Talk:Nobel Prize controversies

Clean Up - Emphasis

I believe the facts and contents are largely alright and should remain unaltered or let others add in relevant sources over time. Perhaps the expressions, styling, etc., can be tightened up a bit in the article so it reads smoothly and more like a good piece of encyclopedia. I also noticed that due to the hyperlink nature of wikipedia, attractive, potential hightlights (like words origin, study, topicality, instant updates to verify discussions floating 'in the air', at any one time, etc.) can indeed be included, and read—to enliven up the pages like no encyclopedia, serving the public instantly! Great Stuff and unique work by our wiki-contributors and editors here! Thank you! Yzphub 10:38 Jan 09, 2007.

2007 Controversy

Norway Should Apologize for the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize

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)

Y Done--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

• The Times 1 October 2009 "Call for new Nobel prizes to honour ‘forgotten’ scientists"
• The Times 9 October 2009 "Top ten Nobel Prize rows"

MartinPoulter (talk) 13:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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.[1]. 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)