Talk:List of nonreligious Nobel laureates

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New, improved list[edit]

Under the name List of atheist Nobel laureates, this list has been the subject of multiple deletion debates. I have cleaned it up and it now has a title that is consistent with the selection criteria, and they in turn are consistent with the sources that provide evidence of notability for a stand-alone list. Moreover, all the entries are now properly sourced, so the objections to previous versions have been answered. RockMagnetist(talk) 21:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of nonreligious Nobel laureates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:18, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of nonreligious Nobel laureates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:12, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Inconsistencies[edit]

The text on the page quotes 10% atheist/freethinkers/agnostics. This should be updated to at least 18%. The image on the he page quotes 4,7% of physics prizes go to a atheists/.. /... But coe lost I get 433 Mattias73 (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

43 in physics can't be 4,7%.. Should rather be ca 25% Mattias73 (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Based on the material on this page, you're right. Unfortunately, Wikipedia expects such claims to have sources, and the only sources I could find use the figures that are quoted in the current version. RockMagnetist(talk) 02:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The main source of this article is not reliable[edit]

I came across this page somewhere, and the results reported are extremely unlikely. My blog has a summary of the investigation, but to summarize: 1) the source is quite obscure by an obscure author without expertise in the topic, 2) it is not well cited by academics, 3) the numbers are in extreme contrast to known associations between atheism and intelligence/education, 4) the numbers are in extreme contrast to surveys of scientists [1, 2], 5) checking the source reveals that no proper study was undertaken (like a survey or reading of autobiographies) and no method is described except to say that he looked at Nobel prize awards (which do not record the information). Does anyone think this still should be counted as a reliable source (WP:RS)? I think it should be removed, and the usual list approach with sources for particular persons kept. Deleet (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

There are very few studies on Nobel prizes and religious affialtion for one thing. But I think you may be extrapolating from other studies which do not really deal with noble prizes at all but are on distribution of rank and file scientists beliefs, for your justification for it not being a reliable source. Keep in mind that belief in God and religious affiliation are not the same thing. This are article is about religious affiliation, not belief in God per se.
As a side note, by the way..The results on scientists views on God are mixed. For instance with Pew that you cited above, 51% believed in God or a higher power and only 41% did not on either. Eugene Scott, who is known in the creationism controversy wrote an article addressing problems with the nature study and noted that a more reliable and better worded study showed that around 40% of high ranking scientists believe in god and that the wording on NAS study was problematic [1]. A study on natural scientists at elite universities found that 20% did not believe in God, 33% did not know if God existed, 44% believed God existed, and 4% believed in a higher power [2]. Of course in the whole study, which included social scientists along with the natural scientists only 10% were atheists, 13% were agnostic. So the numbers fluctuate by study and certainly it seems to be about half and half more or less of what scientist views are on God.
Anyways, for the purposes of wikipedia, a source need not be super famous for it to be reliable. The publisher for the 100 Years of Nobel Prizes states "Atlantic Publishers and Distributors Pvt Ltd, established in 1977, is known for quality academic, professional and general publishing. It is also India’s leading distributor of books from across the globe, partnering world's leading publishers in Science & Technology, Management, Humanities and Social Sciences." and 2 Nobel laureates endorsed the book too. So it looks pretty decent. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
@Deleet: Nice blog. I am guilty of adding this source, which I don't have much faith in either, so I guess it was a bit lazy of me to include the statistics from it. I believe this list could be used to obtain more reliable percentages than any in the literature, but Wikipedia's policy on verification wouldn't allow that. Perhaps these statistics could be replaced by a discussion of some of the surveys mentioned by @Ramos1990. RockMagnetist(talk) 05:00, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Actually, one of the benefits of "100 Years of Nobel Prizes", aside form the fact that it has unique information compiled in one place, is that it provides a list of laureates names, which can be used to look up and enhance this list and others too. Sometimes the biographies on wikipedia already have affiliations and those can be linked to this list. But from experience with biographies, some scientists have no particular belief in God, yet they affiliate with a religion. So it can be tricky since those may not fit on this list irrespective of their views on God. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 07:13, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this source is fine as a source of names and can help to establish the notability of the list. But perhaps the statistics should be replaced. RockMagnetist(talk) 23:07, 7 June 2018 (UTC)