Talk:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  good 

message: 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)
thread_title: Universities trying to boost their reputation

message: 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)
thread_title: Unconvinced

message: 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)
thread_title:  History category 

message: 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
* Support per nom -- Vision Thing -- 13:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: 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"====
*Nobel ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey pt. 2

message: *Nobel ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Alfred Nobel" vs. "Nobel"

message: *Memorial Prize ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Memorial Prize" vs. "Prize"

message: *Economic Sciences see Medicine, also the scope of the prize has changed to include other social sciences ~ trialsanderrors 18:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "in Economic Sciences" vs. "in Economics"

message: 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)
replies: text: Still no citation, no effort to show notability, removing it. --RaiderAspect 05:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Peter Nobel 

message: 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)
replies: text: After a brief look through the history, it was changed here, citing WP:OR. AdamSmithee 08:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: 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)
thread_title:  Country 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Controversies and criticisms 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RFC: Country – ambiguous or not 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists|RFC: Country data in Nobel lists]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Laureates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Nationality