Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

message: I propose reinstating the multiple nationality flags, otherwise we're just going to end up with stupid edit wars with parochial POV editors who feel the need to acquire some personal status through their indirect relationship with Laureates such as Mr Modigliani, much like we're about to be subjected to with the Olympics, ugh. Per Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality, there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia on whether citizenship or nationality is preferred. Nonetheless, the information is factual and I can't think of any good reason why both pieces of factual information can't be included (ie Citizenship and Nationality). Personally, I don't find multiple flags next to one individual confusing, and for those that need it clarified one can always click-through to the Laureates 's main article. Debate 木 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My reasoning in trimming down the nationalities was this: There can be arguments about nationality. Just a for-instance, I came to it when I noticed that Vickrey was updated to be Canadian. He was born in Canada, and I have no knowledge of how much he considered himself of Canadian nationality. So, it's arguable. But there's a ready source which is the official web site, and that (to me) makes it clean and easy. My assumption is that the laureates or their proxies would object to a mis-record of their nationality by the official organization. Anyway, I might be wrong, but that's my reasoning. Cretog8 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You reasoning is sound, and an approach I broadly support in theory, which is why I didn't object to the earlier suggestion. Having seen the consequences in action, however, it seems to me the nationality of laureates is not an issue of exclusive interest to the subject and their preferences are not the only consideration for including nationality information. Like our mate Mr Modigliani, Italy is going to continue to claim him as its own regardless of his personal preferences and I'm not sure that we can strictly say that they are incorrect in doing this. In any case, I'm no longer so sure that we can truly infer his preferences one way or another from the Nobel website, which will have its own policies on the matter - if it is exclusively based on citizenship then we do know that people take on US citizenship for many reasons, sometimes related to funding and career opportunities or international politics rather than any specific statement of loyalty. Loyalties can also be mixed, especially for immigrant communities. Ideally we would have separate columns for birth and citizenship, nationality being a relatively problematic term to define (see Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality as above), however that would just make the table unnecessarily complicated. P.S. nice to see you back working hard after your break. :) Debate 木 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality - New Proposal 

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

message: User:Hapsala has just moved this article from "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (NMPES) to "Nobel Prize in Economics" (NPE). The move log referred to a two year old discussion favoring NPE. The much shorter discussion which was one year old favored NMPES, which name the article has had since.
I think a move like this deserves discussion, so here it is.
For my preferences, I favor NPE as the name to use in other articles because it's pithy and well-known. I favor NMPES as the title for this article because it's more detailed and accurate. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good compromised and it basically what has been done for awhile. --Patrick (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: In addition to moving the page without discussing it first, user Hapsala keeps replacing the image of the Nobel committee at the top of the article with a picture of Robert Merton or one of Milton Friedman for unexplained reasons. Closest s/he came to offering an explanation was on my talk page; because s/he "doesn't care what you "think"". Other Nobel prize articles usually have the picture of the FIRST person to get the prize, which following that convention would mean that we'd have a pic of Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen. This would be 1) messy and 2) not really possible since a pic of Tinbergen is unavailable. So I don't see anything wrong with keeping the current committee photo. User Hapsala is at this point essentially engaging in vandalism, having been asked to provide a reason for the change and having refused to do so.radek (talk)
:Besides its practical dimension, the 1997 award is the only where an other scientist is mentioned by the Academy as a "contributor" to the research leading to the prize, yet uneligable to be awarded. The image of the 2008 press briefing was never "removed", so please consult the article before making more accusations. --Hapsala (talk) 22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So? What is "practical dimension"? Why are you the one deciding this? I don't see how the fact that they couldn't give one to Black in 97 is at all relevant to what the image should be. And that doesn't address why you originally put Friedman there. It basically just seems like you're insisting on putting "your favorite" in there.The image of the 2008 press briefing WAS removed from top of the article. If it's going to be an economist then it should be either the first persons (Tinbergen and Frisch) or the most recent recipient, Krugman. radek (talk) 22:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Practical, indeed, to millions of derivate traders around the world.... At the time of the award, the term "practial" was actually mentioned by the Academy, as the prize had been critisized for being too theoretical, elitistic, etc. --Hapsala (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, so what? Why is this supposed to be a criteria to include the picture at the top? And other prizes had "practical" implications for other people. Someone else can come along that in fact it should be, say, Harsanyi that deserves to be displayed so preeminently because his contributions are the most significant. And so on. It'd all be POV and it'd lead to unnecessary edit warring (as yours already has). First to get it, most recent one, or a general picture of the committee make way more sense.radek (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, stop trolling and behave yourself. --Hapsala (talk) 23:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't insult people. If you wish to try to justify your changes then please state some valid reasons.radek (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, you prove to be a dishonest editor, making requests for third party opinions, yet continuing your bad faith edit warring and spreading accusations about others. You have done very little to improve the quality of the article - which mostly deals with "critisizm" of the award. And from that perspective, your systematic vandalism certainly makes sense. --Hapsala (talk) 06:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

message: The title is incorrect and misleading, there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". There is a prize called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. I suggest the article is moved to either Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or simply Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize isn't a Nobel prize (one of Alfred Nobel's prizes), it's a Sveriges Riksbank prize and is completely unrelated to the Nobel Prizes, in the same way as the prize commonly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). GVU (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been argued previously, many, many times. Check the archives. The consensus/compromise was the current name.radek (talk) 21:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not interested in the archives. If you don't want to participate in the current discussion of the name of the article, then don't. The current title is the title of a nonexistent prize which does not belong in an encyclopedia. If the article is not moved, it has to be deleted. GVU (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not interested in the archives then please don't participate in the discussion as an uninformed person. The archives are there for a reason.radek (talk) 21:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus whatsoever, and even an alleged "consensus" can't change the fact that a prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" doesn't exist. A recent discussion is more relevant than old discussions. GVU (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This was a good compromise between the official title, which English sources hardly use (see WP:UE), and "Nobel Prize" which is quite misleading. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Except it's an invention of a new prize, as there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". GVU (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This dispute has consumed far too much time, and you're not saying anything remotely new. See WP:LAME, where this dispute is listed. Read the archives. If you have some new insight about the title, come back, but this is old ground. Cool Hand Luke 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you're not interested in taking part in the discussion, don't. Meanwhile this article will have to be moved or deleted. GVU (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really would like to see this put to a vote again. There is legitimate concern with continuing the claim it is a "Nobel Prize", as the usage of "Nobel Memorial Prize" suggests. It's controversial in academic circles and the prestige of a prize is key in it's importance. The Nobel holds a special place in people's hearts. There is a reason all the official correspondence from the Committee is clear to ALWAYS refer to it as a Bank of Sweden prize. Even the English-language website is called the "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." Because it's a controversial topic, because it changes the fundamental name of the prize, I'd like to see this page moved from NMPES to "Sveriges Riksbank Prize" or "Bank of Sweden Prize". The nobelprize.org website is very clear, all the "Nobel Prizes" are listed as "Nobel Prize in X" while the "Economics Prize" is never listed as a "Nobel..Prize". WP:CN clearly says NPOV should be a consideration and there is contention over the name, one need look no further than the "Controversies" section in this article. And there's more of course, there's quite a few angry PhDs (Google: "Nobel by association") and even people like Peter Nobel who take offense to it being called a Nobel Prize. I'd like to see Wikipedia use the official name, as a point of neutrality.   --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:13, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  As an extra little point.. website clearly says very clearly "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize." And I'm sorry but the statement "Nobel Memorial Prize" indicates that it IS a Nobel Prize. Clearly, there is pride, prestige in the title and the officials awarding the prize clearly think that it's not correct to call it a "Nobel Prize." For these reasons, I think that for NPOV reasons, this page should be renamed. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

text: Well, excuse me but we seem to have :Template:Sveriges Riksbank laureates in economics 2001–2025 but :Template:Nobel laureates in economics, :Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1969-1975, and :Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1976-2000?  Shouldn't all the templates be changed to reflect the new name change?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:56, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, or at least something consistent. Cool Hand Luke 00:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggest move to Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences 

message: No consensus to move. Note: The WP:COMMONNAME argument seems stronger. I looked up newspaper references as a sanity check and they uniformly refer to it as the nobel prize in economics. (c.f. and ). --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but you are suggesting we use a name which most readers are unfamiliar with or that most media outlets do not use. For a parallel, consider that The Heisman Trophy is actually the "Heisman Trophy Memorial Award" but since everybody calls it the Heisman Trophy, that's what the article title is.radek (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with that, but that's a different move proposal.radek (talk) 21:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

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

message: This prize is named differently in the infoboxes of different economists. For consistency name should be same in all of them, and in my opinion that name should be same as of this page. -- Vision  Thing -- 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the first point (the name should be the same for the various economists). I'm not sure if the name should be the same as the name of this page--I lean toward thinking that this page can afford a longer, "more correct" title, and that articles should simply use the most-recognized "Nobel prize in economics" nickname. I've thought that the best way to standardize the name is to make a template just for the name. The only problem with that is that the periodic naming wars would then take place via template editing. CRETOG8(t/c) 19:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have strong stance on what name should be used, so your proposal is fine by me. What kind of template did you plan to create? -- Vision  Thing -- 19:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infoboxes of economists 

message: This is getting crazy. The inclusion of NPE in the first sentence and the second sentence goes against the consensus against repetition we talked about yesterday (see above). We shouldn't have 4 names in the lead, it's terribly confusing, and against WP:LEAD. To summarize the four:
# Nobel Memorial Prize (NMPES)
# Nobel Prize (NPE)
# Sveriges Riksbank Prize (SRP)
# Swedish version of SRP (SSRP)
I think the 1st and 3rd are obviously needed, the title of the article for 1, and the official name for 3. The 4th I don't think is necessary, as I outlined above. But I don't think the 2nd one belongs either, we deal with that sufficiently name in the second sentence, and it's bolded and clear; it doesn't need to be repeated. The reason given by the editor isn't convincing, redirects from NPE would see the redirect notification and the NPE is clearly stated in the second sentence, it's already VERY clear and this repetitive nonsense is hampering readability. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my effort at accommodation. In the first sentence, we start with the article name, then the common name (it's the one everyone is looking for, so it belongs at the beginning). Then, in the next sentence, we introduce the official name. No repetition. Article name first. Common name second. Official name third. Seems the right order to me.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 19:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't like your edit and I'd appreciate if you'd self-revert it. I was under the impression that we talk, THEN CHANGE. So lets start with the points of agreement. Yes, NMP should be the first mention. However, we shouldn't split the names onto various sentences, WP:LEAD asks us to list synonyms at the start. Since we're only allowed 1 or 2 alternatives, I think the previous version was fine: include the official as an alternative and have the brief section dealing with the inaccurate common name second, as that is a summary of what is later included in the article. To include the common name we'd need to qualify it with an "inaccurately", the previous version avoided that problem. By removing the , which were, your revision is misleading in suggesting that it might be a Nobel Prize. So please, I'd prefer we settled on a content-neutral version here and then changed the page. I'd like to have someone else weigh in on the debate instead of you-and-I reverting back and forth. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 19:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have missed that part where WP:LEAD limits us to "1 or 2 alternatives"--you could speed things up if you provide a precise link. As for your suggestion that we put SRPESMAN as the first synonym--it's a name no one's heard, just like the name of the article (NMPES), and it doesn't clear up anything for the reader. Clarity requires the common name.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I provided the links in my revert comments, sorry. Two things about common names. First, it's terribly tied into the debate about the article name. WP:COMMONNAME suggests the article name should be the common one, and WP:NCON says "[if]...one or more English-language equivalents exists, use the most common English-language name", but then goes back and lists 3 objective standards: commonality, official title, and self-identification. The main problem is the current article name fails all 3, and it leaves us confused in picking alternatives. For commonality, Google English results give Sveriges Riksbank Prize 640K, Bank of Sweden Prize 900K, Nobel Memorial Prize 1600K, Nobel Prize in Economics 7200K (with an extra 1400K for Economic Sciences), so NPE wins. But official title is SRP and it is self-identified as SRP (or Bank of Sweden Prize in older announcements) or a shorter "Prize in Economics", with the assumption always being SRPrize, they never prefix it with Nobel. Second, I don't think we have a choice when it comes to synonyms, when we use an unofficial common name, such as Germany or Russia, we always go with official names as the alternative, when we go with official names like UK or Sodium Chloride we pick common names as the alternatives. I don't like relegating the common name to the second sentence, but it seems like the appropriate action in this case. With the current consensus on article title, we're forced to move it down, like in the other "Nobel Prize in XXXX" references such as in Abel Prize or Turing Award. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 22:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: First, you invoke WP:LEAD to buttress whatever edit you want to do, but when one scans WP:LEAD, your assertions simply aren't in there. Please prove me wrong. Second issue: you request that I "self-revert", you request that I discuss on the talk page before doing anything on the article, but these are rules that you apparently believe do not apply to your exalted self. Third issue: your username has what?--170 some edits??--but you certainly have more experience than those edits indicate. Who exactly are you? Fourth issue: you are not listening. The common name is the name that is known. Put it right after the compromise article name, a name that nobody knows, so that the reader knows that she is in the right place. Argue against that, please, rather than picking straw dogs and red herrings.--Anthon.Eff (talk) 01:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  What assertions from WP:LEAD? I didn't reference LEAD at all in my previous post. The last time I mentioned it was on listing synonyms and the quote is, under First sentence it says it should answer What (or who) is the subject? and then goes on to say When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms. The footnote then shows a listing of the common synonyms in the first sentence. Further down, under Alternate names it says either to include them in the first sentence per the title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses or the alternate names should be moved out of the first line and into a separate section. It seems we're in a world of 1) official name, 2) common name, not a situation that demands a separate discussion of names per Czech_Republic#Name or Palestine#Origin_of_Name or Iran#Name. That means we read the section under Alternate Names, Use in first sentence, along with the general advice on First sentence, which suggests minimal use of alternate names in the first sentence. On your second point, what? I didn't make any changes, a third user came in, I just corrected his grammar. Third, I am me; I'm not sockpuppetting, I sometimes forget to login, but when I do any non-minor edit, I make sure to login. Fourth, what strawman or red herring? I pointed out that this whole mess is complicated by the consensus choice of NMP as article name. If we had NPE, it'd be easy and if we had SRP it'd be easy. I don't think "user might be confused" is convincing at all. The common name is right there and bolded and explained properly. Are you seriously expecting me to believe we should trash readability, clarity conventions, and accuracy just because someone going to Nobel Prize in Economics would be confused by a redirect to Nobel Memorial Prize in Econ and then forgo reading 2 sentences of the lead section or going to the section called Relation to the Nobel Prize? No, I don't seriously believe that. The problem here is that NPE isn't just a "common name", but a one with some dispute behind it; that's the whole point of the second sentence. There are only 5 Nobel Prizes and this isn't one of them, that's a part of the article that we should (and do) summarize in the lead. That's the first thing this article jumps into, so lets let it do that. We don't need to hamper the first sentence with an extra name when we talk about it immediately afterwords. Also, your revision still persists with that misleading removal I mentioned prior. I'm going to edit to a version of User:Liftarn's version and revert it, so another third opinion can compare the versions. --kittyKAY4 (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

text: There is one. It is in the lead as it currently stands. When I proposed my compromise wording I didn't bother copying over the citations from the current lead, but I wasn't proposing to delete them.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names in the lead.  

message: While I think the summation above is very good, I am going to take the risk of proposing a third solution as a form of compromise:
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics even though it is not one of the five Nobel prizes established in Nobel's will, is awarded for outstanding contributions in the field of economics and considered one of the most prestigious awards in economics. 
That sentence is a little long but it gets all the alternative names into the first sentence without being misleading. I hope this helps.Rusty Cashman (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There is one. It is in the lead as it currently stands. When I proposed my compromise wording I didn't bother copying over the citations from the current lead, but I wasn't proposing to delete them.Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Third opinion

message: It can be that at this official page (given in the article as a source) the prize is called "the prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel" for 1973, but that same page links to this page, where the prize is titled "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1973", as it is at the top of the first page. Possibly, some of the different variants are just due to the use of different translators (assuming the original text is Swedish). 
All in all, the table given with different names looks like WP:Original research to me. Is there any source that discusses the different names? Classical geographer (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was called "The Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" in the 1973 press release-- the title at the tops of the pages is recent and irrelevant to anything other than the most current usage.  Regarding the possibility that the use of different translators is responsible for some of the variation, this is only speculation and therefore unfit for inclusion unless a reliable source can be found to support it.  As it is, I don't think it violates the OR policy, as policy allows for the use of primary sources, so long as only descriptive claims are made.  This is the case here; no interpretive claim is made in the article as to the reasons behind or the implications of the use of different English translations over time.
RaveX (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to concur with Classical geographer to a certain extent about the long list of names. Not so much that it is OR, but that a list of whatever abbreviated name was off-handedly used by a laureate is truly trivial; the list of official translations over the years isn't much better, as the official Swedish name has never changed. I am going to thin out that section, removing the second chart. I hope that prompts discussion of the first one as well.oknazevad (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: 1969 Jan Tinbergen:” the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics”
Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty, the King, the 1969 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1970 Paul A Samuelson: “an Alfred Nobel Memorial Awards in Economics”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty, the King, the 1970 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1971 Simon Kuznets: “a Nobel Memorial Prize”
Presentation: “….the Prize in Economic Science, created by the Bank of Sweden in memory of Alfred Nobel, and ask you to step down to receive it from the hands of His Majesty, the King.”
1972 John R. Hicks: “a Prize of the hands of a Prince”
Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Royal Highness the Crown Prince.”
1973 Vassily Leontief:
Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty The King the 1973 Prize in Economic Science in Honor of Alfred Nobel.”
1974 Friedrich August von Hayek: “the Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science….a Nobel Prize in economics” 
Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King the 1974 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1975 Tjalling C. Koopermans: “award for economics”
Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1976 Milton Friedman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”…”(I myself have been asked my opinion on everything from a cure for the common cold to the market value of a letter signed by John F. Kennedy. Needless to say, the attention is flattering, but also corrupting. Somehow, we badly need an antidote for both the inflated attention granted a Nobel Laureate in areas outside his competence and the inflated ego each of us is in so much danger of acquiring.”)
Presentation: “….is awarded the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics….receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.” (Due to the controversy and by decorum M Friedman made sure to get it right, and the presenter didn’t rub it in that it wasn’t a Nobel Prize.)
1977 James E. Meade: “award”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1977 Prize in Economic Sciences, dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1978 Herbert A. Simon: ” honor”
Presentation: “….the 1978 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences ….. receive your prize from His Majesty the King.”
1979 Theodore W. Schutz: “the Nobel Prize in Economics”
Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1980 Lawrence R. Klein: “the Prize in Economic Science”   (“The tax code in US…” This is interesting: You don’t have to pay taxes on certain prizes such as the Nobel Prize. So by the US tax authorities the Prize in Economic Science is a Nobel Prize.)
Presentation: “    the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1981 James Tobin: “the Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1981 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1982 George J. Stiegler: “the award”
Presentation: “this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences…..your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1983 Gerard Debreu: “the dazzling recognition”
Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1984 Richard Stone: “Prize in Economics”   ( “… I want to thank BoS for adding to the other Nobel Prizes this one.”)
Presentation: “….this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences….your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1985 Franco Modigliani: “award”
Presentation: 
1986 James M. Buchanan Jr.:
Presentation:
1987 Robert M. Solow: “this Prize”   (...asked to solve the economical problems of US, Norway, Sweden….”)
Presentation: “….your Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1988 Maurice Allais: “le Prix Nobel d'Economie”
Presentation:
1989 Tryggve Haavelmo: “this particular Prize”
Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King, the 1989 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.”
1990 Harry M. Markowitz: “this award”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1990 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1991 Ronald H. Coase: “the honour    the recognition”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, this year's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1992 Gary S. Becker: “the superb honor    This Prize”
Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, the 1992 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1993 DouglassC. North: “This prize”
Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1994 John C. Harsanyi: “the Nobel memorial Prize”
Presentation: “….your Prizes from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1995 Robert E. Lucas Jr.: “Nobel Prize in Economics”
Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1996 James A. Mirrlees: “The Nobel Prizes    a prize”
Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1997 Robert C. Merton: “this ultimate honour”
Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1998 Amartya Sen:---
Presentation: ”…. the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1999 Robert A. Mundell:---
Presentation: ” ”…. the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2000 Daniel McFadden:---
Presentation: ”…. your Prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2001 Geogg A. Akerlof: ”the prize”
Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2002 Vernon L. Smith: “the economics award”
Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty, the King.”
2003 Clive W. J. Granger:
Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2004 Edward C. Prescott: “this award”
Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2005 Robert J. Aumann: “this recognition”
Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2006 Edmund S. Phelps: “the Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel”
Presentation: “….your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
2007 Eric S. Maskin: “Economics Prize”
Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2008 Paul Krugman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences”
Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2009 Oliver E. Williamson: “the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel” (sic)
Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2010 Dale T. Mortensen: “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”
Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2011 Thomas J. Sargent, Christopher A. Sims: “My good and dear friend Chris Sims and I thank you for recognizing…
Presentation:“…your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
And finally the one economist to actually receive a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of economics (Nobel Lecture, Oslo City Hall)
2006 Muhammad Yunus: “the Nobel Peace Prize”
Presentation: ---
To sum up: three (3) recipients themselves claimed they got a Nobel Prize.
source: nobelprize.org  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelele (talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which economist got a Nobel Prize according to himself? (Banquet speeches) And how were the prizes presented? 

message: The part of the creation of the prize misses the fact that the statue of the foundation was changed by the swedish goverment at the same time. The will is specific on the point that only one person can recive the price. During the 60ies the Nobel commities started to notice that most discoveries where made by several persons. Somebody with a good library in Sweden should research the topic and add a section to the article about it. 81.170.188.5 (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The creation of the prize 

message: This edit:   reverted a change that I made in an effort to neutralize the presentation on ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, I considered the adding of "only" and the italic "not" to be MOS:OPED. The numbers (60% US; 2 non-European-American; and 4 non-N. American/West Europe) speak for themselves, and the added descriptions to the comparisons (along with the edit summary) seek to assert a point. With WP:BRD in mind, I open the topic for discussion. – S. Rich (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethnic backgrounds? 

message: The current naming of the article is a political choice, even if it is not desired, and has thus to me changed. All wikipedia articles about countries and states follow their official names, even if these states are known by most known words.. It is only needed to redirect and notice the other names known to refer to them (in this case "Nobel prize of economy", even if it is a wrong naming..). I cannot see why it should be different with this article, more over, in the other  languages wikipedia articles, the given name is the official one "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT, IT IS REALLY A SHAME. Likemonkeys (talk) 15:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonsense. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. You're analogy to countries is blatantly incorrect; the article is at Germany, not Federal Republic of Germany (or Bundesrepublik Deutschland for that matter). You start with an incorrect basis. oknazevad (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK maybe I did not express myself properly. The wikipedia article about Germany is about the country and the society in general, not about the state. The article about the state is indeed well named Federal Republic of Germany (and even if it was not the case, I think it would be a mistake). Anyway, I should not have used this example to argue for the renaming of this article, so nevermind. But I persist, we have to change the name of this article! We follow WP:COMMONNAME so let's apply it: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others." Likemonkeys (talk) 11:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Federal Republic of Germany is a redirect to Germany, because the article is about the modern country, and covers its political structures, as well as its history and culture. It's just that the common name of the modern country is "Germany", just as that was the common name of the predecessor states. That follows our policy on common names and primary topics. Seems you don't really know the policies as well as you think, so don't shout how we must do something (which is what writing in all capitals is). It's rude. oknazevad (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Google search shows that people usually use the term "Nobel Prize in Economics".  We should follow WP:COMMONNAME, so this article should be called Nobel Prize in Economics, which is what it is called by people most of the time. More relevant is what does the scholarly community call it? We can look at google scholar: "nobel prize in economics" vs "nobel memorial prize in economic sciences" Scholars overwhelmingly call it the "Nobel Prize in Economics". So we should follow the majority of scholars and call it the "Nobel Prize in Economics". FurrySings (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

text:  Sorry for having being rude maybe. I hear what you say: ths subject is much more reffered as to "Nobel Prize in Economics". But in WP:COMMONNAME that we follow, this is also written: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.". As the current name is not neutral, according to many people (people having already asked for renaming, different articles on the internet..), I insist that we should change it, and use redirections for the more known other names..  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemonkeys (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  This naming makes Wikipedia commited politically. 

message: Ronald Coase is described in the article as a heterodox economist. I don't think anyone can reasonably call Coase or New Institutional Economics generally heterodox. This should be removed.86.183.247.6 (talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quite commonly called heterodox. You can also look at Oliver Williamson's various publications where he takes issue with Chicago School "orthodoxy". ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   I just added a dubious tag because the article for New institutional economics does not describe it as heterodox. Benjamin (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ronald Coase 

message: The prize in question is unquestionably a political prize free riding on the good reputation of the actual Nobel prizes. Wikipedia has been coerced into taking a political standpoint by using the current name. I don't believe anyone in good faith can claim that this title is NPOV.
Those who have created this prize and those who support its politics have deliberately confused the issue in the media. This confusion is supposedly the reason it must be named something other than what it's actually called, furthering the confusion.
The official English name of this prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Unquestionably (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bizarre article name 

message: Here it is: 
This article contains utter nonsense like "Yet for a long time some economists have, in spite of everything, undertaken “experiments”.  It was not, however, until 2003 that the profession took a little interest in this kind of approach (Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith)."
The Nobel is awarded largely for work that has withstood the test of time. Interest in experimental economics was widespread before 2003. We've got a "journal" here called "Post-autistic economics." I have to wonder if this is much better than a Galileo Gambit group blog that happens to feature a more formal, scholarly style. Yakushima (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PRESERVE]] compliance on a questionable citation 

message: Read the section, "Spreading information about the Nobel Prize."  The Foundation is clearly vested in protecting the use of the term. Yet it has not moved legally against the Bank of Sweden for its use of what is clearly a trademark of the Foundation, in all the years since the econ Nobel was established. Surely, the legal owner of the trademark "Nobel Prize" is the final arbiter of improper use? Yet on their own website, they treat the econ Nobel as close to equally as they can under the limiting terms of Alfred Nobel's will. If they don't have a "correctness" issue with "Nobel Prize in Economics", why should anyone else? Yakushima (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that point: the prize was established with a donation from the Bank of Sweden to the Nobel Foundation. So it's not as if the bank went off and created a Nobel Prize without consulting with the Foundation. Yakushima (talk) 08:08, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  WP:BOLD edits since made in accordance. Yakushima (talk) 08:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It is erroneous that this prize is referred to as a Nobel Prize, even though it is commonly designated as such in print and in conversation. Analogous to this is the way people use the term light-year colloquially as a measure of time, as in "I haven't seen her in light-years!," when in actuality it is a measure of distance. Just because something is stated incorrectly by large numbers of people does not make it correct. Just because the Nobel Foundation has not sued does not make the statement of the Economics Memorial Prize as being a Nobel Prize correct, unless of course you believe that the litmus test of what is and is not the truth is whether or not a lawsuit is involved, and just because the Bank of Sweden bought its way into a "Nobel Prize" with a generous donation does not make the designation accurate, either. PJtP (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Nobel Foundation, owner of the the tradename "Nobel Prize", refers to the economics prize as a "category of the Nobel Prize" on its own website. See the citations I added. You are welcome to go argue with the owner of the term, who must certainly understand its legal definition better than any of us here. Yakushima (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Interesting points that you made. Now, the Nobel Foundation states on their website "The prize in economic sciences is not a Nobel Prize." If today you still think that the Nobel Foundation is an important authority as to whether something is to be called a Nobel Prize or not, this is an argument against calling it one. --2A02:8071:195:2C00:0:0:0:FAF3 (talk) 12:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Nobel Foundation obviously approves of calling the econ Nobel a Nobel Prize(®) 

message: I would like to revisit the matter of the title of this article.
Likemonkeys gave a perfect policy interpretation of the balance to find between common name and neutrality. Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is commonly used in every official publication or specialized article and assuch qualifies as a common name.
"But in WP:COMMONNAME that we follow, this is also written: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.". As the current name is not neutral, according to many people (people having already asked for renaming, different articles on the internet..), I insist that we should change it, and use redirections for the more known other names.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemonkeys (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename the article 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061008021033/http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/awards/nobel/economy/nomination.asp to http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/awards/nobel/economy/nomination.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071114222806/http://www.kva.se:80/KVA_Root/eng/_news/detail.asp?NewsId=988 to http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/_news/detail.asp?NewsId=988
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061008013935/http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/awards/nobel/economy/index.asp to http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/awards/nobel/economy/index.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080504225908/http://www.kva.se:80/KVA_Root/eng/about/members/index.asp?br=ns&ver=6up to http://www.kva.se/KVA_Root/eng/about/members/index.asp?br=ns&ver=6up
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604155708/http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html to http://nobelprize.org/alfred_nobel/will/short_testamente.html
*Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5EsureXKk to http://nobelprize.org
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: If we are going to follow the Nobel Foundation's lead that this prize is not a Nobel Prize, then we cannot refer to the "other Nobel Prizes" as that is logically inconsistent. If the prizes in literature, physics, etc are the "other" Nobels, that means (by the nature of the English language) that this prize is also a Nobel Prize. --Khajidha (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "other" Nobel Prizes 

message: The lede says "Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony". That is clearly not true, because the Peace prize has a different ceremony (in Oslo not Stockholm) and is misleading (evidence: one of my friends reading it was misled). The source (Britannica) doesn't say quite this, it refers to a ceremony which, I assume the other Nobel Prizes are awarded at. I can't think of how to work the lede better to make this clear. Also, Britannica does not seem like the best of sources here surely? Francis Davey (talk) 21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "same ceremony" 

message: The following assertion in the introduction:
"While it is not one of the original Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is generally regarded and often referred to as the Nobel award for Economics."
cites https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/ as evidence to back up its claim.
But "Nobel award for Economics" does not even appear on that page and actually says it is "Not a Nobel Prize":
"Not a Nobel Prize
The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) instituted “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, and it has since been awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901. The first Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969."
The actual names used are "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and "Prize in Economic Sciences".
If there is a mistaken common name, it is Nobel Prize in Economics. The article should say something like: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize, although it is commonly mistakenly called Nobel Prize in Economics.
The current name of the article "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" seems to be made up by Wikipedia editors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.60.240 (talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, good source. At the least, I would suggest changing the current phrase "Although not technically a Nobel Prize" to "Although explicitly not a Nobel Prize", with a reference to this webpage. The reason for this is that one should not make this distinction appear as a mere technicality, e.g. based on hair-splitting legal considerations, when the awarding institution itself makes that point explicit. --2A02:8071:195:2C00:0:0:0:FAF3 (talk) 12:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not a Nobel Prize"