Talk:Ig Nobel Prize

message: I reverted the edit that removed "With the exception of three prizes in the first year... all Ig Nobel Prizes have been for genuine achievements." since this is accurate, in the sense that the people/organizations who have received the awards are real and actually did the things that the prize references, even though the Igs sometimes throw a negative spin on those achievements (e.g., jacques eneviste). The point is that three prizes in the first year were for completely made-up groups and activities. Perhaps the anonymous person who removed it called it "false" - perhaps he/she could edit the statement to ease their concerns? - DavidWBrooks 20:52, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Genuine achiebements" 

message: The Ig Nobel Prizes are a parody of the Nobel Prizes and are given each year in early fall — a week or two before the recipients of the genuine Nobel Prizes are announced.
This year, at least, some prizes (Physics) were announced before the Igs, but some (Economics) had not. Research needed.
::Could someone change the expression from fall/autumn for those of us living in the southern hemisphere?• Leon 05:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing 

message: The page on  Roy_Glauber says he has the title "Keeper of the Broom".  One of these pages has a mistake.
: You are quite correct: It's always been a broom, not a mop! I've changed it. - DavidWBrooks 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to . Can you point to a source? Zarniwoot 00:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Keeper of the Mop

message: I recall seeing a photograph of the proceedings (awards) with Sheldon Glashow on stage. And the award to Pons and Fleischmann for cold fusion. But I don't have a reference ...
I realize that I quote from memory, and I'm wrong about the date. But I know that Pons + Fleischmann won the Physics prize for Cold Fusion at the inaugural IgNobel awards ceremony. I see that in the list for 1991 there is no Physics prize, which is strange because physics is an obvious prize category. I believe the official record has been altered to drop P+F. Perhaps to avoid lawsuits. Check with Marc Abrahams? Oh well, that's life I suppose.
:I can't find anything to support this with google. It sounds unlikely. Maybe you are confusing it with  or the 1993 or 1997 cold fusion related prizes? Zarniwoot 01:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Recent vandalism. Fixed. Zarniwoot 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have now added them as "Not officially listed". Zarniwoot 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The 1991 physics prize seems to have been awarded to "Thomas Kyle", a fictitious person. See ,  and Administratium. Maybe it was later left out because he was made up? Btw, Please sign your comments. It just makes it easyer for everyone ;). Zarniwoot 23:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Most winners--especially those who are being "honored" for things they should not have done--are embarrassed by the prizes, but the occasional winner for an obscure or amusing, but genuine, scientific result cheerfully accepts and even attends the award ceremony.
because it doesn't seem to be true. Perhaps it has been in the past, but if you look at the list of the 2003 winners, all of them were represented at the ceremony, and most of them by themselves. There would be nice to have something on the reaction to winning this prize, though, so if somebody can elaborate better on it, please do. -- Jao 09:16, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

text: It depends.  I attended the 2001 Ig Ceremony and the Ig Lectures the day after.  Mr Andrade, the Indian psychologist, who won the prize for his paper on nose picking, was almost wetting himself with laughter during his lecture; Mr Malinauskus used the opportunity to promote his holiday park; and the van Impes with their unusual idea about Hell didn't show up.  Looking at the prizewinners from 1991 to today, since the Igs are known outside Harvard the focus has changed from mere pisstake to popularization of scientific and political issues -- see the Indian guy who was declared dead by corrupt officials in his country. -- Pilatus 23:48, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-topic? comments

message: Although the first public award ceremony was in 1991, the awards were first made in 1968 when the Annals of Improbable Research were still the Journal of Irreproducible results. See this page by Marc Abrahams: http://web.mit.edu/voodoo/www/is743/ignoble.html
Would someone like to update the page to reflect this?
Thanks, SP
Sophisticated penguin 16:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting! Marc Abrahams has never, that I've heard, mentioned this and it's not on later Web sites (that page is 13 years old). The JIR/AIR connection is, shall we say, complicated - so maybe a tad more probing is needed. - DavidWBrooks 20:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Start date of the awards

message: This talk page is a mess. Please reorg. Thanks. 85.227.226.235 (talk) 09:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  talk page layout 

message:  hopiakuta  Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message.  %7e%7e   Thank You. - 12:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed! Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so you can add anything you feel belongs without having to wait for anyone to do it for you. DMacks (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It does seem [[ ignobel]], [[ ignoble]], to [[ omit ]][[ Marc_Abrahams ]] on the primary page. 

message: Knowing the sort of folks who are attracted to the Ig Nobels, this could be some sort of group joke ... but different anon editors keep hot-linking Miss Sweety Poo, and I keep un-hot-linking it. This has continued for a long time, each time done by an anon IP who does that single edit and never anything else; none comments or tries to return the link. She's obviously not worthy of a link/article, so perhaps it's just part of a bizarre initiation ceremony into the Cult of the Abrahamas or something ... - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's a cult. Kill your lazy and create good article about Sweety Poo. --83.237.253.159 (talk) 14:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Kill your lazy" ... uh-oh, sounds like another Internet meme that I haven't heard of. And I only just caught up with "the cake is a lie"! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miss Sweety Poo 

message: In Swedish, IG is short for "icke godkänt", a grade in school similar to F, or fail.
This is true, but does it have anything to do with the naming of this prize? This sentence seems to imply that the prize was named with this in mind, but doesn't explicitly say so. It should either be clarified and sourced, or removed. /skagedal... 10:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly not relevant, as the grade did not exist in 1991 (back then, the scale was 1–5). Thanks for catching it, I'll remove it right away. -- Jao (talk) 13:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anyone doubts the wisdom of the above sensible decision - the clear derivation is from "ignoble", the opposite of "noble" (punning on "Nobel") - I'm sure the Swedish thing is entirely coincidental (assuming it is genuine, and not yet another Joke!). --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of Swedish meaning of "IG" 

message: Does anyone know anything about how ignobel winners are selected?
Is there a nomination procedure and a committee choosing from the nominees, and if so, who and how are people nominated? If not, are winners directly chosen by a committee or what?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBodor (talk • contribs) 18:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's done by a Secret Cabal that operates deep within the bowels of the Annals of Improbable Research headquarters ... meaning that it's not a public process, and presumably revolves around whatever Marc Abrahams thinks is funny. -DavidWBrooks (talk) 18:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are winners chosen? 

message: I looked at their website & here, but cannot find exactly what the prize consists of? A medal? Money? Both?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.8.150.6 (talk) 11:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a different trinket each year, usually a deliberately goofy-looking cheap trophy. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What, if anything, does the winners get? 

message: Does anyone out there think that this article could be expanded and raised to feature article status and considered for next year's April 1 featured article? IIRC, the last two April 1 articles were the Museum of Bad Art and Ima Hogg.
A thought.
Vulture19 (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  April 1, 2010? 

message: Andre Geim has just completed the Ig Nobel / Nobel double. Is he the first? Adpete (talk) 11:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ig Nobel / Nobel double 

message: The Ig Nobel ceremony was held in October, and the "genuine" Nobel in December. How could Roy Glauber have missed the Ig Nobel ceremony because "he was traveling to Stockholm to claim a genuine Nobel Prize in Physics"?--220.232.232.66 (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure, but this kind of lame excuse for not attending an "Ig Nobel" ceremony is par for the course. Not to be taken seriously (remember the whole thing is an elaborate joke). Even people who for some reason don't want to participate often joke about their reasons for not doing so. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 22:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Roy Glauber Missing 2005 Ig Nobel?

message: Please try to follow me here.... so 'IT' means information technology. 'DG' can mean either Dolche and Gabbana or dog. 'IG' therefore clearly means interesting giraffe, right?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowmoore (talk • contribs) 04:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  IG meaning 

message: The use of the word in this context is very much tongue-in-cheek. Most, if not quite all, of the so-called "achievements" mocked by the Ig Nobel prizes are considered (at least by the Ig Nobel people themselves) to be either brainlessly trivial and unnecessary, or else plain pernicious. Read the article if you don't believe me. Not quite what we usually mean by achievements (out of inverted commas). 
I have reverted you again - but it is NOT a matter I consider worth shedding any blood over (or even wasting an arbitrator's time over) - if you insist we leave off the inverted commas in this case then let them go - but they are of course perfectly correct in this context - and DO make the point that the article is echoing the ironical satire of the prizes themselves. Incidentally - what exactly are "scare quotes"? --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:23, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've had a look at the article for "scare quotes" - at least I know what you're talking about now - but the use for ironical purposes (what this use boils down to) is surely perfectly applicable? Never mind, whatever you think. It is really NOT that big a deal as far as I am concerned. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achievements or "Achievements" ??? 

message: "I do not know where the garbled, and totally inaccurate, impression that I ever said that British people should not accept the Ig Nobel Prize came from.
What I did say, at the time, when I happened to be the Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government and when the award of the Ig Nobel (which I must say I think is a brilliant idea and great fun) was rather thoughtlessly awarded to a Brit.  I forget what the actual topic was, but it ended up sparking questions in the UK Parliament and general worries and attacks on science funding as itself sponsoring silly projects.  It was a kind of re-run of earlier fusses there had been in the American Congress about “wasting money on foolish projects”.  
My suggestion to the sponsors of the Ig Nobel at that time was that they might be a bit more sensitive in thinking about possible consequences of the award upon the general scientific community and its funding, in particular instances."
Robert M May, 23 April 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmay514 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reception 

message: Editor Soundofmusicals asked me to explain the edit I made two days ago. It was about the stated aim of the prizes. The second sentence of this article was: The stated aim of the prizes is to "first make people laugh, and then make them think." However, the very first line of the Ig Nobel web site says: "The Ig Nobel Prizes honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think." Accordingly, I change the second sentence in this article to: The stated aim of the prizes is to "honor achievements that first make people laugh, and then make them think." 
I think there is an obious difference between a prize which makes people laugh and then think, and an achievement which accomplishes this. A side effect of the prizes may be that they also make people laugh (and think), but that is not the stated aim of the prizes.
Best regards, Bever (talk) 22:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'll pass that one! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aim of the prizes 

message: A "range" in a mathematical series or an alphabetic index has, as a recent editor quite rightly points out, is defined by the values between a low and high value. However, we often use the term "range" rather more loosely in other contexts, say "the curriculum at x. school ranges from cookery to calculus". Language is not (thankfully) always coldly logical. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 09:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Range"  

message: I noticed your reversion of my edit to this page, and hope that you reconsider.  Although not prohibited by the Manual of Style, one of my pet peeves is the use of such jargon abbreviations when they are not needed and unfamiliar to a general audience.  AIR might be used extensively by those who are specialists, or knowledgeable or familiar the Ig Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia is supposed to be for everybody, not a specialized group.  In this particular instance, it serves no purpose, such as to replace terminology that is repeated frequently throughout the article.  It's also unclear whether it's an abbreviation, an acronym, or an initialism - should it be said as the word "air" or as the initials "a.i.r."? - so it doesn't add anything to the article.  I have a science background but if I were writing about something published in a journal, I would never write, for example "the Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM)" just because an abbreviation can be or is used by insiders.  If the article were written for a book or newspaper, the editor would delete the term. Ira Leviton (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: AIR (aka Annals of Improbable Research) is a parody of scientific societies and their journals. The use of a catchy acronym is meant to be a humorous take-off of the widespread use of such things by more serious scientific (and other) organizations. Since "they" use the acronym (it is part of the joke) it is absolutely appropriate for an article about them to use it too. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:04, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right that use of acronyms can be off-putting and unnecessary, but this was a single usage supported by meaning - the article doesn't go on and use it as a stand-alone term - so I think it's fine. The annals uses AIR to refer to itself and as a frequent joke - e.g., AIRheads - adding to the reason to include it once. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 23:47, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acronym (AIR)