No engagement with BRD at talk page". Since the above Talk page text was created in response to my deletion, what "BRD at talk page" are you referring to here? MartinPoulter (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * My bold edit was to add Peter Nobel's criticism; you (partially) reverted it by removing the Henderson citation. This is the discussion. Perhaps I should have headed it "BRD:Hazel Henderson citation".
 * My perhaps simplistic view is that if somebody is notable enough to have a WP article, then they are notable enough to provide a citation since it is not acting a WP:Primary source for that purpose. As I understand wp:blogs, a non-notable person writing at a reliable source (a cub reporter on the NYT, for example) is not accepted. Conversely, a highly notable person certainly qualifies, we don't have to wait until it appears in print. [Personally I draw the line at twitter but others disagree]. To take an extreme example, if Stephen Hawking had written a blog in which he noted the dispute between string theorists and quantum gravitationists, I would see no problem with citing that as a source that says that there is definitely a dispute. In this case, I won't insist because I'm not overly convinced by her credentials either: I just thought it good enough to serve as a citation, better than a minor Swedish tabloid.
 * Yes, Peter N's criticism can easily be discarded since his only credential to criticise seems to be his blood. But he does have a point that the CBoS prize uses his name and de facto is called the "Nobel Prize for Economics", which is not one AN established; his credentials to call it a pseudo-science are not obvious. It would wander off-topic to get into questions about the scientific rigour of Economics as a discipline, which is a risk if it moves into the body. But if you can find a way to do so, I will happily give way. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 18:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Family Laureates: Hodgkin
Alan Hodgkin got the Nobel for Medicine and his first cousin's wife Dorothy Crowfoot Hodgkin got the Nobel for Chemistry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.88.176 (talk) 12:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The International Nobel Economic Congress 2008.jpg

Chien-Shiung Wu
Chien-Shiung Wu should be added to the section on "Overlooked achievements". Her omission from the 1957 Nobel Prize in Physics was very controversial, with Nobel Laureate Jack Steinberger labeling it as the biggest mistake in the Nobel committee's history. See the last paragraph of Wu experiment for more info. Nosferattus (talk) 03:39, 27 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Reliable source? סשס Grimmchild 10:16, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 1 December 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. per consensus, WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SINGULAR. (closed by non-admin page mover) echidnaLives  -  talk  -  edits  02:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobel Prize → Nobel Prizes – The prizes were evidently conceived of as a group from the beginning per (my bolding): Nobel's last will specified that his fortune be used to create a series of prizes. While coverage of individual prize recipients may often refer to a single Nobel Prize, this article discusses the prizes as a group, consistent with WP:PLURAL. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR and WP:COMMONNAME. Article titles are generally rendered in the singular, and you don't really hear the plural term "Nobel Prizes" very often. This is very similar to the recently closed discussion on the Pulitzer Prize. Rreagan007 (talk) 02:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Rreagan007 and the result of the recent Pulitzer Prize page RM decision. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME, and even the official https://www.nobelprize.org/ says Nobel Prize. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * More official names at https://www.nobelprize.org/public-events/: Nobel Prize Series, Nobel Prize Inspiration Initiative, Nobel Prize Concert, Nobel Prize Summit, Nobel Prize lectures, Nobel Prize Museum, Nobel Prize Dialogue. I don't know whether they have ever said "Nobel Prizes" in a name. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:38, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Comment If it weren't for WP:COMMONNAME I would support this as grammatically correct. The complication is that in Swedish the word pris (prize) is the same in singular and plural. (Another complication is that the Swedish word pris also means price, and that most Swedes never pronounce 's' as a vocal consonant in English; thus we usually hear them mispronounce "Nobel Price" as if the prizes are bought.) --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR—blindlynx 18:12, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per COMMONNAME and SINGULAR.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the reasons stated above. --Coolcaesar (talk) 04:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Shwcz (talk) 12:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi protection
Page is briefly semi-protected to bring a halt to some disruptive editing. Apologies to any IP or new editors hoping to legitimately add to this page in the next little while. -- Euryalus (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

History section
The last sentence of the History section is irrelevent. Previosly there was an additional sentence and it read: In 1905, the personal union between Sweden and Norway was dissolved. Thereafter, Norway's Nobel Committee was responsible for awarding the Nobel Peace Prize and the Swedish institutions retained responsibility for the other prizes. It was changed in Feb. 2015. Someone should fix this. 213.8.112.230 (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Henry Kissinger
Have any other Nobel Laureates reached 100?

Possibly 'X was the first NL to reach 100' here and on his page 'HK was the Xth NL to reach 100' would be appropriate. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2023 (UTC)