Jump to content

Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(Discussion from 2004)

[edit]

Kokiri is wrong. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to establish the truth, and not repeat the "common" usage established by a marketing ploy by fame hungry economists who want to rule the world. --- They knew very well. In Memory of Alfred Nobel, is a marketing ploy. Look at the Diploma www.nobel.se. Bank of Sweeden is in black letters, in memory of ALFRED NOBEL, is in red.

Wait a second. This needs to be explained. Did the Bank of Sweden really just call their prize in memory of the dynamite maker Alfred Nobel because they really liked his memory? Or was it because either they oringally forgot that the reason there are certain noble prizes was becuase of a bequest, and simply called their prize originally "the noble prize in economics", in the same way people might call something "the world series of x", and then only later changed it because of complaints from the Nobel family?

I'm very tempted to change the lead paragraph. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not wrong, it simply is misleading. The wording "Nobel Prize in Economics" doesn't purport to mean "at Nobel's bequest". As such to call it erroneous is also inaccurate. Furthermore who would like the mouthful when "Nobel Prize"? I'll change it; see what you think. Mandel 01:52, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

No one has still answered my question. It seems to me that the intention of the Bank of Sweeden was just to create a prize they called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", but the family got pissed off and they had to redoo it with the long name. Is that correct?

IMHO, this article should be moved to Nobel Prize in Economics, because this is the common (if wrong) use of the title. It's Wikipdedia policy to use the most common use. Of course we mention the correct term in the opening paragraph... Kokiri 19:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am sure the formatter meant well but does anyone else find the current formatting a little gawdy? If the goal is to make the content as readable as possible then the the formatting has the opposite effect in my opinion. What do you think? --ShaunMacPherson 10:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Nobel did not create a Nobel in Economics, nor does his Foundation support it. The Bank of Sweeden, run by economists, is "free-riding" the Nobel Prize, with public money, to enhance the status of their own profession. Why not create an endownment, or a research fund, or a donation to the poor in order to celebrate their 300 aniversary? A self laudatory prize, with public money, when there already existed the John Bates Walker Prize for economics ? Common on.

They named their prize In Memory of Alfred Nobel, which is not a fact, but an injuction, basically a jingle, a marketing ploy. Not even a neo-liberal economist would honor a monopolist, a businessman, or a war industry supplier. His only merit for fame was creating THE NOBEL PRIZE ! Great marketing trick !

Take a look at the Diploma at www.nobel.se . Its disgusting, the words Bank of Sweeden come in black, but In Memory Of Nobel, comes in RED.

Read Lucas "Nobel" speech where he admits to the hoax. Browse recipients home pages, only one is honest enough to admit he only received the Bank of Sweeden Prize.

Half, blatantly misrepresent themselves as a "Nobel Prize" winners. The other half does worse, they misdirect us as having received the "Nobel Memorial Prize". Do they misrepresent the economic data they use as well ? Is this a group evolutionary strategy to enhance their profession?

Half the Prizes go to Central Bank advogates and monetarists, just as in 2004, there is dissent even among economists, since economists at the Central Bank have their say in who gets their Prize. Alfred Nobel gave private tax payed money to fund the prize, not tax payers money.

The question is, was this all deliberate by design, or it just happened ? Does this not damage the reputation of future economists ?

What was wrong with the John Bates Clark Award in Economics, which already had awarded recognition to the same recipients in the past.

I propose correcting every single instance of the sham, on every recipient of the "Sweedish Bank Prize in Economics".

The Walker metal was awarded every five years by the American Economic Society for outstanding lifetime achievement. It was made superfluous by, but was not the same as, the Economics Nobel. As far as the J.B. Clark Medal, you should know that it is awarded every two years to an exceptional economist under age 40. Please get your facts straight instead of making the facts fit your agenda.

It's not just a random prize with the name. It's awarded together with the other Nobel Prizes. Whether people like that or not is another issue, but it's one of the prizes awarded at the Nobel Prize awards ceremony, so it seems reasonable that it's referred to as a "Nobel Prize in Economics", as it's the Economics prize awarded at the Nobel ceremony. --Delirium 06:16, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

good

[edit]

I'm glad this page exists. Of course there are the people here who want to rewrite history and pretend that Nobel established a prize for economics (was it even called economics back then or political economy?). Hold the fort! Ruy Lopez 23:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isnt about rewriting history. The world community holds - generally - a great value to Nobel prizes, and not many a person really cares specially about mr. Alfred Nobel or his dynamite capital. The mere insistute of the prize, and what it had become throughout the years, is what matters. When this "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is generally regarded as a prize for economics which is similar in ststus as for example the nobleprize for physics for in the physicists, then i think its overly politcal correct to keep calling the prize with its long name. I, for instance didn't know that my famous Dutch fellow countryman Tinbergen did not win the nobel prize on economics but a second grade bla di bla company prize. Although it might be factual correct, I need to remind you that prizes are a human invention, and that the way we perceive (the status) of the prize is what matters, not the 'factual' - but also constucted - orgin. We don't talk about the twin towers without talking about the 9-11 events, although the original designer never planned that, now do we? (sorry for the provocation). --145.99.202.92 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous

[edit]

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm

I can't believe that this heap of balderdash is linked as if it were a credible piece of work. If you're going to put something as outrageous and hypocritical (the author is as extreme left as the "fringe" Chicagoans he portrays as being far right), at least post a counter argument.

Well, that "heap" might not be relevant to the Nobel prizes, but it does seem to establish fairly clearly the links between liberalism and socialism, particularly the idea of planned economies so favored in the Communist countries. Ironically, it points out how poverty leads to lots of bad stuff but fails to mention how all the planned economies of Communist nations have increased poth poverty itself and the gap between the rich and poor. (Recall that the Russian word nomenclatura was not coined by Western free-market economists.) Uncle Ed 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

unsourced POV

[edit]

Cut from end of article:

Members of the economic discipline and the winners often make the mistake that they have won a real ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’. The media also often refers to the prize as the Nobel Prize in Economics, repeating the error.

If it's a "mistake", they've been making it for 35 years. Paul Samuelson is said to have won the "Nobel Prize" for Economics in 1970.

Who says that it's an "error" to refer to the B&S prize as a "Nobel prize"? One of his descendants? Then that's just his POV. Let him have it, and make sure we attribute it to him. If he raises a furor about it, let's describe the precize tenor of that furor, the exact flavor of his discontent.

But let's not side with or against him. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 16:25 (UTC)

Universities trying to boost their reputation

[edit]

One reason why this problem won't go away: Several universities are trying to boost their reputation by ignoring the difference between real Nobel Prizes and the Bank of Sweden prize, claiming there are Nobel laureates among their faculty, although these researchers are in fact just recipients of the Bank of Sweden Prize.

Science History 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unconvinced

[edit]

Quite honestly, I fail to understand all this fuss about the pedigree of the "Nobel" prize in Economics. Nobody anywhere really thinks that the prestige of the "real" Nobel prizes comes from their association with the late Mr Nobel or his family. It's the selection mechanism, which leads to chose people recognised as outstanding by their peers. Now this mechanism is the same for Economics, with the same results. So I don't see the point of all this emotionality, unless it is just a question of ideological bias against Economics as a subject, coming from people who don't always understand it very well. Mario 11:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the prestige of the Nobel Prizes comes from their genealogy. If otherwise, the economists should be perfectly content that it be called something else. Speaking of "emotionality", is it not just like an emotionally-invested partisan to claim this legitimate debate is fuled by "ideological bias" from people "who don't understand" economics? I for one happy to see that this debate has been settled in favor of historical truth. 70.137.149.221 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


History category

[edit]

This article surely belongs in the Economic history category, not in History of Science. Also, it is not one of the Nobel prizes even if it is informally referred to as such in certain circles. Please stop pushing this deceitful POV. 80.203.115.12 16:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Espenrh could you please explain why you insist that this article belongs in History of Science and not in the Economic history category? Your constant reverts, without any kind of discussion or explanation, is bordering on vandalism. 80.203.115.12 16:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate 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 debate was decided by User:Eugene van der Pijll: Rename to Nobel Prize in Economics.

How can the result be a move to "Prize" when there was a 4-3. That's far from a "clear consensus". Actually it's the exact oposite of a clear consensus. // Liftarn

Yes, but for the time being I'd say "Nobel Prize in Economics" plus qualification in opening paragraph less unwieldy than "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → Nobel Prize in Economics – "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the name that majority of people most easily recognize when it comes to this prize. Google search for "Nobel Prize in Economics" gives 294.000 results and for "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" 62.300 results. Also, linking to this article is made difficult because of such long name. In short this rename is requested because of WP:NAME -- Vision Thing -- 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose - the correct name is "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and the other form is not reccomended and it gcices an incorrect view of what the prize is. anyway, since there is a redirect in place i don't really see the problem. // Liftarn
  • Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → The Prize in Economics - to shorten the title, and this is how the Nobel Foundation refers to it. -- Beardo 04:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better, but what's the point? Also, what about Nobel Memorial Prize. That should be short enough. The Nobel foundation uses Nobel Memorial Prize in in Economic Science or Nobel Memorial Prize in in Economic Sciences as the short form. I have also seen The Memorial Prize, that's both sort and acceptable. // Liftarn
    • Unfortunately "The Prize in Economics" begs the question "Which prize?" and "The Memorial Prize" the question "For what?"... I guess one or other of the "Nobel Memorial Prize in..." is viable. Regards, David Kernow 13:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are there any other international prizes in economics apart from this one ? "The Prize in Economics" already redircts here. A search of wikipedia only comes here. The first 20 entries on google refer to this. -- Beardo 15:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't know, but would be surprised if there weren't any others (notwithstanding this one being the most eminent). So, for the purposes of trying to avoid possible ambiguity, now or in the future, I'd suggest a foreshortened version of the official name that doesn't omit "Bank of Sweden" or "Sveriges Riksbank". Per the above, Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics seems to combine sufficient accuracy and succinctness. Regards, David 19:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC), updated 15:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a Nobel Prize. Use whatever name to show it is a Bank of Sweden Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. Don't use Nobel Prize in Economics or Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences. Passer-by 21:21, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 (UTC)

  • Support a change to Nobel prize in Economics. Doing a Google Search, "Nobel Prize in Economics" (subtracting Wikipedia) gets 273,000 hits. "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" only gets 27,800 hits. Or just watch the news. They always refer to it simply as "the Nobel prize in economics." The article should be titled in accordance with the most popular, and consequently most searched for, title for the prize. Economizer 15:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a change of title of article to Nobel prize in Economics. But immediately the article should say what the name the Bank of Sweden uses (it is the one who gives the award). If today the Bank decided to change the name to Fred's Prize in economics, it should say that. Chivista 18:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a silly debate for folks with ideological axes to grind. Shorter name better, and used more often. Agree with Chivista above though that the full name should be stated immiediately.radek

Survey pt. 2

[edit]

If you supported a name change, Add the preferred version followed by an optional one-sentence explanation to each of the proposed elements of the title, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

"Alfred Nobel" vs. "Nobel"

[edit]

"Memorial Prize" vs. "Prize"

[edit]

"in Economic Sciences" vs. "in Economics"

[edit]

Discussion

[edit]

Add any additional comments -- Vision Thing -- 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, it's associated with the Nobel Prize since the name has a resemblance and it's awarded at the same time, but it wouldn't hurt to try to keep them apart. // Liftarn
  • The Nobel Foundation's website includes this as well - so it is more than just "awarded at the same time". The current name is far too long. Perhaps "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" to preserve a differentiation ? -- Beardo 19:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Short names exists such as "Bank of Sweden Prize" or "Nobel memorial prize". // Liftarn
  • Using the principle of self identification we would use "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" as that's what they call it [1]. // Liftarn
    Slightly long; perhaps "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic [Science/Sciences]" would suffice...?  Regards, David Kernow 13:07, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is alternative Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics acceptable to everyone? This way differentiation between this and other prizes is preserved, but at the same time name points out that there is a connection between them. -- Vision Thing -- 21:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems a reasonable solution to me; not too long and mentions Nobel for those who wish his name to be included. Have amended my "vote" above. Thanks for suggestion, David Kernow 23:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS I note its the name used in one of the templates; will amend the other and the misleading categoriz/sation of this prize as a "Nobel Prize".
    No, because we want the title to conform to how most everyone knows it as. The opening sentence could say that the common title is not the official title given by the Bank of Sweden which actually awards the priize so they have the right to say what the "correct" title is. Chivista 18:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a better solution. It looks like "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is even more rarely used that "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" (it has only 19.700 hits on Google). -- Vision Thing -- 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics is the best form. It conveys both the affiliation with and the distinction from the other Nobels. 19,700 is a perfectly fine hit count. ~ trialsanderrors 20:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in comparison with "Nobel Prize in Economics", which has 297.000 hits, it seems small. -- Vision Thing -- 20:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't give credence to Google counts beyond establishing that a term is commonly used. If there were only 500 hits for NMPiE, I'd be worried. ~ trialsanderrors 20:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics sounds like an acceptable short form. It's simmilar to the official short form ("Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences"). "Nobel Prize in Economics" is unacceptable since I don't feel it's the job of Wikipedia to activley misslead people looking for information. // Liftarn
Not good for me, the title should be what people generally use... the short Nobel Prize in Economics is universally used (despite being wrong). It is used by the educated people; the uneducated do not know what fields of study even get prizes. Chivista 20:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To paste in something I've recently offered elsewhere:
...I suspect the vast majority of the internet results occur on sites that aren't encyclopedias/e or striving to be encyclopedic (i.e. not reference works employing principles such as WP:VERIFY)...
Also:
I'm under the impression that Wikipedia is meant to reflect a consensus between its editors, not necessarily a consensus between sources (especially potentially unreliable/unaccountable/transitory internet sources)...?
This (Wikipedia) is meant to be a general encyclopedia, i.e. a work of reference, so I'd suggest that where possible – such as here – it ought to try to avoid propogating or reinforcing potentially misleading or ambiguous names/terms. Regards, David Kernow 03:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It not just that ordinary Google search shows "Nobel Prize in Economics" is more widely used. Google Scholar, which performs search through "peer-reviewed papers, theses, books, abstracts and articles" also shows that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is used overwhelmingly more. It has 2.210 results, while "Bank of Sweden..." has 279 and "Nobel Memorial..." 167 results. -- Vision Thing -- 08:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has only 102 results. You must put the term in quotes "". Without them Nobel Prize in Economics has 18.200 results. -- Vision Thing -- 09:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, yes – thanks for spotting. Nonetheless, I believe this search-engine quoting is beside the point of working toward a reasonably accurate encyclopedia and I apologise for indulging in it momentarily. Yours, David 11:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. -- Vision Thing -- 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, we should use the offical form (either the long or short). Compare with the Academy Awards/Oscars naming. // Liftarn 11:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Counterexample for that is Nazism/National Socialism. Official name is National Socialism but Wikipedia article is named Nazism. -- Vision Thing -- 12:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this example is an equivalent; as it shares the same format as the other Prizes, "Nobel Prize in Economics" mistakenly suggests the Prize was bequested by Nobel, whereas neither "Nazism" nor "National Socialism" make suggestions about their origins. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 07:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I tried to formalize the discussion of the variants above. If you prefer the current title, it's enough to lodge an oppose in the original survey, but I see an emerging consensus for moving, although no clear target yet. I hope the format is clear. ~ trialsanderrors 18:30, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Result

[edit]

There seems to be clear consensus for a move to a shorter name here; the only uncertainty is whether the word "Memorial" has to be included; according to both the majority of opinions expressed here, and the Common names policy, it shouldn't be, so I moved the page to Nobel Prize in Economics. At the same time, I reunited the page with the edit history from 2002. -- Eugène van der Pijll 16:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as "Nobel Prize in Economics" may carry the misleading connotation that it is one of Nobel's original prizes, I wonder how far the names policy has been followed as regards a name "with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity"... I've marked this debate as closed, however, pending clarification of this issue. Thanks for your work on the edit history!  David Kernow (talk) 02:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
David, if I may comment on your question, about the "minimum of ambiguity": There is no ambiguity here, as the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" has only one meaning; it never refers to anything else but the prize described here. (The detailed rules about ambiguity in naming are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). It's more of an "accuracy in the title" versus "common name" debate. These debates are often (but not always) decided in favour of the common name (e.g. North Korea vs Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Eugène van der Pijll 06:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point; thanks!  If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your thoughts here. Best wishes, David (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS Re North Korea / Democratic People's Repulic of Korea, I don't reckon the former risks any misleading connotations.
The current title is ridiculus! This is not a Nobel Prize, no polls in the world can change that fact. That's like renaming "United States" to "Divided States" just because a majority of wikipedians think so. It's name isn't, has never been and will never be "Nobel Prize in Economics" --The monkeyhate 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, here, monkeyhate, you're referring to the United Mexican States, I assume? There is no country called the "United States", and, as you say, no polls in the world can change that. Still, except when deliberately making a point, most of understand what is meant by references to the United States, and Wikipedia reflects this.JQ 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't thnk you're getting my point. Renaming "Nobel Prize in Economics" is as stupid as if we would rename the "United States" article to "Divided States". "Nobel Prize in Economics" simply isn't the correct name, since it's not a Nobel Prize. --The monkeyhate 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think you're missing my point. "United States" isn't the correct name either, so the fact that you use it as an example undermines your position. You are happy for Wikipedia to use the common name in this case, rather than the correct "United States of America", so why not do the same with the prize?
Because "Nobel Prize" is misleading because it makes people think that it actually is a Nobel prize, which it's not. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not the "common name", the Swedish media never use it, and if any foreign media does, than that's a mistake they've made and it should not be reflected in this article. --The monkeyhate 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, this is not the swedish wikipedia, in most(all?) of the world the name "Nobel Prize in Economics" is used, and even in Sweden most people I know use it, the only people that don't use it is leftists with axes to grind and maybe some of the Swedish media that tries to be "politically correct" and not offend those with axes to grind. --Lost Goblin 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about you, but I thought that an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate, but maybe I've gotten it all wrong. "Nobel Prize in Economics" will be the wrong title no matter how many Wikipedia polls you host. --The monkeyhate 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate, and 'Nobel Prize in Economics' is the name that by far most accurately reflects what name most people in the world use.--Lost Goblin 12:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So Wikipedia should enforce the misconception and falsehood rather than trying to tell the truth? The the undeniable truth is that this isn't a Nobel prize. I've requested a move, but nothing happened.--The monkeyhate 18:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Taking a look at the links to this article, many different versions of the name are used in various articles, often resulting in endless edit wars between proponents of different versions of the name. Given that there has been some agreement in this article about the name, can we agree to use the same name in references to this article, in particular in the biographies of winers of the prize? --Lost Goblin 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Nobel Prize in Economics" should be used. Official name to most people doesn't mean a thing, and it is given in the first sentence of this article. "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is neither correct nor is most commonly used. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If used within quotes (such as "John Doe won the "Nobel Prize in Economics" in 1989.") then it would work, but I would prefer that we use the official full name in the running text and the official short name where a short version is needed. I find it wrong to knowingly give missleading information in Wikipedia articles. // Liftarn

There is no non-accuracy - it is explained ad nauseam in this article and every article on a laureate that this is just the usual name, albeit inaccurate. Moreover, I would point out that consensus is not unanimity, and consensus has been reached. It's just that some guys (especially Liftarn lately), which generally have no usefull contribution to the actual articles (again Liftarn), jut insist on pushing some agenda. AdamSmithee 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've been a useful contributor for over two years, so casting aspersions about "no useful contribution" and "agenda" is disingenuous and wrong-headed. This debate wouldn't come up if people just did the correct thing and if the naming conventions didn't perpetuate laziness under the guise of "common names." If Wikipedia were concerned about accuracy, the common names would redirect to the official name of a subject. —ExplorerCDT 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should ask for mediation? -- Vision Thing -- 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm not lazy and because I think my position is a correct one. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In your self-deluded laziness, you'd probably call a Gorilla a "monkey", too. —ExplorerCDT 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that ExplorerCDT has no useful contrib. My point is that the bios of most of "this" prize (is that polit. corr. enough?) are little more than stubs, and some editors spend a lot of energy waring on the name instead of doing more useful additions to the actual articles... Anyway, I noticed that in your case, you actually did contribute to Milton Friedman, which is great, and to lots of other stuff, but on the other hand over the last few month 90% of your contribs to Nobel prize related articles is warring over the name. I would also point out that it is not laziness and many editors actually spend a lot of efort to defend "Nobel prize in economics" AdamSmithee 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Effort best directed elsewhere, yes, I agree. But intellectual laziness leads people to make incorrect shortcuts like NPiE. Not even the Nobel Foundation uses that nomenclature. I refuse to stand for shortcuts like that. It's one reason I hate the naming convention that supports "common names". Common names (yes, especially the incorrect ones), I firmly believe, should redirect to the correct names and not the status quo which is the other way around. And 90% of my contributes to Nobel Prize related articles? I didn't know, aside from Milton Friedman, that I contributed to any. I'm too busy bringing like 20 more important articles up to FA-worthiness. —ExplorerCDT 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To claim that disagreeing with your point of view is "intellectual laziness" is disingenuous. Just look at all the discussion about this on this very same talk page under "Requested move". At the same time people trying to push for a particular name that doesn't agree with the one chosen here have consistently refused to discus the issue and have resorted to endless edit wars. If you really think that people can spend their time in more productive ways, lets all work to settle this issue once and for all in a single place instead of engaging in this ridiculous guerrilla warfare all over wikipedia. If you can't accept that people that disagree with you might have good reasons for their points of view, then collaboration is impossible. --Lost Goblin 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This should be the only word on this subject. All we add it just background noise. —ExplorerCDT 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? an encyclopedia reflects the real world, and in the real world things are known by different names, nobody has a supreme authority to decide how everyone should call something. The names of things are based on consensus between all the speakers. That is precisely why the meaning of words changes over time, and the names for the same things changes also. Nobody has the authority to impose the use a name over the rest of the world. --Lost Goblin 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there is a "supreme authority" that have decided what the prize is called. // Liftarn
How 'supreme' could that authority be when its decision is universally ignored? --Lost Goblin 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's only ignored by people who want to ignore it. And it's their prize so they hev the right to name it. The Right Livelihood Award is othen called "Alternative Nobel Prize", but we don't call it what on Wikipedia because that's not the official name. // Liftarn
It is ignored by pretty much everyone, and everyone has a right to name it whatever they like, nobody has a monopoly to decide the meaning of names or words. As for the Right Livelihood Award, I don't think most people have even heard of it, and in any case I don't think it is relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about an universally accepted and used name versus the 'official' name that nobody uses. --Lost Goblin 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is called "Right Livelihood Award" because that is a more common name than "Alternative Nobel Prize" (easily determined by simple Google search). -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see. And when people talk about Mozart they are refering to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, so obviously the Wikipedia article is called... // Liftarn
On Wikipedia lot of things are not in accordance with its policy. However, policy is clear. If you want to be useful, make sure that it's followed. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would be WP:POINT. // Liftarn
On what grounds? -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously there are people on Wikipedia who care about accuracy over laziness or "popular name", while working on the Robert Pinsky article, I noticed that the article for Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress isn't named Poet Laureate of the United States. Thank God. —ExplorerCDT 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop the ad hominem accusations of "laziness"? Thank you. --Lost Goblin 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. Because it's an accurate depiction. When you stop being lazy and wrong, I'll stop calling a spade a spade. Therefore, in tit-for-tat, will you please stop being intellectually lazy and wrong? —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this ever going to be sorted out? I'm starting to think someone really should ask for arbitration because this discussion is going nowhere and the current situation is ridiculous. --Uriel 14:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nobel

[edit]

Unsourced, with no assertion of the notablity of this individual beyond being the great, great, great, great, great newphew of Alfred Nobel. Even the citation admits that he's a periphal member of the family. Not to mention that there are probably hundreds of individuals just as closely related to Alfred. --RaiderAspect 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still no citation, no effort to show notability, removing it. --RaiderAspect 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I've been a bit occupied in other areas. I'll fix it. // Liftarn

Done. It should perhaps be edited to reflect that all living relatives of Nobel is opposed to the incorrect naming. // Liftarn

Well, if it can be verified I'd much prefer that than just mention one with a talent for self promotion and a grudge against economists. But that said I'd be very suprised if ALL of the dozens (if not hundreds) of Nobel's relatives are opposed. --RaiderAspect 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Controversy

[edit]

The controversy section appears to be shorter than the last time I saw the page - why were parts removed. It used to mention that criticism of the prize fall into one of 3 categories, basically

  • Not a true Noble prize
  • neo-liberal bias in recipients
  • Economics not making significant contributions to humanity, a lesser science etc.

Now only the first point remains. Whay was the "3 broad categories" theme done away with? - Matthew238 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief look through the history, it was changed here, citing WP:OR. AdamSmithee 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decades are wrong. the Sixties started in 1961 and ended dec. 31 1970. Count to 10 and you will understand why,10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Who is Hazel Henderson, and what rationale is there to cite this person three times? From what I can tell, she maligns economics in general, while claiming the title of economist. I'm all for covering controversy, but her positions are about as far from mainstream as they get. I don't think her political views of economics merit being sourced. Bagsc 6 October 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 03:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Country

[edit]

In regards to the country that is beside each Nobel laureates name; is it the country in which they were born in or where they completed there work? For example, in 1996, Vickrey says (USA) but he was also born in Canada. Canking 19:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia was the only encyclopedia to name correctly The Swedish Central Bank Prizes. All others, writen by economists, gave the intended ilusion of "Nobel Prize". That was in 2003. Now economists are controling this entry, defending their sham with every possible argument, ignoring Nobels will, that is the end of Wikipedia. I do not trust evolving knowledges hability to fend of interest groups of enhancing their value by tricks and shams, like this one

Controversies and criticisms

[edit]

I change the name of the section. Now, the name is Controversies and criticisms. It is important to point out that theories of economics cannot be compaired with the theories of Physics or Chemistry. VjShRi 05:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is true, it certainly cannot be compared with physics or chemistry. But physics can't really be exactly compared with medical science either, which is another Nobel Prize topic. Whether different sciences are identical is irrelevant. Clearly they are not. However, all of them, including economics, is based on empirical study of phenomenon. In the case of physics and economics, the physical phenomenon fit closely to some theoretical models. In this case, physics and economics have more in common than physics and medicine. There are some mathematical models in medicine but there are few things close to a "mathematical proof". Economics actually has several such proofs in areas where it addresses optimal behaviors (as opposed to describing existing behaviors in economies). For example, the optimal price of a financial option is a proof. The optimal position for a portfolio made of a set of investments is a proof. Both of these proofs are the topic of Nobel prizes. I have minors in both physics and economics and there used to be (and may still be) an annual conference where physicists and economists meet and compare methods. Vernon Smith won the Nobel for developing empirical experimental methods for economics (althogh there were many empirical methods in economics before that). Some candidates and winners of Economics Nobels were actually mathematicians or physicists. Paul Romer, considered a contender for a Nobel Prize for his applications of theory of convex sets to economics, is a particle physicist. Of course, Nash, who won the Nobel in economics, was a mathematician. Both are legitimate areas of inquiry and I see neither as more "valid" than the other. Hubbardaie 14:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Nobel dispute

[edit]

There is a slow-paced edit-war going on between Hubbardaie, Liftarn and me on how to introduce Peter Nobel. Hubbardaie insists that the text specifically includes the fact that Nobel "has no background in science or in the empirical methods used in economics". While this, of course, is true, I find the mention to violate WP:NOR, specifically

An edit counts as original research if it [...] introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source.

That is, it's not enough that it's true that Nobel has no such background, the fact must also have been pointed out by someone we can cite. So if somebody has criticized Nobel's objections on the grounds that he is unfamiliar with economic science, we can include that, citing the source. But we, as an encyclopedia, cannot point out that such a critique could be made, which is essentially what Hubbardaie seems to want. Of course, his wording also serves to prevent the reader from for some reason assuming that Nobel is an economist, giving his words undue weight. While I think such an assumption implausible, I did suggest a compromise, telling the reader what he is (which is not OR as it is already mentioned in the cited sources) instead of what he is not. As there is no reason to believe that a human rights lawyer is experienced in economics, this would give the reader all the information he needs to judge Nobel's statements. The compromise wording was rejected by Hubbardaie but accepted by Liftarn. Any input on the matter is appreciated. -- Jao 09:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, your proposed compromise is not a compromise at all. It is the choice of your original position over mine. Second, I think you misinterpret the wiki guideline. I concede that I should have a citation but not necessarilly a citation that his background was quoted by someone else to be relevent. After all, nobody was quoted saying the Peter Nobel comment was relevent. It was simply taken to be relevent and the citation was merely to show that Peter Nobel actually did say that (i.e. it was not a citation claiming that is was necessarilly relevant). My suggested compromise (in fact, a real compromise) would be to produce a citation that describes his background. Such a citation would be presumed to be just as relevant as the original quote. Without such a clarification, the quote is misleadingly authoritative and anecdotal. After all, how many living relatives does Alfred Nobel have and how many agree with Peter Nobel? Why would a great nephew be more authoritative than, say, a direct descendent? I question the relevance of the entire quote by Peter Nobel and the only way it should be included is with full disclosure about his knowledge in these matters.Hubbardaie 12:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a compromise. The original wording didn't mention his background at all, you wanted to say explicitly that he's not an economist, so my compromise was to simply say that he is a human rights lawyer, leading the reader himself to conclude that he's not an economist. (It's of course possible to be both, but it's unlikely that we would refer to him as a human rights lawyer in this context were he also an economist.) As for the relevance, no, we don't need a source that says that his background (either as a lawyer or as a non-economist) is relevant, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we need a source that describes him as a non-economist if we are to describe him as such in the article. I have no problem with his background being relevant (that's why I proposed "human rights lawyer", which is consistent with WP:NOR). As for a direct descendant being more authorative than Peter, that's of course true, but then again, Alfred Nobel died without issue, so it's a moot point. There are probably other relatives about as close to him as Peter, though, and it would be a great addition to the article if you can find a citation for whether these (or even one of them!) agree or disagree with him. -- Jao 06:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another point. Do you have a source saying he isn't an economist? // Liftarn

Good point. He might just be one of that rare breed of human rights lawyer/economists. But, since he incorrectly characterized ALL of the winners as "market speculators" I would have to say its highly unlikely he understands any of what those awards were actually for.Hubbardaie 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But that would be WP:OR so it can't go into the article. // Liftarn
Sorry, I missed the part where you said the reader should be told he is a human rights lawyer. On another point, how about a citation about whether ANY mere relative is ever a relevant authority by virtue of being a relative?Hubbardaie 12:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't he the closest living relative or something? // Liftarn
Perhaps he is a closest living relative and, for that reason, it is felt that Peter Nobel is somehow in the best position to be proxy for Alfred Nobel's "true" feelings on this matter. Given my own experience in miscommunications and misunderstanding among immediate family, I find it highly unlikely that the great-great-grand nephew of Alfred Nobel would have any more insight into his opinions on this than you or I would. The bigger issue here is why is this more relevant than a randomly selected person on the street?Hubbardaie 21:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because he is the closest living relative? // Liftarn
So what? Why should anyone care what he thinks? AdamSmithee 08:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:NPOV says that if a viewpoint is held by a majority or a significant minority, we should cite prominent adherents. Does four of Alfred's closest relatives (the original 2001 article in Svenska dagbladet was apparently signed by four people, all of whom were descendants from Alfred's brother Ludvig, and all of whom were non-economic academics) automatically constitute a significant minority? I think so, but I will happily concede that Wikipedia policy is at the moment not very good at defining what's relevant to an article and what's not (see WT:TRIVIA#What is relevance?, for instance, for an interesting but still open argument). -- Jao 08:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are certainly a "significant minority" (if not a majority!) of the living relatives of Alfred. // Liftarn
There is a famous series of disputes between Niels Bohr and Albert Einstein. Should we resolve current disputes about string theory by citing the closest living relatives of each? That makes as much sense as quoting Peter Nobel in this case.Hubbardaie 23:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Country – ambiguous or not

[edit]

There is currently a request for comments at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country – ambiguous or not to discuss whether the country column in the table of Nobel laureates is ambiguous or not. Your comments in this matter would be appreciated. panda 14:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

[edit]

There is currently a Request for Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. Your comments would be appreciated. The results of the RFC may affect all of the Nobel Prize articles. panda 16:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some RFC updates:

  • You can find the definition of the country data included in the Nobel lists in the RFC under the point Country data defined.
  • There is currently a consensus moving towards removing all of the flags in the Nobel lists unless someone can devise an acceptable scheme for them. This portion of the RFC (point 2) will be closed in 2 weeks, i.e., 31 October 2007 24 October 2007, assuming it is not challenged. That is, the consensus will be to remove all flags from the lists.

–panda 15:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the page

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived 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 this page, per the discussion below and these closing comments, mainly based on my reaction to recent postings at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves:
There are no hard-and-fast rules for most of the inner workings of RM, which is a page that developed to address a need rather than to complement a policy. That said, I've been around here for a while and I've been asked to comment by participants on both sides of this discussion. First, although other people may have interpreted the results differently, the RM in 2006 was closed as "move" rather than "no consensus". Either way, the main consideration when trying to determine which page name is the established one is stability, not overall tenure; the established title in this case is the current title. Next, I'm sympathetic to Panda's cause - he's trying to note 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". The common name (WP:NC (CN)) here is "Nobel Prize in Economics" - it's shorter, more well-known, and used widely by third-party sources (which are generally preferred to primary ones, although some allowances are made for self-identification). Despite any qualms I might have, both titles can remain in the introduction, one will remain as a redirect, and anyone who actually reads the article will come to an understanding of the naming dispute. We are doing an adequate job of fulfilling WP:NCON's rationale: describing the controversy rather than taking sides. There is not a consensus to move this page at this time. Dekimasuよ! 11:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the above discussion about changing the page names before. What I gather is that the main argument for having the current name is "that's what most people think it is". Like me, until I read this, actually. The trouble is, this is a stupid argument. If most people think something, and they are wrong, encyclopedia's are supposed to tell them what is right. So, I propose to rename the page as the title reads - the Bank of Sweden Prize for Economics in Memorial of Alfred Nobel. Some object this is long. So what? "Nobel Prize in Economics" will redirect here. The point is, that seems to be correct, and it's particularly important that this should be correct PRECISELY because there's controversy over the existence of the prize (in memorial to Alfred Nobel) at all. It wasn't in his will for instance. I note that the Swedish Wikipedia page agrees with me (and it's Swedish, after all), and if you look at the official website, this is the official title used there too. If someone wants a short form title, then I recommend that it should be the "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economics" - because (once again) it seems the prize has zero relevance to the wishes expressed in the will of Alfred Nobel. I would like to hear if anyone has anything really good to answer to this. But just let me state once again, the Swedes agree with me, and so does the official website. I intend to rename the page. Wikidea 21:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Bank of Sweden Prize for Economic Sciences in Memorial of Alfred Nobel. Wikidea 21:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's been a year, and there was no real consensus, so I see no harm in beating the horse again. I'm not sure something good will come out of it, but for what it's worth, I'm totally on your side. I would also agree to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics, though, if that is deemed a shortform in common use. The current title runs too great a risk for being misleading. -- Jao 04:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to state it, I'm for the current form per common usage and WP rules regarding common name. But I think 2 issues are relevant:

  1. In this case, the WP convention favours an incorrect form - well, we have an article named Nazism, not National Socialism, as noticed above. And I could go on and on with examples.
  2. The real issue seems to be that people do not want to give the impression that it was in Nobel's will, as it would give the prize undeserved credibility. The issue is, who cares what Nobel thought was credible more than a century ago? The credibility is given by the award process (which is the same as for the other science prizes, and this is correctly reflected in the common name) and by the award winners. And, anyway, the economics prize is far more respectable than the genuine prize for peace (and, arguably, than the one for literature)

BTW, on the importance of Nobel's opinion, Plato thought e.g. that all artists should be banished from society. Plato was way above Nobel and still capable of ignorable ideas AdamSmithee 07:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between something passive (like a sea or a mountain) that don't have any own ideas what it should be called and something active (like a person or an organisation) that have an official name they want to be used. For instance we have Academy Award even if it's commonly called an "Oscar". // Liftarn
With the greatest respect, I personally couldn't care less about the page on Nazism (or Plato, or Oscars). The issue (singular) is that the page is incorrectly named. Once again, the Swedes agree with me and so does the official website. It is ridiculous for the first bit of this page to read "it is often incorrectly called the Nobel Prize in Economics" and at the same time have this as the title of the page. And no, I don't think changing that sentence would help. Wikidea 10:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's even a link for the correct name on a certain user's page! Wikidea 11:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately or not, the fact that it is formally correct or not has nothing to do with the problem. See WP:NAME. AdamSmithee 11:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Wikidea. The article should be called something that is actually correct. Rationale:

  • Regarding policy:
    • I don't see the point in citing WP:NAME in this case. It states no where in WP:NAME how to handle instances when a common name is in fact an inaccurate name.
    • WP:NC(CN) states to not over do it with common names: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative." In this case the common name "Nobel Prize in Economics" is misleading.
  • Regarding usage:
    • It's really bizarre that the second sentence reads "It is often inaccurately called the Nobel Prize in Economics..." and then the article's title is "Nobel Prize in Economics".
    • A user would find the page anyway via a redirect from "Nobel Prize in Economics".
  • The original move request resulted in no consensus and was thus moved inappropriately from Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel → Nobel Prize in Economics by User:Eugene van der Pijll.
  • IMHO it's pointless to argue a case of "Nobel Prize in Economics" by using examples from elsewhere in wikipedia. I can also bring up examples where a longer name was chosen in lieu of a shorter name or even a common name. Also, saying that Nazism is an incorrect name for National Socialism is nonsense - follow the links to see for yourself.

I would agree with the following titles:

–panda 22:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm renaming now. There is simply no rationale for the way it is and no good argument against putting it how it was. Thanks for helping confirm this. Wikidea 08:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to rename this page please make request for move since that is a controversial move. -- Vision Thing -- 20:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were controversial, then there would be (at least one or two) good arguments against! Wikidea 22:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

[edit]

Add "* Support" for rename to: Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel; or "* Oppose" to retain the name: Nobel Prize in Economics, followed by an explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Oppose. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is the name that majority of people most easily recognize when it comes to this prize. Google search for "Nobel Prize in Economics" gives 247.000 results and for "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" 34.500 results. Google Scholar, which performs a search of "scholarly literature across many disciplines and sources, including theses, books, abstracts and articles" shows that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is used overwhelmingly more in scholarly sources too. It has 2.910 results, while "Bank of Sweden..." has 373. As for concerns that this is not an "official" Nobel Prize, it is awarded by the Nobel Foundation in the exact same way as the other prizes. Linking to this article is also easier with current name. In short, current name should be retained per official policy. -- Vision Thing -- 12:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify one of your statements. The econ prize is not associated with the Nobel Foundation other than being awarded at the same ceremony as the Nobel Prizes (not including the Peace Prize). The Nobel Foundation is not involved in the selection or decision process. See [2] and [3]. Since the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is also involved with the Nobel Prizes in Chemistry and Physics, it may be easy to confuse it with the Nobel Foundation, a different entity. Except for the Peace Prize, the person who actually gives out the prizes is the King of Sweden,[4] who is not involved with the Nobel Foundation. The Nobel Foundation hosts the awards ceremony but it would be incorrect to say that the prize is awarded by the Nobel Foundation. For a reply to your comments about Google search results, see my comments below. –panda 22:09, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if I put the search term in quotes, I still don't get the same results as you:
It may be helpful if you could provide a link with your search results. –panda 01:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. Google give me 248,000 hits, but when I clicked on your URL I obtained 253,000 (where you received 165,000). The number of hits is apparently independent of the search URL. --Anthon.Eff 02:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This little experiment shows that Google gives an unreliable number of hits and is not a good method to check for common names. –panda 03:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you get different results because you are using Firefox and not Internet Explorer. However, you should also get different results when you search for "Bank of Sweden...". What is important is relation between those two results, and not their absolute values. -- Vision Thing -- 11:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you're only interested in the relationship between 2 names, then I would argue that most people do searches without quotes and would get the following search relationships:
Obviously this is getting us no where so there's no point in bringing up the number of hits you get through Google. Also, I've tried my links in IE & Firefox and have gotten the exact same numbers so the IE vs Firefox thing doesn't explain why we're getting different numbers for the same search (and url). –panda 12:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You need to put your search terms in quotation marks, or it just searches for pages with the individual words and not the phrase. Dekimasuよ! 02:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't help you at all. A general reader wants to know a correct name. Precisely because there is controversy over the prize itself its important to be accurate! Wikidea 17:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's counter-intuitive. It is long-established precedent on Wikipedia that the article title reflect common usage. While you may find such common usage to be "incorrect" -- that is really rather irrelevant. Both the name and the history of the prize are explained in the article. older ≠ wiser 17:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support You should all rethink, because everything you've said is complete rubbish! First the page is INCORRECTLY named. In other words, it's WRONG, it's STUPID, it's FALSE, it's MISINFORMATION. It is NOT the Nobel Prize in Economics. If 247,000 google results tells you that the world is flat, then that means that 247,000 people who write webpages are wrong, stupid and falsely misinforming you. This was moved, might I say from the correct title before to this wrong, stupid, false and misinforming title. The comments to the effect that there should be a move when there's a compelling reason don't take into account that there was no compelling reason before (except the wisdom of the herd). And in any case, that it is the wrong title IS pretty compelling, in my view. I stated above, the official website agrees with me, the Swedes agree with me and so should you lot! Not one have you have answered that. Wikidea 17:10, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Please reply below!
  1. If I understand correctly, the primary objection for "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is because 1) it is too long and 2) it's not the commonly used name. Correct me if I'm wrong.
  2. WP:NC(CN)#Do not overdo it states: "In cases where the common name of a subject is misleading, then it is sometimes reasonable to fall back on a well-accepted alternative. ... we need to temper common usage when the commonly used term is unreasonably misleading or commonly regarded as offensive to one or more groups of people." In this case, "Nobel Prize in Economics" is misleading, since it's not a Nobel Prize, and offensive, at least for those supporting Peter Nobel's viewpoints.[5][6] This would override using the common name "Nobel Prize in Economics" per WP:NAME.
  3. WP:NC(CN)#Not sure if you are overdoing it? states: "If there's no agreement over whether a page title is "overdoing it", apply the guidelines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)." WP:NC(P)#Conflicts over precision states "A conflict over the precision of a word may arise. The best way to handle such conflicts is through authoritative dictionaries (the most authoritative being The American Heritage Dictionary, Oxford English Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster's)." According to M-W, [7], the Nobel Prize is defined as "any of various annual prizes (as in peace, literature, medicine) established by the will of Alfred Nobel for the encouragement of persons who work for the interests of humanity -- called also Nobel". This would exclude using the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" since it wasn't established by Alfred Nobel's will.
  4. "Nobel Prize in Economics" violates WP:NPOV#Article naming "Nobel Prize in Economics" expresses a non-neutral POV that the economics prize is a Nobel Prize.
  5. Basing a name on the number of hits from Google is very unreliable. (Also, I haven't been able to reproduce the search results that Vision Thing posted above.) Examples:
Compromise. In an attempt at a compromise, could everyone agree to one of the following since neither of the proposed titles seem to be acceptable to everyone due to accuracy, length, common usage, etc?
They're not incorrect, they're short, are common words used to search for this topic, and do not include "Nobel" in the title which is controversial, incorrect, and offensive to the Nobel family.
–panda 19:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise!?../ as far as i can tell there's virtually no support for any change at all. it should remain as is. --emerson7 19:39, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally prefer one of those titles too, because it's more accurate - but we need to go back to the original page title. It's an issue of being correct. What's 2 plus 3? NO, it is not okay to say the answer is 1, because it's shorter. I cannot understand why there are three people here arguing for something that is FACTUALLY WRONG. The Nobel website says you are wrong. The Swedes say you are wrong!! Come on, see some sense!! Wikidea 20:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why this tempest in a teapot? "Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne" would be translated by most Scandinavian translators as "Nobel Prize in Economics." An exact translation would be: "Sweden's Royalbank's prize in economic science in Alfred Nobel's memory." That would be a pretty ugly article title. Why not stick with the most common translation? If the Nobel family is indeed offended (per –panda above), then there would be grounds for change, but I have never heard that they were offended by their ancestor's name being attached to the most prestigious award in economics. --Anthon.Eff 22:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rubbish Anthon - translators worth their salt would translate the way they've done it on the official website - which is what I proposed and what it was before. Change your mind!! Wikidea 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
References that the Nobel family do not want Nobel associated with the econ prize are supplied above in point #2 and copied here for your convenience. [8][9] –panda 23:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, a Swedish article in Aftonbladet quotes Peter Nobel as saying "Sluta kalla ekonomipriset för ett Nobelpris. Sluta dela ut det på Nobeldagen. Det bara suddar ut och solkar ned bilden av Nobelprisarbetet" which roughly translates to "Stop calling the economics prize a Nobel prize. Stop presenting it on the Nobel day [where Nobel day here means the Nobel ceremony]. It only diminishes the value of the work involved with the Nobel prize." The article also states that since 1993 Nobel descendants have requested changes to the econ prize, the Swedish Academy wrote a letter to the Nobel Foundation in 1997 to ask for the econ prize to be presented in a different ceremony, and in addition to Peter Nobel, language professor Anders Ahlqvist in Ireland, professor of medicine Jophan Ahlqvist in Ireland, lawyer John Hylton in Canada, and all of the great grandchildren to Ludvig Nobel are upset that the econ prize is associated with Alfred Nobel. –panda 00:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, panda. I knew nothing about all this. Nevertheless, I'm not sure if the article led me to change my mind. First, those who object are not really the descendants of Alfred Nobel, but of his brother Ludvig (as you note above). Second, Alfred Nobel's heirs, according to the article, objected to his fortune being used to fund the "real" Nobel prizes, so the objections of the family are not limited to the economics prize. Third, these members of the Nobel family object not only to the common name of "Nobelpriset i ekonomi", but also to the official name (which, here, by the way, is given as "Ekonomipriset till minne av Alfred Nobel")--their objection is to the use of the name Nobel in association with the bank's prize. I see that your compromise solutions would meet the approval of this faction of the family, but I wonder if we can completely drop the name Nobel from the article title--it seems that riksbanken needs to drop the Nobel name from the prize first. Anyway, thanks very much for pointing us to the article. --Anthon.Eff 01:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the point is of saying that Ludvig is not a descendant of Alfred Nobel. Alfred Nobel had no children. The people objecting are the Nobel family descendants. Yes, the family objects to Nobel being associated with the econ prize and have done so since it was created 38 years ago. Yes, the family originally objected to the Nobel Prizes probably because they wanted the money but ... No, they do not object to the Nobel Prizes today. It's pretty obvious that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is a controversial title and violates WP:NPOV#Article naming from the objections by the Nobel family + others and since this survey exists. That doesn't mean that the article itself can not bring up the name "Nobel Prize in Economics", which it already does, as that's part of WP:NPOV. I also have nothing against:
These are neutral titles that neither mislead nor push a particular POV (neither the Nobel family's nor those who do/do not see it is as a Nobel Prize). If you have other suggestions, please share them. –panda 02:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't have any specific suggestions. It appears that the two best choices are the common name (the current article name) and the official name (Wikidea's suggestion for a new name). Both will have Nobel in the title, and both will displease the Nobel family, but it is really up to riksbanken to change the name, not us. So we should leave to the side the concerns of the Nobel family. Many others object to the economics prize, mostly because they don't agree with the views of the people who receive it. I don't think that has any bearing on what to name the WP article. Many scientists object to the economics prize because they don't think that economics is really a science. I would say that that is also irrelevant. What we are left with is whether it is better to use an awkward and unfamiliar official name or a short but misleading popular name. --Anthon.Eff 03:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article about Nobel Prizes in UK's Encarta [10] is reviewed by Nobel Foundation, and they define Nobel Prizes as "awards granted annually to people or institutions for outstanding contributions during the previous year in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, international peace, and economic sciences." -- Vision Thing -- 23:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in titles is clear - if I want to institute a prize called the "Abraham Lincoln Prize in Assassinating Presidents" then it'd carry a very different connotation a prize called the "Wikidea Prize for Assassinating Presidents in Memory of Abraham Lincoln" wouldn't it!?! It's a question of emphasis, and therefore, once again, a matter of FACTUAL ACCURACY. Vision Thing, who started the last change and continues now, is FACTUALLY WRONG. The title I propose was there before, it is on the official website and the Swedes agree with me. Come on, I know that all of you secretly agree with me, and it's just unfortunate that you've taken the wrong side to start with. Change your minds! Wikidea 09:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as that is the name given to the prize. A soutable short name (if lenght is an issue) would be "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics". As I said earlier the prize has an official name so it's not a popularity contest. // Liftarn
  • Oppose This is a prize named in honour of Alfred Nobel and given for economics; the common name (not the official name) is "Nobel Prize in Economics". That's not wrong; it's not rubbish. The official name for France is "République française", but it would be silly to insist on the use of that phrase everywhere in Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming you didn't read #Rename the page, I'll repeat a comment from that section. It's pointless to use examples in Wikipedia to illustrate that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is a better name. For every example that someone can find, there are counterexamples in Wikipedia. It also doesn't mean that one example is better than another. –panda 13:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This response I really don't understand, panda. It seems to me that we should look at WP precedents when trying decide whether to choose the awkward and unfamiliar official name or the easy but technically incorrect popular name. Noel's example is a very good one, and is true for most countries (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Islamic Republic of Iran, United States of Mexico, etc. etc.). If it is so easy to produce counterexamples, then it would be helpful if you could produce a few. --Anthon.Eff 18:27, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the counterexamples, panda. Some of them are very good, but arguably the gap between the awkwardness and unfamiliarity of the official name and the familiarity of the common name is less in your counterexamples than in the case we face here. But I do now appreciate your point, that precedent can take us in either direction, so precedent can only be used as a guide if we could survey all of WP and establish the preponderant tendency--which, of course, we can't do.
Let me address your last question. This seems to be a question that requires an essentialist answer, which is today an unfashionable approach, at least in the social sciences. The prize is awarded together with the other prizes, at the same ceremony, is of the same monetary value, with a medal of the same type, is known by almost the entire world as a Nobel prize, and will give its recipient Nobel-laureate status within any university. But it differs from the others in that it was not specified in the will of Alfred Nobel. For some people, perhaps especially those not fond of economists (see the comment at the top of the talk page), that is enough to disqualify it as a Nobel prize. For me, and most likely the vast majority of the folks who care at all (though I have no numbers), the fact that it was not specified in the will of Alfred Nobel is not enough to make its essence not a Nobel prize. I think of it as a Nobel prize. Essentialist answers are always subjective, and will just give information about the person who answers the question. --Anthon.Eff 21:45, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(1) I don't think there's anything awkward about the official title so it would be helpful if you stopped writing it as if everyone thought so. (2) Are you saying that you would prefer to ignore the facts and instead argue that "if it walks like a duck and talk like a duck, then it must be a duck?" IMHO, that kind of reasoning isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. –panda 05:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • panda, if you are really sure that the economics prize is not a Nobel prize, then I would suggest that you be bold and rewrite the Nobel Prize page, where you will find that the economics prize is treated like any other. If your edits are accepted there, it would lend some credibility to your assertions here. --Anthon.Eff 19:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per many of the above. This is the most common name which is the most easily recognized by the average reader. I'm certainly not an economist nor do I follow the Nobel prizes much but I would first think that I came upon the wrong page if I was searching for the prize that John Nash won and came upon the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. My second thought would be that it is needless advertisement for the Bank of Sweden much like the fact that we don't need to move the Fiesta Bowl to the Tostitos Fiesta Bowl just because that is how it "official known". AgneCheese/Wine 07:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: i couldn't agree more with the commercialism aspect. all of the administration is managed by nobel foundation. the bank of sweden is 'only' responsible for the initial endowment and gets its name prepended to the award for that reason alone. completely understanding that: 1) if there were no endowment, there would be no prize; 2) they can name their prize anything they wish, and 3) whether its commercialism or not has little to do with the naming of wiki artikels, i think agne27 makes a really good argument. --emerson7 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clarification "all of the administration is managed by nobel foundation" refers to the Nobel Prizes. The Prize in Economics is not administrated by the Nobel Foundation. See reply to Vision Thing (at top) and talk:Nobel Prize#Economics. If you mean the econ prize, please provide a reference. –panda 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Bank of Sweden is the national bank of Sweden. If any of those two organisations would be commercial, that'd be the Nobel foundation, as it a private legal entity.--Victor falk 20:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[ where national bank = central bank, i.e., the Bank of Sweden is a governmental agency that is responsible for the monetary policy of Sweden. –panda 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC) ][reply]
  • Support Both the Nobel foundation and the Bank of Sweden go to length to make it clear it is not a an original prize. "Nobal prize in economics" is a colloquial term, furthermore potentially misleading, making people believe it is one of the prizes intented by Alfred Nobel.--Victor falk 19:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support. WP:NC(CN)#Do not overdo it should supersede WP:NAME in this case. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is a misleading name that makes people believe it is a Nobel Prize by virtue of its name and association with the Nobel Prizes. Evidence of this can be seen in (1) Encyclopædia Britannica (2) Encarta (3) this survey -- at least 3 editors here (Vision Thing, Anthon.Eff, and emerson7) have (i) said they believe it is a Nobel Prize in this survey or (ii) implied that it is a Nobel Prize through insisting that the econ prize be called a Nobel Prize in the Nobel Prize article [11] [12] or by not removing the incorrect information. It is apparently insufficient to have the article explain that it is not a Nobel Prize as these editors, who have voted here, still believe it is a Nobel Prize. Wikipedia should help dispel the myth that the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize, not support it. (Evidence that it is not a Nobel Prize can be found at the bottom of Talk:Nobel Prize#Economics.) –panda 04:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do I have your logic correct: three users fail to agree with you, therefore the article needs to be changed so that they will agree with you? Are you also saying that WP should be involved in a campaign ("Wikipedia should help dispel the myth") to change the way that people view the Nobel prize in economics? The relevant policy here would be WP:NOT#ADVOCATE.--Anthon.Eff 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In case you haven't noticed, more than 3 users disagree with me. As stated above, I included you because you have stated in this survey that you believe it is a Nobel Prize, despite the text in the article and evidence that it isn't. "Nobel Prize in Economics" supports the POV that it is a Nobel Prize, so WP:NOT#ADVOCATE is another good reason why it should not be called "Nobel Prize in Economics". –panda 13:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come now, panda. It has all of the characteristics of a Nobel prize except one: it was not specified in the will of Alfred Nobel. Any argument about whether or not it really is a Nobel prize is an essentialist argument, and simply subjective. Do you really believe that you have a unique capacity to objectively assign things to specific categories? If you presented your "this Nobel is not a Nobel" thesis at my university, you would be refuted with howls of laughter.--Anthon.Eff 14:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Believe me, this hurts me -- it annoys me that this prize is known as a Nobel Prize when it isn't one; to me it's just a cheap-jack right-wing attempt to provide cachet for a prize in the pseudoscience of economics. (I mean, Milton Friedman? Please.) But that is my POV, and WP:NAME and WP:NC(CN) are perfectly clear: in naming articles, we use the name under which the article subject is best known in English. Here, that means the article is already correctly named and a move is not appropriate. The argument above that those pages "don't provide naming guidance where the name is in fact incorrect" misses the point: our naming conventions simply take no account of that eventuality, hewing to the principle I've just mentioned. Usability is favored over absolute accuracy. Also, while of course this is not conclusive, I get more than 10 times as many Ghits for Nobel Prize in economics as I do for Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. --Tkynerd 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)--Tkynerd 12:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Rename but leave a redirect from "Nobel prize in economics" since a lot of users will (wrongly) believe that this is the correct name. /Lokal_Profil 13:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose: for all of the points made in every previous unsuccessful proposal to rename.--emerson7 16:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - not because it's right, but because it's the common name as covered under WP:NAME and WP:NC(CN). This is not about what is correct, but about making the Wikipedia maximally useful. The lede whould make it clear that this isn't one of the prizes Nobel set up; but putting this under the technically correct name is quibbling of a petty sort, like putting Madonna (entertainer) under "Madonna Louise Ciccone Ritchie". --Orange Mike 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
  • Strong Oppose: primarily because it's the common name as covered under WP:NAME and WP:NC(CN), but also because it seems (and I hope I am wrong here) that a few individuals are using Wikipedia in some personal crusade against the economics prize. --Buldri 22:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Laureates

[edit]

Is there any understandable reason why the article does not provide a list of the laureates? Instead one finds all committee members of the last 40 years and every imaginable translation of its Swedish name to English. (Shouldn't someone add French or Chinese translations?) 130.83.197.163 (talk) 15:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality

[edit]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Sorry folks, I'm late about three years to this discussion. Anyway, I was wondering, if you want a shorter version for "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel", why not "Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel"? I think this is the minimum-change option. "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" reverses a few words and it could further be shortened by many readers to "Nobel Prize in Economics" when telling the news to the wifey. "Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel" clearly has a very different wording to the prizes Wikipedia was announcing on previous days: "Nobel Peace Prize", "Nobel Prize in Chemistry", "Nobel Prize in Medicine", etc. I think that the different wording of "Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel" has a higher chance of making the reader pause for a moment to think "Wait a minute, something is odd with this prize. I'll better check". Besides, the wording I'm proposing is only one character longer (not counting spaces) that the current one. Aldo L (talk) 02:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to change the articles title to the actual official name. It is highly misleading to call this prize a "Nobel prize" because it was neither sanctioned by Alfred Nobel, nor by the Nobel organization he created. This seems like a no-brainer guys. Wikipedia's policy on article titles says: "Ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined in reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources". Calling this a "Nobel Prize" of any sort is misleading and inaccurate. Fresheneesz (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this before, as you can see on this page. It is awarded today by the Nobel Committee, at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony, after the winners are selected by a committee of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, just as with all the other prizes. This name is not ambiguous. You claim that the name is misleading, because it wasn't established in Alfred Nobel's will. That's fine that you think that, but claiming that calling something awarded by the Nobel Committee at the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony a "Nobel Prize" is "misleading and inaccurate" is itself ridiculous.

Every time the prize is announced, a group of people get all fired up after someone tells them that it wasn't one of the original prizes, and that this somehow has any effect on its prestige, as though the prestige or legitimacy of the prize is derived from Nobel's will, as opposed to its completely undisputed association with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences and the Nobel Committee. These edits regarding the name of the prize are suggested not for clarity or to improve Wikipedia, but rather out of some strange problem with the field of economics. None of these people seem to have noticed that Wikipedia's policy on article titles also says: "Debating controversial titles is often unproductive, and there are many other ways to help improve Wikipedia." RaveX (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences/Archive_1&oldid=1092055494"