Talk:Nobel Prize controversies/Archive 1

Posthumus awards
Nobel's aren't awarded posthumusly, I seriously doubt that the Nobel Foundation waited for Rosalind Franklin to die before they awarded the prize. This page is going to have issues with POV. --nixie 06:20, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think much of the controversy lies in the very fact that Nobels are never awarded posthumously. Franklin's case simply illustrates this. -- FirstPrinciples 06:44, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

Grothendieck
In a letter to the Royal Swedish Academy declining the Crafoord Prize Mathematician Alexander Grothendieck asserted that "... during the past two decades, the ethics of the scientific profession (at least among mathematicians) has declined to such a degree that pure and simple plundering among colleagues (especially at the expense of those who are not in a position to defend themselves) has almost become the rule, and in any case is tolerated by all, even in the most flagrant and iniquitous cases.  Under these conditions, agreeing to participate in the game of "prizes" and "rewards" would also mean giving my approval to a spirit and trend in the scientific world that I view as being fundamentally unhealthy, and moreover condemned to disappear soon, so suicidal are this spirit and trend, spiritually and even intellectually and materially." Also see:Scientific fraud and the power structure of science.

This and this are decent sources about some controversial choices --nixie 06:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * This quote would be great for an article about scientific controversies, but it seems so indirectly related to the Nobel Prize that I felt compelled to remove it from the article. —johndburger 00:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. I have posted the rest of Gorthendieck's statement about the corrupting influence of such prizes to make the relevance clear.  The Crafoord Prize is also awarded by the Swedish Royal academy and is generally-considered the "Nobel prize in mathematics".


 * The Crafoord Prize is not generally considered the "Nobel Prize in mathematics". The Fields Medal is generally considered the mathematical equivalent of the Nobel Prize, at least amongst mathematicians as well as what of the popular press that I have seen. Zaslav 06:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Nominations Later Condemmed
Right now, this lists Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, and... GWB. This seems a bit too much like it's trying to make a point. I say this because "later condemned" is such a vague and imprecise designation. Condemned by whom? Since none of the above have been awarded the prize at all, and since there are probably hundreds of thousands of people authorized to make nominations, I submit that this category is useless and probably unverifiable. Perhaps it can be improved, but I don't see how. I will give this a bit of time to see if anyone can come up with good suggestions. If not, I'm deleting it. Vonspringer 21:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A few years ago the prize committee began releasing the nominations from the first half of the 20th century. It was then that these nominations came to light. They have been criticized, but those criticisms are not especially notable, so far as I have seen. I think that rather than deleting this section we should rework it into coverage of old nominations, omitting the criticism angle. However, since thousands of nominations have been made, and since many of those nominated are still notable, simply listing all notable nominees isn't practical. -Will Beback 23:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That's a possibility. We could call it "Notworthy Unsuccessful Nominations" or something like that.  We would need to add some more failed nominations other than three dictators and a controversial U.S. president to avoid the appearance of bias, especially since GWB's nomination can't be confirmed by the Nobel committee for nearly 50 years.  I don't know enough about the subject to know who should be added.  I'll give it a few days, and if someone who knows more doesn't come along, I'll do my best to improve it myself. Vonspringer 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume you meant notEworthy, or was notworthy a freudian slip?Jameskeates 11:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

gandhi?
Why didn't Gandhi win the prize. Whats up with that. He kicked the British out of India with non violence. I mean Martin Luther King pretty much wroshipped him. He got nominated 5 times and they didn't give it to him once. They should have given it to him all 5 times.


 * Gandhi is as close to a posthumour prize as the committee's ever gotten. In 1948 (the year of Gandhi's death), the Nobel Committee did not make the award, stating "there was no suitable living candidate". Wink, wink. It's generallly assumed that he was going to win it if he hadn't been assassinated.

Mahatma Gandhi is much beyond such prizes given by some committee ! True to Einstein's words future generations will find it tough to believe that such a man walked the earth in flesh and bones ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkkishore (talk • contribs) 18:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Controversial nominations

 * Adolf Hitler was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Peace by E.G.C. Brandt, member of the Swedish parliament. The nomination was withdrawn in a letter of February 1, 1939.
 * Josef Stalin, nominated in 1945 by a Norwegian former foreign minister, nominated in 1948 by a Czech professor.
 * Benito Mussolini, nominations in 1935 by a German college law faculty and a by a French law professor.

When were these nominations controvesial, and among whom? They were secret until recently. -Willmcw 01:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Those nominations are controversial nowadays. Andjam 01:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Can you give us links to the controversy? Thanks, -Willmcw 01:50, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously disputing that the Hitler nomination has generated controversy? I'll google some pages if you wish, but only if you put it down on the record that you doubt that the nomination is controversial. Andjam 01:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * "Controversy -A dispute, especially a public one, between sides holding opposing views" For these nominations to be controvesial, someone would have to be supporting them. If we want to list these the appropriate header would be "Nominations which were later condemned". Does anyone alive today really think that any of these three really should have won? If not, then there is no controversy. -Willmcw 02:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * You asked, and shall receive: If anyone deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, it was Adolf Hitler. I'd be happy with "Nominations which were later condemned". I guess I was happy with "controversial" because it's often a polite euphemism for "widely condemned". Andjam 03:05, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, on the face of it the cited article appears to suggest that Hitler loved peace and shold have won the award. However, it does not mention the nomination so it seems to be speaking in general terms (even the nominator quickly withdrew his own nomination). Let's go with "Nominations which were later condemned", it's more accurate. -Willmcw 04:16, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Remember that 1938 was the year of Peace for our time. The British Prime Minister had just come back from visiting Hitler and proclaimed that the work of Hitler had assured "the peace of Europe", and world leaders were congratulating Hitler, who also had enormous popular support within Germany (people should not forget that millions voted for Hitler). People around the world did not know what was to come later. In terms of it being a controversy, I am sure there were lots of Jews within Germany who did not agree with much of the rest of the world, and did not think Hitler was a wonderful peace-loving guy. Rnt20 07:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)



This image from Neville Chamberlain summarizes the opinion most western leaders had of Hitler in 1938, which may explain why Hitler was nominated for the Peace Prize. You have to remember that most of Hitler's rise to power had come from popular support within democratic Germany (i.e. he won elections), and even in 1938 he had enormous popular support. And there is no question that, worldwide, Hitler was considered far more of a "peace" figure in 1938 than George Bush was in 2003, and yet it is widely cited that Bush was (controversially) nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2003 (obviously we won't know this for certain for a few years). If Hitler had died in 1939, and there had been no Second World War, Hitler would have gone down in history as one of the most successful peace-brokers of the 20th Century, rather than as the tyrant he became. The bad things Hitler did in the 1930s were only brought to the forefront of public attention later (dredged up by Allied propaghanda departments). Rnt20 07:42, 16 October 2005 (UTC)


 * That is one view, though a view which neglects Germany's role in the Spanish Civil War, as many did at the time. Altogether, I don't think that Hitler's nomination was fantastic. It really isn't surprising that he was nominated, given the uniquely open nomination process for the Peace Prize. The nomination was withdrawn in February of 1939, a full six months before the outbreak of World War II. The agreement at Munich has some parallels to the Camp David accord forty years later that won Sadat and Begin the Prize, except for the outcome. (may the Nobel Peace Prize committee gets a few right). -Willmcw 09:02, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Chamberlain received 24 nominations, starting in 1928, though neither he nor Hitler ever got the Prize. What does that tell us about the significance of nominations? -Willmcw 09:06, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon
Two users ([[User:Willmcw and 138.231.136.10) repeatedly posted confusing information about Ariel Sharon on this page. I think what they were trying to say was that Ariel Sharon's prize was controversial, not just that he disapproved of Yasser Arafat, although this was not clear. I have added some text which I hope reflects these views.

If this is not what was intended please add a comment below. Rnt20 11:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, that'd better. The prize was controversial due to both of its recipients. -Willmcw 19:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Controversial exclusions
Leo Tolstoy was never awarded the Literature prize. It's first edition (1901) was awarded instead to almost forgotten Sully Prudhomme (René François Armand Prudhomme).

Controversial recipients
What about Menachem Begin (1978, Peace prize, shared with Egyptian president Anwar Sadat)? He was once declared a wanted terrorist, and $50,000 were offered by the British administration of Palestine as a reward to anyone assisting in his capture, after the Etzel organization blew up part of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, killing 90 people (1946). --Filius Rosadis 22:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, his win was clearly controversial. Not only was he at odds with the UK, but the Palestinians too- his organization, IRGUN, held many xenophobic principles (including a complete population 'transfer' (euphamism emphasized) of palestinians to neighbouring arab states).

Yasser Arafat
How is it a "point of view" to say that Arafat is considered by many to be a terrorist. I did not write that he is a terrorist. It is inaccurate to say that only by Israel, and only in the past, was he so considered, as "Yassar Arafat had previously been regarded as a "terrorist" by Israel." suggests. --DavidSJ 23:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Er, I would point out that absolutely no one disputes the fact that Arafat was the founder, and lifelong leader, of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, which DID use terror tactics to advance its agenda...the very definition of a "terrorist organization". The PLO made liberal use of anti-civilian bombings, both suicidal and otherwise, and did not refrain from attacking the civilians of nations other than Israel. Sometimes merely being of the wrong religion (Jewish) was enough for the PLO to commit casual, off-the-cuff murder (as per Mr. Klinghoffer, who was thrown over the side of the Achilles Lauro still in his wheelchair).

It might be possible to say that, once the Palestinian Authority was created, Arafat began to reform his ways. But in the wake of his personal dual decision to break off the Oslo Accords and launch the intifidas which continue to take the lives of Israeli and Palestinian alike via the use of terror tactics, I do not see how it is reasonable to claim that Mr. Arafat was NOT a terrorist. I would certainly note that his history of involvement in and support for terrorism produced a far longer list of crimes than Sharon and Begin put together --- if we are to consider THEM "suspect", then Arafat cannot be given a free pass. --Calbeck 21:39 MST, 17 March

What about Menachem Begin? As leader of Irgun, he attempted to employ many xenophobic policies before being coopted by popular politics (much like arafat) and reforming his ways. He won in 1979 (?) with Anwar Sadat (Egypt) and Jimmy Carter.

I think Arafat's nobel was controversial as he was a "terrorist". But so was the win for former general and minister of defence

This discussion is absurd. There is no accepted definition of "terrorist." The initial comment was correct, because using a statement like "is considered a terrorist by the Israeli government" is a lot more factual than "is a terrorist" or even "is a freedom fighter" for anyone, including Arafat. -SKK

How did Yasser Arafat promote peace!!! He stole millions of dollar from his people and kill Israeli citizens (not army)! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.215.74 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheaters
Within the physics community a few Nobel proze winners are believed to have cheated others out of the honours. At least 5 names come to mind quickly, however this is something that is not widely know outside the physics community and is not much discussed on the net either. One case I read about in a science magazine (paper edition) about 20 years ago but that one is not in their web archive.

How should this be dealt with? This was brought up in the case of one specific laureate and I see the article is now carefully worded stating he won the prize without saying it was his work, which is technically correct. -- 14:50, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

One problem is that if cheating is revealed After you win "The Prize" nothing happens. The trick is to win it and then nobody will touch you. It all gets hushed up. A hard temptation to resist. A good recent example is Jan Hendrik Schön who had the misfortune to be accidentally-discoverd cheating before he won the Nobel. Otherwise, he would have gotten away clean. He was a good enough theoretician to be mostly right and the few times he wasn't would be put down to the usual noise.


 * Cheating? I'm not sure where the fraud lies. Does someone sneak in extra ballots in the committee rooms? Do scientists claim credit for the discoveries of others? Do warring armies pretend to be at peace to further the candidacies of statesmen? Has the Nobel website been hacked to change the name of the winner? Have vacations in Jamaica been used to sway voters? Please explain what cheating is involved. Will Beback 08:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Naturally, by "cheating" I mean "scientific dishonesty".  This can go all the way from faking data, like Schon, to not properly acknowledging the contribution of others (aka,  "citation amnesia").   The Swedish definition of scientific misconduct is "Intention(al) distortion of the research process by fabrication of data: theft or plagarism of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript or application form or publication: or distortion of the research process in other ways."  ("Handling of scientific dishonesty in the Nordic countries",Lancet. 1999;354(9172):57-61)-- Click on Lancet article.


 * Interestingly, the Danish definition of misconduct  is " Intention(al) or gross negligence leading to falsification of the scientific message or  a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" (emphasis-added).   Assume the Nobel occasionally gives a scientist "False credit or emphasis".   If so,  then technically they are guilty of "Misconduct" if they do not correct this,  when it is brought to their attention.  Which may be why the Swedish definition of scientific misconduct drops it,  though they follow the Danish lead in most other particulars.  May 9,2006


 * Has scientific fraud ever been found in work that was recognized by a Nobel? Or is this hypothetical? -Will Beback 20:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In the data-faking sense, no, at least not identifiably.  True, if Jan Hendrik Schön had been a little more careful,  he might have been able to do it, assertions of "we knew it all along" notwithstanding.   Once he won "the Prize",  any irregularities subsequently-uncovered would have been dismissed as the usual noise.   But cases of misconduct as "false credit or emphasis given to a scientist" are legend.   Read the above list for some examples.


 * One problem is "citation amnesia", which is not properly giving credit to prior investigators.  Often enough,  this is not due to "Nobel fever",  but the exigencies of patent law.   The Noble committee are essentially amateurs,  typically trying to figure out who did what and when in a scientific area in which they are not experts.   Further,  there are professional and monetary reasons for the discovery record to be distorted.  In fact,  they do a surprisingly good job under the circumstances.   But they can and have been fooled.  Dr P


 * Unless we have a reliable source talking about a real instance, I don't see what the point is. -Will Beback 21:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Two recent examples of documentable probable "Citation Amnesia" by Nobel-prize winners:


 * The 2003 Prize in Medicine and Physiology for developing MRI imaging.  The prize slighted the pioneering work of Herman Y. Carr,  who both pioneered the present NMR gradient technique and, using it, had demonstrated rudimentary MRI imaging in the 1950's.  The Nobel prize winners had very likely seen Carr's work,  but did not cite it.  See Carr's  letter to Physics Today.  This is a separate issue from the exclusion of Raymond Damadian from the same award because of his Creationist views.


 * 2000 Chemistry Prize "For the discovery and developemt of Conductive Organic Polymers"  Basically,   for a 1977 report of passive high conductivity in oxidized polyacetylenes,  plus the mechanism of electronic conduction in such polymers and the development of practical materials applicable in passive devices such as batteries.   A decade of so later, this work was also supposed to have led to "active" devices.   That is, devices like a transistor, in which a voltage or current controls electron flow.
 * However, a similar mechanism of conduction in such materials had previously been proposed by John McGinness (J. E. McGinness, Science 177, 896 (1972)),  who then built an active electronic device (Science, vol 183, 853-855 (1974)),  a decade or so before such were supposed to exist.  This device had a high conductivity "ON" state.   In fact,  a subsequent article in the journal Nature (Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )) made much of this materials "strikingly large conductivity",  "highly conductive state",  etc.,  wording rather like the Nobel citation over two decades later.


 * Science and Nature are the highest impact journals in the world. How could anybody have missed this?  Yet, the Nobelists insist they never saw it,  rather than the more credible "we saw it and didn't think it was relevant" explaination.   Remember,  these are Noble prize winners,  with bunches of post-docs,  etc..    This is lawyer-talk-- if they admit they were aware of this "prior art",  then their patents are screwed,  as below.  BTW,   this voltage-controlled switch is now in the Smithsonian collection and is generally recognized as the first active organic electronic device (see, e.g.  "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003).


 * Meanwhile, the eventual Nobel winners had discovered that their original material was far too unstable to make practical devices and had gone to one whose patent description was rather like that of McGinness' material,  which he also used to make batteries,  etc..    The quandry here is that if you tell the patent examiner about such prior art,  you can never get the patent.   Shockley et al ran into this problem with their transistor.    However,  if you do not inform the patent examiner about such prior art,  you can never hint that you knew about it without effectively admitting to "inequitable conduct",  which may cause the loss of your entire patent.   Interestingly, in over 400 papers,  the Nobel winners never cited McGinness' papers once,  though they are clearly material.   Obviously,  the usual excuse of missing a cite because of publication in obscure journals is out.  Similarly,   several times,  McGinness and his coworkers attempted to contact the eventual winners and draw their attention to this "prior art".   No reply.  So they then just blew the matter off---any patent issues can be resolved in court,  if necessary.  Imagine their surprise when this work won the Nobel.  May 9, 2006

Another well known case of questionable integrity was how Jocelyn Bell Burnell did not win or even share the Nobel prize for the discovery of pulsars. Antony Hewish who did claim and win the prize is occationally mocked while the real discoverer has stated with fine British humour that it seemed improper to award the prize to a mere student. --14:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobel's will specifies that the award goes to the person who "Shall have made" the discovery.  Doesn't specify academic rank.

Dividing into a new section below

Science Misconduct and the Nobel

 * By the Danish definition of "...a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist",  the Nobel Foundation commits Scientific misconduct with regularity.   This is just inherent in the way the prize is awarded.  The Swedish system for investigating science misconduct is allegedly mostly based upon the older Danish model.   Yet,  they omitted this specific item in their definition.  Just perhaps,  they recognized the problem this might pose for "The Prize".   Natually,  the Noble Foundation is a private organization.  So,  they can give the prize to a red-assed baboon,  if they wish.   But this is a separate issue from "...distortion of the research process in other ways.",  which the Swedish rules on scientific misconduct prohibit.   There is also article 27 of the International Declaration of Human Rights.  This specifies that


 * "(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author."  5/12/6 —Preceding unsigned comment added by pproctor (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia has rules against cheating too. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your own grumbles against the Nobel Prize Committee. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 17:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * With due respect. Last I looked,  talk pages are the usual and customary place for hashing out controversial issues that might not belong on the main pages.  Naturally,  you are welcome to participate in the discussion.


 * As for the link above, note the "/whine.htm", deliciously named well before Raymond Damadian was accused of "whining" about his lost Nobel. Must be the water. Pproctor 03:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Forgot to mention. Seeing your interest in evolutionary biology from your personal page-- A parent website to the link you cite above www.organicmetals.com,  starts off with a quote from our favorite evolutionary biologist,  Charles Darwin. Check it out. Pproctor 04:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to look into this matter, after lunch. Dunc has a habit of reverting a lot of things without discussion, and without bothering to take the time to explain to new Wikipedians how the system works.

There may, or may not, be a good reason to include the information which Dr. Proctor offers us. But the fact that he himself is offering it, is not a good reason to dismiss him. --Uncle Ed 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, this needs discussing calmly, with reference to other sources, and without violating WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. (btw, I have tried to explain how it works, but all I got in return was a lecture on how Larry Sanger was right about Wikipedia's anti-elitism being bad, and how WP:VAIN didn't apply to Proctor because he has a PhD). &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Larry's still right, but that doesn't trump WP:VAIN. We all agree to follow this website's rules while we are here. If I don't like the rules on what can be included and how, I can start my own encyclopedia. --Uncle Ed 18:08, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry may be right. The problem is not with expert editors as with editors who think they know better than everyone else and are exempt from WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Anyway, the discussion should be on whether to include a reference to "Who Discovered the First High-Conductivity Organic Polymer?".

I would say that a Nobel Prize controversy would have to include some element of controversy. Something that newspaper columnists and the blogosphere would love and in turn produce lots of third references. As it stands, we have one personal webpage (we need to ignore the various WP:NOR violations attempting to link the Nobel Committee with scientific misconduct). As far as I can tell this is a storm in a teacup; the controversy is limited to Peter Proctor's own website, and his posting to Usenet. Now this may still be worth a brief mention, but then again may not (the whole page is quite frankly mess). &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 19:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Nobody is exempt from WK:NOR, etc.. Wouldn't think of it-- in fact,  such "boundry conditions" help us organize our thoughts. The difference is that (as the guideline notes),  we "experts" know what sources are important and what they really say in quantitative as well as qualitative terms.  It's what comes from all those decades of education and experience.  In fact, in the real world,  this is what they pay us the big bucks for, not "original research". Pproctor 05:52, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you are saying that the great Dr Peter Proctor M.D. is exempt from the policy of WP:NOR - despite WP:NOR noting that experts "do not occupy a privileged position" within Wikipedia?


 * This whole original research thing would be simple to solve; you need to do atleast one of the following:
 * Show where someone other than yourself has backed up your claim of being denied.
 * Show where someone other than yourself has taken time to rebut your argument (even if you think their arguments are rubbish; the thing about controversy is that it generates discussion).
 * Show where you have protested through an academic channel to you peers, e.g. a letter to Physics Today (who I trust would not publish any old rubbish) rather than your website.


 * Otherwise it is original research. And it has to go. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:31, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked: From "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, ''Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006:'' 1–20 (2003).


 * "Also in 1974 came the first experimental demonstration of an operating molecular electronic device (emphasis-added) that functions along the lines of the biopolymer conduction ideas of Szent-Gyorgi. This advance was made by McGinness, Corry, and Proctor who examined conduction through artificial and biological melanin oligomers. They observed semiconductor properties of the organic material and demonstrated strong negative differential resistance, a hallmark of modern advances in molecular electronics.58 Like many early advances, the significance of the results obtained was not fully appreciated until decades later...(p 14)"

Like Herman Carr, we had a letter published in a journal about the Nobel issue. In this case "New Scientist" I'll try to find a copy. In any case, the issue is not our prioriy claims (which are just coincidental to the device),  but those of Weiss et al,  as noted below. Pproctor 04:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Fantastic Plastic", On-line edition, New Scientist, November 4, 2000.  In which I point out that not only did Shirawaka et al not discover the first highly conductive organic polymer,  but that an active molecular electronic device (which their discovery was supposed to have resulted in) existed three years before their first publication.


 * Again, lest I be accused of "vanity",  we did not,  repeat not, make the first conductive organic polymer.  Depending on your interpretation, that honor goes to people at Bell Labs for Charge transfer complexes or to Weiss et al,  who basically did their same experiment 14 years before the Nobel winners (cites below).   We were merely the putative last to make a highly-conductive organic polymer before they rediscovered the electrical properties of this set of compounds just as the field was starting to mature.   OTOH, by now,  the people who really got screwed are either dead or long-retired.  So the point is moot,  except to the science historians, who are going to have decades of fun with this one.Pproctor 02:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the discussion page on conductive polymers, where I point of that another paper which I cite in Nobel Prize Controversies ) moves Heeger et al down to fourth place,  at best in discovery priority for conductive organic polymers.  In the article here,  I also cite Ingels review of the history of conductive polymers tellingly entitled "Nothing New under the Sun" WRT Heeger et al's 1977 discovery.Pproctor (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Edison/Tesla
Do we have any source for this? If not I'm going to remove it because it appears to be speculation. -Will Beback 00:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the 1920s Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla were mentioned as potential laureates, but it is believed that due to their animosity toward each other neither was ever given the award, despite their enormous scientific contributions. There is some indication that each sought to minimize the other one's achievements and right to win the award, that both refused to ever accept the award if the other recieved it first, and that both rejected any possibility of sharing it, as was rumour in the press at the time.

Read: These should contain the references that you need. This page also give a tast of the news reports about it. Edison and Tesla Win Nobel Prize in Physics. Literary Digest, December 18, 1915.
 * Cheney, Margaret, "Tesla: Man Out of Time", ISBN 0-13-906859-7
 * Seifer, Marc J., "Wizard, the Life and Times of Nikola Tesla". ISBN 1-559723-29-7 (HC), ISBN 0-806519-60-6 (SC)
 * O'Neill, John H., "Prodigal Genius". ISBN 0-914732-33-1

There isn't anything "speculation" about this. It's statements of fact (but change the date!). 204.56.7.1 19:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Another site: Controversy about This Year's Nobel Prize in Medicine teslasociety.com 204.56.7.1 20:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

This looks like it is all based on an incorrect newspaper story from 1915. The New York Times of November 6, 1915, p1, "Edison and Tesla to get Nobel Prize" attributed to the Copenhagen correspondent of the Daily Mail of London a claim that Edison and Tesla were to share the Nobel Prize for Physics, and Svedberg was to get one for chemistry. The next day, Nov 7, 1915, p 17 Tesla said all he knew about it was the story in the NY Times the previous day, that he thought if he got one it might be for wireless transmission of power, and that "He thought Mr. Edison was worthy of a dozen Nobel Prizes." This is the polar opposite of later claims that he turned it down because he did not want to share an award with Edison. Finally Dec 26, 1915, the NY Times stated that the original story was a mistake: "The first report was incorrect." And it was incorrect for the chemistry prize as well as for the physics prize. It appears more likely due to sloppy reporting than behind the scenes fighting between Edison and Tesla. Tesla had often expressed his friendship for and admiration of Edison. See the New York Times, Jan 22, 1894, p3: “In coming to the United States, he {Tesla}found his first occupation in the Edison works. To be there had long been the “goal of my ambition,” and for Mr. Edison Mr. Tesla always has had the strongest admiration.” Then, there was NY Times, March 14, 1895, p9:"The two men are scarcely rivals, for they conducted their investigations on substantially different lines. Personally, they are warm friends.” When Edison died Tesla said of him, NY Times, Oct 19, 1931, p 25:   "He will occupy a unique and exalted position in the history of his native land, which might well be proud of his great genius and undying achievements in the interests of humanity." It looks like the antipathy of Tesla toward Edison only appeared in his declining days, or that it might have been invented by biographers. I haven't seen a verifiable source for it in the form of writings of Tesla. The 1915 physics prize being offered to Edison and Tesla and somehow refused appears to be a myth.Edison 00:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Seifer actually dug into the records of the Swedish academy to disprove the allegation that Tesla or Edison were offered and refused to accept a 1915 prize. The Cheney and O'Neill books apparently relied on the retracted and incorrect NY Times story. This myth is busted. There should be better sourcing for the claim that each sought to minimize the awards given to the other. Edison 00:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Literature prize in 1974
I can't find any mention in this article or the main Nobel Prize article about the mildly disproportional amount of literature prizes awarded to Swedes. I can imagine some of them would be worthy recipients (Selma Lagerlöf and perhaps Pär Lagerkvist), but other selections seem awkward especially considering the list of people who were never awarded. I'm thinking in particular of the prize in 1974 awarded jointly to Eyvind Johnson and Harry Martinson, both of which were in the Swedish Academy at the time. Their individual entries both mention this. Similarly Verner von Heidenstam was a member of the Academy in 1916 when he got the award. Does anyone know if these people are/were internationally acknowledged as worthy recipients? In case anyone's wondering, I'm a Swede myself. :)

Actually, most Swedes, and by extension Scandinavias, who won the prize are not well known. The one who is the most-read, at least in Latin America, is Henrik Ibsen, who ironically did not get his award. I'm working on a Literature controversies section (trying to find proper referencies), and this matter will be a part of it. By the way, it is mentioned in the wiki article for the Nobel Prize in Literature. Rocabatus (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Kissinger
A discussion of Kissinger's winning should be opened. eg. Why has it not been revoked? More importantly, why was he nominated in the first place? Were such facts really unknown?
 * Perhaps so, but remember -- Wikipedia isn't a place to make changes happen, but rather a place to record the changes which are already happening. If there's a significant public discourse already going on, it may well be worth a mention; to that end, do we have reliable sources and verifiable information, so that we can avoid original research? Thanks for your time, either way, and have a nice day. :) Luna Santin 11:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there some controversy over the fact that Graham Green was never awarded a Nobel?

Einstein
How about if we remove the following sentence or at least rewrite it to sat something relevant to Nobel Prizes: "Einstein was also known to have confessed to have met with some issues in his marriages, love matters - recently made known in published form in more details." I do not see the point. Edison 15:20, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Several false statements were in the paragraph on Einstein. First, the Nobel committee never was aware of, let alone influenced by, the nutty claims that Mileva authored or co-authored any of Einstein's papers. Second, Einstein's calculation of the predicted deflection of light was not rendered invalid by "an error in his then-use of linear rectangular coordinates". Also, the the extent that Soldner's paper was known, it was understood to represent the Newtonian prediction (notwithstanding Soldner's erroneous factor of 2), so it had no bearing on the relativistic prediction. Third, the cosmological constant was not "later disproved by [Hubble], and in fact it is very much an active hypothesis today, in light of recent observations of accelerating expansion. In any case, whether or not the CC is zero has no bearing on the Nobel committee's assessment of Einstein's work. Lastly, the Nobel committee was never misled by silly misunderstandings about stellar aberration and "erroneous (star-relative-to-earth) relative velocity terms".63.24.101.9 04:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Bovine insulin -- Beijing scientists' exclusion
I am deleting this section, as it is not clear that there is any controversy here -- was the recommendation by a Laureate enough to make it a controversy? There is little on the web in terms of ghits, and no articles in Wikipedia on either contributor...


 * The first total synthesis of bovine insulin - a world's first, a Nobel Prize-level achievement work (done between 1958 - 1965) which won world-wide recognition, and praised in 1966 by Arne Wilhelm Kaurin Tiselius, President of the Nobel Foundation and Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry - was the work of several chinese scientists from Beijing University. It is now common knowledge that one can use bovine insulin to retrieve the human insulin gene (because bovine and human insulin are remarkably close to identical) and then insert the human insulin gene into a bacteria, allow the latter to divide and generate buckets of human insulin for diabetics's use and injection - with no fears of allergic reaction (a 1978 protein-production biotechnology). However, the two scientists nominated for the Nobel Prize (recommended several times by no less than the Nobel Laureate Chen Ning Yang himself) - Niu Jingyi and Wang Yinglai - did not manage to obtain any Nobel prize in the end.

--Ogdred 21:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

2000 Nobel Chemistry Prize controversy
In the field of organic electronics, there is not just one, but multiple well-acknowledged controversies about this award. First, that of the exclusion of Charge transfer complexes, which were discovered to have high electrical conductivity in the 1950's.  Likewise, John McGinness' device. E.g., if you want evidence of controversy-- from "Battery Development and Applications Milestones":

"1974 The semiconducting properties of organic materials discovered and their use as the basis for a bistable switch patented by John E. McGinness, Peter Corry and Peter H. Proctor working on melanin at the University of Texas.

Three years later, without citing the Texans' prior art, Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa published a similar paper, for which they were subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize."

However, there were at least three generally-acknowledged examples of high-conductivity organic polymers before that of the 2000 Noble winners, of which McGinness' was the last. So he was not in competition anyway, at least as the citation is phrased. Most especially, Weiss and coworkers 1963 paper, which you-all deleted. The 2000 Nobel winners 1977 paper is essentially a duplicate of this paper, using another of the same class of material. Pproctor 04:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, get a notable source that says as such and we will be happy to include the later part. Furthermore, there is also an issue of notability. Every single prize has some criticism. You need to convince us that this is criticism that should be in thae article, that is that these claims are common enough about this prize that they should be noted. I will also once again strongly caution you about WP:AUTO. JoshuaZ 06:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Concur w/JoshuaZ. Every prize had more than one contender, and supporters of those who were not awarded the prize criticised. This does not a serious controversy make. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * First, read the rest of the list of controversial awards.  They are mostly by mere assertion "Many physicists beleive,  etc".  Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award,  for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear.   Same is true here,  though,  as I note above,  there are some public rumblings besides my own.  E.g., the citation to the Weiss paper comes from one such anonymous researcher.ey are mostly by mere assertion "Many physicists beleive,  etc".  Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award,  for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear.


 * As for "notable source", the above is from a general history of batteries by a battery manufacturer.   You probably cannot find the equivalent for most of the other things on the list.  Likewise, contrary to your assertion, this is not just about one specific "prior art" item,  but multiple ones.


 * The award is for a specific thing, "The discovery and developemt of conductive organic polymers". So all that is necessary is to show that one or more highly conductive organic polymers existed before one specific 1977 publication.  Even better,  "conductivity" means a quantity, expressed as ohms-cm2.   A real,  objective,  NPOV, NOR, number in a particular WK-verifiable peer-reviewed paper.  This number is less than about 100 ohm-cm2.  To give some perspective,  most organic polymers are about eight orders of magnitute better resistors.


 * Again, some charge-transfer polymers (discovered 1954) are superconductors. Similarly, Weiss et al reported 1 ohm-cm2 in 1963,  while McGinness et al reported less than 1 ohm-cm2 for the ON state of their 1974 device.  BTW, "An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) cites the latter as the first organic electronic device.   Is a PNYAS review "notable" enough?  Or, howabout a Nature News and views" article (Nature Vol. 248 April 5 1974, p475 ( News and Views )).  You don't really believe all this went unnoticed,  do you?


 * Anyway, the real smoking gun is Weiss et al's 1963 paper,  which is not only prior to McGinness' (thus obviating any "vanity" issues here) but is also almost identical with the 1977 paper  that won the Nobel.  Download and read them side-by side.   There is not a lot of difference between "high-conductivity iodine-doped polypyrrole" and "high-conductivity iodine-doped polyacetylene". Pproctor 15:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Many problems with your above comment. First as KC observed, every nobel has some people making such claims that doesn't make it a controversy. Second, the various nobels often have short simple statements about what the prizes were for, statements which are in fact frequently general like the above and could arguably refer to other work also. Third, reading the above papers and noting level of similarities is WP:OR. Again, the best thing to do is to find multiple independent WP:RS sources which make the claim. Many of the mentioned controversies in the article were large enough such that they made even lay publications such as newspapers. Finally as to your claim that most of the mentions on the list "are mostly by mere assertion 'Many physicists beleive,  etc'.  Scientists do not want to go on record as complaining in public about a Nobel award,  for reasons the case of Raymond Damadian makes abundantly clear"- this claim is ridiculous for three reasons: first this is if anything an argument to remove material from the section not to add (Wikipedia doesn't care why something isn't coming from WP:RS sources merely that it isn't). Second many scientists have complained vocally in some of the examples mentioned. Third, your example case is in fact awful since the Damadian case resulted in much debate and discussion among both scientists and lay people. (Also I'm not completely sure I understand why you say the Damadian case somehow makes your previous assertion "abundantly clear" are you claiming that other scientists were retaliated against for making pro-Damadian comments?) JoshuaZ 17:48, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, the other examples in the article depend on assertion. Go after them too,  to be consistent.


 * Second, NOR and NPV are not violated because several peer-reviewed publications before the Nobelist's 1977 paper report conductivity of less than 100 ohms-cm2 in an organic polymer. Nor is it a violation of such to point this undeniable fact out.  In fact,  this confirms as close to WK:NPOV and WK:NOR as you are likely to see.   Similarly, if the Nobel foundation (whom we can assume to be "authoritative") states that this is why the 2000 Nobel Chemistry prize was awarded,  then it is definitely a violation of WK:NOR on your part to question their word, without something equivalent to support this assertion,  naturally. Pproctor 18:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * NOR is violated, whether those papers are sufficiently similar is OR, and I'm not engaging in OR to point out that something is not sufficient evidence to be worthy of inclusion here. We are allowed to investigate the reliability and relevancy of sources. Please read try to actually WP:OR. Also as to your edit summary about not being able to deny truth- I have nowhere claimed that you are wrong. Indeed you seem to have made a strong case for your position but even if you are completely correct OR and related issues would still apply. JoshuaZ 18:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Your statement that the Noble foundation might not tell the full story in its citations, etc. is what I meant by "original research". This may be true, you can't claim it without some outside source,  any more than I can.

Similarly, I limit my opinion that the Weiss et al and Shirakawa et al papers are "similar" to these talk pages. On the article page, I merely note that in 1963 Weiss et al reported an iodine-doped derivative of polyacetylene with a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm2. Likewise, I note that Shirakawa et als paper reporting highly-conductive iodine-doped polyacetylene  (for which they won the Nobel) was published in 1977. Likewise, I give links to full PDF versions of both peer-reviewed-and-in-respected-journal papers, for "verifiability". All according to the guidelines, which most of the rest of the page blatantly violates with lots of completely undocumented statements.

Any "similarity", assuming it exists, is up to the reader,  whom I would not presume to instruct. No OR at all, merely the papers and their publication dates. I likewise reference a 1964 book containing meterials on conductive Charge transfer complex polymers. Pproctor 21:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * No. Please read WP:OR. The assertion that your comment about the citation has little relevancy isn't an OR issue because I'm not citiing it in an article, I'm using it as a reason to not have it in the article. See the difference? Second of all whether you use the word similar or not on the article page isn't relevant because it is clear that that is what you are trying to imply. To do so is WP:OR. JoshuaZ 22:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read NP:OR ad nauseum and avoid any hint of it on the article page. How is it "clear" that I am implying anything?  Perhaps your imagination is better than mine.  I merely note without further comment that Weiss et al reported a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm for iodine-doped polypyrrole in 1963.   How does this suggest that this paper is otherwise "similar" to Shirakawa's 1977 paper reporting conductivity of 38 ohm-cm for iodine-doped polyaniline.   The issue is high-conductivity in an organic polymer (the subject of the Nobel).  Thus, I limit my comments to merely repeating the respective conductivities noted in the papers, not a bit of original reseach anywhere.  Note that the other example I give, conductive Charge transfer complexes is chemically and electronically unrelated to polyaniline,  other than being a conductive organic polymer. Pproctor 23:14, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The following meets the NOR test well:


 * The 2000 Nobel Prize in Chemistry to Shirakawa et al was awarded for "The discovery and Development of Conductive Organic Polymers". This was originally based upon a 1977 paper reporting  a conductivity of 38 ohms-cm in oxidized, iodine-doped polyacetylene.  However, three years before, a news article in the journal Nature noted the "strikingly large conductivity", "highly conducting state", and "large conduction" of a material recently reported  in the journal Science. An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003) notes that this paper reports the first organic electronic device.  This material had a conductivity of less than 1 ohm-cm in its "ON" state.  However,  over a decade before this paper, Weiss et al had reported   a conductivity of 1 ohm-cm in oxidized iodine-doped polypyrrole, a polyacetylene derivative.   Similarly,  as early as 1954,  scientists at Bell Labs reported a conductivity of 8 ohms-cm in Charge transfer complexes.   Some of these later proved to be superconductive.


 * I use the Nature news article and the PNYAs review (satisfying WK:NOR) to bring up the John McGinness paper in Science.  Then,  to bring an WK:NPOV (also required if you cite your own published work), I shoot down any priority claims it has to "high conductivity" per se by citing Weiss et al and the Bell Labs researchers,  who really deserve the credit. Pproctor 14:03, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That this is a "constoversy" is OR and the use of the Weis paper to "shoot down" the priority claims is also clearly OR. Almost all of this goes under a form of prohibited new synthesis. JoshuaZ 01:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


 * That the Nature "News and Views" article and the PNYAS review made a fuss about this paper and its demonstration of high conductivity in an organic polymer (what the Nobel went for) is not "OR". Nor is the fact that such had been shown before this paper.  Interestingly,  recently,  there was major criticism of an editor for editing a wikipedia article to claim undue credit for a discovery .  This is the exact opposite of the case here.  Like Herman Carr,  I had a letter to the editor published on this issue (in New Scientist) about Oct-Nov. 2000.  It is not on line.  Next time I get to the library,  I'll get the exact particulars. Pproctor 01:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * New Scientist, November 4, 2000, On-line edition. Letter to Editor entitled "Fantastic Plastic". Pproctor 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Sourcing - to-do?
An anon recently made several additions, without sourcing, as are some of the older entries. Suggest we make a list of controversies which are lacking cites and start a to-do list, with the object being to source, or failing finding a RS, remove the entries. Thoughts? KillerChihuahua?!? 20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This seems like a good idea. JoshuaZ 01:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Controversial recipients
This section just severes as a place to discuss controversies surrounding the awards recipients; unless the award of the Noble to a person has been specifically questioned by some authorative source they should be removed.--Peta 02:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

To Add Another Section titled Nobel Prize Misses?
Ref: Bovine insulin -- Beijing scientists' exclusion.

I suggest The case for Niu Jingyi and Wang Yinglai (The first total synthesis of bovine insulin case) is more appropriate under a possible new section titled Nobel Prize Misses.

In 1966, the visit and encomium by Arne Wilhelm Kaurin Tiselius, President of the Nobel Foundation and Chairman of the Nobel Committee for Chemistry, did raise hope of a possible Nobel Prize win in the offing. If we follow the true history of the case, one can only conclude that it is largely due to the reluctant, cool, and, at times confusing cooperation (or noncooperation) from the Communist Party of China then - so much so that all the proper timing is out: the nominations got so far as to reach one member of the Swedish Committee at one point though.

I would also put Rosalind Franklin (and possibly e.g. Chung-Yao Chao, Robert Oppenheimer) case under the Nobel Prize Misses!Not exclusion, to be fair.Yzphub 02:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Editing syntax
The introduction may have been written by someone who is not a native English speaker and seems a little awkward. I am editing it for readibility, while retaining as much of the original sense as possible. Pproctor 02:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

The section on Orhan Pamuk (2006, Literature) also has some syntax errors. I have tried to edit it, but I had to leave some sentences as they are since I cannot tell what the author meant.Berkbs 06:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The following text is unclear and I am deleting it:

"it brought about too—for the first time—a sense of disquiet among the many eminent and knowing scientists; as to how scientific adjudication, at a high level, by an admixture of relatively passive, self-interests–delimited university officials and several contentious, disparate prosecuting groups from the government to match[23] (lacking—in the assessment of many reputable scientists,[57]—experience, the most suitable scientific credentials proper,[58] and, clear objectives)—somehow allowed into a position of such overriding institutional power and influence, has devolved and acquiesced into a seemingly endless slew of unnecessary roundabout bedeviling contretemps, obfuscating etiolated muddles and unprecedented high tolls of runaway civic costs: from what it clearly and simply is"

Tagged for cleanup
The article really needs a serious cleanup, particularly concerning structure. Some style editing would be welcome too. GregorB 23:59, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification/Emphasis for potential nominees who could not be awarded because they died
It seems to me, that the article needs some clarification/emphasis on potential nominees who died too soon.

Examples:
 * Roslind Franklin died in 1958 and the prize was awarded in 1962 to Watson, Crick, and Wilkins
 * much of Kafka was unpublished before he died

Since the Nobel Prize committee's policy is not to give posthumous awards, then the "oversight" for these two persons seems a lot more reasonable.

Clemwang 05:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing unsourced controversies
There have already been a few comments above about the lack of sources for these controversies. In some instances the material may have been added by editors who personally think the issues were controversial, not because there was an actual controversy. I'm going to start removing unsourced controversies. -Will Beback · † · 22:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

This entire "controversy" section deserves a thorough removal! Most of the controversies are based on schepticism and theoretics!

Missing Citations, or Making Accusations?
"Gandhi was also known, though, to have made—at times shocking[citation needed], at times controversial—pronouncements of life's statements and personal philosophy that bordered on extreme idealism[citation needed] and racial judgments."

I think this stands for itself. "Extreme idealism" is by no means a bad thing for a Nobel Peace Prize candidate or laureate. The point of such a statement is to state that one of the reasons might have been his "shocking" statements or "racial judgments." Yet there is no citation. What is this referring to and why is there no citation? -SKK —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.18.236.149 (talk) 07:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

Posthumous controversies
What exactly is the controversy surrounding a prize that is not awarded posthumously being not specifically given posthumously to various people? What is this article about? I would like to see specific quotes that say precisely what the controversy is regarding Franklin not having risen from her grave to take the prize, and the Nobel Committee not having ordered her exhumation for just this purpose, and ditto Niepce de Saint-Victor, who had been in the grave for a lot longer when the Nobel was given to all those other folks. Are these real controversies? Or is this Original Research? KP Botany 02:37, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said above, many of these controversies seem to exist in the minds of editors rather than in the larger world. I keep thinking I'll clean out the ones that don't have clear references mentioning controversies. ·:·Will Beback  ·:· 06:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Will, please do, although I'm fairly certain you'll be accused of something nefarious for doing so. Is "nefarious" the word I want?  Seriously, until there is a quote specifically about the controversy along the lines of "Although Niepce de Saint-Victor had been dead for over 30 years when this non-posthumous award was given, it was controversial not to give him the award, because the French have long been known to be masters of reincarnation"  these should all be deleted.  KP Botany 18:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Controversial Nobel Misses and General Grammatical Rules
I'm not fluent enough in the area of science to take it upon myself to fix this section; however, I'm still fluent enough in basic English and grammatical structures to recognize that this entire section (especially the sections re: In 1957... and Others...) needs a serious rewrite. Also, a specific complaint regarding the grammar used throughout the article: the use of colons: it is entirely: overdone. 74.134.228.189 07:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the entire article is in desperate need of a copy edit, in particular the strange punctuation--like the failure to simply use commans when making parenthetical remarks--and your effors would be appreciated--and also what about just using simple sentences.
 * You don't have to change any content to put it in standard English, please feel free and welcome to write English for us in this article, it really needs a lot of work, and your contribution would be appreciated. I simply don't have time to copyedit the article.  KP Botany 17:09, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Warburg's involutary refusal
On this page it states that the German government refused to let Otto-Heinrich Warburg from being awarded the 1944 Physiology prize. However, on Warburg's wikipedia page the incident is not presented with the certainty that it is in this article:

"It is widely rumored he was selected for a second Nobel Prize in 1944, but was not allowed to accept the prize due to the policies of the German government at the time. This has yet to be confirmed by the The Nobel Foundation or any reputable source."

I think we need to have consistency across the encyclopedia and at least note that there is scepticism over the 2nd Nobel refusal claim. 86.145.69.143 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I made some changes to address this, although in less definite words than those of the Warburg article, which I hope will be satisfactory in all regards. 213.112.136.166 15:14, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Exclusively to Norwegians? Mostly to Scandinavians?
I am going to remove the statement (in the introductory section The Prize) that "Early in its history, the Nobel Foundation had been criticized for awarding the Nobel Prizes exclusively to Norwegians". I have just looked through the first 50 prizes (1901-10 in five categories) on www.nobelprize.org and exactly one (1) was awarded to a Norwegian.

As for the reference cited, it is actually a copy of the Wiki article from reference.com, which is clearly not a reliable EXTERNAL reference. Must be an old version though, as it says "mostly to Scandinavians". But this is not true either; only 5 of the 50 prizes from 1901-10 were to Scandinavians. Dirac66 17:48, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Dmitri Mendeleyev - controversial exclusion?
Mendeleyev is listed under the short Chemistry paragraph under Controversial Exclusions...He apparently did not get elected for the 1906 Chem Prize....however, I'm not sure he is a "controversial exclusion"...After all, he was born in the 1830s, the Prizes did not start until 1901 - i.e., he was elderly and had limited time left for a nobel. Henri Moisson won that year (rightly or wrongly). Mendeleyev died the next year. The paragraph also states it was another scientist who corrected the periodic tables

Let's face it, Helmholtz, Boltzmann - you name how many - never got prizes...what distinguishes "controversial exclusion" from simply losing out to another scientist near the end of ones lifetime? Engr105th 21:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore's Prize
I heard people on the news today mentioning that the prize to Al Gore specifically is quite ironic because just 2 days before it was awarded to him, a high court judge banned his film from being shown in UK schools because of "a biased argument using bad an inacurate science". I'm trying to find sources for it but I think it would be worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.225.6 (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Let us call a spade a spade: you, Sir, or Madam, are economical with the truth: "The judge said nine statements in the film were not supported by mainstream scientific consensus." (actually meaning: case not proven, some scientists still dispute it) and: "In his final verdict, the judge said the film could be shown as long as updated guidelines were followed.". The whole BBC article, in case there is any doubt here.Pan Gerwazy 23:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I propose we add him to the article. I find it amazing how Noble's Will have absolutely nothing to do with climate change rather reduction of armies and promotion of peace. All gore has done is create conflict in the international science community. Whether you believe him or not, the prize does not even relate to his cause. -- zrulli 00:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The relation of Gore's cause to peace is explained in the second paragraph of the Nobel press release:

"Indications of changes in the earth's future climate must be treated with the utmost seriousness, and with the precautionary principle uppermost in our minds. Extensive climate changes may alter and threaten the living conditions of much of mankind. They may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth's resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world's most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states."[From http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/press.html] Dirac66 01:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The explanation given by Dirac66 seems to answer any questions on the relevency of his work to the Prize's purpose. Most of the facts he presents are true and global climate change resulting from human activity is a scientific fact agreed upon a vast majority of the scientific population. Since the review committee of the organization also agrees with this, the awarding of the prize to Al Gore is not open for debate. I have re-worded the section on Al Gore. Please respond or edit it appropriately. Adding that statement cited by Dirac66 might be worthwhile. - Forcefieldmaker87 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcefieldmaker87 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, all the Nobel committee members are Norwegian politicians. How can Nobel committee grant any global prize and holding neutral view, when all of the members are chosen from the same country? In fact, even average police officers are far more deserving on earning Nobel than some politician who doesn't even do a fraction of peacekeeping, especially comparing to people who have risk their lives everyday against dictatorship regimes. Jacob Poon 23:19, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Al Gore falls under Wiki's policies on biographies of living persons. WP:BLP. If there is a controversy about the prize being awarded to Gore, please feel free to add it from a sourced, verifiable, and proper reference. Otherwise leave the information out of the article. KP Botany 23:28, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I added a variety of right-wing and left-wing sites noting and commenting on the controversy over the committee's decision. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 15:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, this won't work: your variety of righ-wing and left-wing sites in an attempt to balance the sides of the alleged controversy is merely original research. Please read Verifiability very carefully.  You may only add this information from a credible, verifiable source.  Blogs are opinion pieces, there is nothing independently verifiable about another person's opinion.  If there is a news article discussing the various sides of the blogs, then you might be able to add this information about the blogs.  KP Botany 20:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh... wha? Here are the sources I provided: A B CD E F. A is a reliable source noting the Czech president Vaclav Klaus statement. B is a blog... but those are not outlawed by Verifiability. It is a very well-known politics website: Politico.com. C & D are pieces from noted anti-war peace advocates of one of the leading peace advocacy journals CounterPunch (including one by Jan Oberg, director of TFF and former director of the Lund University Peace Research Institute (LUPRI), former secretary-general of the Danish Peace Foundation, former member of the Danish government's Committee on security and disarmament, etc., etc., etc. ). E is a news article about the controversy from Cybercast News Service. And F is a reliable article from Al Jazeera. All are reliable sources, all are reporting on the controversy. My comment about a variety of right and left wing sites is original research, but that's why I didn't add that part to the article. :-) I am re-adding. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 21:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the difference between a blog and a news article and that your conglomerating a bunch of different "opinions" together from blogs doesn't make a news article or a reliable source? I will have one of the administrators handle this BLP manner with you as you seem eager to insert this information without understanding the underlying policies.  I will revert you, though, whenever I have time, until an administrator can explain this to you.  KP Botany 22:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You forgot Al-Jazeera. That's a reliable source. So is CNS. You've lost this round. Kyaa the Catlord 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Well-known blogs" are not necessarily reliable sources on the Nobel Peace Prize. I'm going to remove Politico. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And since Oberg is one of the persons quoted in the Al-Jazeera article, he MUST be deleted as well. CNS is a problem too, as this is what they had to say just before Al Gore got the prize: . That source seems to have an anti-Al Gore POV - meaning it will not give time to the other side (the vast majority of scientists who believe in global warming) and may not be reliable on this subject. Aljazeera at least quotes someone who supports the link between peace and the environment. Since BLP is about possible litigation, and this thread was opened with an obvious untruth, which would not look good in court, I'd say quote both sides from Aljazeera and throw everything else - that would get rid of OR as well. The point is that I suspect there is indeed a calumny campaign here. The phrase "carbon dioxide drives global temperature" (where's the "up" or "down"? should it not be "temperatures" then?) googled too well in my opinion. So I looked for the origin and found it here: . Aha, the author of the phrase is Steven J. Milloy, "founder and publisher of DemandDebate.com, JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com, an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund, and a columnist for FoxNews.com." Note that the title of the piece "BBC report-says-al-gore-does-not-deserve-nobel-prize" is not borne out by the link it goes to - again the British judge's decision about the film. The BBC did not say anything about Al Gore deserving or not the Nobel Peace Prize, that was pure OR on the part of Mr. Milloy. Who went on to demand that both the Nobel Peace Committee and the Academy of Motion Pictures should revoke their awards to Gore. Basically, KP Botany is 100% right here: none of these blogs should be mentioned here, because they can too easily be "economical with the truth" and you cannot be sure where they sourced their information. Pan Gerwazy 00:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Your little witchhunt of connecting the dots breaks WP:NOR and WP:SYN though. As wikipedians, we report what the reliable sources say, we do not do original research in an effort to try to spin the statements by the sources away. Kyaa the Catlord 00:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the talk page. That "witch hunt" is perfectly in its place here. I am just providing info on why BLP should be applied here. The fact that the links these guys use lead nowhere to something that they are claiming, means that these are sources that can not be verified. Note that by now, newspapers have remarked on the criticism:. This one is by one of the most right-wing newspapers of Great Britain: . There is no way under these circumstances, that these blogs should still be mentioned. That would be against WP:BLP. Note that there is also WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE to consider. If you quote the criticism, you must also quote the people who answered that criticism.--Pan Gerwazy 01:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In case you misunderstand me: yes, the criticism needs to be mentioned, and/but the reaction too. However, this should only be done using Al-Jazeera and other reputable, verifiable sources as the newspapers I quoted (I even noticed Le Monde, but that is in French of course, and says the same as the Telegraph, but more and perhaps better are sure to follow). It is precisely because we want to avoid OR and novel synthesis with these subjects that BLP was invented. Still mentioning the blogs when we have the information (even if it is NPOVed which some may not like) would not be "logical overkill" it would simply violate WP:UNDUE. --Pan Gerwazy 02:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

The article in boston.com cited by Pan Gerwazy is mostly about Gore, but also contains these two very interesting sentences:

"Some other recent recipients have also been lauded for achievements that do not fit neatly into the traditional peacemaking mold, such as microloans innovator Muhammad Yunus of Bangladesh in 2006 and environmentalist Wangari Maathai of Kenya in 2004. Defenders of these awards argue that effective economic development and protection of environmental resources are essential elements of world peace."

Perhaps instead of concentrating only on Al Gore, we could mention the three together (Yunus, Maathai, Gore) as an example of a recent controversial trend in the Peace Prize. Then the item would appear as more an NPOV discussion of the article theme, rather than a POV on USA politics. Dirac66 02:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seconded. I was thinking that we could start the criticism sentence or paragraph with a general statement (well, rephrasing of a statement) by the Boston Globe, but it could of course end with it as well: "However, some other recent recipients..." The fact that Gore is not the first one to get the Peace Prize as an environmentalist, is certainly NOTABLE. However, Jan Oberg, former secretary-general of the Danish Peace Foundation, Czech president Vaclav Klaus, Jeremy Leggett of Oxford University's Environmental Change Institute and Gerd Leipold, the executive director of Greenpeace International should still be mentioned. Stern Review probably belongs in the article on Gore or the film, and Allan Hunter is basically saying what Vaclav Klaus is saying, so you can leave those two out, I think (both are from the Al-jazeera article, which we are using for Oberg and Leipold already). Tony Fratto, spokesman for President Bush, is not criticizing or refuting criticism, so there is no need to mention him, unless we later get info about what Bush really thinks about the award (would make TF's statement now notable). And if the movement to take Gore's awards away "because he cheated just like Lance Armstrong" turns out to be more than a joke, and gets a serious mention in two newspapers, then Mr. Milloy will also have to get his day in court, because that would make him notable.--Pan Gerwazy 12:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added several non-blog new articles as references to this statement, not that it did not have these types of sources already since it had Al Jazeera etc. The controversy may not be the biggest deal in the world, but to say it "does not exist" is blatantly false. Kyaa the Catlord 05:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Economics and Literature?
I find it odd that nothing in the article mentions any controversies relating to the economics or literature prizes. While I don't know much about either prize, I find it hard to believe that there have really been no noteworthy omissions or controversial awards in regard to either of those prizes. Has every single one of those awards really been met with universal acclaim? Elliotreed 01:28, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, some of the most controversial prizes in recent years have been with the Peace Prize, the Literature Prize, and the "Economics" Prize--there was some with the latter about 10 years ago. This article is not well-researched or well-written, and just tends to be a catch-all for current beefs about scientists and nations.   KP Botany 01:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this, specially for the Literature prize. We should at least copy the controversies section of the Literature Nobel Prize wiki article, even if it is incomplete. In Literature there is even greater cause for controversies than in the hard sciences due to its more "subjective" nature (so to speak). There are too many flagrant omissions and too many undeserved prizes. I'll try to give a small list with a few subcategories to organize it.

-The 19th-century realist writers who, due to their lack of "idealism", did not get the award. Tolstoy, Zola, Twain, Ibsen, Pérez Galdós, to name to most important.

-Writers not given the award for political reasons. Examples would be Céline and Borges, but there are others. (A corollary to this would be awards which some hold were given for political reasons and not for literary merit; the last two laureates, for example.)

-Writers who did not receive the award due to them being too innovative, avant-garde, or the likes. Perhaps, also, those who went mad. I'm thinking of the likes of Joyce, Artaud, Woolf, but also Burroughs.

-I'll admit that this is my personal spite only, but the amount of non-winners in Latin America is striking. I already mentioned Borges, but the list is rather long: in prose, Julio Cortázar, Alejo Carpentier, Carlos Fuentes, Roberto Bolaño, Juan Carlos Onetti, Juan Rulfo, Mario Vargas Llosa, Machado de Assis and several others; in poetry, Rubén Darío, Vicente Huidobro, César Vallejo, Alejandra Pizarnik, Carlos Drummond de Andrade, to name a few. Not to mention several writers who, while not Nobel-worthy by themselves, are certainly on the same level as many of the lower-tier winners. This anomaly is all the more striking since these writers, unlike most of the remaining Third World, write in a European language and therefore are part of the Western canon.

-I'm not sure wether this should be included, but I'll mention it anyway. Writers whose early death prevented the award from being given to them at all, like Proust and García Lorca, or who were published mostly posthumously, notably Kafka and Pessoa.

-The suspiciously high number of Scandinavian laureates, including Swedes who were Nobel judges themselves.

-Finally, those that god-only knows why they did or did not get the award. Among those who did not, Nabokov and Ungaretti. Among those who did... I'd rather not offend anyone yet, until I have done my proper research.

Anyway, I'll see what I can do, but being new to wiki, I'm still figuring my way around things. Rocabatus (talk) 15:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

False edit summary? Two of the sources at least are not blogs... So all the rest were? Geeze.
User:Kyaa the Catlord -- cut it out. There's no false edit summary when someone spams blogs into an article, two at least are not blogs does not deserve to be edited by me, when I've already explained the situation about blogs. Please read WP:verifiable and WP:BLP before you go around putting crap on Wikipedia that doesn't belong. Looks like responsible people here have already read these and other Wikipedia policies though. KP Botany 04:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:CIVIL KP. You removed information properly sourced and verifiable. Criticism backed by verifiable sources IS allowed per BLP. Kyaa the Catlord 07:14, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Al Gore
The article includes the following statement: "Some believe that Gore's film, An Inconvenient Truth, contains factual errors, other scientists raised questions on his scientific (or lack of scientific) credentials. [81][82][83][84]". While true, this has nothing to do with controversy over his Nobel Prize and is not needed in this article. This statement is about criticism of his film and science, while the Prize was awarded for raising awareness, and is ignorant as to whether or not this particular filem was accurate or if he has a solid scientific background. Sancho 19:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

True. However, if he raised awareness using dubious methods, it would still be a controversy. -- Czolgolz (talk) 20:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, then the article should be clearer as to how criticism of his film/methods links to controversy over his being awarded the Prize. Sancho 20:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Posthumous nominations - 1974 rule change irrelevant to 1962 prize for DNA
The Nov.18 (2007) edit of this article incorrectly added the words "since 1974" to the statement that posthumous nominations are not permitted. These words were placed in the discussion of the 1962 prize for DNA, just after the mention of the deaths of Avery (1955) and Franklin (1958), wrongly suggesting that the rules at the time would have permitted posthumous consideration of Avery and/or Franklin in 1962.

The correct version of the 1974 rule change is found in the section Nomination and selection of the Nobel prize article. The last paragraph of this section states (in part):


 * "While posthumous nominations are not permitted, awards can occur if the individual died in the months between the nomination and the decision of the prize committee. ... As of 1974, laureates must be alive at the time of the October announcement."

This rule change therefore only affected candidates who died in the same year as the award. In 1962 both Avery and Franklin had died several years previously and were therefore ineligible. This was true in both the pre-1974 and post-1974 rules.

Since the 1974 rule change is irrelevant to the discussion of the 1962 prize for DNA, I will delete it. The point about the possibility of awarding a prize to more than 3 persons prior to 1968 is also irrelevant in context since the "extra" persons mentioned were deceased at the time of the prize. Dirac66 (talk) 02:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Gao Xingjian
Should Gao Xingjian's Nobel Prize for Literature be mentioned? His nomination was criticised by various Chinese writers as well as elements of the Chinese government--60.242.159.224 (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Anything that can be verified with reliable sources is game, IMHO. –panda (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Another exception: Subordinate who DID win the Nobel Prize
On the main page, it says: "While the astronomer Fred Hoyle argued that Bell should have been included in the Prize, Bell herself countered, perhaps in wry typical British humour, that "(graduate) students don't win Nobel prizes": Louis-Victor de Broglie, Rudolf Mössbauer, Douglas Osheroff, Gerard 't Hooft, John Forbes Nash, Jr. and H. David Politzer are all exceptions to this seeming albeit 'males-only' maxim though!"

I think that Pavel Cerenkov is another possible exception. The Cerenkov page says: "In 1934, while working under S.I. Vavilov, Čerenkov observed the emission of blue light from a bottle of water subjected to radioactive bombardment." The details of his education (B.S.? Ph.D.?) aren't provided, but I have read in other places that he was a grad student at the time. Anyway, another possible person to add to the list of "Nobel subordinates" if someone can authenticate some details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdderUser (talk • contribs) 22:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Kissinger revisited
Specifically, why has he been removed from the section on controversial recipients? He's probably the most controversial recipient of all, so the only reason I can see for removing him would be pushing a political POV. &mdash; Red XIV (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Removing "literature controversies"
It's obviously POV, after all, it's just a line that some anon wrote with those that HE considered to be worthy of the prize yet didn't get it.--Cancerbero 8 (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Though the line was unresearched and clearly lacking in content, those writers are all widely acclaimed, and would be in any should-be-winners list. Also, that left the article with nothing on Literature controversies, which are way too many to be ignored. I'm working to see if I can put together a new section; I put a preview of it in this talk page, but I need to get the proper references to add it to the article. Rocabatus (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Nobel prize medal.jpg
Image:Nobel prize medal.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

John Nash
can someone write a section about John Nash, who was given the Nobel Prize for mathematics even though he was a diagnosed schizophrenic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.0.160 (talk) 17:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Beckett did not refuse the prize
A numbered editor today added Samuel Beckett to the list of "Voluntary refusals", along with Jean-Paul Sartre and Le Duc Tho. However what the [presentation speech to Beckett] actually states (in French at the end) is that "The Swedish Academy regrets that Samuel Beckett cannot be with us today. However he has chosen to represent him the man who first discovered the importance of the work we are now honouring, his Paris publisher, Mr. Jérôme Lindon, and I ask you, dear sir, to receive from the hand of his majesty the king the Nobel prize in literature, awarded by the academy to Samuel Beckett."

I think it is clear that sending his publisher to the ceremony to accept the prize for him is not the same as refusing the prize. I am deleting his name from the list of refusals. Dirac66 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Sidney Coleman
The (undocumented) remark about Sidney Coleman is very strange. The 2004 Nobel prize was given to Politzer, Gross and Wilczek for the discovery of asymptotic freedom. Indeed, Coleman is a distinguished physicist who made important contributions to quantum chromodynamics (and was Politzer's thesis advisor); however Politzer's paper on asymptotic freedom appears under his own name alone. I suggest removing this section unless the quote can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PloniAlmoni (talk • contribs) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

This remark was labelled with a "Citation needed" tag since August 2007 and no one has provided a source, so I have now deleted the paragraph as per WP:Proveit. Thanks for pointing this out. Dirac66 (talk) 01:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Haber
Fritz Haber receiving the 1918 nobel prize in chemistry was extremely controversial due to the fact that his work was centered around making chemicals for warfare and not for the betterment of humankind. Why is this not included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.168.54 (talk) 05:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[From the Wikipedia entry on Fritz Haber:]

During his time in Karlsruhe from 1894 to 1911, he and Carl Bosch developed the Haber process, which is the catalytic formation of ammonia from hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen under conditions of low temperature and high pressure.

''In 1918 he received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for this work. The Haber-Bosch process was a milestone in industrial chemistry, because it divorced the production of nitrogen products, such as fertilizer, explosives and chemical feedstocks, from natural deposits, especially sodium nitrate (caliche), of which Chile was a major (and almost unique) producer. The sudden availability of cheap nitrogenous fertilizer is credited with averting a Malthusian catastrophe, or population crisis.''

It appears that the current entry ignores the overwhelmingly positive uses for nitrogen fixation.

98.164.219.54 (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fritz Haber's work centered around making chemical weapons to kill people not to feed the hungry. This is why it was and still is controversial that he won the nobel prize. If a scientist who invents weapons but happens to stumble upon something that is beneficial as an aside wins the nobel prize it would still be very controversial in today's world as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.181.239 (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

A more balanced view is given in his biography on the Nobel prize site here, which devotes exactly two sentences to his war work. It also makes clear that he did not "stumble upon" the ammonia synthesis during WW1, but that it was the culmination of a systematic research program starting as early as 1905. Yes, he did war work in addition to his Nobel-worthy work, but so did many other scientists. Heisenberg comes to mind and his war work is not now mentioned in the article. Dirac66 (talk) 03:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Werner Heisenberg did not use uncertainty principle to help to kill people. There is no question that Fritz Haber was very proactive in using his nobel prize winning work to make chemical weapons and this is why it is controversial. I am sorry that you cannot comprehend these facts. The Fritz Haber entry stays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.180.229 (talk) 12:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Chemistry
On the chemistry winners part of the article, it says how Dmitar Mendeleev produced the first peroidic table and than several others did their own versions. But than it says 'Henry massular' produced the 'correct version' but tbh their is no correct way of putting them in a table only the most logical and easy way for the chemist, so a rewording is in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.224.241 (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Henry Moseley (note correct spelling) placed the elements in order of atomic number as determined from X-ray spectroscopy. This is now universally accepted as the correct ordering, as explained in any modern chemistry book. Dirac66 (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing
There needs to be a lot more souring. For example, Barack Obama is listed as being a controversial winner. He was just awarded the prize a few hours ago, I don't think even the Republican News Channel has had time to whine about it yet.  TJ   Spyke   14:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There's getting to be kind of an edit war about Obama, and people are using it as an excuse to rip on the US president. A lot of the sources used are heavily biased. Thoughts? Czolgolz (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The citation for Barack Obama is an article dated before the prize was awarded. 21:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.52.103.25 (talk)

why only 1 phrase about Obama 2009?
The controversy about Obama's 2009 peace nobel Prize is enormous, comments are mostly negative and almost clogg internet sites. the NP institution has received thousands of negative emails and letters. Polls show about 75 percent Americans think it is too early, or just not appropriate at all compared to work of others (eg decades of charity work from Mother Theresa). So with all this fuss why is this only summarized in 1 phrase? Can't write a large paragraph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.114.126 (talk) 02:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the point in having anything longer? It sums up the substance of the criticism ("wasn't that a bit early and has he really achieved anything substantial yet?") which doesn't go into speculation or name-calling. Remember, this is an encyclopedia, not a metasite for blogg activity or anything similar. And it's still two more months until the award ceremony, by the way. Tomas e (talk) 08:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A major criticism is the awarding the Nobel prize to Obama was a third and final way for the committee to criticize the Bush administration. Therefore, not only was awarding Obama the peace prize viewed as 'early', it was also viewed as a 'slap in the face' of the Bush administration, especially after also selecting Carter and Gore a few years previously. This issue, while political in nature, needs to be included, while also staying consistent to Wikepedia's standards. 125.76.164.59 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)dbp July 19, 2010125.76.164.59 (talk) 23:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The Oct 23, 2009 Doonesbury comic strip (linked in the segment on Other Controversies below) mentioned, while discussing the possibility of revocation of Obama's Peace Prize, the instance of Johannes Fibiger, whose purported discovery of a cancer microbe won the 1926 Prize for Medicine, was discredited by subsequent scientific discoveries -- but apparently it had never been suggested that Fibiger's prize should be revoked or returned. Sussmanbern (talk) 13:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nobel Prizes can't be revoked. Tomas e (talk) 19:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Controversies not mentioned
I once read that there has been criticism that up through the 1970's, many of the committees seemed to look for any possible excuse to avoid awarding a prize to a woman. Also, it's not mentioned that convicted Nazi collaborator Hanna Kvanmo's remarks in 2002 against Peres only (while not mentioning Arafat) gave rise to revulsion and disgust among many in the United States and elsewhere (the "revoke Arafat's prize" movement was launched as a direct reponse). 10:48, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

The decision to award Carter, Gore and finally Obama, all critics of the conservative Bush administration, during the eight years of the Bush administration, needs to be appropriately included, especially given the liberal, almost socialistic, views of Norway and Sweden. I may be too biased to write it in a nonbiased way, but it should be included as it is a significant criticism of the Nobel peace prize. 125.76.164.59 (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)dbp July 19, 2010 00:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a significant criticism, but I don't see how it can be written in a nonbiased way, other than perhaps by mentioning news sources, etc. that claim it is the case. As far as I can see, any expression of the criticism would be biased. Bart133 t c @ 00:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, a good comment and suggestion. I have done exactly that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.164.59 (talk) 04:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made the modification several times, but it continues to be removed and replaced. What is wrong with saying that Obama's winning the prize was 'politically motivated'????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.76.173.228 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not mentioned is the instance (or, rather, one of what must be a number of instances) of a Nobel Prize for an accomplishment that is later discredited: Johannes Fibiger, who received the 1926 Prize in Medicine for his "discovery" of a microbial parasite that supposedly was responsible for cancer. However Fibiger's prize, once issued, was never in jeopardy. It's worth mention that Fibiger was mentioned in a Doonesbury comic strip, for Oct. 23, 2009, while discussing whether Obama's Peace Prize could be revoked. http://www.gocomics.com/feature_items/printable/456042?feature_id=56 Sussmanbern (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources for this article
MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The Times 1 October 2009 "Call for new Nobel prizes to honour ‘forgotten’ scientists"
 * The Times 9 October 2009 "Top ten Nobel Prize rows"


 * Significantly, seven of the ten most notable nobel controversies listed in the oct. 9 Times article are either the Peace or literature prizes. Thus, inherently controversial, completely-subjective, and don't require specialist knowledge to understand. Of the three that involve the science prizes, one involved a political controversy, whether Germans could accept "the Prize" under Hitler.


 * Of the remaining two examples, the article mistates the controversy in number 9, concerning the discovery of nitric oxide as a messenger, etc.. True,  this discovery is indirectly related to viagra, mainly in explaining how this drug works,  but probably not in its development per se.  Stated simply--  Cyclic guanosine monophosphate ( whose breakdown viagra inhibits ) induces nitric oxide (NO) production.  In turn, NO makes Mr Happy salute.     But,  however inaccurate,  this statement does get the reader's attention.   The real controversy arose from the fact that four reseachers seemed equally qualified, but only three could be chosen. This led to the usual protests, etc. on behalf of the excluded individual,Salvador Moncada. See Biological functions of nitric oxide Nucleophilic (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Article is missing citations and has many dead links
Aside, from the imbalance in the article noted in the section above regarding the emphasis on the prizes in literature and peace, which are innately controversial and therefore not "controversies", this article is missing a vast number of citations, and had at least 12 dead citation links, and more that are problematic.. MacDaid (talk) 15:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Lenard-Stark controversy
Hi,

I edited the item on Lenard and Stark controversy to become more accurate to my understanding. I have read "Beyond Uncertainty", by David Cassidy, and according to him, Lenard and Stark were outcasts and in fact several prominent physicists such as Planck, Heisenberg, von Laue, Gerlach and Prandtl had a clear dominance of the situation. In fact, the German ``Uranium Club'' of the Nazi government did not include Lenard nor Stark.

Now, I understand that Lenard-Stark controversy was a true controversy in Nazi Germany. However, I do not understand what is the relevance of this in this article or to their Nobel prizes. I think this material here is unnecessary and out of place.75.69.93.206 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:26, 13 August 2010 (UTC).

UA1 v. UA2 W and Z boson discovery controversy
I've removed this item from the section of physics-prize controversies. The claims of the author of this section may be true, but considering the strong claim of underhandedness without any citation, I felt it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.243.135 (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

What's going on with this page?
On one particular topic I'm familiar with, I find opinion with no citations. Regarding the Watson/Crick/Wilkins Physiology/Medicine award for the structure of DNA, it notes a rag-bag of names of possible co-winners, although only three can be named. Rosilind Franklin has the best claim, because it was her x-ray crystallography that showed Watson and Crick the way. I would probably vote against including her, although a reasonable argument can be made that her contribution was fundamental, although it was a technical rather than theoretical contribution. The fact is that she had her own work in hand, and she didn't interpret it correctly. So do you give her credit even though she didn't get the answer right? Maybe/maybe not.

The others are just people who had worked in the field previous to Watson and Crick and didn't get it right. EVERY discovery is based on SOMEONE else's work. Nobel prizes are given for breakthroughs, not incremental attempts. This article is written as if it was a statement of fact. It is nothing of the sort. These things are contentious, and there are always people on the edge of discoveries, but don't deserve ultimate credit. If this one case that I know about is so unsupported, what are the rest like?

MarkinBoston (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

questions
1.) Why is ref 11 (Nasar 1998, pp. 368–369) a ref for The most notorious controversies have been over prizes for Literature

2.) Why is it controversial for prizes for Literature if the writer has severe problems with the government in his own country? ref 11 about Pamuk.

--Stone (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Inzelt reference 2000 Chemistry Prize.
Re: 2000 Chemistry prize. Uh, this is not what Inzelt says in "Conductive Polymers". Rather the opposite, in fact. In chapter 8, "Nothing New Under the Sun", p264, he makes the point that highly conductive polymers had been synthesized, developed and (again,  IIRC) even applied well before their rediscovery by the 2000 Noble prize winners,  whose work was just "another episode" in the history of the field. Perhaps the text could be revised to reflect this.

"The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2000, was awarded to Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa "for the discovery and development of electrically conductive polymers." However, there were several forerunners to these distinguished chemists. The most important representatives of the family of electrically conductive polymers, polyaniline and polypyrrole, were already being prepared by chemical or electrochemical oxidation in the nineteenth century. In fact, the discovery of polyacetylene in the 1970s—which had no practical importance but helped to arouse the interest of researchers and the public alike—was another episode in the history of conducting polymers. The story of polyaniline is described here in detail." Nucleophilic (talk) 02:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Inzelft, chapter 8 Abstract


 * Yes it is. Read Chapter 1: Introduction.


 * This story began in the 1970s, when, somewhat surprisingly, a new class of polymers possessing high electronic conductivity (electronically conducting polymers) in the partially oxidised (or, less frequently, in the reduced) state was discovered. Three collaborating scientists, Alan J. Heeger, Alan G. MacDiarmid and Hideki Shirakawa, played a major role in this breakthrough, and they received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2000 "for the discovery and development of electronically conductive polymers"


 * As in many other cases in the history of science, there were several precursors to this discovery, including theoretical predictions made by physicists and quantum chemists, and different conducting polymers that had already been prepared. For instance, as early as 1862, Henry Letheby prepared polyaniline by the anodic oxidation of aniline, which was conductive and showed electrochromic behaviour.


 * Nevertheless, the preparation of this polyacetylene by Shirakawa and coworkers and the discovery of the large increase in its conductivity after "doping" by the group led by MacDiarmid and Heeger actually launched this new field of research.


 * It does not say just another episode. You don't get the Nobel Prize for nothing. --Ben (talk) 02:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So you agree with Inzelt's implication that the key discovery leading to the Nobel was doping with iodine? As the article notes, in 1963,  Bolto <I>et al</I> used Iodine to "dope" polyaniline to almost metallic conductivities.   BTW,  WP:NPOV allows/requires using one WP:reliable source to correct a detail in another.  Inzelt does not refer to this admittedly-obscure work,  so he probably did not know about it.  I suspect he does now.  Apparently there is a new edition of his textbook.  We shall see what it says.


 * Similarly, it is a serious thing to effectively accuse Nobel prize winners of citation plagarism.   A real career-wrecker,  unless you are already pretty well-established,  as apparently is Inzelt.  But still....  Note that they "launched" the field in the sense they generated modern interest.  They clearly did not "discover" highly conductive polymers,  as the Nobel citation claims.  This was actually a fairly-active field-- a point Inzelt makes in chapter 8. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not agree with trying to read between the lines in Inzelt, as this contravenes No original research: "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source. It is important that references be cited in context and on topic". This is too big a detail to "correct" without unequivocal confirmation from a respectable, independent source.

I want to focus on reporting Inzelt's clear and simple message: the Nobel Prize winners launched the field. Thank you for quoting him directly. Inzelt does not state that the Nobel citation is wrong. He just says that there was plenty of previous work that didn't really lead anywhere. Take the McGinness/Proctor device, for example. Nice concept, but no-one started using it to make OLEDs, batteries and mobile phones commercially, did they? And all the polyaniline observations - no-one was really sure what was going on and what the structure was.

My understanding is this: others discovered similar things before the Nobelists, but no-one took any notice. The Nobelists did it in a better characterised, more general system. They investigated it very carefully and in great detail. They performed doping over the whole range possible from non-doped insulating/semiconducting states to strongly doped, highly conductive states. It was only when the Nobelists made their discovery that anyone cared and the field took off. It is possible Inzelt, the Nobel committee, and the Nobelists themselves were unaware of the previous work. On the other hand, they may well have known about it but thought it too dissimilar, or of too poor quality. I don't know. We must not speculate on such matters in the Wikipedia article unless we can find a secondary source that spells it out. If and only if Inzelt's second edition says Bolto et al first discovered conducting polymers, we can report that here.

We must stick as closely as possible to what the sources say, and refrain from imposing our own interpretation. --Ben (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue with Inzelt is the "discovery" part of the Nobel citation, not whether in a well-ordered world Shirikawa <I>et al</I> deserve "The Prize" for jump-starting the field by their efforts.  Which is why in chapter 8 Inzelt also specifies that their discovery was just one more in a series of similar ones.   The two are not mutually-exclusive.


 * Unfortunately, Nobel's will specifies that science prizes go to the person who "shall have discovered".   See Nobel Prize.    Whatever their many contributions,  Shirikawa et al did not "discover" conductive polymers,  per the wording of the citation.  Moreover, they apparently did not even discover iodine-doping as a path to high-conductivity, reported over a dozen years before.


 * While parts of Nobel's will have been superceded, not this one.   Which is why the science prize citations generally specify "for the discovery, etc....".  Even though the award may really go for a body of work,  the prize committees generally pick out one particular discovery.   They clearly dropped the ball with this one,  excluding an entire previous body of research by the broad-wording of the citation,  giving this error a Nobel imprimatur and us a controversy. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I do not know if your assessment is fair or not, but it's irrelevant because Verifiability says we must find sources that specifically support the article text. If you can't find a reliable source that says what you want to say, it cannot go in the article. The end. --Ben (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Talk page deep background, for the moment.  I gather that part of the controversy is that Shirikawa <I>et al</I> poorly (if at all) cited the prior art,  except in a few patents.  So the relative claims were never properly aired.  Allegedly,  there were cries of protest in Aussie circles.  The Nobel committee could have completely avoided this controversy by similarly citing the prior art or by limiting the "discovery" claims to something less than "conductive organic polymers",  as is their practice.  From which I conclude that they likely did not know. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I look forward to any reliable sources you can find to support this view. Do you have any idea why the Nobelists and the committee did not mention the prior work? --Ben (talk) 18:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The relevant chapter from Inzelt's new book is at Conductive Polymers, 2012. Page 295. He now cites the Australian researchers early work with conductive iodine-doped polypyrolle ("which showed rather good conductivity"), as well as (interestingly) that of Szent-Gyorgyi and Isenberg.  Among other things, also states that Nobel citation's "The Discovery of Conductive Polymers" is an "exaggeration". Nucleophilic (talk) 23:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work finding that. As we tend to disagree on how to paraphrase Inzelt, let's agree a wording here on the talk page before we change any articles. --Ben (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Inzelt's new introduction says "....Nevertheless,  the preparation of this polyacetylene by Shirikawa and coworkers and the discovery of the large increase in its conductivity after "doping" by the group led by MacDiarmid and Heeger actually launched this new field of research."


 * Note that he no longer credits the Nobel to the discovery of iodine doping, which he now knows was discovered by the Australians in '63-- perhaps even earlier by Szent-Gyorgyi and Isenberg,  whose work the aussies (and Inzelt) cite. In fact,  he seems unsure about just what the Nobelists discovered,  other than that "this polyacetylene" does the same thing as previously reported for polypyrrole and polyaniline, both polyacetylene derivatives.


 * And yes, the prize-winners did jump-start the field thru their efforts.  Or perhaps the time was right and grant money became more widely-available because applications like radar absorbent coatings were emerging. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

New section, 2000 Chemistry prize
Tentative: "According to Inzelt, in the face of earlier similar discoveries, the Nobel citation's "Discovery"  assignment is an "exaggeration" and this discovery is merely one episode in the history of the field,  but that "...nevertheless,  the preparation of this polyacetylene by Shirikawa and coworkers and the discovery of the large increase in its conductivity after "doping" by the group led by MacDiarmid and Heeger actually launched this new field of research."    And yes,  I know this seems inconsistent.  But that is what he says. Might trim it a bit. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Remove "merely" as it connotes that the Nobelists' work was of less than seminal importance. Inzelt (2012) does say the following:

"This story began in the 1970s, when somewhat surprisingly, a new class of polymers possessing high electronic conductivity (electronically conducting polymers) in the partially oxidised (or, less frequently, in the reduced) state was discovered. Three collaborating scientists, Alan J. Heeger, Alan G. MacDiarmid and Hideki Shirakawa, played a major role in this breakthrough, and they received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2000 "for the discovery and development of electronically conductive polymers."


 * I think "major role" and "merely" are incompatible and we should stick with the sense Inzelt gives rather than using selective quotes to belittle the Nobelists. You can quote the "exaggeration" part in context - what exactly does Inzelt say? I would prefer something long the following lines:


 * According to Inzelt [2nd edition (2012) reference here], it is an exaggeration to say the discovery of highly-conducting doped polyacetylene was the first discovery of a conducting polymer. Polyaniline [refs] and iodine-doped polypyrrole [Weiss, Bolto et al refs] were both reported prior to 1977. Nevertheless, Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa did play a major role in the development of conducting polymers, actually launching the field.


 * While exact quotes are important here on the talk page, so we can agree on Inzelt's meaning, Wikipedia tends to summarise and paraphrase rather than using as many direct quotes as possible.


 * --Ben (talk) 16:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree and this is what I generally do. But recently I have found it necessary to give exact quotes so there can be no dispute about what the secondary sources say.  Easier than endless rabbinical disputations over interpretation on the talk pages or editors have clearly not read the cites. <I>(Virtual throwing up of hands)</i> -- Just quote and let the readers or some other editor figure it out. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. But once we have consensus on Inzelt's intended meaning, we can paraphrase him to make the article easier to read. --Ben (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Your text above looks OK.  Can't think of much to add, other than Inzelt's statement that, in perspective, the Nobelist discovery was one more in the series.  Leaving out the word "merely",  per  your suggestion.  But no big deal and I need to reread the exact wording in Inzelt.


 * Anyway, post your suggested text. After further thought, I may tweak it a bit, or not.  But,  for now, I will leave it alone. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Er. Since you did not post your suggested text after four weeks, I just trimmed back the text and posted it,  directly citing what Inzelt <I>says</I>, so the reader can decide. This gets around issues of interpretation. Besides, it is shorter. Also, I cite the 2012 edition of Inzelts book, replacing the previous 2008 edition. Similarly, IMHO, no need to clutter up the text by repeating all the cites given in the paragraph above. But you can do this if you feel it is necessary. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Need some help ? I agree that the best way to resolve what wp:sources say is to just quote them, rather than resort to amateur interpretations.   Truthfully,  I'm surprised that you are still here.   This latest episode tests wp:assume good faith. Quite a trick-- Ben (talk) gets you to agree to his edit.  You patiently wait an entire month for him to post it, which he never does.  Then you make the edit yourself and he reverts it.  Typical example of WP:gaming the system and very much against the rules. Drjem3 (talk) 20:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just forgot to post the new text. The revert was because you replaced a properly formatted citation using Template:Cite book with poorly-formatted free text. In the proposed text, I avoided direct quotes because they're clunky and the aim of Wikipedia is to summarise. I propose the following text:


 * The 2000 prize "for the Discovery and Development of Conductive polymers", to Alan J. Heeger, Alan MacDiarmid, and Hideki Shirakawa, cited the 1977 discovery of passive high-conductivity in oxidized iodine-doped polyacetylene black and related materials. . However, there were several earlier reports of electrical conductivity in polymeric materials. According to Inzelt, it is an exaggeration to say the discovery of highly-conducting doped polyacetylene was the first discovery of a conducting polymer. Polyaniline and iodine-doped polypyrrole were both reported prior to 1977. Nevertheless, Inzelt concedes Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa did play a major role in the development of conducting polymers, actually launching the field.



What do you think? --Ben (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Controversies that exist only on Wikipedia...
Is it just me, or are some of these claims of "controversy" really misleading? Here are a couple of comments on two of the stranger ones:


 * "The 2001 prize went to Eric Allin Cornell, Carl Edwin Wieman and Wolfgang Ketterle 'for the achievement of Bose-Einstein condensation in dilute gases of alkali atoms, and for early fundamental studies of the properties of the condensates'. However, the original work by Indian mathematician and physicist Satyendra Nath Bose and Albert Einstein regarding the gas-like qualities of electromagnetic radiation and quantum mechanics in the early 1920s provided the foundation for Bose–Einstein statistics and the theory of the Bose–Einstein condensate was never awarded the prize."

It's all factually true (albeit unreferenced), but is seems completely non sequitur to infer that the 2001 prize was controversial. The prize is for experimental work some 20 years after Bose's death, and I haven't seen any WP:GNG+WP:IRS+WP:NOR claim that the 2001 prize was somehow undeserved. Sure, I can imagine an alternative history in which Fermi, in his Nobel acceptance speech, might have said, "Thanks, Nobel Committee, but this prize really ought to be for my work on particle statistics, and Professor Bose should be up on this stage to share it." Even if he had said that, however, it wouldn't make the 2001 prize controversial. It would mean that Bose's achievements belong in the "Other major unrecognized discoveries" subsection at the bottom... but only if someone can actually find a proper citation meeting WP:GNG+WP:IRS+WP:NOR to that effect.


 * "The 1915 prize went to William Henry Bragg and William Lawrence Bragg 'For their services in the analysis of crystal structure by means of X-rays', an important step in the development of X-ray crystallography. At the time, both Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla were mentioned as potential laureates. Despite their enormous scientific contributions, neither ever won the award, possibly because of their mutual animosity. Circumstantial evidence hints that each sought to minimize the other's achievements and right to win the award, that both refused to ever accept the award if the other received it first, and that both rejected any possibility of sharing it—as was rumored in the press. Tesla had a greater financial need for the award than Edison: in 1916, he filed for bankruptcy."

Again, it's all factually true and partially referenced this time as well. Then again, nobody seems to be making the claim that the 1915 prize itself is controversial. The controversy is that two people deserved a prize around that time and neither one of them won it eventually (not restricted to 1915). That belongs in the "Other major unrecognized discoveries" subsection. Teply (talk) 04:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have cleaned up claims along this line (dif). The entry on Guglielmo Marconi 1909 prize, Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla have no reliable sourcing that these were ever a "controversy" and Marconi 1909 specifically seems to be a rehash of "who invented radio" material covered elsewhere in Wikipedia. The Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla "controversy" shows up in "Tesla literature" but that falls short of WP:RS. 1915 is a newspaper rumor at best, I have reworded it as so. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Soon to be added: 2012 Peace Prize
Seems the Peace Prize is notoriously target for criticism. 2012 Nobel Peace Prize to EU: The reactions are not unanimously negative in Scandinavia, just mostly. Carl Bildt and Cecilia Malmström praises the choice, but the general public in Sweden is generally snickering or cursing. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 16:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Svenska freds om priset: "Mycket tveksamt val" Swedish Peace and Arbitration Society declares it "a very dubious choice"
 * The Norwegian reactions are critical Lars Peder Brekk Sp? leader is critical to the choices of Jagland and Lundestad (of the Norwegian Peace Prize committee), and a Labour politician Eva Kristin Hansen names the choice a "derision" of Alfred Nobel, and calls for omitting the prize,


 * Here a review of different European reactions — contains many usable links to various European newspapers. Happy reading, have fun! Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 17:11, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * All of which fails an NPOV test. As I equally fail it on the other side, having worked in the bodies credited with the prize, I would none the less offer some elucidatory comments. The EU was only constituted in 1993, from the European Economic Community, itself founded in 1958. It acquired the powers credited in the citation in 2001 from the Western European Union, itself founded in 1945 as the Western European Defence Organisation, established in the Treaty of Brussels in 1948 and modified in 1955. This Organisation established the communication channels which implimented the peace described, but was wound up in 2011, transferring its methods to the EU, which is why it could not be referred to directly in the citation, in a very similar way to Ghandi - t is instead referred to as "forerunners". The criticism I would make of the critics is that they have achieved less. Jeremy Main, rahere1@smartemail.co.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.1.3 (talk) 00:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you seem to misunderstand WP:NPOV. Read it please! We can use biased sources, but we must allege statements and reactions to them, WP doesn't claim any political standpoint. We also must balance positive reactions against negative reactions, in order to give due weight to each side.


 * Your info about Treaties and Defence Organisation goes to other articles, this discussion is about adding, subtracting or improving information about Nobel Prize controversies. We don't discuss the pros or cons of EU, we only discuss what's going to be in the articles. I provided links. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:59, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Specifically, citing WP:YESPOV (part of WP:NPOV):
 * Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them.
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 12:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I withdrew as an editor because WP does not respect the academic norms in these matters - and I speak here as a part-time denizen of London University's Warburg Institute, one of the top advanced studies schools, following the closure of WEU. I take the point about being in or an observer of the dispute, and at this point all it seems to me to be is a question of pandering to internet trolls who have achieved nothing sufficient to allow them to criticise, whereas as one of the apparently prizewinning cohort and putatively a historian to boot I can name chapter and verse on what actually happened. But no external observer could possibly be of the opinion that as such I can be neutral, for all that setting oneself aside and acting in the purest of diplomatic neutrality was of the essence in winning the prize, to the extent of deferring my honeymoon in order not to interfere with the organisation of the conference which agreed the accession of Eastern Europe, at the Egmont Palace, Brussels, 23-25.4.1990. Please contact me privately if my help in providing context would be useful, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.223.105 (talk) 05:20, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that two months have now elapsed since the declaration, and that the controversy seems to have been little more than muttering in the beards of some local politicians motivated by self-interest, can I now conclude that there declared intention to post the subsection has now been decided against? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.170.255 (talk) 09:17, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Should the 2000 Chemistry section be removed?
Should the section on the Chemistry 2000 prize be removed? The section states that there was a controversy because the prize given to Hideki Shirakawa et al was inappropriate because other scientists made similar discoveries beforehand. A controversy is a sustained public debate. --Noleander (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Background
Several WP articles have had  self-promontional material inserted about scientist Peter Proctor. A major theme of the vanity material is that Proctor (and his collaborator John McGinness) were treated unfairly because the 2000 Chemistry prize was given to Hideki Shirakawa (and others) despite the fact that Proctor and McGinness made similar discoveries beforehand. Proctor's own website expresses his frustration here. Examples of Proctor and other editors attempting to add this vanity material into several WP articles include: The fundamental question is: Are there any sources which describe a genuine "controversy" about the 2000 Chemistry prize? And, if so, do the sources mention Proctor or McGinness in relation to the controversy? --Noleander (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Nobel Prize - material removed; talk page discussion
 * 2) Peter Proctor - material removed; talk page and more talk
 * 3) John McGinness - material still present
 * 4) Nobel Prize controversies - subject of this RfC

Comments

 * Yes, remove - There are no sources that state that there is a controversy regarding the 2000 Chemistry prize. The only independent source that has been provided (in this article's talk page here and here)  is  the book Conducting Polymers by Inzelt (online here), specifically chapter 8. But that book does not say there is a controversy.  The book does not use the word "controversy", nor does it use any language suggesting there is a controversy.  The book merely says:
 * This quote does not describe a controversy (which is a sustained public debate). Because there are no sources that identify a controversy, and because of the self-promotional nature of the material, it should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This quote does not describe a controversy (which is a sustained public debate). Because there are no sources that identify a controversy, and because of the self-promotional nature of the material, it should be removed. --Noleander (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC comment. I didn't know that this page even existed, but I've now put it on my watchlist; I came here from the RfC notice. I'm not really sold on the argument that it should be deleted entirely, on the basis of it not fitting a particular definition of "controversy". I'd rather see the section substantially revised, making it much shorter, by removing one-sided commentary per WP:UNDUE (the last sentence of the section being an obvious candidate for deletion). I think that there can, appropriately, be a succinct summary of similar work that came before, followed by the Nobel rationale for why the work that was recognized was selected. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What in the sources makes you think that this is a controversy of any sort?   This appears to be a run of the mill situation:  Virtually every Nobel prize in sciences has forerunner discoveries; and I'm sure most of those forerunners have sour grapes.  To be placed in this article  the dispute requires - at a minimum -  a few secondary sources talking about the controversy.   No?  --Noleander (talk) 19:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * My reaction is that we aren't applying WP:N here, but rather WP:UNDUE, because this is about a part of a page, not the entire page. Yes, I'd say that most Nobels are associated with sour grapes – and that (in my opinion, and I admit that it's subjective) it's encyclopedic to cover that. I just wouldn't use the section as a mouthpiece for self-promotion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's say for the sake of argument that this "Controversies" article can include material about "sour grapes" (I disagree with that, but for the sake of argument...). Where in the sources does it say there is any acrimony surrounding the 2000 Chemistry prize? --Noleander (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I can recognize snow when I see it, so at this point I'm going to defer to what everyone else is saying. I'm not as familiar as the rest of you with the history of how the material got added, but I'm no fan of self-promotion and synthesis. Anyway, my thinking was simply that it's potentially interesting content to read about, or at least interesting to me. But I accept that I am losing that argument, and that's fine. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that claims about an "unfair" Nobel prize could be encyclopedic: It would be cool to read about  bribes to the judges, biased judges, fist-fights at scientific conferences,  and envious runners-up who thought they deserved the prize.  But, in this case, the sources just don't talk about a major dispute of any kind ... it is simply a run-of-the-mill case of "other scientists had similar ideas before the winner, and so winner didn't truly 'discover' the concept" ... which can be said about 90% of the Nobel prizes. --Noleander (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I have had some sympathy with the point of view you're putting across, Tryptofish, and I think it is important that that opinion gets an airing in this discussion, so sincere thanks for taking the time to spell it out. It's just that keeping things genuinely encyclopedic, and sending a strong message to people who want to use Wikipedia to correct a perceived injustice, is more important in this case. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 15:44, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin, I appreciate that. I'm not much of a fan of sending strong messages to people, but I'm a big fan of setting high standards for content, and for respecting consensus. It probably comes from my own experiences as a professional scientist (but no, I don't have any Nobel credit issues!) that I find it interesting to read about the "inside politics" of science. Noleander, I've never seen a fist-fight at a scientific conference, but I'd pay to see one! --Tryptofish (talk) 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: I tend to agree with Noleander, but sympathize with Tryptofish. I think that the responsible thing to do is flag it with  or some such for now, and look around for additional sources at least for a couple of days before removing it entirely. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib.  19:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, additional sources would be great. I posted the RfC now because additional sources were requested 7 months ago on the Talk page ... and the only source provided (back then) was the Inzelt source (mentioned above).  The Inzelt source is vague, dubious, and uncertain.  No other sources have been provided in the ensuing 7 months.   --Noleander (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove with prejudice Here because of . I have no previous interactions with this issue, article, or anything but good experiences with the editors I've seen discussing here, so I believe I have no inappropriate involvement.  Preliminaries behind us:  "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate,"  We have no sources that approach that definition, and only one source that anyone has interpreted as approaching suggesting an issue with the Nobel Prize.  The relevant policies are WP:V, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE.  More than willing to reconsider once sources which actually do more than hint at a controversy are in evidence. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove unless/until reliable sources documenting that it is a controversy are provided. The quote from the Inzelt source given above signifies to me the opposite: that it is unsurprising, unexceptional, and uncontroversial that the award be given for work that has precursors. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove and note removal in talk. This seems to be typical WP:SYNTH of adding up allot of WP:OR to imply a genuine "controversy" without citing any reference to a controversy. Zero information is preferred to someone's made up information. It can sit on the talk page until someone wants to reliably source it. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Remove with prejudice. This was discussed at enormous length when I was peer reviewing the Nobel Prize article. It seemed clear that there was no controversy worthy of the name, and other contributors agreed, but there was one editor who was over-interpreting sources, edit-warring and making accusations against other participants to keep the text in. Noleander is absolutely right: there isn't a controversy here worthy of the name. I have to disagree with Tryptofish: we have to employ a strong criterion of "controversy". Otherwise, as FoBM and others say, the article becomes a magnet for original research and synthesis by people who think a particular award was unearned. In fact, that's arguably what's happened to this article. SMcCandlish: given that this issue has been discussed over and over again, and one editor has been unwilling to accept consensus and kept the text in anyway, I think we're well past the point of waiting for more sources to turn up. Apologies for not taking up the issue on this page long ago. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:20, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Conforming this article to Wikipedia guidelines would solve most questions about what to include in this article. This article seems to be a list, if so it should follow WP:LIST. The main problem now is it has no list definition in the intro as to what the list members should be. As for a definition - A list of just any noted "sour grapes" would not be encyclopedic because every prize has sour grapes so we would end up creating a redundant article to List of Nobel laureates. A "controversy" IMHO would be something that makes/made a major dent in the news. One person's sour grapes covered in many news sources/reliable sources is not controversy. Many people cited as having sour grapes of some sort covered in a single news source/reliable source is not controversy. Many news sources/reliable sources citing many people pointing to a problem with a Nobel Prize is a controversy. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea: treating this as a list could help organize our thoughts and improve the article.  And I agree that it takes some pretty significant sources to demonstrate that there is a controversy ("sustained public debate").  Personally, I recall headlines spanning several days in major news outlets about the peace prizes for Obama, Arafat, and the EU:  they certainly qualify as controversies (and are already in this article).  In the case of this RfC: a single academic source mentioning that a prize was based on something other than a true "discovery" ... not so much. --Noleander (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, a sensible suggestion. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. The issue pertains to the "discovery" part of the Nobel citation, as in "The Discovery and Development of Conductive Polymers". Unquestionably, the 2000 winners did not discover conductive polymers. Which is Inzelt's point, while giving them due credit for "development". Can't get a better wp:rs than a major textbook in the field. Usually text-books completely ignore these matters. BTW, How many of you-all actually understand the issue? It took me a while to figure it out and I actually have an earned PhD and a job in a hard science. The classic "Bob from Cincinatti" problem on wikipedia. Nucleophilic (talk) 03:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment The issues involved are somewhat missstated above, as is what Inzelt actually says. First, Nobel's will specifies that "The Prize" in the sciences goes to the person who "shall have discovered". That is, "developed" does not count. Which is why the citation generally assigns discovery credit.

Thus, Inselt's textbook devotes an entire chapter to the fact that the 2000 prize winners not only did not discover conductive polymers,  but that there was an entire prexisting field. Further, Inzelt clearly states that such polymers had been previously synthesized, studied, and "even applied"(sic). Hard to state a "Nobel controversy" in more certain terms. Stated simply, this concerns a whole field of research and not one or two researchers.

I and other editors have traced this discovery as far back as possible. Besides Szent-Gyorgyi (whom Inzelt cites) there is a book "Organic Semiconductors" published in 1964(!) that cites several examples. In this context, McGinness <I>et al</I> are mainly important for two reasons: First, they were apparently the last to report a highly-conductive organic polymer before the Prize winners. This was 10 years too late (at least) to claim discovery credit. They did this in a major journal (<I>Science</I>), complete with a news article in the journal <I>Nature</I>. Second, their experimental apparatus is on the short "Smithsonian Chips" [smithsonianchips.si.edu] list of key discoveries in semiconductor science, strongly making Inzelt's point that this field flowered before the 2000 prize winners, even to the point of producing "active", that is,  transistor-like, electronic devices. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Nucleophilic, your leaps of logic are astounding. Inzelt never mentions the word 'controversy'. It's clearly original research and synthesis (both forbidden) to look at Nobel's will and state the 2000 Nobel Prize award was contrary to Nobel's wishes. A reliable source would have to say so explicitly to allow inclusion in this article. Why do you find that rule so hard to accept? It's only a controversy in the mind of you and a few other editors. --Ben (talk) 17:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment. The point is to explain why the Nobel citation specifically says "discovery". Explanatory, nothing more. And where is the requirement for saying the word "controversy" stated. I must have missed it. Likely, Inzelt only dares say anything because he is pretty much senior. As it is, he spends a whole chapter in his text-book outlining in detail why the discovery credit was (uh) "exaggerated". This is endorsed by a review of his 2008 book at


 * "Chapter 8, Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun) reminds us that even before the great trio (Shirakawa, McDiarmid and Heeger), who earned Nobel Prize for the discovery of conductive polymers, certain conductive polymers were produced, studied and even applied. So, is there really anything new under the Sun? No, there is not, but we have not been aware of CPs, as of the materials that offer a variety of new possibilities. So the real era of conductive polymers chemistry/electrochemistry has started actually thanks to a student mistake, and clever scientists who learn on/from mistakes."

That is, Heeger et al's role was to bring these compounds to everyone's attention,  for which they certainly deserve due credit. Also, we are all equal editors here. As you note, "other editors", agree with this viewpoint. And yes, everyone thanks you for all your efforts at wikipedia. But this gives you no special priviledges as an editor, any more than (say) all these graduate degrees give me. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep. There clearly is a controversy over "discovery", with two third-order publications in agreement that the conductive polymers existed and were "produced, studied, and even applied"  before the prize winners "discovered" them. True, this controversy is limited to the scientific literature,  which generally avoids the word "controversy".

CommentTo my untutored eye, this looks a lot like piling on and trying to force a false concensus, with interested parties like me only finding out about this by accident. Lot of that going on. Also see: Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Noleander for more on the instigator and his history of tendentious editing and alleged antisemitism. Just goes to show that these days almost nothing will get you tossed off of Wikipedia. Bandn (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: Inzelt neither specifically states "controversy", nor does he imply it. The tone of the chapter is not really that of a scandal, more putting the Nobel work in context. You're reading between the lines, which is inappropriate for reliably sourcing a Wikipedia article that is in dispute. I have no idea what you mean by "special privileges". This Noleander stuff has nothing to do with the discussion here, which is about this article. Ben (talk) 21:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Bandn, whatever else the merits of the arguments here, what you said about Noleander is, as Ben just pointed out, irrelevant to the present discussion. And I'll add, myself, that you are in serious violation of WP:NPA, so please cut it out or you may find yourself at ANI. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Oops, rereading the above,  I extend my apologies.   Revelation of relevant past administrative actions is arguably fair practice and not WP:NPA.   What is their point otherwise? In fact, one of their functions is the potential for publically "shaming" editors into correct behavior.   As you indirectly prove by threatening me with one .  However,  my editorializing was not proper and does not extend the discussion.   Neither does anyone elses'.   And yes, "Tu quoque" is no excuse. Bandn (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a very fair response, and I agree with you about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment:I too am only here for the b... er, RFC. I think in this controversy too much is made of quibbling about the proper, narrow, formal definition of "controversy". The word also is a common swanky term for a row, and this is an article that the typical reader might well consult for such material, which might well deal with rows of historical interest. (No participants here were labouring under the delusion that significant history dealt only with dignified people and material, were they?) Now, I agree with those who imply that WP is not as a rule the preferred medium for sour-grapes rows, and if the view can be coherently defended, that this is nothing more the typical muttering about the umpire, by all means delete it or just possibly prune it drastically. However, if anyone can formulate any copy on the subject that deals with the matter in a manner that is intrinsically interesting, historic and encyclopaedic, by all means make room for it; there is no basis for disqualifying it on first principles. JonRichfield (talk) 18:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Jon: What in the sources makes you think that this is a "row of historical interest"?  or any sort of row at all?  --Noleander (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Errr... Are we on the same wavelength? What did I say to suggest that it is of historical interest? Or of any interest at all? I thought I had put it plainly that if anyone wanted to include such material, then demonstrating that it is indeed a "row of historical interest" would be one example of adequate justification. And if not, not; kick it to the kerb. And if they cannot achieve such justification, then I don't personally care whether it is a row or not. Not every row is necessarily encyclopaedic, right? JonRichfield (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure you were not suggesting that there were some sources that stated there was a dispute of any sort. --Noleander (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is Wikipedia, where people come for information and reasonably expect to find it. There is obviously a well-documented controversy in the electrochemistry literature concerning the 2000 Nobel's assignment for "discovery" of conductive polymers. This is not just in primary sources, but in monographs, etc.. So what is the problem? Maxdlink (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you provide a source, any source, that describes this as a controversy (or brouhaha or debate or dust-up or ...)? --Noleander (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Remove I have never seen convincing evidence for a controversy. Proctor himself started this campaign of elevating himself by disparaging the Nobelists.  This allegation has been perpetuated by a remarkably loyal band of editors with intense interest in Proctor.  I read the Inzelt article and found it rather positive and saw no evidence of a controversy.  Related prior work was the routine buildup to a breakthrough, as is true for all Nobels.   --Smokefoot (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep Per maxdlink, etc. above. What more do you want? E.g., the fact that the major textbook in a field (Inzelt's) devotes an entire chapter to the fact that the Prize winners did not "discover" what the Nobel citation says they did is <I>per se</I> a "controversy". Seems generally-acknowledged too. Even more controversially, the  text-book assigns discovery credit for their Nobel-prize-winning polymer to another Nobel Prize winner, Albert Szent-Gyorgyi,  who reported a variation nearly two decades before. You can't make this stuff up. BTW, I was a participant in the orginal discussion and, like many, only just found out that Noleander moved it here. Drjem3 (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Updated view. Having seen more recent comments, I'm going back to some extent to what I said when I first responded to the RfC. I think we should have a brief passage about the topic on this page, sourced to the Inzelt textbook. We should omit material sourced to the parties to the dispute. The arguing about whether it's really a "controversy" or not strike me a nitpicking. If anyone can come up with a truly independent secondary source that calls what happened a "controversy" or something similar, then let's add it. Failing that, we should attribute "exaggeration" to Inzelt, and leave it at that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps prefaced by something like this: "During the 1950s en 1960s, the study of conduction in polymers intensified and in 1963 for the first time conductivities were found comparable with those in inorganic materials, viz. in the polymer polypyrrole.4–6 In 1974 the first actual organic device, a voltage-controlled switch, was built with the polymer melanin.7 Since the 1970s,layers of organic photoconductors were used in xerographic devices, like printers, replacing inorganic selenium and silicon layers.8 The area of organic electronics got a huge boost in 1977 by the work of A.J. Heeger, A.G. MacDiarmid, and H. Shirakawa,9 who discovered that the conductivity of polyacetylene after doping with iodine increases by seven orders in magnitude. For this and following work, and in general, as in the words of the Nobel committee, for the discovery and development of electrically conductive polymers, they obtained the Nobel prize in chemistry in 2000.10...." Also see: Nucleophilic (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another view: "...Ten years later, a report about electrically conductive polypyrrole was published.[2] The authors have pyrolized tetraiodopyrrole obtaining an iodine doped polypyrrole (I-2) with a conductivity of 1 S/cm. Little attention was paid to this discovery. It was not before 1972 that people started to believe in this phenomenon, when the group of Alan J. Heeger published the conductivity of a fully organic charge-transfer complex.[3] It consisted of N-methyl-phenazine (NMP) and tetracyanoquino-dimethane (TCNQ) (I-4). One year later, the same group discovered superconductivity in a charge-transfer complex of tetrathiafulvalene (TTF) and TCNQ (I-5).[4] The first organic semiconductor was discovered by McGinness et. al. in 1974.[5] They could switch the conductivity of melanine, the skin pigment isolated from biological tissue, by applying a certain threshold voltage. In 1977, Shirakawa, MacDiarmid and Heeger reported electrical conductivity in iodine-doped polyacetylene (I-3).[6, 7] For this discovery they received the Nobel Prize for Chemistry in 2000..." Nucleophilic (talk) 22:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess the plus side of those approaches is there doesn't seem to be any self-promotion going on (at least that I can see, but I'd welcome being corrected). The minus side is it seems like an awful lot of detail, without really getting into anything that would clearly be "controversy". It sounds to me more like the right kinds of things to say on a page about the scientific discoveries (as opposed to this page, about controversies about Nobel Prizes). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think we are getting a little off the beaten path in general. Any currently used reference dated before the 2000 prize is WP:OR. We are not here to weigh evidence. If there is a claim by Inzelt then that claim should be directly attributed to him (per WP:YESPOV "these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources") re: "György Inzelt in his XXXXXXXX book claims/points out/notes the 2000 Nobel prize for Chemistry was.......". Its going to be a shorter entry. If there is a second source to reference making this direct claim, so much the better. If Inzelt is the only claim then we are up against WP:UNDUE tiny minority. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment: From a review of Inzelt's book: "Chapter 8, Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun) reminds us that even before the great trio (Shirakawa, McDiarmid and Heeger), who earned Nobel Prize for the discovery of conductive polymers, certain conductive polymers were produced, studied and even applied. (emphasis-added) So, is there really anything new under the Sun? No, there is not, but we have not been aware of CPs, as of the materials that offer a variety of new possibilities...."    Similarly,  my impression has always been that WP:undue concerns arguable minority or disputed views.   And that "controversy" means "controversy" in the broad sense.  Ya just can't invent your own definitions to suit the situation. Here there seems to be pretty general agreement-- there were clearly an awful lot of reports of conductive polymers before the Nobelist's work.   I now firmly expect some editor to argue that, if everybody agrees with Inzelt's view, then it is no longer "controversial". Ah well. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:UNDUE deals with any type of minority view and goes hand in hand with WP:V (and WP:OR). Comparing with cited "reports of conductive polymers before the Nobelist's work" is original research. A "Controversy is a state of prolonged public dispute or debate, usually concerning a matter of conflicting opinion or point of view", that's more than one citation/comment by a writer. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:28, 21 February 2013 (UTC)


 * With apologies to anyone trying to keep track of this discussion, I am changing my mind again. Remove with prejudice, per Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor. Wipe it out, and spit on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Continuing discussion
Comment 1 : You asked for more more confirmation of Inzelt's opinion, I gave it. In fact the reviewer I cite expands on Inzelt, noting that previously "certain conductive polymers were produced, studied and even applied". Likewise, once pointed out, it is self-evident from the literature. So no further debate on it and it gets incorporated into further texts, as noted above. Far from being a minority view, good luck in finding a review, etc. that does not similarly list the pre-discovery discoveries. I'll wait here while you go find one. And no, this is not OR, merely pointing out that it is incorrect to state this is a minority view. To you perhaps, but not to electrochemists.

Comment 2 The definition you give for "controversy" is the one given here on wikipedia. In fact, other on-line dictionaries either do not reflect this definition or reflect it as one of several. E.g., mirriam-webster, "a discussion marked especially by the expression of opposing views." etc. Macmillan, ,"disagreement, especially about a public policy or a moral issue that a lot of people have strong feelings about". Ardictionary "Contention; dispute; debate; discussion; agitation of contrary opinions." This certainly qualifies. Comment-3 Again, I remind everyone that the controversy is over the Nobel committee's miss-assignment of discovery credit for conductive polymers, not over the Nobel itself. Because of the influence of the prizes, this is a very big deal. Discovery credit is an important part of the reward system in science, which generally pays poorly, if you can even get a job. From scientific misconduct:


 * Danish definition: "Intention or gross negligence leading to fabrication of the scientific message or a false credit or emphasis given to a scientist " emphasis-added.


 * Swedish definition: "Intention[al] distortion of the research process by fabrication of data, text, hypothesis, or methods from another researcher's manuscript form or publication; or distortion of the research process in other ways."

Nucleophilic (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not based on things that are "self-evident", its based on things that are explicitly stated. Inzelt's material in itself is not original research, nor is citing it. Its just thin. Gives us at best a one liner entry in this list. All the other material around it in the article entry is original research because its generated by Wikipedia editors citing what they think is self-evident in related material that is not stating a controversy. We just have one writer (Inzelt) observations, we have no cited "Contention" "dispute" "debate" "discussion" "agitation" of "contrary opinions" to show this was a "controversy". One writers views (one happens to be "minority" BTW) has specific guidelines as to how it can be used in Wikipedia (that part is actually not debatable since its policy), and trying to imply something not explicitly stated by a writer (such as a "controversy") may mean its not suitable for this article. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 21:06, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is starting to feel like usenet 2.0. Please reread what I said. A background explaination on a talk page is not wp:or.  I am just trying to explain why this controversy is important.    I have been here slightly longer than you, have long participated on the policy pages, etc,  and well know the difference,  as well as the ends and outs.    A major author in a major textbook taking the Nobel committee to task for missasignment of discovery credit is certainly a "dispute", and a pretty significant one-- I am just trying to explain why.   Plus confirmed in so many words by a review of the chapter in a scholarly journal.  Per wp:rs,  certainly better sources than the usual newspaper reports,  etc.. that the rest of the article depends upon. Nucleophilic (talk) 05:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Something missed here because I was referring to the OR in the article entry, not the talk page, re: reference dates of 1963, 1963, 1963, 1965, 1965, 1968, 1974. Some fine digging but obviously not sources on a controversy that started in 2000. If we had the usual newspaper reports, etc. we wouldn't be here. The problem is the single source and trying to divine whether a review of that single sources means anything at all. Way off the required sources for something like this. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Keep This is definitely a controversy in electrochemistry, particularly if you are Australian. There are big conductive polymer research programs at, for example, Woolongong and at the University of Queensland that indirectly trace back to Bolto <I>et al's</I> early 1960's papers. As nucleophilic repeatedly notes, this was 10 years before Proctor's group. Also, the latter clearly state that Bolto <I>et al</I> deserve credit for the discovery. This is hardly-self-serving. So what's this business about sour grapes? As a website posted by an important and well-recognized researcher, good WP:RS. Clipjoint (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural discussion

 * I have a possibly naive question. The RfC was opened a few weeks ago. I came here from the RfC listing, and as anyone can see from my comments, I'm sort of neutral on the issue. But it seems like, in the last day or two, there's been a sudden influx of new commenters, with views very different from those given earlier. Did something happen, that drew attention to the RfC? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment It is not the RfC. There is/was an active identical discussion ongoing elsewhere, at talk:Peter Proctor. Simply-stated, noleander moved it here without properly noticing any of the other participants,  except for, apparently,  those who support his position. And then covered the move by posting an RfC. Gross violation of WP:concensus. In case you wonder why bandn was a little testy. This is wp:forum shopping. The proper procedure would have been to ask for the RfC on the original page. There was also a recent arb action on a related matter that noleander was turned down on. Anyway, others involved in the other discussion are showing up here as they find out about this one,  abiet slowly. And, upon showing up, they get sniped at, as below. Most uncivil. Many expert editors only attend to wikipedia intermittently. Nucleophilic (talk) 04:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Some of these accounts closely follow each other in edit history. Dunno if it a narrow field of editors on the subject or its a little WP:CANVAS (I have also seen similar patterns from WP:SOCK but will WP:ASSUME right now). Could simply be the result of that. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 23:25, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * User:Bandn has only 120 contributions, total, spanning several years. Same with User:Maxdlink: total of 150 contributions. Seems odd that they would both find this RfC.   The closing editor should take that into account. --Noleander (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC)


 * RfC ?  As you well know,  Bandn is one of the editors in an identical discussion on another talk page before you moved it here without telling anybody. Similarly, the history shows that maxdlink posts to this article regularly. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:38, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment  I have noticed a couple of participants in the original discussion on this subject about this one and have also tagged the talk pages of several relevant wikipages. We shall see who shows up. Not wp:canvass -- the supporters of Noleanders position in the original discussion somehow already found their way here without my help. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've looked now at Talk:Peter Proctor. As far as I can tell, the discussion there has been about that page, whereas the discussion here has been about this page, so the claims about moving a discussion here strike me as inaccurate. It's two discussions about the same kinds of subject matter, but it is about two different pages, with two different contexts, and thus two different conditions for due or undue weight. I'm satisfied that there wasn't a significant off-Wiki canvassing behind the recent appearance of more editors, and I think it's time to return to the substance of the RfC. If anyone on either side wants to claim canvassing on-Wiki, I recommend that they do it at WP:ANI, and that they provide diffs to back it up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets
As indicated in Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor all of the editors above that !voted to Keep are sockpuppets, so their input is invalid. I believe that it is acceptable to strike out all of their comments above, to indicate their status. I might do that soon, unless someone beats me to it. --Noleander (talk) 23:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The only thing that will keep me from beating you to it is that I don't want to bother. But, more efficiently, how about just invoking WP:SNOW and closing the RfC as pretty near to unanimous. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure, that would be fine by me ... but maybe wait a day or two so other editors that participated in the RfC have an opportunity to object (or otherwise comment). --Noleander (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * A profound thank-you for conducting this investigation. I have made initial clean-out of three egregious articles but am going to hold back for a day or two before conducting further cleanup. Here are some other editors who are probably related to this problem: User:Cjbetti, User talk:Fizicist, User talk:Bigbuck. Like the other editors implicated as fakes, these two were highly focused on promoting the contributions of Peter Proctor.  Their other characteristic is zero information on their user pages.--Smokefoot (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information. If those other editors continue editing in a way that demonstrates sock-puppetry, a follow-on SPI case can be initiated at the same SPI page: Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor.  --Noleander (talk) 20:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I struck many of the sock comments. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

RfC closed
I have closed the RfC, based on the above sockpuppetry discussion. If anyone wants to re-open it to continue discussion, go right ahead. --Noleander (talk) 14:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Omerbashich claim
This "Crown Prince Mensur Omerbashich of Bosnia" claim to the Physics prize shows very few sources/coverage making it a tiny minority view (of one? a Bosnian Crown Prince?) WP:UNDUE, also WP:REDFLAG. Removed it here to talk. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems he's gaining some support as I see on his blog here: A famed Nobel laureate for (quantum) physics Brian Josephson has agreed with king in a debate: there are too many coincidences in this Nobel Prize dispute case and the argon affinity (particlequake energy output) value matching king's gravitational resonance is indeed a remarkable coincidence (personal communication, 2013). By the way he is a deposed king or something, not prince. Very interesting stuff. 87.103.197.93 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 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)

Milton Friedman
My understanding of the criticisms of Friedman receiving the prize is that it was due to his connections with Pinochet. The text in the article stated that they were "ostensibly" because of his "brief" connection with Pinochet. This seems a rather weasely way of saying that the claims were exaggerated and were used to conceal a more ideological criticism of Friedman. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant. It is not for Wikipedia to make such claims, so I have removed the words in question to give what I hope is a more neutral reading of the incident. 2620:0:862:1:A6BA:DBFF:FE30:D87D (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Nobel for controversial experimental explanation
Nobel for Mistaken Theroris sounds tough, controversial experimental explanation sounds smoother - more gentle.

There are no Nobels given for mistaken theories, but many had controversial even mistaken explaination of the scientific data. Many types were refined later. Of course we know science always evolves, so change is natural, but many people claim there is a limit of what is supposed to win the prize, and the word "I almost did it" abstracts the Nobel from other scientists, with less significant theories, but more complete with data.

Please make an article "Nobel for controversial experimental explanation" This is the tough hard core of Nobel "problems". People usually talk for people that didn't receive credit, but remember, the REASON we have Nobels is data and science itself, so I consider way more controversial the "Nobel for controversial experimental explanation" section, than the "people which did not receive credit"

Reasoning come before naming a winner. We must analyze the facts from the core out! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.106.17 (talk) 07:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

ipcc awarded?
Everytime (?) IPCC convene there is a new definition for climate change yet the IPCC receive a Nobel Prize. In addition, they persistently fight (till death- just an expression) for anthropogenic cause of global warming when in their definition they use the word "maybe". If you are dealing with a scientific principle there is no such thing as "maybe", then why did they receive an award for a Nobel Prize. Is it ok for the Nobel Prize recipient to start from a guess [then WIN the NP], then progresses to quite improved guess, and a series of quite improved guesses as to the number of changes in their definition of climate change and later I really don't know if they could come up with the true definition without using "maybe". Supposedly the award will be given when the "maybe" word no longer exists in their definition not before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.40.157.236 (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Chemistry 2007 and 1918
I have added a section on the Chemistry 2007 prize which was controversial because Gabor A. Somorjai did not get to share it with Gerhard Ertl. Somorjai is considered to be the father of modern surface science, he is the most often-referenced person in the field of surface science and catalysis, and his contributions to our understanding of the catalytic effects of metal surfaces are at least as important as Ertl's. Ertl himself was surprised that Somorjai didn't get to share the prize with him. (A reference to C&E News profile of Somorjai, which includes a discussion of this issue and a quotation from Ertl, is posted in the article; also, a reference to an article from the Royal Society of Chemistry.)

I have also noted that Fritz Haber was a controversial Nobel Laureate in 1918 because of his involvement with the development of poison gasses for warfare. Again, I have posted a reference for this in the article. Goblinshark17 (talk) 05:12, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Medicine 2010
The prize went to Robert Edwards for developing in-vitro fertilization. This made the Catholic Church hierarchy apoplectic. The Church objects to all artificial fertilization techniques, as well as to contraception. Goblinshark17 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Chronology
The chronology of each controversy within sub-sections is in reverse order, displaying the most-recent controversy at the top of the list rather than the bottom. Is there a specific reasoning behind this format? Do any editors object to reformatting this to show this in standard chronological order? AldezD (talk) 13:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 one external links on Nobel Prize controversies. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.maa.org/devlin/devlin_04_04.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Bohr-Fission-1939.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pharmj.com/pdf/articles/pj_20060225_streptomycin.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 06:29, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 one external links on Nobel Prize controversies. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dn.se/DNet/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=3462&a=837512
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/articles/fredrikson/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-62828416.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/sex-and-philosophy-rethinking-de-beauvoir-and-sartre-by-edward-fullbrook-and-kate-fullbrookbr-a-dangerous-liaison-by-carole-seymourjones-832532.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110915025114/http://www.icrs.ugm.ac.id/wednesday-forum-schedule/111-relevance-of-gandhian-philosophy-in-the-21st-century to http://www.icrs.ugm.ac.id/wednesday-forum-schedule/111-relevance-of-gandhian-philosophy-in-the-21st-century
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2008/phyadv08.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/1997/10/21/007.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/nobel.prize/stories/americans.sciences/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://chem.ch.huji.ac.il/~eugeniik/history/lilienfeld.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boston.com/globe/search/stories/nobel/1993/1993g.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/nobelprize_facts.html
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5EsureXKk to http://nobelprize.org

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Omerbashich claim
It seems Bosnian crown prince Omerbashich (styles himself a king) is gaining some support for his counterclaiming 2012 physics Nobel, according to his blog here: A famed Nobel laureate for (quantum) physics Brian Josephson has agreed with king in a debate: there are too many coincidences in this Nobel Prize dispute case and the argon affinity (particlequake energy output) value matching king's gravitational resonance is indeed a remarkable coincidence (personal communication, 2013). Very interesting stuff. Also this: Both the Nobel Committee and Swedish Police have received an official report stating the facts, and proof beyond doubt that Wineland and Haroche used his discovery without permission or recognition. Did David Wineland and Serge Haroche Steal Idea For The Nobel Physics Prize? 31.185.124.151 (talk) 12:02, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This claim has been pushed forward before diffdiffdiffdiff ......(sheeesh, way too many to list)....old talk, different IP, same claim. The multitude of one-edit IPs that come out of the woodwork to edit war every time this edit comes up probably points to one person spoofing IPs. One of the IPs was also used in a multiple IP edit war at Todd Hollenshead. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

His theory is quite amazing, afaict. 91.203.111.4 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
 * On 10:49, 11 August 2016‎ 31.185.127.215 PUSH'ed this talk to the bottom of the page. Looks like an ongoing sock campaign. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 11:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Section moved so that two External links modified sections that talk about same stuff could be grouped together. It's someone else (who started a new External links modified section and thus doubled content) that tried to bury the moved section. Was it you? It sure looks like now that you spoke. 31.185.127.215 (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The Nobel Irony
So its not controversial that the worlds most famous 'peace prize' was created by a man who invented dynamite, ran an arms company (bofors) and advanced cannon technology by leaps and bounds during his final years? Its disgusting hypocrisy that people accept Nobel prizes in the name of peace. The man killed people for profit. This article should include a section right at the start addressing this serious issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.246.140 (talk • contribs) 15:44, September 30, 2013‎

Police use guns. Will we include them in this section? Military? We'll ignore for now all the civilian uses for dynamite, civilian advances resulting from arms research and possible peace incentives resulting from superior military power. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.149.120 (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)