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

Dylan

There has been some controversy about Bob Dylan. This has been largely unfair, but does this qualify for inclusion here?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the controversey has mostly been imaginary. At least one source has complied some canonical opinions all of which are positive. Mkoyama1 (talk) 21:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Mediocre writers spoke out, and people who didn't understand literature grumbled. Is that a controversy or not???--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

2015 - the most silly controversy

It was the most silly controversy but probably worth mentioning in wiki.

In 2015, an Indian researcher Verma actively criticised the basis of this years Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine award to Tu Youyou for the discovery of the chemical artemisinin and her work on malaria. Artemisinin is an active compound present in a medicinal plant called Artemisia annua that is used for curing malaria. In his social media post, Verma claimed artemisinin was a variant of artemisin that was already known to Indian scientific community. To substantiate his claims, Verma provided a snapshot of an article from a book, "Indian Medicinal Plants" published in 1918 by Lieutenant Colonel K. R. Kirtikar and Major B. D. Basu. The book clearly described the use of "artemisin" in India to cure intermittent and remittent fever (the common phrase for used for malarial fever till 1880).

The controversy resulting from Verma's claims was published in many news papers. According to Outlook India's article, "Questions In A Petri Dish: The Nobel for medicine has gone to a Chinese researcher. Has the work of Indian scientists been overlooked", Verma stated “If a minor variant of a well-known compound extracted from a plant found around the world can be given the Nobel, poorer countries will be the losers, as scientists from technologically advanced societies can always find plants with similar chemical compounds elsewhere and extract the ingredient from them. Communities with traditional cures will lose out”.

After the article was printed, the Secretary-General of the Nobel Assembly for Physiology or Medicine, Professor Urban Lendahl responded to Outlook's questions. Edited excerpts and the story can be found here

outlookindia.com/magazine/story/questions-in-a-petri-dish/295745

The controversy abruptly ended when in contrast to Verma's claims, it was realised that artemisinin is not a minor variant of artemisin and the two are entirely different chemicals. Amrev (talk) 04:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Why did you do this here, and not at the article Talk page where it was suggested you post? -Roxy, in the middle. wooF 09:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Auden

W. H. Auden's missing prize was attributed to errors in his translation of 1961 Peace Prize winner Dag Hammarskjöld's Vägmärken (Markings) and to statements that Auden made during a Scandinavian lecture tour suggesting that Hammarskjöld was, like Auden, homosexual.

Was Auden's prize "missing" or did he just not get it? We have two brief citations: "Swedish dismay at the mangled translation may have cost Auden the Nobel prize in literature" and, regarding Hammarsköld's homosexuality, "it is thought that saying so publicly during a lecture tour of Scandinavia may have cost Auden the Nobel Prize". Both of these are speculative. I don't think this is a controversy.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I have removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

References

add section: Erroneous theories

Some dialectic sciences are open to permanent interpretation; on the other hand, some sciences are exact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8299:DB00:55A9:50F5:D5B2:D1E7 (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Another controversy of the 2011 Physiology or Medicine prize

I'm not sure what the exact rules are for adding a controversy on this page, but on Jules Hoffman's page, there is a section about a controversy of his contributions of the research that led to the award ceremony. It cites this article. --145.90.95.0 (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The order

Why are the controversies listed in reverse chronological order? i think it should be display the "normal" way BJI904000 (talk) 19:28, February 6, 2020 (UTC)

Possible new section: Post-Nobel cranks and controversies???

Should the article have a section on Nobel Laureates who embraced nutty ideas or did (or tried to do) nutty things after winning the Prize? I'm thinking of William Shockley, who established a trust fund whose mandate, based on the flawed (and dangerous) eugenics of the early Twentieth Century, was to pay "genetically inferior" people (you can probably guess who he had in mind) for getting themselves sterilized; and Linus Pauling, who, in his dotage, promoted the idea that taking huge doses of vitamin-C can prevent cancer; and Kary Mullis, who supported HIV/AIDS denialism after winning the Prize; and Louis Ignarro, who, after winning the Prize, proclaimed that arginine supplements could prevent heart disease (allegedly at the behest of HerbaLife, for money); and Nikolaas Tinbergen, who claimed that mothers who behaved coldly and unsympathetically to their children caused autism (full disclosure: I'm not sure whether he got into this before or after he won the Prize); and Fritz Haber, who spent his after-Prize career trying to invent a process to extract gold from seawater. And now, Luc Montagnier claims that COVID19 was genetically engineered as part of an effort to develop vaccines against other pathogenic viruses. Earlier, but still after winning the Prize, Montagnier supported homeopathy, and promoted the unsubstantiated, implausible claim that very dilute solutions of DNA emit radio waves.

These are all quite easy to source.

Comments? Ideas? Votes, for and against, setting up the new section? Calling for input and debate, leading to consensus, please. HandsomeMrToad (talk) 09:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's a valid idea. Someone might have been a worthy laureate, but later fell into disgrace. Worth including.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

See Brian Josephson as an example for starters. I think that suggesting that Post-Nobel nutcases are controversial in themselves is probably not going to fly in this article. I also believe that those winners who subsequently went batshit should have their insanity accurately described (as noted in reliable sources) in their own articles, but not this one. The fact that people develop silly ideas isn't controversial, nor grist for this article-Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 09:45, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe a WP:Category, then? (Aside: I didn't know that Josephson was a post-NL crank! Thank you! I first learned quantum mechanics from a big-name physicist who specializes in ultra-sensitive magnetic-flux detectors based on Josephson junctions. So thank you for the nostalgic glowing feeling.) HandsomeMrToad (talk) 10:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. Suu Kyi's 1991 prize only became controversial in 2017. Why can't information about the winners' later behaviour be added in?--Jack Upland (talk) 10:09, 27 April 2020

add section : saha ionization equation

Saha's study of the thermal ionisation of elements led him to formulate what is known as the Saha equation. This equation is one of the basic tools for interpretation of the spectra of stars in astrophysics. By studying the spectra of various stars, one can find their temperature and from that, using Saha's equation, determine the ionisation state of the various elements making up the star. This work was soon extended by Ralph H. Fowler and Edward Arthur Milne. Saha had previously reached the following conclusion on the subject.

tldr he found a way to know the elements of stars

this should be added if not as controversy but as a "also" section, he was nominated for the nobel prize in 1930 1951 and 1955

SOURCE

Rey0927 16:17, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Already in the article under "Bose–Einstein statistics". Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2020 (UTC)