Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

Milton Friedman & Nobel Memorial Prize

[copied from User talk:Panda#Milton Friedman & Nobel Memorial Prize]

Please see WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. I already checked your source and it doesn't support text you added. As for external links, there is no "official site". Can you provide the line from website where it says that it is official website of the prize? -- Vision Thing -- 18:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Please recheck the source as it supports that there were protests about Friedman's Nobel prize. I'm not going to claim that the entire text is correct, but the reference does apply to part of the text. So either the text should be corrected or additional info should be added, but it should not be completely removed because you find part of it incorrect.

Additional support that there were protests about Friedman's Nobel prize and his involvement with the Chilean government:

• "The Editorial Board of the Review has decided to reprint the following article* with a two fold purpose. ... Secondly we want to protest the awarding of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics to Milton Friedman, the reactionary Chicago School economist Letelier's documentation, in the following article, of the Chilean situation and of Friedman's involvement in the junta's political economic policies will stand as the strongest possible condemnation of that award. The decision of the Swedish Royal Academy must be condemned as an act of aggression not only against social change but also against any standards of economic objectivity." Review of Radical Political Economics, Vol. 8, No. 3, 44-52 (1976)
• "The award of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science to Prof. Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago last October provoked a storm of criticism over Professor Friedman's right-wing politics, focused particularly on his willingness to give advice to the post-Allende Government of Chile." Nobel Award in Economics: Should Prize Be Abolished?, Leonard Silk, NY Times, March 31, 1977.
• "Milton Friedman, who is the intellectual architect and unofficial adviser for the team of economists now running the Chilean economy" from Orlando Letelier, The Nation, 28 August 1976
• "In a deplorable exhibition of insensitivity, the Nobel memorial Committee on Economics has awarded its prize this year to Milton Friedman. ... Friedman had earlier stated, 'In spite of my profound disagreement with the authoritarian political system of Chile, I do not consider it as evil for an economist to render technical economic advice to the Chilean Government, any more than I would regard it as evil for a physical to give technical medical advice to the Chilean Government to help end a medical plague." George Wald & Linus Pauling, Letters to the Editor, NY Times, Oct 24, 1976.
• "...it is very disturbing that a Nobel prize for economics should be awarded to Prof. Milton Friedman. ... According to reports in The Times and elsewhere, Professor Friedman has been a major economic adviser and supporter of the Chilean junta, an oppressive anti-democratic government that our Congress has recently excluded from economic credits. That the Swedish committee should have chosen to honor Professor Friedman at this time is an insult ot the people of Chile, burdened by the reactionary economic measures sponsored by Professor Friedman, and especially to those Chileans who are in jail or in exile as a result of the policies of the military government." David Baltimore & S. E. Luria, Letters to the Editor, NY Times, Oct 24, 1976.
• "Milton Friedman had no idea that his six-day trip to Chile in March 1975 would generate so much controversy. He was invited to Santiago by a group of Chilean economists who over the previous decades had been educated at the University of Chicago, in a program set up by Friedman's colleague, Arnold Harberger. ... Friedman and Harberger were flown down to "help to sell" the plan to the military junta, which despite its zealous defense of the abstraction of free enterprise was partial to corporatism and the maintenance of a large state sector. Friedman gave a series of lectures and met with Pinochet for 45 minutes, where the general "indicated very little indeed about his own or the government's feeling." Milton Friedman and the Economics of Empire: The Road from Serfdom, Greg Grandin, November 17, 2006.

From what I've read there was a misunderstanding that fostered the protests and that could certainly be elaborated on in the article. –panda (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

For more evidence of Friedman's involvement with the Chilean government, see also:

• Reflections from Latin America: Milton Friedman and Latin America, Ibsen Martinez, December 4, 2006
• Interview with Milton Friedman: On His Role in Chile Under Pinochet, PBS, Commanding Heights. Regarding protests: "...there were large demonstrations against me at the Nobel ceremonies in Stockholm. I remember seeing the same faces in the crowd in a talk in Chicago and a talk in Santiago. And there was no doubt that there was a concerted effort to tar and feather me."

–panda (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I noted in my edit summary, part that is wrong is: Friedman's theories and career, his advocacy of free market economic policies in general and his work with the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet in particular, had been controversial. Friedman did not "work with" Pinochet, and his proposed economic policies are generally seen as a part of mainstream. If you wish you can add something about protests since there is no dispute about that. -- Vision Thing -- 19:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you would prefer that "Pinochet consulted with Friedman about his economics policies" or something to that effect since that seems to be what all of the protests were about...? –panda (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if a majority of "mainstream" economists currently follow Friedman's views, they were extremely controversial in the 1970s and into the 1980s, and continue to be so in the political mainstream, particularly in term of the impact of their implementation and also their interpretation by others, as well as being disputed by noted economists such as Paul Krugman, Jeffrey Sachs and Joseph Stiglitz. As for Friedman's strong association with and praise for Pinochet (free markets free minds indeed!}, that is fairly categorical, as are the protests at his receiving the Nobel Memorial Prize. The inclusion of this is the article is well-sourced and cannot be disputed much further.Nwe (talk) 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Forgot to comment on the "official site" issue. Even the Nobel Foundation doesn't claim that http://nobelprize.org/ is the official website of the Nobel Prizes, but of the Nobel Foundation. So it isn't relevant if a website claims it is the official site of the prize or not. OTOH, the description you changed it to "Official website of the Sveriges Riksbank’s" is grammatically and factually incorrect since the link is not to Sveriges Riksbank, but to the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" on the Sveriges Riksbank website. I'm not against changing it to an alternative, factually correct descriptions but the one you changed it to is simply wrong. –panda (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I mostly concur with the edits made here by Vision Thing. --Doopdoop (talk) 20:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Um, that's not really good enough, you have to give reasons.Nwe (talk) 21:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Reasons are already given by Vision Thing. --Doopdoop (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

So why say anything at all? And Vision Thing's reasons aren't very good.Nwe (talk) 23:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I've updated the text about Milton Friedman to discuss the protests that had to do with the Chilean government issue. Someone else may want to add how the protests were related to other issues -- something I haven't bothered to check on. –panda (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Nationality

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I'm thinking of getting rid of the multiple-nationality flags in the Laureates table. For me, it's confusing. At the Nobel site they give nationality (I'm presuming that means citizenship) and "born" when that's different (for example Vickrey). I think that level of detail's unnecessary here, or if it is considered valuable, the same distinction should be made here as at the Nobel site. Whatcha think? Cretog8 (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I trimmed the nationalities. The result was that Koopmans, Modiglianai, Harsanyi, Vickrey andS Scholes were all cut down to one nationality (it turns out, all U.S.). Aumann & Kahneman kept their Israel/U.S. double nationality. I used the official nobel site as the source for this. Cretog8 (talk) 15:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Name

I have to ask, should the prize be really referred to as the Nobel Prize of Economics when that is not the official name, nor is it regarded as an official Nobel Prize. Shouldn't it be referred to with its official name, the one with the swedish bank thing in it? Someone111111 (talk) 02:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't. Is it? // Liftarn (talk)

I would support renaming the article to "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", since this is what the Nobel Committee refers to it as. Debate 木 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The name of this article has been thorougly discussed on this talk page, you can see that by clicking on archive, part 2. There was, I belive, a consensus to give the article its current name. Talsurrak (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hate to get back into this, but there are edits happening by a user who looks to be diligently "correcting" the prize name in articles. I can understand that, but I disagree with some of the edits--such as the one linked--because it actually makes things unclear. I don't want to get back to the name of this article, I'm pretty agnostic on that because problems in that name can be solved by redirects and explanations in the article text. The name used in the text of other articles does matter because it can cause confusion. I favor simply "Nobel prize in economics", because it's simple and people know what it means. I can appreciate "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences"; it's only a little bit longer and a bit more accurate. I really don't like "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences" because nobody knows what that is. So, dangit reopening the debate. There's a lot of discussion about the article name the archive, but again, I'm not trying to reopen that. There's a little discussion specifically on the name used in other articles, with apparently no consensus. CRETOG8(t/c) 17:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

oh gawd please not this again...does anyone have an idea who's changing the articles again? i'm not 100% his edits are in compliance with the decidedly complex consensus. --emerson7 23:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea who they are and they haven't followed up on messages left on the talk page. Most of their changes are pretty benign to my eyes, the one which brought me here was an anomaly. Still, I wish they would come talk about it. I wonder if we should make a {{econnobel}} template to use to fill in the same thing on every article. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Nationality - New Proposal

I propose reinstating the multiple nationality flags, otherwise we're just going to end up with stupid edit wars with parochial POV editors who feel the need to acquire some personal status through their indirect relationship with Laureates such as Mr Modigliani, much like we're about to be subjected to with the Olympics, ugh. Per Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality, there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia on whether citizenship or nationality is preferred. Nonetheless, the information is factual and I can't think of any good reason why both pieces of factual information can't be included (ie Citizenship and Nationality). Personally, I don't find multiple flags next to one individual confusing, and for those that need it clarified one can always click-through to the Laureates 's main article. Debate 木 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

My reasoning in trimming down the nationalities was this: There can be arguments about nationality. Just a for-instance, I came to it when I noticed that Vickrey was updated to be Canadian. He was born in Canada, and I have no knowledge of how much he considered himself of Canadian nationality. So, it's arguable. But there's a ready source which is the official web site, and that (to me) makes it clean and easy. My assumption is that the laureates or their proxies would object to a mis-record of their nationality by the official organization. Anyway, I might be wrong, but that's my reasoning. Cretog8 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You reasoning is sound, and an approach I broadly support in theory, which is why I didn't object to the earlier suggestion. Having seen the consequences in action, however, it seems to me the nationality of laureates is not an issue of exclusive interest to the subject and their preferences are not the only consideration for including nationality information. Like our mate Mr Modigliani, Italy is going to continue to claim him as its own regardless of his personal preferences and I'm not sure that we can strictly say that they are incorrect in doing this. In any case, I'm no longer so sure that we can truly infer his preferences one way or another from the Nobel website, which will have its own policies on the matter - if it is exclusively based on citizenship then we do know that people take on US citizenship for many reasons, sometimes related to funding and career opportunities or international politics rather than any specific statement of loyalty. Loyalties can also be mixed, especially for immigrant communities. Ideally we would have separate columns for birth and citizenship, nationality being a relatively problematic term to define (see Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality as above), however that would just make the table unnecessarily complicated. P.S. nice to see you back working hard after your break. :) Debate 木 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

biased toward neoclassical/mainstream

The bit about the prize award being biased towards "neoclassical" or "mainstream" is cited by two bits. Regardless of whether "neocleassical" is more accurate, both articles use the term "mainstream", and I think that's a better description of what the referenced articles mean. (For instance, in regards to Nash the issue wasn't his scholarship but whether he'd be embarrassing.) CRETOG8(t/c) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

article moved again

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Hapsala has just moved this article from "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (NMPES) to "Nobel Prize in Economics" (NPE). The move log referred to a two year old discussion favoring NPE. The much shorter discussion which was one year old favored NMPES, which name the article has had since.

I think a move like this deserves discussion, so here it is.

For my preferences, I favor NPE as the name to use in other articles because it's pithy and well-known. I favor NMPES as the title for this article because it's more detailed and accurate. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a good compromised and it basically what has been done for awhile. --Patrick (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Favor the user of the (more) correct name to mimimize confusion about what price it refers to. // Liftarn (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The current name, NMPES, is more accurate than NPE and preferable to it. Ultimately, for what it's worth, I'd personally prefer some variation on "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" but NMPES is a good compromise. I would strongly object to the misleading title NPE. What people want to call this article when linking to it from elsewhere is really a matter for the editors of those other articles. Debate 木 23:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

An even better name would disclaim association with the Nobel Foundation, but at the very least, acknowledge its backing by the Swedish central bank. 68.115.152.250 (talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Image at top of article

In addition to moving the page without discussing it first, user Hapsala keeps replacing the image of the Nobel committee at the top of the article with a picture of Robert Merton or one of Milton Friedman for unexplained reasons. Closest s/he came to offering an explanation was on my talk page; because s/he "doesn't care what you "think"". Other Nobel prize articles usually have the picture of the FIRST person to get the prize, which following that convention would mean that we'd have a pic of Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen. This would be 1) messy and 2) not really possible since a pic of Tinbergen is unavailable. So I don't see anything wrong with keeping the current committee photo. User Hapsala is at this point essentially engaging in vandalism, having been asked to provide a reason for the change and having refused to do so.radek (talk)

Besides its practical dimension, the 1997 award is the only where an other scientist is mentioned by the Academy as a "contributor" to the research leading to the prize, yet uneligable to be awarded. The image of the 2008 press briefing was never "removed", so please consult the article before making more accusations. --Hapsala (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So? What is "practical dimension"? Why are you the one deciding this? I don't see how the fact that they couldn't give one to Black in 97 is at all relevant to what the image should be. And that doesn't address why you originally put Friedman there. It basically just seems like you're insisting on putting "your favorite" in there.The image of the 2008 press briefing WAS removed from top of the article. If it's going to be an economist then it should be either the first persons (Tinbergen and Frisch) or the most recent recipient, Krugman. radek (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Practical, indeed, to millions of derivate traders around the world.... At the time of the award, the term "practial" was actually mentioned by the Academy, as the prize had been critisized for being too theoretical, elitistic, etc. --Hapsala (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Again, so what? Why is this supposed to be a criteria to include the picture at the top? And other prizes had "practical" implications for other people. Someone else can come along that in fact it should be, say, Harsanyi that deserves to be displayed so preeminently because his contributions are the most significant. And so on. It'd all be POV and it'd lead to unnecessary edit warring (as yours already has). First to get it, most recent one, or a general picture of the committee make way more sense.radek (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, stop trolling and behave yourself. --Hapsala (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult people. If you wish to try to justify your changes then please state some valid reasons.radek (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you prove to be a dishonest editor, making requests for third party opinions, yet continuing your bad faith edit warring and spreading accusations about others. You have done very little to improve the quality of the article - which mostly deals with "critisizm" of the award. And from that perspective, your systematic vandalism certainly makes sense. --Hapsala (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Radek's reasoning makes sense. I think a picture not specific to a particular winner is best. If it is going to be a particular winner, then the first or most recent makes sense. I don't think there's anything wrong with leaving Tinbergen out for practical reason of lacking a photo if Frisch should be the picture. The committee announcement picture is a bit dull, though, so hopefully there's something more interesting which can take its place. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:26, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hapsala, one more revert and you're in violation of 3RR. You were before in fact but I led it slide and instead asked for 3O. Which agreed with me. If you want to discuss this change here you're welcome to do so, but please keep it civil and stop reverting against consensus.radek (talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that the heat gets turned down. Neither of you is vandalizing, as far as I can see, so accusations of such don't help. Both of you are edit warring, and it would be best to stop. CRETOG8(t/c) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If a third opinion was desired, a third opinion (mine) was given. If the third opinion is judged to be not constructive by one of the editors, then you're looking for something other than a third opinion. CRETOG8(t/c) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Further Criticism of Association with The Nobel Prize

The original Nobel prize categories (Physic, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine, Literature, and Peace) were selected by Alfred Nobel based on his opinion about there objective worth to society. The first three prizes are the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) and the last two prizes are, essentially, sociological in nature. Because economics is not a hard science (in that it is not predictive, rigorous, or finitely defined) it can not be eligible for any of the sciences prizes. However, it is possible that people who contribute to the field of economics could be eligible for the Nobel prize in peace or literature, if their contribution resulted in an achievement in peace, or was in the form of a great work of literature. Thus, the criticism with the economics prize association with the Nobel institute is not that economics is not a worthy field for an award, but that it appears economists who could not win a Nobel prize in any of the five fields, simply created a prize for themselves and associated the prize with the Nobel institute. Thus while the awarding of (and even the categories of) the Nobel prize are highly subjective, they are as the foundation of the prize intended. The Nobel foundation made no stipulation about introducing a new category, therefore introducing a new category is antithetical to the Nobel prize. For example, if the Nobel Prize could be amended to include new categories, astronomy and mathematics would have a much stronger argument for inclusion than economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.135.235.188 (talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Image at top of the article 2

Since this has become a bone of contention I would very much like the input of other editors on what the picture at the top of this article should be. Currently the image is that of "Announcement of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 2008" which, admittedly, is fairly bland. Hapsala keeps removing this image and insists on replacing it with that of Robert Merton. My problem with this is that the choice of Merton to represent the prize is arbitrary and can be construed as POV (as in 'he was more important than others'). Since Hapsala was not forthcoming with his reasons (and uncivil to boot) I reverted his edits and asked for a third party opinion. Cretog8 gave that opinion which was basically in agreement with mine. But to settle this once and for all it would be nice to get input of other editors to get a consensus. I think the three reasonable options for the picture are as follows: 1) The picture of the Announcement of the prize, 2008. The only problem with this is that the picture's a bit bland and none of the members of the committee are as recognizable as some of the laurates. 2) Following the practice at other Nobel prize articles we could use the picture of the first recipient to ever get the prize. The problem here is that there were actually two (Frisch and Tinbergen) and in fact one of them does not currently have a photo. We could put Frisch in and wait to see if someone can locate Tinbergen. Even then we'd have to cram two photos in there which can end up looking messy. 3) A photo of the most current recipient, updated each year. Personally I think this would be the best option since it would avoid the problems with 1) and 2), however, I expect that given who the most recent recipient is someone somewhere is going to complain. So taking this tack may cause some revert trouble in the future. Still, I think 3) is the best option - it's based on an objective, non-arbitrary criteria and avoids the limited-recognizability problem. However, I'd be fine with 1) (status quo) or 2) (Frisch only). What I do object to is one person choosing his 'favorite' and insisting that this must be the photo at the top of this article.radek (talk) 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I mostly agree with radek. I think a picture of Frisch would be fine, and the fact that Tinbergen is missing may turn out to be convenient since we don't have to figure out how to format both of them. If Tinbergen turns up, we can deal with it then. Alternatively, the most recent winner makes sense, but I don't want to deal with the political ramifications since the current winner is considerably more controversial than, say James Heckman. It's hard to justify any specific winner in-between without playing favorites, and I don't think we'll reach consensus on favorites. As near as I can figure, Hapsala, your choice of Merton appears above to be simply that, he's a favorite for you. Other possibilities are to use something more abstract than an individual's photo, or possibly to find a photo of several winners from different years together? Anyway, without finding a new picture, my preference is radek's (2) above and put in Frisch. CRETOG8(t/c) 20:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Hapsala. Studying the revision history, the conflict seems made up by Radeksz who was very quick to delete Hapsala's original contribution with a picture of Milton Friedman from the very beginning. Radeksz was also pushing hard for his suggestions in the midst of asking for a third party opinion which I believe is pretty dishonest. Later, Cretog8 kind of blew his chance of becoming a serious mediator, as his got involved in the edit war only minutes after replying to Radeksz request. As Friedman is probably the best known winner of the prize, a picture of him is fully appropriate. So is also the founder of the Black/Scholes, where Hapsala was adding an interesting comment about the prize committee's recognition of late Fischer Black. Maybe, Hapsala's caption is a bit lenghy, but, in view of the state of the article, the story might be hard to include in the body text. Anyway, the picture of the recent press conference should not be used as the lead image. Best regards, Polipopo (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah, well. Sorry if I blew my chance. Trying to look forward, rather than back, it's clear we don't have consensus yet. I still think that picking a favorite is problematic. If we go for the most famous, then Nash might be the best choice, since I don't think anyone's going to make a movie starring the (former) sexiest man alive about Milton Friedman. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Polipopo, you seem to agree with Hapsala based solely on the fact that you think I behaved inappropriately. But that should not be a criteria for how the article should be organized. The criteria should be what makes this a better article. In fact I think Friedman would be better than Merton since he's more recognizable but that's my own POV. Again, who is the most "popular" or "best known" or whatever is essentially POV. In fact I think the most best known winner right now is probably the most recent one, Paul Krugman. Which brings us to the other problem with having Friedman up there - same as with Krugman it would only fuel new edit wars. The information on Black most properly belongs in the page on those particular laureates (Merton, Scholes, etc.). But it could be mentioned within the body of this article if the committee did indeed express that they wish they could've given it to him.

And if I did behave inappropriately in the past, I apologize, but please note the uncivil remarks Hapsala made, in his edit summaries, in the comments above and on my talk page. Additionally the edit I made after asking for 3O was what I thought was a compromise - the most recent winner instead of the committee - which Hapsala reverted within seconds. Furthermore, I was not unaware that if one editor asks for 3O, that leaves the other editor free to edit war and revert at will while the person actually making a constructive effort to resolve the situation is forced to sit by until someone finally offers that 3O. Finally I don't see how Cretog8 disqualified himself. If he got involved only minutes after my request, then I didn't really edit-war while waiting for 3O did I? But even if so, the fact that Hapsala kept editing warring despite having obtained a contrary 3O says something about his behavior and also does not make Cregto8's third opinion any less relevant.radek (talk) 00:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If I did behave inappropriately in the past, I'd also apologize. I never intended to promote a "personal fovorite", rather a leaurate that is, for better or worse, especially related to the prize. I thougt Friedman would be a decent candidate (promtly deleted by Radeksz for "obvious reasons") as he represents so much of the controvercy of the prize; the solemn award cermony was, for the very first time, interupted by a protestor; and as the protestor was carried away, the chairman of the prize committee turned towards Friedman, saying the memorable "It could have been worse". Merton/Scholes appeared less controversial to me. In this case, the committe aknowledged Black, implying that he would indeed also be included in the award, but was ineligeble because of his death two years earlier. Anyway, Nash might be the compromise we are looking for - controversial indeed, but immortalized in Holywood popular culture... --Hapsala (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Would you be alright with Frisch then, as the first recipient? I don't think we should push 'controversy' with the picture, whether it's Friedman, Krugman, Nash, or anyone else. It ends up looking like pushing some POV. BTW, some people consider the Merton/Scholes (wrongly IMO) controversial as well because of the LTCM thing. Information and anecdotes like the stuff you mention above (both with regard to interruption of the ceremony and the acknowledgment of Black can be included in the body of the text or, more properly, in the article on the particular prize/laurate. radek (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, if it ends up being Frisch then we could mention in the caption that he coined the terms "Econometrics" and "Macroeconomics". As another aside, I'm not sure I like having the list of laureates in a separate article. A lot of people (myself included) access this particular article to quickly look up the list or some particular winner and having to go to another article just means extra mouse clicks. From what I can tell the articles for other Nobels go either way, with those which include the winners in a separate article having been changed that way fairly recently.radek (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Any more thoughts? As for me, looking at and thinking about the pictures of Frisch and Nash, I get somewhat biased against using them. They're so portraity that I think they give that specific winner undue weight. If there's a good picture of the award ceremony for any economist, that might be preferable. Can we use an image of the medal under fair use, or is that off limits? CRETOG8(t/c) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not a terrific photo, but it could be zoomed and cropped, of 3 MIT laureates: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. I like that it's three winners, with different focuses of study. Someone could still complain that it's MIT-biased. CRETOG8(t/c) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Since there appears to be no further discussion, I say let's go either with Frisch or the 3 MIT folks.radek (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I put in the picture of the 3 MIT folks. I want to zoom in, but had trouble navigating Wikimedia Commons and licensing rigamarole. I'll get to it later, unless someone else does. CRETOG8(t/c) 18:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Only picture that deserves to be in the lead is a picture of the medal. Picture of any of the laureates would give undue weight to that person. -- Vision Thing -- 12:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Suggest move to Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The title is incorrect and misleading, there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". There is a prize called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. I suggest the article is moved to either Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or simply Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize isn't a Nobel prize (one of Alfred Nobel's prizes), it's a Sveriges Riksbank prize and is completely unrelated to the Nobel Prizes, in the same way as the prize commonly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). GVU (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This has been argued previously, many, many times. Check the archives. The consensus/compromise was the current name.radek (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not interested in the archives. If you don't want to participate in the current discussion of the name of the article, then don't. The current title is the title of a nonexistent prize which does not belong in an encyclopedia. If the article is not moved, it has to be deleted. GVU (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested in the archives then please don't participate in the discussion as an uninformed person. The archives are there for a reason.radek (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus whatsoever, and even an alleged "consensus" can't change the fact that a prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" doesn't exist. A recent discussion is more relevant than old discussions. GVU (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This was a good compromise between the official title, which English sources hardly use (see WP:UE), and "Nobel Prize" which is quite misleading. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Except it's an invention of a new prize, as there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". GVU (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

This dispute has consumed far too much time, and you're not saying anything remotely new. See WP:LAME, where this dispute is listed. Read the archives. If you have some new insight about the title, come back, but this is old ground. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

If you're not interested in taking part in the discussion, don't. Meanwhile this article will have to be moved or deleted. GVU (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I really would like to see this put to a vote again. There is legitimate concern with continuing the claim it is a "Nobel Prize", as the usage of "Nobel Memorial Prize" suggests. It's controversial in academic circles and the prestige of a prize is key in it's importance. The Nobel holds a special place in people's hearts. There is a reason all the official correspondence from the Committee is clear to ALWAYS refer to it as a Bank of Sweden prize. Even the English-language website is called the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." Because it's a controversial topic, because it changes the fundamental name of the prize, I'd like to see this page moved from NMPES to "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" or "Bank of Sweden Prize". The nobelprize.org website is very clear, all the "Nobel Prizes" are listed as "Nobel Prize in X" while the "Economics Prize" is never listed as a "Nobel..Prize". WP:CN clearly says NPOV should be a consideration and there is contention over the name, one need look no further than the "Controversies" section in this article. And there's more of course, there's quite a few angry PhDs (Google: "Nobel by association") and even people like Peter Nobel who take offense to it being called a Nobel Prize. I'd like to see Wikipedia use the official name, as a point of neutrality. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

As an extra little point.. website clearly says very clearly "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize." And I'm sorry but the statement "Nobel Memorial Prize" indicates that it IS a Nobel Prize. Clearly, there is pride, prestige in the title and the officials awarding the prize clearly think that it's not correct to call it a "Nobel Prize." For these reasons, I think that for NPOV reasons, this page should be renamed. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

<-- No, because you are simply repeating things which have been said before and which led to this article being called "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" rather than "Nobel Prize in Economics". As such it is unreasonable for editors to restate all the previous arguments that have been made a dozen+ times. Read the archives, for starters. The name of this article is a result of a long process and lots of discussion. You would really have to come up with some really really new and convincing evidence for there to be a reason to change.radek (talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, excuse me but we seem to have Template:Sveriges Riksbank laureates in economics 2001–2025 but Template:Nobel laureates in economics, Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1969-1975, and Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1976-2000? Shouldn't all the templates be changed to reflect the new name change? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, or at least something consistent. Cool Hand Luke 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move (May 2009)

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Note: The WP:COMMONNAME argument seems stronger. I looked up newspaper references as a sanity check and they uniformly refer to it as the nobel prize in economics. (c.f.[1] and [2]). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It has been proposed below that Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences be renamed and moved to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.202.139 (talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Strong support As opposed to the above, I prefer to use the English title. "Bank of Sweden Prize" is comparable in Google hits to "Nobel Memorial Prize" while "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" is only a distant third. I wold be okay with either, as both are highly preferred over the current, inaccurate and not NPOV name. The common policy of WP:NC is clear that not only should we consider WP:NPOV but that we should take some consideration to common usage, and "Nobel Memorial Prize" gives me 36K hits, 31K with "in Economic Sciences" and 22K if I have "in Economics". "Bank of Sweden Prize" yields 24K, with about 22K if we include "in Economic Sciences." Usage of the proper name, "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" yields only ~10K. As such, both the current, and suggested terms are fairly close in usage. The primary problem, as I explained in the above subheading, is that the current title is not NPOV, as (per even the article's Controversy section) the status of this Prize as a "Nobel" is subject to debate. As such, I think Wikipedia should prefer something closer to the official usage. Even the official website is clear that, while all the other prizes are a "Nobel Prize", it never associates the Economics prize with the name "Nobel", being explicitly clear that "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize." The usage of "Nobel Memorial Prize" implies that it IS a Nobel prize. There are plenty of examples of why the current association with Nobel's name is not NPOV and is avoided by the Award Committee. Its clearly a point of dispute and I'd like to see Wikipedia take the NPOV perspective by adopting the more accurate name. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 20:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • • This google hits result is due to the fact that actually the most commonly used name in the media is "Nobel Prize in Economics" without qualifiers. If you're gonna bring up Google hits, then that name - Nobel Prize in Economics - should be considered as well.radek (talk) 04:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Sure, lets consider that then! Go ahead! --kittyKAY4 (talk) 00:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
        • Surely you're joking? Any who cares to read reliable sources will find out that there is no such thing as a Nobel Prize in economics, and that this prize is not a Nobel Prize. Tomas e (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support. This is not one of the Nobel Prizes, and clarity and usage both point in the same direction. My response was nearly What? Again?, but it is probably best to settle this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose I fail to see how this article title isn't neutral, and it is by far the most common name. TJ Spyke 23:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I thought the neutrality point is obvious from the "Controversies" section, people clearly take offense to this being referred to as a "Nobel...Prize". For common usage, I think you're mistaking the actual titles. The current article name is "Nobel Memorial Prize" (NMP) and that is nowhere near the most common name. "Nobel Prize in Economics" (NPE) is BY FAR the most common name at 500K hits on Google. But it has the problem of being WRONG in a way the officials take notice to point out.. it is NOT a Nobel Prize. I believe thats EXACTLY why the previous discussion decided to NOT move the page to NPE. However, I'd like to point out that NMP and BSP have fairly similar usage numbers(20-30K) but NMP still ends up calling it, inaccurately, a Nobel Prize of sorts. The question isn't between "Nobel Prize in Economics" (500K) & "Bank of Sweden Prize" (20K) but between "Nobel Memorial Prize" (30K) & "Bank of Sweden Prize" (20K). For usage, NPM is about as weak as BSP, but BSP is more accurate and, with respect to the Nobel Committee, doesn't claim the Prize in Economics is a "Nobel Prize." The controversy of the current title? It's referred to as a "Nobel...Prize" when it isn't a "Nobel Prize". For a prize, prestige is important, and the prestige of the "Nobel" is without debate, but the connection of the Prize in Economics to the Nobel is clearly up for debate (again, look @ "Controversies" in the article). --kittyKAY4 (talk) 05:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Having fought this battle before--and remembering how long and pointless it was--I can't believe that anybody intelligent would wish to start this all over again. Maybe, just for fun, we should insist that the name should be Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne. It's the real name, after all. If we don't consider the real name, but simply the name most commonly used in English, then the article title should be Nobel Prize in Economics. This is the name that I personally prefer.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No one is insisting we use an archaic or difficult to understand name. Nor is anyone even remotely suggesting that we call it a "Nobel Prize" when it (very important) is NOT a Nobel prize. And prestige, reputation, and respect are key for an award. Your reasons are nothing but straw manning the point. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but you are suggesting we use a name which most readers are unfamiliar with or that most media outlets do not use. For a parallel, consider that The Heisman Trophy is actually the "Heisman Trophy Memorial Award" but since everybody calls it the Heisman Trophy, that's what the article title is.radek (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Calling other editor's intelligence into question isn't the best way of being taken seriously. May I recommend a careful reading of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF and then a posting of an apology before you make any more edits. Tomas e (talk) 11:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
• Very Strong Oppose per comments above, per the fact that this discussion and related votes have been done like ten times before and the current name is about as close to consensus as we're likely to get, per the fact that this is just a waste of editor's time, and per the fact that almost all media outlets use the term "Nobel prize in economics". Additionally, once this is resolved I suggest a template is made and placed at the top of this page, indicating that this discussion took place so we won't have to go through this nonsense in a few months again.radek (talk) 04:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Then why not move the article to "Nobel Prize in Economics"? --kittyKAY4 (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that, but that's a different move proposal.radek (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose per previous discussions. -- Vision Thing -- 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
• Support. The instigator - the Bank of Sweden/Sveriges Riksbank - and the prize selecting body - the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences - both call it the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences (in Memory of Alfred Nobel) in all their communications in English. While I can live with the name of the Bank of Sweden being translated in the title, the present name is plain wrong, as it is a Wikipedia-contructed hybrid between the correct name and the misunderstanding that it is a Nobel prize, which it isn't. Not having the first part of the prize's actual name in the title, the name of the instigator, makes this hybrid look especially ridiculous. I'm aware that this issue has been discussed before, but it makes it no less wrong. I see no point whatsoever in taking any notice of erroneous media reporting in choosing a name for an encyclopedic article; if you check you will notice that all organisations officially involved with the Nobel prize always make a clear distiction between this prize and the Nobel prizes using carefully chosen terminology. Which is then mangled into complete incoherence by Wikipedians. Time to get it right, folks. Tomas e (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, it is NOT a Wiki constructed hybrid, rather it reflects the usage of the MEDIA (and other sources) constructed hybrid (besides the plain old "Nobel Prize in Economics"). And Wiki should use what the sources use. The fact remains that generally this prize is commonly known as "Nobel Prize in Economics" or "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" NOT the "Sveriges Riksbank...". It's enough if the official name is made clear in the article.radek (talk) 17:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose ask the man in the street if it's a Nobel Prize or if it's the Bank of Sweden prize, or see if they even recognize the existence of a Bank of Sweden prize. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 06:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The title "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is POV and inaccurate

The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the current title is strongly disputed, and is considered POV and inaccurate, and as such as not encyclopedic, by several editors. This needs to be indicated in the article until the situation can be solved. It seems that it is only a minority that support the Wikipedia-invented title "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The only NPOV solution, and solution appropriate for an encyclopedia, would be to move this article to the actual and official name of the prize, instead of "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" which is a prize that doesn't exist. GVU (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

No, the above discussion clearly demonstrates that the consensus of editors Opposes or Strongly Opposes the proposed move. The only solution, other than the status quo, would be to move this article to Nobel Prize in Economics which what most sources, from the New York Times to scholarly articles, call this prize. Also. This is like the 17th time this discussion has come up in the last five minutes. It's probably best to just let go.radek (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Untrue, the above discussion demonstrates that the consensus of editors is that the current title is POV and inaccurate, and that the title is only enforced by a very few POV pushers. I'm not going to let you have it your way just because you are persistent. GVU (talk) 19:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Aside from the nominator I count 1 (one) "Weak Support" and 1 (one) "Support". On the other hand there is 5 (five) "Opposes" including some strong ones. So basically you got 2, maybe 3, editors who want to change and 5 who don't. I believe 5>2 and even 5>3. So the proper way to put it is that "the title is perennially challenged by a very few POV pushers" (If we're gonna be uncivil about this and start name calling people). Now, 5 out of 8 or 7 may not be an overwhelming majority but it is enough to be considered consensus.radek (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I count at least 5 editors in the recent discussion on this talk page (including myself) who wish to change the title. So at the very best, the situation is 50/50 and there is no consensus whatsoever. So the current title is not a consensus version, it's proven to be factually inaccurate and several users have voiced concern over it's neutrality. GVU (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

LOOK. This has been brought up a dozen times. Most recently it was brought up in March, then, after somebody somewhere didn't get their way, it was brought up again in April. After a certain point, bringing up an article for a rename time after time after time again becomes simply disruptive. Each of these many times at the very least there was no consensus to move. Since there was no consensus to move it stays where it is. Since it stays where it is and since there is no consensus to move you cannot add a POV template simply because you do not like the article title. That's just trying to get one way what you couldn't get another. Again, it is disruptive. And if you're gonna count supporters from the previous discussions, then honesty demands that you count the opposers from those as well.radek (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I second this. Give it a rest. A lot of us would prefer Nobel prize in economics, but we don't want to start another fight. So we let it be. And by the way, you are being a bit disingenuous about the naming on the Scandinavian WPs: until March 19, 2009, the Danish WP article was titled Nobelprisen i økonomi--YOU then changed it to Sveriges Riksbanks pris i økonomi (see here). One has to wonder why you are making such a big deal about this. Could it be because far-left-wing Swedes have made it a priority to trash the Nobel prize in economics, thus implicitly trashing mainstream economics?--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:12, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

GVU may count 5 editors in recent discussions who want to move the page, but do they want to move the page to the same name? Although imperfect, the current title is a compromise which seems to address all except the most fanatical. According to common usage, the title should be simply Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. That is unacceptable. The various names suggested including the bank of Sweden are similarly unacceptable due to unfamiliarity to most readers. If you really think some other consensus compromise is possible, you might try raising a WP:Request for comment, although personally I doubt the outcome will be any different than previous discussions. older ≠ wiser 22:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

The German, French, Dutch and all the Scandinavian Wikipedias including the Swedish one use the correct name. So why is it not possible in English when it's even used in Swedish and the other major European languages?

The claim that "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" is a "compromise" is hilarious. The fact remains that a prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" simply doesn't exist. It can't be argued that the prize is widely known as the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" either, as already pointed out. So the argument for that title is very weak, it's not official, it doesn't even resemble the correct name and it's less used than other names, and mostly used by low quality sources.

Also: Even if the Right Livelihood Award is much better known as the Alternative Nobel Prize, the prize isn't moved to that title. When it comes to accuracy and neutrality, which are both core Wikipedia policies, we really only have one option. In the long run, I'm sure this article will eventually be moved to its correct title, as has been done in several other languages mentioned above. GVU (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

At some point in the future, this may be worth bringing up again. I missed the most recent discussion on renaming, and may have supported the move, but that's in the past. It should be given a pretty long rest before it comes up again. Editors who might engage in careful discussion of the merits are simply exhausted from having done so so many times in the past. CRETOG8(t/c) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Per Cretog, this seems to have been exhausted into pointlessness. IMO, I'd simply move to Nobel Prize in Economics as the best "common name" over the rather funky title we currently have. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The title connotates that the award is not properly a "Nobel Prize," but evokes the most common English term for the award, the (incorrect, but popular) "Nobel Prize in Economics." It's also been used by a broad array of reliable sources as a short form. It's therefore a good compromise and has been stable for a relatively long time. I would strongly oppose a move in either direction. Cool Hand Luke 19:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it should be "Nobel Prize in Economics", the most common name used by sources. But I prefer a stable compromise, such as the current name, to an unstable NPiE. However, actions by GVU are basically attempts to destabilize this compromise. If this is brought up for a move vote AGAIN in the near future I am going to propose a move to NPiE which has a lot better chance of passing than the SBPiES (or whatever it is) proposal.radek (talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The current name is only claimed to be a "compromise" by those why insist it's a "Nobel Prize", so it's not a real compromise, just a sneaky way to include Nobel's name in the title without directly claiming it to be a Nobel Prize. Personally, I think the current title is even worse than "Nobel Prize in Economics". The latter is, although incorrect and misleading, at least in unofficial use (much like the "Alternative Nobel Prize"), while the current title is both inaccurate and, if not completely unused, not extensively used compared to other names. It's hardly used by quality sources. GVU (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Give. It. Up. This. Is. Becoming. Disruptive.radek (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There is serious political right-wing bias in this sentence too: "It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics[3] and it is identified with the Nobel Prizes, although it is not one of the five Nobel Prizes (in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace) which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895.". The part that makes this statement unncessarily fuzzy is the last part " which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel ". As if a noble prize can be anything else than those that were established by Alfred Nobel in 1895. What is the intention of this sentence? It only adds bias and uncertainty and makes the article in general difficult to interpret. The simplest form is to state "There is no nobel prize in economics. There is however a different prize constructed after his will by a different group of people against his descendants will which is called Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne." The "the new york times quotes it as".. has no importance. The only authoritve source is Alfred Nobel and he is dead. And if you really were to allow popular magazines to define this, can I choose which magazine I want to use as authoritive title too? Let's make everyone pick their paper's favourite nickname for the price. How are you going to pick which paper's favourite nickname is the correct one? No, this is sensless. Name it by its real name, not by something that "many westerners" (or something similiar) sloppily (and biased) like to think. And then will you also add to the stats all the people who consciously stay silent and say nothing because it is not a nobel prize in all of those possible different context which that is possible? Of course not. Such a study would be impossible and retarded to its purpose. As for the "this argument is getting boring"-argument, I do not see how it is really productive. Are we really to stop discussions just because they are boring? And if it really is, why enter the dialogue? In general, the idea of accepting this title is proof of Wikipedia's demographic and political bias. There is no nobel prize in economics. Claiming there is one, is exactly wrong. Unofficial use, "common" referencial name, fantasies, trolls, goblins, etc are not relevant to the article. The prize which is refererred to in the article is an after-construction which was made up long after Nobel against the will of his descedants. There is only one authoritive source for the prizes and that is Alfred Nobel and to some extent the commitee. If 5000 market gorillas claim that it is a nobel prize, it still is not. This title/article lowers Wikipedia's standing in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.65.77 (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Opinions of right-wing economist editors notwithstanding, it is by no means "disruptive" to point out the achingly obvious fact that the official name of this prize is, currently, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and that it is not a "Nobel Prize" -- and that colloquial names for the prize are not what should dictate the terms used by encyclopedias. It should certainly be mentioned that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is one of several commonly used shorthand terms for the prize, but that fact does not alter those other facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 (talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes of economists

This prize is named differently in the infoboxes of different economists. For consistency name should be same in all of them, and in my opinion that name should be same as of this page. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree on the first point (the name should be the same for the various economists). I'm not sure if the name should be the same as the name of this page--I lean toward thinking that this page can afford a longer, "more correct" title, and that articles should simply use the most-recognized "Nobel prize in economics" nickname. I've thought that the best way to standardize the name is to make a template just for the name. The only problem with that is that the periodic naming wars would then take place via template editing. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have strong stance on what name should be used, so your proposal is fine by me. What kind of template did you plan to create? -- Vision Thing -- 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead section cleanup

I wanted to clean up the lead section by making a few small grammar changes (5 to be accurate), but people keep reverting because they seem to confused about the consensus on the talk page. So I'm going to elaborate them here and any objections can revert, but please explain here as to why.

• Added a comma for the "also known as" clause.
• Removed the repeated mention of the double names. We don't need 2 back-to-back sentences making the same point. It only needs to be said once in the lead.
• Removed the full listing of the Nobel Prizes, seemed unnecessary and wordy, those interested can just click the wikified link for Nobel Prize.
• Removed the full Swedish name, it doesn't help anyone. nobelprize.org uses the English name and we elaborate on the full Swedish name further down.
• Added a qualifying, cited inaccurately for the "Nobel Prize in Economics". The citation clearly states that it is "Not a Noble Prize". This isn't about the article name, it's about the accuracy. The talk page consensus is that WP:NCON is clear, even if common name is inaccurate, use the common name. Quoting the consensus on from Oct 07: "[The argument is that] the common name is incorrect or misleading, and thus should be disqualified. That's not consistent with my reading of what the WP:NCON guideline says should be considered, however. It says that for proper noun article names, 'If the common name conflicts with the official name, use the common name'.". However, there is a consensus that the common name is inaccurate, the citation clearly shows why. It seems that the consensus reached on this page is "yes, the common name is inaccurate, but articles are named by common name", and that is fully in line with this edit. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

You just violated 3RR on this article. Please self-revert your last edit.radek (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

kittyKAY4 reverted 3 times, which is pushing it, but given they commented here to explain and promised not to make more reverts, I'd give it to them as on the OK side of WP:3RR. I also think that their explanation above is pretty good. I think the changes they made are mostly OK, could probably use a little tweaking, but aren't really disagreeing with the pre-existing consensus. CRETOG8(t/c) 23:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, how was that WP:3RR? I thought I'd need to do MORE THAN 3 Reverts for 3RR. My first edit was completely original, and in my honest opinion, didn't change any content, it simply reorganized things. Then I reverted thrice, twice to Anthon.Eff and once to Radeksz. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

It was 4 actually but I'm not reporting him/her because I believe the user is acting in good faith. As to the nature of the changes, some of them are obviously ok - like the grammar fix. But the other aspects of it, like putting "inaccurately" in there seem like just an attempt to mess up the tenuous consensus on this article. How about just saying "known by its common name".radek (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, can I get some feedback here? Of course, one of the other editors would have to make these changes. Can we agree to

1. Remove the comma between NMP and NPE and add one after NPE, to separate the "often referred to as the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences or Nobel Prize in Economics" as a clause
2. Remove the "It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics" clause. The previous sentence already says it's "often referred to as the...Nobel Prize in Economics". I'm sorry but it's redundant and unnecessary. I think the cleaned up version with "While" conveys the same information, but more clearly.
3. Remove the full listing of the other Nobel Prizes. It says the five Nobel Prizes, if anyone wanted to know what five, they could just click the wikilink.
4. Remove the full Swedish name from lead. The long name of the prize, along with two "often known as" is already hard enough to read, without a long title in another language. We talk about the full name in Swedish later in the article, it's not needed in the lead. NobelPrize.org uses the English and we have no real need to include the Swedish, I don't think it adds anything.
5. Add the citations for the name "Nobel Memorial Prize". They were only included in my most recent revision but they seemed appropriate.
6. The controversial one, I guess: Add inaccurately or misleadingly in front of the Nobel Prize in Economics designation. The consensus seemed to indicate that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is inaccurate. There was no disagreement to that during the archived debates. The quote from the website is ..is not a Noble Prize. The Committee is always clear to distinguish the prize as "associated" but never actually a Nobel. There is no such thing as a "Nobel Prize in Economics" and that makes the designation inaccurate at best and misleading at worst. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 00:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

1-3 are fine (you can do it yourself - at least I'm not going to report you - as they're fairly close to being minor edits). 4, I think the full Swedish name does belong in the lead should be in there but we can discuss this one. 5 is also fine. 6 is the hard one. "Inaccurately" just smacks of POV. It is not the "exact" name but it is the name the prize is known under and it is the common name. It sort of depends by what you mean by inaccurately. Lots of prizes are known by shortened or more descriptive names and the inclusion of that name is non-controversial because there isn't this ideological baggage associated with it.radek (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd do it (1-3,5). For 4, WP:LEAD says When the subject is best known by an English title, its alternative names may be included; however, the editor needs to balance the desire to maximize the information available to the reader with the need to maintain readability. I'm sorry but the long Swedish name hampers readability and doesn't contribute much information to the reader. We do talk about the full Swedish name later, but I don't think it contributes anything important. WP:LEAD's justification for the Swedish name in Sweden is based in Relevant foreign language names, such as in an article on a person who does not herself write her name in English, are encouraged., but that doesn't apply here. The Nobel Foundation announcements generally stick with just the English, and their website is only in English (as far as I can tell). For 6, the hard one, I really would like to use the softest wording possible, but when it says "Nobel Prize in XXX" and isn't a "Nobel Prize", I think it is inaccurate. I don't like the POV though. We could reword it in the way of Fields Medal or Abel Prize, and say "The Prize in Economics is often described as the Nobel Prize in Economics because of it's association with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and imitation of the rules governing the Nobel Prize." I'd like to find a more neutral word than imitate but I can't think of one. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind on you doing 1-3,5, I did those changes while trying to mesh it with the recent rewording by another editor. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay sorry about all that. Point 6 I think is unimportant now, the new restructuring words it fine without the POV word. Although, I still might like to see it phrased more like Abel Prize or Fields Medal. Point 4 is the only one left and I've left you with the above explanation. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Names in the lead.

This is getting crazy. The inclusion of NPE in the first sentence and the second sentence goes against the consensus against repetition we talked about yesterday (see above). We shouldn't have 4 names in the lead, it's terribly confusing, and against WP:LEAD. To summarize the four:

1. Nobel Memorial Prize (NMPES)
2. Nobel Prize (NPE)
3. Sveriges Riksbank Prize (SRP)
4. Swedish version of SRP (SSRP)

I think the 1st and 3rd are obviously needed, the title of the article for 1, and the official name for 3. The 4th I don't think is necessary, as I outlined above. But I don't think the 2nd one belongs either, we deal with that sufficiently name in the second sentence, and it's bolded and clear; it doesn't need to be repeated. The reason given by the editor isn't convincing, redirects from NPE would see the redirect notification and the NPE is clearly stated in the second sentence, it's already VERY clear and this repetitive nonsense is hampering readability. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my effort at accommodation. In the first sentence, we start with the article name, then the common name (it's the one everyone is looking for, so it belongs at the beginning). Then, in the next sentence, we introduce the official name. No repetition. Article name first. Common name second. Official name third. Seems the right order to me.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't like your edit and I'd appreciate if you'd self-revert it. I was under the impression that we talk, THEN CHANGE. So lets start with the points of agreement. Yes, NMP should be the first mention. However, we shouldn't split the names onto various sentences, WP:LEAD asks us to list synonyms at the start. Since we're only allowed 1 or 2 alternatives, I think the previous version was fine: include the official as an alternative and have the brief section dealing with the inaccurate common name second, as that is a summary of what is later included in the article. To include the common name we'd need to qualify it with an "inaccurately", the previous version avoided that problem. By removing the , which were, your revision is misleading in suggesting that it might be a Nobel Prize. So please, I'd prefer we settled on a content-neutral version here and then changed the page. I'd like to have someone else weigh in on the debate instead of you-and-I reverting back and forth. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Must have missed that part where WP:LEAD limits us to "1 or 2 alternatives"--you could speed things up if you provide a precise link. As for your suggestion that we put SRPESMAN as the first synonym--it's a name no one's heard, just like the name of the article (NMPES), and it doesn't clear up anything for the reader. Clarity requires the common name.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought I provided the links in my revert comments, sorry. Two things about common names. First, it's terribly tied into the debate about the article name. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article name should be the common one, and WP:NCON says "[if]...one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name", but then goes back and lists 3 objective standards: commonality, official title, and self-identification. The main problem is the current article name fails all 3, and it leaves us confused in picking alternatives. For commonality, Google English results give Sveriges Riksbank Prize 640K, Bank of Sweden Prize 900K, Nobel Memorial Prize 1600K, Nobel Prize in Economics 7200K (with an extra 1400K for Economic Sciences), so NPE wins. But official title is SRP and it is self-identified as SRP (or Bank of Sweden Prize in older announcements) or a shorter "Prize in Economics", with the assumption always being SRPrize, they never prefix it with Nobel. Second, I don't think we have a choice when it comes to synonyms, when we use an unofficial common name, such as Germany or Russia, we always go with official names as the alternative, when we go with official names like UK or Sodium Chloride we pick common names as the alternatives. I don't like relegating the common name to the second sentence, but it seems like the appropriate action in this case. With the current consensus on article title, we're forced to move it down, like in the other "Nobel Prize in XXXX" references such as in Abel Prize or Turing Award. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

First, you invoke WP:LEAD to buttress whatever edit you want to do, but when one scans WP:LEAD, your assertions simply aren't in there. Please prove me wrong. Second issue: you request that I "self-revert", you request that I discuss on the talk page before doing anything on the article, but these are rules that you apparently believe do not apply to your exalted self. Third issue: your username has what?--170 some edits??--but you certainly have more experience than those edits indicate. Who exactly are you? Fourth issue: you are not listening. The common name is the name that is known. Put it right after the compromise article name, a name that nobody knows, so that the reader knows that she is in the right place. Argue against that, please, rather than picking straw dogs and red herrings.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What assertions from WP:LEAD? I didn't reference LEAD at all in my previous post. The last time I mentioned it was on listing synonyms and the quote is, under First sentence it says it should answer What (or who) is the subject? and then goes on to say When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. The footnote then shows a listing of the common synonyms in the first sentence. Further down, under Alternate names it says either to include them in the first sentence per the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses or the alternate names should be moved out of the first line and into a separate section. It seems we're in a world of 1) official name, 2) common name, not a situation that demands a separate discussion of names per Czech_Republic#Name or Palestine#Origin_of_Name or Iran#Name. That means we read the section under Alternate Names, Use in first sentence, along with the general advice on First sentence, which suggests minimal use of alternate names in the first sentence. On your second point, what? I didn't make any changes, a third user came in, I just corrected his grammar. Third, I am me; I'm not sockpuppetting, I sometimes forget to login, but when I do any non-minor edit, I make sure to login. Fourth, what strawman or red herring? I pointed out that this whole mess is complicated by the consensus choice of NMP as article name. If we had NPE, it'd be easy and if we had SRP it'd be easy. I don't think "user might be confused" is convincing at all. The common name is right there and bolded and explained properly. Are you seriously expecting me to believe we should trash readability, clarity conventions, and accuracy just because someone going to Nobel Prize in Economics would be confused by a redirect to Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ and then forgo reading 2 sentences of the lead section or going to the section called Relation to the Nobel Prize? No, I don't seriously believe that. The problem here is that NPE isn't just a "common name", but a one with some dispute behind it; that's the whole point of the second sentence. There are only 5 Nobel Prizes and this isn't one of them, that's a part of the article that we should (and do) summarize in the lead. That's the first thing this article jumps into, so lets let it do that. We don't need to hamper the first sentence with an extra name when we talk about it immediately afterwords. Also, your revision still persists with that misleading removal I mentioned prior. I'm going to edit to a version of User:Liftarn's version and revert it, so another third opinion can compare the versions. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

For whoever contributes a 3O here, this is the text from the original 3O request:

Cleanup of lead section has caused some dispute as to the positioning of a common, but inaccurate, name for the prize. One editor wants the additional common name in first sentence, another wants to leave the disputed name in the second sentence in the lead, which deals with the dispute. Problem is exacerbated by already having 2 alternate names in the lead. Basically we just need someone to pick between Rev A and Rev B.

The comment was neutralized per 3O guidelines. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion

While I think the summation above is very good, I am going to take the risk of proposing a third solution as a form of compromise:

The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics even though it is not one of the five Nobel prizes established in Nobel's will, is awarded for outstanding contributions in the field of economics and considered one of the most prestigious awards in economics.

That sentence is a little long but it gets all the alternative names into the first sentence without being misleading. I hope this helps.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)