Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2

===Nobel Prize=== This peer review discussion has been closed. I have listed Nobel Prize for Peer Review because I need help with improving prose and consistency of word usage. I have tried to nominate it for FA twice and it has failed both. On those nominations many comments were about the prose which was not quite FA style according to some editors. So I would be very happy if I could get some help with improving this article so it can reach FA status!
 * Previous peer review

I would be grateful for any help I can get, Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 10:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC) :Note: Because of its length, this peer review is not transcluded. It is still open and located at Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2.

Comments by MartinPoulter This article addresses an interesting and significant topic, is well-written in places and has lots of relevant images. My main reaction to it is that the style is often too wordy and sentences are too long. Some of the statements about controversy seem over-broad. I've been making edits to fix some of these as I go.


 * The phrase "Nobel Prize" occurs more frequently than necessary. Given the context, it's clear what "the Physics prize" means, for example. I've reworded a sentence in the lead supplied by the previous peer reviewer because of that repetition.
 * I've worked through the article in search for cases where I could remove it. I think I have managed to reduce it now. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 15:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In the lead, the phrase "in the specific disciplines": it's not clear to me what this means. Which prizes are picked out by that phrase?
 * It is referring to all the prizes. For example, that the Nobel Prize in Physics is the most prestigious prize in physics and so on. Would it be better if it were: "The Nobel Prizes in the specific disciplines are widely regarded as the most prestigious award one can receive in that area." or something like it? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I understand now. I've re-worded it in a way that I hope is more clear. I've also put in the Gribbin ref about the Thomsons. You format references in a different way to what I'm used to, so you might want to change the ref. MartinPoulter (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Consistency of "Physics" versus "physics" etc.
 * I've had some problems with that. As I understand it "Nobel Prize in Physics" should have a capital "P" but I am not sure about for example "the Physics prize". Should it be "the Physics prize" or "the physics prize"? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at the sources, it's mixed. Levinovitz and Ringertz use "Chemistry Prize". Feldman uses "physics prize". Doherty uses "Medicine Prize" I found the New York Times using "Nobel Prize" but "Nobel physics prize". The Times (of London) uses "chemistry prize". I conclude from this that we can choose either so long as we are consistent. I think it would be less disruptive to standardise on capitals, i.e. Physics Prize. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I saw you corrected most of them. I think I found and corrected the rest. I also tried to get rid of all "prize in X" since the sources do not appear to use that very much. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "several" was used more often than necessary. By the time you read this, I think I may have removed all of these instances.
 * There is now only 3 "several" in the text, thank you. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Be careful about putting "notable" or "controversial" in the article too often: the text should show notability and controversy rather than state them.
 * Good point. I don't think there are many left now, only where I think no other word would fit. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * " for specific events. In this case, they are generally awarded within a few years of the event, sometimes within one year." - consider replacing with "for specific recent events".
 * Replaced. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The paragraph about dress codes seems superfluous, though that's a very subjective reaction. I would just take as given that when going to accept a Nobel prize I would have to dress smartly. If it's kept, I think there should be a greater contrast in how they are phrased, because it sounds as though "formal" is being contrasted with "strictly formal". Perhaps remove the first sentence of the paragraph and concentrate on dress code for the banquet, moving this sentence to the first paragraph of the banquet section?
 * I've been unsure of that part for while as well, it has been there for a long time. I agree with you and have removed it. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "On rare occasions, the prize committees have missed entire previous bodies of work " - does the single ref for this paragraph support that statement, or just the specific example given?
 * I have not written that section myself so I don't have access to the whole book but as far as I have understood it only supports the example. I am no fan of this paragraph since it feels a bit too WP:NOR for being a FA candidate but the editor who wrote it was very protective of it. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having consulted the source through Google Books, I see that it doesn't support that paragraph at all. It says that the discovery and development built on existing scientific work, as scientific discoveries always do. I've removed the whole paragraph MartinPoulter (talk) 17:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 11:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

MartinPoulter (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, Inzelt's book flatly says that the drize winners did not "discover" conductive polymers, giving cites, etc.   BTW, have you read the whole book or just the Google books exerpt ? In fact, Duić's review  ( which was unaccountably removed-- giving the impression that Inzelt says the quote directly ) says Inzelt says as much.   So there is no mistake-- I have posted Duic's exact words to the discussion page. In the face of this,  any assertion that Inzelt does not mean this is undocumented NOR and needs appropriate contrary citations.


 * BTW, as Duic's review indicates, many in this field are very protective of the Nobel winners as the ones who popularized and introduced them to this area. But even admitted partisans such as Duic don't maintain the Noble Prize winners "discovered" conductive polymers.  Unfortuneatly,  this was the expressed-reason for awarding them " The Prize " and what Nobel's will requires.   Equivalent conductive polymers were clearly known long before.


 * FYI: The earliest citation I can find is a 1963 paper which reports even higher conductivity in a very similar material to that of the Prize winners.  The prize winners don't seem to quote the 1963 paper,  but any "advance" was replacing polypyrrole with polyacetylene.   Prior researchers had even achieved the next step,  a conductive polymer electronic device.  Interestingly, this device is now listed in the Smithsonian Chips List  of key developments in semiconductor technology.
 * And here it comes again "by the way, there is this forgotten work [published in a rare journal] which should get the credits". All the attempts by certain two WP editors to include organic conductors into Nobel controversies, as well as to rewrite the history of organic conductors in several WP articles, invariably include those 3 articles of 1963. No secondary sources were ever provided on that. No evidence that anybody knew about those publications at all as the journal is local. No mentioning of that similar conductivity was observed earlier in the 1950s and even in the 19th century. There is a clear pattern of promotion, which alone should raise a red flag. As to Nobel controversies, they need community opinion, not just one professor saying. Materialscientist (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, I agree that "rarely" should probably be changed to "At least once". Nucleophilic (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

First, the issue is not what the Nobel winners missed. Rather, it is what the Nobel committee missed. IIRC, they spend roughly half their budget to insure this sort of thing does not happen. Here they clearly blew it. The problem is that their "discovery" assignment is so easy to falsify by the prior art. BTW, do any of you-all still maintain that the prize winners discovered high-conductive polymers ? Enough said.

That is, unlike most areas of disputed Nobels, the case here is completely "clean" and unambiguous. Not only that, it involves missing an entire body of prior research, man-years of work, etc.. -- " three obscure 1963 Australian" papers is a straw argument. E.g., In addition to a slew of other stuff over the years, there were also two papers in the journal "Science", not exactly "obscure". One of these was even the subject of a "News and Views" article in Nature, another one of the big three journals. This alone makes it notable. As for Inzelt, etc. This is not just " one professor ", but a major figure in the field writing an invited book in a well-established series of text-books. Can't get much higher up the "secondary source" chain than that. BTW, where in the wiki-rules does it say " community opinion " is necessary in the face of a good source. Impossible to determine in any case. Not only that, but another good secondary source (Duic), who is very favorable to the winners ( "the great trio" ), concedes Inzelt is right. Nucleophilic (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Materialscientist here, it really needs community opinion which this paragraph lacks. If you compare it to for example Gandhi not getting the prize part this is really insignificant. Or just any of the else noted controversies on the page. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Apples-oranges. Ghandi was a political figure and this was the peace prize, intneded to be political.  The science prizes are different in both form and purpose.   The other objections noted mainly pertain to individuals excluded from the prize because (e.g.) only three persons could receive it, because they were women, etc. etc..  On such matters,  the committees make a subjective decision which is bound to be questioned.  but at least they make the decision knowing the "facts".


 * This is different-- It is pretty clear that their prior art search failed. This may be because the eventual winners never cited the prior art, or whatever.  But in any case, somebody dropped the ball.  Otherwise,  the citation would have been worded differently,  e.g., omitting the discovery assignment, something the committees are generally very careful about. Nucleophilic (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * You do not seem to get the point. For a controversy to appear on the Nobel Prize article (in the Controversies section) it has to be very notable and rather known. You could write a books about only Nobel Prize controveries so on the Nobel Prize article here we have to "filter" all the information. Thus only those controversies with communtiy opinion can be on this page, not controversies where 2-3 people say that something has happened. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 08:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Esuzu and Materialscientist. We are not supposed to be making a decision about the merit of this particular Nobel prize, just about whether this particular controversy is notable enough. The offered sources are inadequate. I have only read the Google Books excerpts of the cited book, but here's what I see on page 1: "'Three collaborating scientists [...] 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 of 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. [1862 Letherby example] Nevertheless, the [work of the Nobel prize winners] actually launched this new field of research'" This doesn't look like a critique of the judgement of the committee. Page 264 onwards explain in more detail that conductive polymers had a long history before the prize, but again it's given as illustrative of how science works in general.

Contra Nucleophilic, I don't think we need to use a one-paragraph summary in a book review to tell us the content of the book, when we have the book itself. What's more, the review does not categorically condemn the judgement of the Nobel committee. It says that "the great trio" (the three laureates) launched "the real era of conductive polymer chemistry/electrochemistry" but that their work, like all science, built on previous discoveries.

I agree with Materialscientist that this looks like a campaign, and until Nucleophilic has better references we should ignore this in taking the article onwards to FA.

MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read some more about this, I'm even more certain that this "controversy" does not belong in this article. As Esuzu says, huge amounts of text have been written in third-party sources about Nobel Prize controversies. There is a separate article for the topic, and only the most notable examples need to be in this article. Whatever the merits of the conductive polymer prize, the controversy is nowhere near notable enough to feature in this introduction to the prizes. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment MartinPoulter. Since all but one of the editors are against the keeping of the paragraph I will remove the paragraph. (EDIT:saw that MartinPoulter beat me to it) Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 13:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * My concerns about the text and about the phrasing of controversy are now gone and as far as I'm concerned the article has passed this review. I hope and expect that it will become a Featured Article. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Politics of conductive polymer research
Alternative view: while we are calling people "campaigners": materialscientist has systematically gone around erasing/changing stuff on this issue that was posted by many other editors over the years. One of these postings (which first pointed out the Austrialian origin of highly-conductive polymers that materialscientist continually attempts to trivialize ) is an IP number issued to the University of Woolongong, an active center of conductive polymer research. Allegedly, the Aussies were angry about the Nobel.

Similarly, the name "materialscientist" suggests he is somehow in solid state physics,  perhaps even conductive polymer research. He has also expressed objection to anyone saying bad things about the prize winners ( not the intent here, btw ). Without offering any real reasons, he also continually trivializes all the work from before them. He has also removed any references to the dispute he can find on Wikipedia. Just perhaps, materialscientist reflects some partisan conflict in conductive polymer research. This area is very policised and competitive. It was even the origin of the Jan Hendrik Schön science fraud episode. Enough said.

As for the Inzelt reference-- I don't recall the exact wording, but IIRC, it was stronger than in the exerpt. Anyway, this begs the question,  since it is clear and well documented in the secondary sources the laureates did not "discover" conductive polymers. Anything else begs the question.

Anyway, there is no money in science. So discovery credit is an important part of the reward system. Which is why I mke this effort. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So now you attack Materialscientist instead? This is just getting silly. I'll say it once again: the part it not notable enough to be on the Nobel Prize page. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 18:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * (Assume good faith) Read what I said. Again,  where in the wikirules does it state that "Notability" is a criteria for inclusion anywhere but in biographies.  You can't just make stuff up.  In any case this issue is "notable", if only because it is so unequvocal and the "discovery" assignment so easily falsifiable.  As for " attacking materialscientist ".  His POV-pushing WRT this issue on this and other pages is pretty clear.  I have refrained from saying anything about it until accused of it myself.


 * This is a very politicised issue. Many in this area were the Nobelist's Grad students and post docs.  Similarly,  the Nobel winners are generally acknowledged to have originated the field in its present form and so have a lot of support ( e.g., Duic,  who none-the-less admits that Inzelt is correct ).  This does not mean they "discovered" conductive polymers.  A brave souls like Inzelt ( who probably does not worry about grants or tenure ) have been bold enough to point this out.


 * Again, I repeat my question-- do any of you-all still maintain the " discovery " part of the nobel citation is correct or that there are not sufficient authoritative sources against this ?   According to "the rules",  this should be the only criteria.  Nucleophilic (talk) 19:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try to explain my point once more. I would not object if this were in the Nobel Prize controversies. If there is a problem with adding it there take it on that talk page. The problem with adding it on the Nobel Prize page is following. First of all, according to the Nobel Prize hidden text "If you would like to add a new section here add it to the Main Controversies page instead. When it is established there you can start a talk page about adding it to this page. DO NOT start a new section directly here." which this you failed to do. Secondly, only the really biggest controversies should be present in the Nobel Prize article. That is those who has generated most criticism (for example, most papers writing about it etc). This case is not well known enough.


 * Also, please do not add the part again without us having reached consensus. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * @Nucleophilic: In short, wikipedia is meant to document notable facts supported by reliable sources; this applies to any topic (not only BLPs). Honestly, I would be happy if you provided such facts to wikipedia, instead of expressing your personal opinion over various topics, including my motives. There is so much work around, cleaning up and building up articles with basic information .. Materialscientist (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Back-tracking some of Materialscientist latest activities--  First,  you persuaded everyone on OLEDs that there is no point in mentioning this stuff in that article because it is well-summarized in conductive polymers.    Then,  having gotten your way,  you gutted the material on conductive polymers,  as well as pretty much everywhere else.   Bet you thought nobody would notice.  Very slick,  but the "consensus" ( such as it was ) depended upon trusting you to leave the history on conductive polymers alone.   Anyway,  everyone check it out on the respective pages.  Such backhanded methods support the contention that you are somehow POV-pushing and will do whatever it takes. Nucleophilic (talk) 17:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel this is getting taken away from the original discussion. Whether or not Materialscientist is POV pushing (which I don't think he is) is irrelevant. What matters here is the Nobel Prize article and nothing else. I still maintain that the conductive polymer part should not be on the Nobel Prize page. It might have a place in other pages but not here. Nucleophilic, does that work for you aswell? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 17:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't the place or the manner to pursue this discussion, Nucleophilic. Also, you seem to edit-warring against consensus in the article itself. If you don't accept that this matter is over, you should be reported. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Edit warring? Go ahead,  report me-- I'd love to work out all this shenaegans in front of an arb.  Been thinking about doing it myself.  Get some of this un-wikilike behavior on the record.   Not to mention Ownership of articles.


 * IIRC, I have changed the text once or twice in about a week or so.  And then only to add two sentences. This is not edit warring and you should know it.  Remember, "assume good faith".  BTW,  why did this discussion get changed over to this page when properly it should have stayed on the discussion page,  where all interested parties could see it.   This looks like an attempt to shop for people that agree while hiding the discussion.   The rules are very clear--  "Consensus" reached this way is not consensus. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That it got moved to this page is quite irrelevant. The discussion has been for a long time on the talk page and nobody else have shown an interest. You are right, consensus is not a majority vote. But when it is about right and wrong there is no consensus; only right and wrong. This is not getting anywhere, we can obviously not convince you that we are correct and vice versa. I will try to find some help to solve this. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement - I will try to be as neutral as possible. This dispute begun when Nucleophilic added a paragraph to the Nobel Prize article about conductive polymers. Soon after the paragraph was removed by Materialscientist (if I remember correctly) and this discussion arose. The discussion ended somehow and the paragraph was kept. During this Peer Review MartinPoulter also commented on the paragraph and recommended to remove it, which it was. Nucleophilic added it again and somebody reverted his edit etc. Now me, Materialscientist and MartinPoulter all agree that the paragraph is not good enough to be kept and Nucleophilic believes that it should be kept. Currently we are at a standstill and need somebody to help resolve this dispute, preferably an admin. Esuzu ( talk  •  contribs ) 20:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * FYI: I also asked some users on the IRC channel. And they believed we had reached consensus. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 21:44, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Esuzu's statement is flatly incorrect and I can easily prove it. The history log shows that the paragraph was on Nobel Prize for years and was apparently the product of a former consensus. I had nothing to do with the material, but was merely objecting to its arbitrary removal by an editor who arguably has taken ownership of the page, with all that implies. BTW, when this matter first came up, I reminded everyone that I am not the author of this paragraph and that it had been on the page for a while. Unfortunately, Isuzu has conveniently forgotten my reminder. All on the discussion page, if anybody wants to check. BTW, assuming good faith, I have only raised the ownership issue recently, after being accused of edit-waring. After a bit of discussion, I tired of arguing and gave in-- we agreed that most of the paragraph ( including all primary cites ) be removed, leaving only a bare bones note citing two authoritative secondary sources. These were Inzelt's authoritative textbook on conductive polymers, and a review of Inzelt's book by Duic. So that there could be no issue of original research or interpretation, I quoted the Duic's review directly about what Inzelt says. The book review is on line in case anybody wants to check it. Figured that was that. Imagine my surprise when the issue gets reopened after Esuzu had apparently enlisted some help. At which point, the agreed-to material gets completely removed. Moreover, for a couple of attempts to reinsert what we had agreed to, I get accused of edit-waring. This just ain't right and arguably should be the subject of an arb, just to untangle matters and "send a message". Nucleophilic (talk) 22:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement I was previously uninvolved in this article until finding it in the Peer Review backlog and deciding to review it. The issue we need to focus on is whether a particular paragraph about a "controversy" belongs in the article about the Nobel Prize. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:54, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are secondary sources which list the most significant Nobel controversies and criticisms, such as The Times' (9 October 2009) "Top Ten Nobel Prize rows" (linked in the article). The polymer controversy is not significant enough to have been mentioned in these sources. That in itself should be enough to settle the issue.
 * What's more, my reading of the sources is that it's highly dubious whether there's a controversy here or not. Barack Obama's Peace Prize was controversial because multiple public figures expressed different opinions about its merit, and these were in turn reported in multiple sources. That's totally different from what we're being asked to accept here, where we don't even have a categorical condemnation of the Nobel Committee's decision.
 * Nucleophilic's approach is, in effect, that we on Wikipedia have to take the role of the secondary sources and decide that the Nobel Committee were being criticised, and that this counts as a controversy.
 * Instead of dealing with these problems, Nucleophilic has concentrated on irrelevant points referring to other articles, the history of other contributors, the significance of the cited academics (which is not in dispute) or our own opinions about the history of conductive polymers. Having failed to persuade the other editors that the paragraph needed to stay, Nucleophilic's response is to undo the deletion directly. This is unconstructive to say the least. Note that I'm criticising behaviour rather than intention here.
 * Nucleophilic needs to explain the statement "Imagine my surprise when the issue gets reopened after Esuzu had apparently enlisted some help ." and the reference to "shenanigans". As the peer reviewer, my focus has been to improve the article quality towards Featured Article. Is the implication that I knew about this controversial paragraph, or who Esuzu was, before getting involved?


 * Clearly, esuzu moved the discussion over here for the purpose of eliciting support.  Such is frowned upon in the wikpedia rules.   Reason such soliciting is forbidden is that it distorts Consensus.  I suggest you read the page carefully.    It should have stayed on the discussion part of the website, where everyone could comment on it,  rather than putting it over here.  He went fishing for support, which naturally he got.   In short,  Esuzu has throughly poisoned the waters.    BTW,  technically,  " concensus " should include me,  if only for a NPOV.  It does not.


 * I reintroduced it with different wording, and with a note on the discussion page.  IIRC,  this was a couple of times over a week or so.   While I carefully refrained, editors are allowed two reverts a day.   It is just part of the process.   A couple of posts over several days is not edit warring.   I didn't even do a revert,  but modified the insertion each time.  If people don't like what I say,  a revert is simple enough,  with a note in the discussion page,  naturally.


 * Pointing out that a leading textbook in the field states that the Nobel winners did not "discover" conductive polymers is a very big deal. Among other things,  Inzelt implies that the Nobel committee dropped the ball in their prior art search.   This alone makes it "important".  As I note,  the other Nobel controversies involve questioning the subjective opinion of the Nobel committee.   In contrast,  this is an objective matter-- the " discovery " part of the Nobel citation is clearly wrong and Inzelt says as much.  Moreover, Duic agrees with him,  while reaffirming the role of the winners in founding the field.


 * This is an esoteric matter in a formerly-obscure field.  This field is now very important because (e.g. ) conductive polymers are used in most color cell-phone displays.  See OLED's, e.g.  Personally, the scientific issue makes my eyes glaze over.  True,  as a sometime student of the history of scinece,  I was fascinated to find out about it and even did a lot of homework.  However, It is no surprise it has not attracted the attention of the popular press.


 * However, an authoritative textbook is a lot further up the authority scale than the popular press. This includes such honored institutions as such as (e.g. ) Rupert Murdoch's Times.       Another interesting secondary source is smithsonianchips.si.edu .  About half-way down the page,  an organic semiconductor device from 1973 is listed,  three years before the Noblest sup[posedly "discovered" such compounds.  The smithsonian is generally considered authoritative in matters of the history of discovery.    BTW,  Pesky word,  "discovery".  If the Nobel citation had not used it,  we would not be having this discussion.


 * As for the various controversies around the Peace Prize-- this is a political institution. So any prize will inherently generate controversy.   Moreover,  it involves popular figures.  It should not be compared to controversies in the science prizes.   Or do you maintain that only controversies concerning the peace prize are significant because these are the ones everyone has heard of ?   Sounds like what goes on concerning certain rock groups here on wikipedia.  Anyway,  don't recall anything like you claim in the wikirules.  Far as I can tell,  the main criteria are verifiability, NOR, etc. which are easy enough.   Perhaps you can cite some authority.  Otherwise,  total personal opinion and thus OR. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Beating the dead horse some more: Seven of the ten most notable nobel controversies listed in the Times article are either the Peace or literature prizes.  Thus,  inherently controversial 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, number 9,  concerning the discovery of nitric oxide as a messenger, etc.  is also controversial.  But not because its discovery led to viagra, abiet rather indirectly.  The real controversy arose from the fact that four reseachers ( one of whom I once had lunch with ) seemed equally qualified,  but only three could be chosen.  This led to the usual protests, etc. on behalf of the excluded individual Salvador Moncada.  Perhaps this matter should also be added. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * ..because you've had lunch with one of the participants :-) Sorry, I couldn't stop this (inappropriate) remark. Seriously, we are shaking air here, documenting opinions, instead of facts, on this embarrassingly long page. BTW, the smithsonianchips story is rather recent and is mixed up with wikipedia - the same editor uploaded the device image on wikipedia, then provided it to smithsonian, and also described the history of conductive polymers here. Materialscientist (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Point is, the Times article ( which everyone here seems to rely on over the actual scientific literature ), is inaccurate WRT one of two real science prize controversies,  clearly sacrificing accuracy to reader appeal. The peripheral viagra connection is sexy and likely to draw reader attention. How could he resist ? Alternatively, the reporter flatly did not know about the " real " Nobel controversy in 1998. This is that four researchers had roughly equal claims and by the Nobel rules one of them missed out. Either way, it raises questions about the article as a source, particulary in view of alternate sources in the scientific literature.

BTW, the reason I had lunch with 1998 Nobel prize winner Ferid Murad is because some of my research touches upon nitric oxide, a sometime " nucleophilic" compound,  depending--- Just in case you wonder where my screen name comes from. So, by chance, I do know the history of the 1998 prize. Naturally, expertise does not count here,  except in the sense that " experts " know the primary and secondary sources. --follow the provided links for authentication and verification. Nucleophilic (talk) 12:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Reminder-- the material at issue has been on the page since about 2007 ( at least ).  Claims otherwise are misleading.  And again,  I did not post the material,  though I seem to have drawn the thankless job of defending it.   As for the citing of softer sources that happen to agree with certain editor's opinions while trivializing the scientific literature, see confirmation bias.  Lot of that here and on the page. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is has been on the page for years is irrelevant (saying you have eaten with people is also irrelevant. Everybody can say everything on the internet, it means nothing on Wikipedia unless it is a good source). Honestly before last year when I started working on the Nobel Prize much of the page was... well bad. About the Time article. First of all, it is true that most of the controversies are about literature and peace. They are often the most NOTABLE controversies, simply because they get most attention. The Wikipedia article should reflect that. Secondly, just because something are written in the Time's article doesn't make it notable. It probably has to be written in more places, all the controversies on the Nobel Prize has been spoken of a lot.


 * Also, there is no need to throw poisonous remarks about me around you. You have written yourself here that we should assume good faith, why should we when you do not? Did I fish for support? No, both Materialscientist and MartinPoulter are here of their own free will, not because I asked them. What instead you perhaps you should ask yourself is why there are three people opposing this paragraph and only one supporting it. I believe consensus has been reached that the paragraph should not be on the Nobel Prize page. Perhaps it could be on the Nobel Prize controversies but certainly not here. If you want to discuss if it belongs on another page take that on the talk page there, not here. Could we agree on that at least? Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but in your request for comments,  you flatly misstated matters,  stating that I had introduced the section.   The record shows that you had asserted this before and that I had pointed to the history log to show your impression was incorrect and that I was merely defending an existing section.  Yet you asserted it again on the request for comments, giving a completely inaccurate picture.   Assuming good faith,  perhaps you just forgot.   Still,  it leaves a very bad taste.


 * Likewise, you brought this discussion here,  not me.   It should have stayed on the discussion page.  What is it doing on a social science page anyway, other that taking it away from the ken of any pesky science types who might wander by the discussion page ?   Anyway,  I repeat my statement that a consensus achieved this way is not really a concensus.  If you want to call for an arbitration,  go for it.


 * Also, originally the section was the product of a real concensus,  not to be changed without another real concensus.  I also thought we agreed that you would leave it alone as long as I agreed to a severe cut-back,  just leaving cites to Inzelt and Duic,  one a primary text book in the field and the other a review of this text-book.  Again,  about as high on the authentication scale as you can get-- certainly better than an obviously throw-away newspaper article.   Again,  supported by the record.  This deal lasted as long as it took for you to round up support to overturn it.  Again,  very unwikilike behavior that leaves a very bad taste.  As for the other matters,  I have discussed them ad nauseum. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As nothing we say get through I will wait for another comment to resolve this. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * My stands are (i) it does not matter who and when introduced certain material in the article, the length of its stay on WP has no relation whatsoever to its correctness; (ii) Inzelt or Duic refs did not support the specific added claims on who should be credited with the priority; (iii) those refs might be valid, reliable sources, but they are too few to reflect the mainstream opinion for such topics as Nobel Prize (see WP:REDFLAG). Inzelt is a renown specialist, but in the electrochemistry field, I haven't checked Duic yet. Materialscientist (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment(s) from Theleftorium
Theleftorium (talk) 12:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * This part of the article is very repetitive: "In 2008 the Physiology or Medicine Prize was shared among two French virologists who discovered HIV and a third German virologist who discovered that a virus causes cervical cancer. Luc Montagnier and Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, together share half the prize for their discovery in 1983, which was that the virus now known as HIV causes AIDS.[24] Harald zur Hausen also shared this prize for discovering that the human papilloma virus causes cervical cancer."
 * Perhaps Template:Convert should be used for the weights and lengths?
 * Thank you for your comments Theleftorium! I think MartinPoulter fixed the first thing. I try to arrange the template later today. Esuzu  ( talk  •  contribs ) 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)