Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)/nobel

message: Moved here from the Village Pump --Kevin Murray 23:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Struck out names of people nominated more than 50 years ago. —Doug Bell talk 12:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you check those against the Nobel Committee's official list of nominees?  Just because a nomination is claimed to have happened 50 years ago doesn't verify that it did.The Monster 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If the Nobel Committee are the only people who know the names of the nominees (and therefore the only way to get verifiable information regarding who the nominees are), then this is an obvious case of what's "impossible to verify", and therefore must go, per WP:V. --`/aksha 12:14, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, obviously I agree, but the subject is debated contentiously and separately at each bio, so I'm hoping a centralized discussion on this can establish a uniform consensus on the matter. —Doug Bell talk 12:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: On ones such as Al Gore and Rush Limbaugh, we do have published evidence that they were nominated, simply not by the Nobel committee.  As long as that fact is made clear in the articles, I fail to see the problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we have published claims that they were nominated.  Not the same thing as evidence. —Doug Bell talk 12:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This comes from a lack of understanding as to how the Nobel nomination process works, I think.  Regardless of one's knowledge of it, though, as long as the facts of the case (that it's been claimed by Such-and-Such that So-and-So was nominated or something similar) are presented accurately, there's no problem. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with mentioning Nobel Prize nomination rumors if they are clearly marked as rumors and there are multiple reliable sources that claim somebody was nominated. A similar example is "Christoph Cardinal Schönborn was considered a potential successor of John Paul II": there was considerable media speculation about all the people on the List of papabili in the 2005 papal conclave, but there are no records of the votes in the conclave itself, so we can't reliably say who the real candidates were other than "all cardinals". In any case, WP:V tells us not to say "John Doe was nominated for the Nobel Prize in Pathological Nanoarcheology" (which is unverifiable and unfalsifiable for 50 years), but "The New York Times claimed that John Doe was nominated for the ..., but that was neither confirmed nor denied by the Nobel Committee", which can be verified. These rumors are of course a lot less notable than a verified nomination would be, so unless they attracted considerable media attention, they should not be included. Kusma (討論) 12:50, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like others didn't have a complete understanding of how the nominations are made. So I would say that it now makes sense to remove the claim that they were nominated. However, if reliable sources such as The Globe and Mail report that Coutier and Gore were nominated then it should be mentioned in that way. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 13:12, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My two cents is that if an editor can provide a reliable source verifying that someone was nominated then the information should stay.  However, I can see the other side of the argument that we can't absolutely verify (with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) that a nomination actually happened until the Nobel Committee releases the name in fifty years.  However, I still go back to my original position.  However, I believe should apply the "clear and convincing evidence" standard. We talk on Wikipedia all the time about various movies or actors getting Oscar talk before the Osacar nominations are actually given.  We also talk about movies and actors being the leading contender after the nomination but before the actual announcement on Oscar night--as long as we have a reliable source to back up such speculation.  In the Oscar situation we can't absolutely verify any of this talk until the actual nominations are announced or the winner is announced.  But if we quote a reliable source, CNN, for example stating that "Clint Eastwood is the leading contender", then I don't see a problem.  Basically the Nobel candidates should be treated just as we do MVPs for sports or Presidential candidates in politics.  There has been much Wikipedian ink spilled on Barack Obama and Dr. Condi Rice, even though neither of them are President (yet).  I always err on the side of giving a reader more info than less, as long as it is verifiable with a reliable source, and then let the reader decide.----Getaway 13:44, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Having thought about this I re-did the entry for Sheila Watt-Cloutier. Would something like this be OK? CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:53, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is fine.  The statement as rewritten is verifiable. —Doug Bell talk 16:25, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Rumors aren't noteworthy, even if they are clearly marked as rumors. Rumors are often put out by PR departments. Including them amounts to giving people free publicity. They're (arguably) acceptable for news stories, but they have no place in an encyclopedia.  --MiguelMunoz 08:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text:  Yaksha writes "If the Nobel Committee are the only people who know the names of the nominees ... then this is an obvious case of what's "impossible to verify", and therefore must go" But they're not the only people who know. The people making the nomination also know, and are free to announce this. So much of this comes down to the credibility of the announcer. --MiguelMunoz 08:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think that nominations made by eligible parties as reported by reputable sources are OK for inclusion. I believe that those nominations which are submitted by ineligible parties but reported by reputable sources should either be excluded or included only with strong mention that the nomination is invalid or made by an ineligible party. Obviously, claims with no reputable sources should be excluded entirely. I take a neutral stance on whether they should be included or not as a general guideline. Vassyana 15:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: If a wikipedian is stating that the claim cannot be verified, that would be in direct conflict with verifiability and so not acceptable.  If a reliable source however can be *quoted* as stating that "...so and so says the claim cannot be verified..." that may pass.  If the claim is tied to reliable sources and by tied, I mean quoted from (which is typical in the case of controversial claims), that would probably be sufficient to assert the statement in the article. Wjhonson 17:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An example wording might be "Nobel Prize nominations are not released for 50 years and prior to their release the Nobel Committee neither confirms nor denies any claims of nominations."  That is a verifiable statement that puts the claim of a nomination in its proper context.  A reliable source, preferrably from the person or organization claiming to have made the nomination, would be needed to make the claim at all, but that source is not a verification that the nomination was in fact made.  That fact is not verifiable as the information is not released by the Nobel Committee and there is no other means of verifying the claim short of that. —Doug Bell talk 17:43, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: What cannot be verified is whether the Nobel Committee considered the nomination "legitimate".  What can be verified, and therefore included in an article is the organizations that claim to have nominated the person.  I believe that without such attribution, the statement "X has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize" is not verifiable, and therefore non-encyclopedic.  In contrast, "X was nominated by Y for the Nobel Peace Prize" with a link to the official statement by Y to that effect, is verifiable.  I don't think we need any specific disclaimer so much as the specific link I show here, which takes the reader to the page with the rules on it.The Monster 00:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I was one of the people who wanted it removed from the Al Gore article (actually for me the main problem was that it was being mentioned in the opening paragraph of the article). As others have said, the Nobel committee doesn't release who was nominated until 50 years later, and in their rules they discourage people from announcing their nominations. I ask this purely out of ignorance -- has anyone who has been previously announced as a nominee ever won? Evil Monkey - Hello 20:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Will are you sure that it's not a honour? A quick look at the nominators list and then at 39th Canadian Parliament, United Kingdom general election, 2005 and 110th United States Congress would indicate that in those three countries alone there are over 1000 possible nominators just from elected officials. Expand that world wide and include the other people who get nomination papers and that is indeed a vast pool. Yet this large group can't manage to come up with more than 200 nominations. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How in the world can we even guess at how many nominations there are?  Where are you getting the information on the number of nominations—since they don't tell us who was nominated, I'm surprised they would say how many...where? —Doug Bell talk 10:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we do know is that the Nobel committee, in their own words, send out "thousands" of invitations to nominate someone. Even with considerable overlaps of opinion, it stands to reason that hundreds of distinct people get nominated in each category each year. Thus I would argue that it is not a notable honor to be nominated, let alone to be rumored to be nominated. --mglg(talk) 19:02, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh I agree it's not notable.  I'm just thinking that the numbers are MUCH higher than several hundred.  Probably for exactly this type of "I've been nominated" self-promotion. —Doug Bell talk 19:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd have to search for the link, but the Nobel Committee announces the number of nominations received. In recent years it's been around 120. Among others, I've removed nomination claims from the article about a philanthropic car dealer from Ohio and a faith healing dietitian from Brazil. Since any national legislator, and any humanities professor may make a nomination, the only honor is that one person feels the nominee is worth nominating. -Will Beback · † · 20:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the Nobel Committee's page on the nomination process. They say they've been getting 140 nominations annually in recent years. -Will Beback · † · 20:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that Will already linked to the same place I got my info from. mglg, in this case we are talking only about the Peace prize and the links provided reflect that. Will, I would agree that if the persons only claim to notability is the nomination then not only should the claim be removed but the article on that person should be deleted as well. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:41, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Peace Prize has an entirely different nomination procedure from the other prizes, which have nominating committees composed of experts. -Will Beback · † · 22:12, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree there. If there is a conflict of interest in the nomination then the article should include it and point that out. Similar to the way that it's done already in the article. The reader can then draw their own conclusions as to the validity of the nomination. As to it being seen as "...acting like an arm of the Rush Limbaugh PR department.", it's a statment of a claim made by the fondation and not an endorsment of it by Wikipedia. In fact the inclusion of his and others "nominations" has an educational purpose. The reader can now find out how the Nobel nominations are made and that someone announcing it does not always make it so. I saw in the paper that Watt-Cloutier was nominted but not until this came up did I understand how the nominations work. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 10:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

message: If the mention of a nomination for a Nobel prize is mentioned in an article, the nominating body (institution, fan club... whatever) has to be identified under references  with pertinent information. All others will be deleted ASAP  AlfPhotoman 23:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other proposal