Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences/Archive 2

message: I think we would have less of our own controversy if we wrote about that controversy in the article. Thank you.--victor falk 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree!  I was about to start it myself but have been busy with real life.  :)  Good to see that you started it.  –panda 16:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, only Wikipedia editors (and a few others) think this is a problem. Having a large controversy section when in reality there is no controversy violates WP:UNDUE. /SvNH 19:30, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I removed this section along with other content which violates Wikipedia's policy on no original research or has no connection with this article. -- Vision  Thing -- 20:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there was no original research involved, I've replaced it.  It's simply facts that are all referenced.  If you dispute the facts, then please take it up with the organizations that have posted them.  If you are trying to hide facts to push a certain POV, then I would suggest that you please stop.  WP has an "absolute and non-negotiable" WP:NPOV policy that states "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)."  Also, please stop claiming that everything you don't like is original research -- consider reading the original research article. –panda 20:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." (from WP:UNDUE). As far as I know only a tiny fraction of the controversies around the prize has had anything to do with its name. /SvNH 22:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And what are you basing that comment on? –panda 23:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, for instance that Nationalencyklopedin (Swedish national encyclopaedia) mentions all the prizes in the article "Nobelpris", and simply calls the economy prize "ekonomipriset" meaning just that. No mention of naming controversies there. A quick look in Encyclopaedia Britannica (online version, "academic edition") gives the same impression. Swedish and German language Wikipedias don't make an issue of it, either. /SvNH 01:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The names listed are not controversial, they are facts about the prize.  Since this is the main article about the prize, they should be included.  If you dispute these facts, then please contact the organizations that have used those names.  Of course you won't find these names in the Swedish or German versions because they apply to the English name of the prize.  Another reason to include them is because they are excellent cross-references for anyone searching for information about the topic.  Please stop removing them just because you don't like them.  All of the information is referenced.  –panda 02:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "undue weight" part of the NPOV policy says that material should be included in proportion to its importance to the subject. In the sources I have given (and you cannot question the credibility of the first two of them) there are no signs that this "naming controversy" even exists. Why should Wikipedia differ significantly? /SvNH 02:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: ...and still, you have not shown that this is a controversy outside Wikipedia. /SvNH 11:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and I've already stated that it's not about a controversy -- they're simply facts. This isn't the only article in Wikipedia that has a section discussing the name of the article. –panda 14:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those facts are trivia irrelevant for the article's subject. -- Vision  Thing -- 17:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

text: As I said, those facts trivia irrelevant for the article's subject and you are giving them undue weight. -- Vision  Thing -- 18:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expand "History and name controversy"

message: Since I'm pretty sure my edit to the first paragraph will get removed from the article shortly, the Nobel Foundation does in fact state:
: "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."
–panda 05:07, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently no one cares about that since this is still an issue. I give up here. EconomicsGuy 14:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you said it so well before: "Someone here really needs to read WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT".  –panda 15:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize 

message: Personally, I support using the short term Nobel Prize in Economics, along with an elaboration of the name in the main article. The naming issue has been under continious review and a rather broad majority has repeatedly found the short form correct and relevant enough to be used in templates and articles covering the topic. For some reasons, not known to me, there are editors who, from time to time, are forcefully and with bad faith trying to change the established/agreed short form of the Nobel Prize in Economics in violation to agreements reached during the discussion. The editor's cause may be good, but they should inititate new votes, explaining their reasons, convincing other editors that they have a point - instead of fueling unproductive edit wars which don't lead anywhere. --Camptown 16:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've already stated on your talk page and one of the templates, there is no agreement about using "Nobel Prize in Economics" here.  All discussions here have ended with no consensus.  Your claim that there is a majority is false and misleading so please stop. –panda 17:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war 

message: This is a prize set up by the Swedish central bank.
It is not dispersed from Alfred Nobel's will.
"Unlike the physics, chemistry, medicine, literature, and peace prizes, a prize for economics was never requested by Alfred Nobel in his will. The award was established some 70 years after his death by the Bank of Sweden on its 300th anniversary in 1968."
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nobel_Prize_in_Economics&oldid=165444217#About_the_name
Isn't it funny how people (where are their IPs from?) keep wanting to remove this tiny little detail, as well as this one:
"The nickname "Nobel Prize in Economics" has been the issue of a lawsuit. In 2004, a book publisher was sued for stating that Amartya Sen was a Nobel Prize winner in the Bengali translation of a book by Sen. The petitioner claimed that "There is no Nobel Prize for economics. So it is wrong to describe Sen as a Nobel Prize winner."[41][42]"
LEt's look at the Nobel web site:
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/economics/nominators.html
"Nobel Prize in Physics <BR>
Nobel Prize in Chemistry <BR>
Nobel Prize in Medicine <BR>
Nobel Prize in Literature <BR>
Nobel Peace Prize <BR>
Prize in Economics<BR>
...
The Prize in Economics 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, Stockholm."
Oh wow!  The Nobel Prize foundation itself...must be communist.  Right?  Or perhaps those insults of yours, calling people communist, is in fact simply trying to shut down debate and create your own reality.
Hmm...do you see something different about the last "prize"?  I do.  THERE'S NO "NOBEL" IN FRONT OF IT!  So where does Wikipedia's interest lie, in promoting fact or revisionist history? 99.237.107.128 21:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Nobel Prize: A prize established by Alfred Nobel in his will.--victor falk 01:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: *Nobel Prize: A prize established by the Nobel Foundation.--SecretaryNotSure 01:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I really doubt there's anyone here that doesn't know this. Please assume good faith. The issue if vernacular usage v. factual accuracy. The latter does not always win on Wikipedia. At any rate, the article should state, as it usually does, that it's not "really" a Nobel Prize, but that English language sources commonly call it one anyway. Cool Hand Luke 02:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Precisely. We can't change the fact that it's rarely called that. We can note that's the official title, and we can note that many (most) reliable sources don't use it and prefer to call it the "Nobel Prize in Economics." The article can and must note these things. Cool Hand Luke 03:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: "The whole of my remaining realizable estate shall be dealt with in the following way: the capital, invested in safe securities by my executors, shall constitute a fund, the interest on which shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind. The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine; one part to the person who shall have produced in the field of literature the most outstanding work in an ideal direction; and one part to the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses. The prizes for physics and chemistry shall be awarded by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; that for physiology or medical works by the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm; that for literature by the Academy in Stockholm, and that for champions of peace by a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting. It is my express wish that in awarding the prizes no consideration be given to the nationality of the candidates, but that the most worthy shall receive the prize, whether he be Scandinavian or not." 
You see, Nobel DID say that is was supposed to be a fund to distribute the prizes (ie the Nobel Foundation), he DID say exactly who were to award the prizes (So, no, you cant give a "Nobel Prize" out of your basement). And he DID say how many prizes there were to be (five). The only thing in his will that is not kept, is that nowadays it is not the benefit from the previous year only, as that is impossible to adhere to.--Lensor 08:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right that it is not up to the Wikipedia to interpret the will (I included the section above just because you said there was fuzziness, which I dont agree with). Anyways, is the current version more or less acceptable? (I am talking about the revision by me, not the one by User:Liftarn. Even though that version is even more correct, I suppose it will never be agreed upon) It does say that the Nobel Foundation administers the prize, and even though they dont administer it to 100%, it is still an acceptable approximation. I dont think it should say that the foundation awards the prize, because they dont. Now it just says that it "is awarded", and then further down it is detailed exactly how the awarding process works. I still dont think it should say that the Nobel Foundation "established" the prize, as that is misleading and implies that the Nobel Foundation somehow out of the blue chose to "add" a prize. Not to mention that the Nobel Foundation webpage actually states that it was Sveriges Riksbank who "established" the prize. . I really dont want to diminish the honor of those awarded the prize (despite Anthon.Eff's snide communist remark above), but at the same time I think the article should be factually correct. It is doing noone any favours to be unclear about the name, nature or origin of the prize.--Lensor 11:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Add: I made two suggestions now. The first was revisions to SecretaryNotSure's version (removing some factual flaws), the other revisions to Liftarn's version (softening up the tone a bit). Both are acceptable to me.--Lensor 12:23, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You just noticed this? It has been like that since...forever. The exact timing of the awarding of the prizes is an extremely minor issue compared to which prizes are actually in the will to begin with. It is not possible to within one year know which discoveries will be of the most benefit to mankind (with the possible exeption of Peace, which actually often is awarded very close to the "deed"). It is possible to award the prizes in the subjects specified by the will. See the difference?--Lensor 13:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Not since forever, since 1895 :) Anyway, it's still a double standard, deciding ad hoc that some parts of the will are debatable and others are not. Anyway, I'll keep trying to stay away from the discussion (though it's not easy), as IMO not only the thread, but the whole discussion is in part ignited by trolling AdamSmithee 13:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, arent you the clever one ;). The thing is, it is not up to us here at Wikipedia to decide which parts of the will are "debatable", that decision has already been made in accordance with Swedish law by the Nobel Foundation, using the rationale I outlined above. They have already decided that it is within the bounds of the law to give the prize several years after the discovery (to be able to actually identify the important discoveries), and that it is not within the bounds of the law to add more prizes called "Nobel Prize in X". I agree that trolls are igniting the discussion needlessly, but as long as there is no consensus I dont see how not to continue the discussion.--Lensor 13:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we say that they disfavor the common English term "Nobel Prize in Economics." What's the problem here? Cool Hand Luke 14:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been trying to figure out the answer to that question for quite some time now. I think it all boils down to a) arguing for the sake of arguing and b) unwillingness to just accept the most simple and easy to source solution which is the one you just mentioned. EconomicsGuy 15:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not quite as simple as that. The first problem is that there are still editors who claim that the prize is a Nobel Prize, despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary. This is also why there is still a wild discussion, but that is almost besides the point of the article itself. The most important problem here is how to be factually correct in the article without "belittling" the laureates. It is a great honor to get the prize, no matter the name, and the article should reflect this. I actually think the current version does this quite well.--Lensor 15:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. That was my initial understanding of the situation before this became very confusing. Like you say, all evidence/reliable sources supports the fact that officially it isn't a Nobel prize. As long as we do not add our own belittling, politically motivated OR I don't think that's a problem because the table with all the different names it has been given pretty much speaks for itself. What I object to is using the article as a coatrack by turning it into an attack against neo-classical economics. That's actually my main concern here. EconomicsGuy 16:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HILARIOUS!  People keep ignoring that this was not set up in Nobel's will 

message: From the Nobel Foundation's website:
: Question: Sir, Why this Prize is not recognized as Nobel Prize in Economics? Does the Committee treat Economics as a field of basic science as they treat Physics, Chemistry and Medicine?
: Answer: The Nobel Prizes are only those that are specifically mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will (Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace). The Economics Prize came much later and is a prize in memory of Alfred Nobel. In all relevant respects the committee understands and treats economics as a field of science.
Thus, the Nobel Prizes are only the 5 mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will and the prize in economic is not a Nobel Prize.  Not to mention that the Nobel Foundation already has stated elsewhere that it is not a Nobel Prize, even though some editors here still want to deny this fact.  –panda 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of Nobel Prize 

message: This should really go in the Noble Prize article but since AdamSmithee commented about it here,  I'm writing the reply here.  Before the Nobel Foundation could be founded, certain "clarifications" were made, according to "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes" (relevant text is on pp 69-70 of the 3rd edition).  Some of these clarifications were (copied from the Nobel Foundation statues, Objects of the Foundation ; emphasis mine):
:§ 2.
:The "Academy in Stockholm," mentioned in the will, shall refer to the Swedish Academy.
:The term "literature" shall comprise not only belles-lettres but also other writings which, by virtue of their form and style, possess literary value.
:The duties devolving upon Karolinska Institutet under the will shall be performed by the Nobel Assembly of Karolinska Institutet.
:The provision in the will that the annual award of prizes shall be intended for works "during the preceding year" should be understood in the sense that the awards shall be made for the most recent achievements in the fields of culture referred to in the will and for older works only if their significance has not become apparent until recently.
The rest of the clarifications are in the statues.  If you're interested in this topic, I would recommend reading the statues or "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes". –panda 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarifications to Nobel's will 

message: I am really discouraged that this the same points are still being argued here and that the dispute has been continuing without interruption since the requested move. At this point, I think it might be a good idea to file a request for mediation, if the editors here are willing to accept it. Dekimasuよ! 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was advised to file a WP:RFC if the opposing parties didn't start talking with each other but it looks like everyone is doing so now.  So unless someone else thinks there is a need for a WP:RFM, it looks like that might be too hasty. –panda 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I was once participant in mediation and it was total waste of time. Mediator was of no use at all, and case was just closed due to inactivity. -- Vision  Thing -- 17:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggesting mediation 

message: * Support.  As stated on the template page, either Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics or Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences are fine with me.  If we're going to go by which one is more common, then it should be moved to Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.  As I stated in the template talk page, insisting on keeping the name at "Nobel Prize in Economics" (or moving to the longer official name) would indicate that you are only interested in continuing this edit war. –panda 02:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stating that the title must be changed, or else the edit war will continue, is the sort of reason why I suggested mediation. One possible outcome of the dispute (perhaps not a likely outcome) is that there will not be a consensus to move the page from that title. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: survey

message: I may have missed CoolHand Luke's rationale for prior change; unfortunately, it was changed to "Nobel prize in Economics" with no consensus for doing so.  "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" seems to be current consensus.  "Nobel Prize in Economics" is a misnomer and its inaccuracy should not be perpetuated by Wikipedia.  The "support" exceeds the lack of support for this change of name.  Authoritative reliable and verifiable sources in the text of the article and the official Nobel Foundation website and most news accounts support it.  I changed some of the links in Nobel Prize which had been altered without consensus to the proper names and links. --NYScholar 02:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted at Wikipedia:Requested moves, proposals are usually handled after five days (although there is a backlog at the moment). They fall to the bottom of the "other proposals" list and then someone uninvolved takes care of them. Dekimasuよ! 04:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks for reply; I had just returned to post that I was informed that "An admin will close the RM debate after 5 days" also in answer to the same question.  --NYScholar 04:25, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update: Consensus for Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences

message: That template (:Template:Lame) is literally a joke; it is not factually accurate: is there anything to verify that this particular article's editing war is among the "lamest" in the "history" of Wikipedia? Hard to believe.  See the message linked via the template (Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars): "This page contains material which is kept because it is considered humorous. It is not intended, nor should it be used, for any remotely serious purpose."  So why include it?  There may be a more accurate template; the talk header gives appropriate guidance.  If there is a more factually-accurate editing war template for a talk page, could you substitute that?  This one reeks of POV (a comment on people's views in the edit warring process [which some, lacking the requisite sense of humor, could take offense at]).  Some more serious warning would be warranted if one is really concerned about avoiding further edit warring (like this particular disagreement about the usefulness and viability of this "joke" template. ;-) ). --NYScholar 06:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:V doesn't apply to talk pages. Otherwise, we would have a hard time finding sources to rate the articles. Cool Hand Luke 07:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: The  template isn't that big of a deal.  The edit war about the title of this article is in fact listed in WP:LAME, and it's been referred to in a few of the previous threads here.  If you're having a bad day, it's a good page to read, especially the hilarious entries about the "Cat" and "Cow tipping" articles.  For some of the editors here, they could use the direct link...  –panda 07:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict): The article is only listed because this template is on its talk page. --NYScholar 07:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello, I'm the user who added this topic to WP:LAME, but as you can see I oppose the template. First, let me say that I don't mean that the topic is not serious or that the people discussing it are not serious. Seriously, I do have a position regarding the title of this article, but we can leave that for later. That said, I do think that if one looks at the debate from a distance, one can look at it humorously and wonder how such a long and sometimes visceral controversy can arise over the name of an article. Put in the context of WP:LAME, I thought it fit well with the other examples on the list, which often also involve serious and well-meaning disputes, but that seem to disproportionately long and bitter. However, I don't think adding a template to this page labeling it as a Lame War helps, but rather disrupts, because it insults the parties involved. Listing it at WP:LAME is different IMO, because that page is meant to be humorous, and read when one is in a mood for humor (I hope). --Itub 09:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Template?

message: A few months ago I sent an email to the people at Nobelprize.org and asked them what the official short name is (I couldnt be bothered to read or enter the heated debate above). Here is their late reply (I've replaced names with XXXX):
Dear XXXX,
Many appologies for the very late response to your question.
The official short name for The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic
Sciences in Memory of Alfred is The Prize in Economics.
Yours sincerely,
XXXX
Executive Editor
Nobelprize.org
Their official short name is hardly useful but it shows it should not be referred to as a Nobel prize. I can see the title has already been changed to "Nobel memorial..." so I hope this helps to keep it from being changed back to "Nobel prize...".  Albinth (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think we assumed that they disliked calling it a Nobel Prize. I hope this has been settled. See #Compromise move. Cool Hand Luke 20:20, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What Nobelprize.org say about the name...