Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Backwards List

Why does the list run backwards? -- Tarquin

  • yeah, I was wondering that too... won't it be better if 2000's was on top? - Fiveless 13:19, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'd be nice to add the nationality of those people :-) - it is a basic information, though. --213.199.192.226 18:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I've added in the nationalities, i'm planning on adding stats at the bottom and possibly reformatting it later. --24.107.188.94 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)Lemonysam 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


It looks like there's vandalism on the page. Did Hitler really win a Nobel prize in 1939? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.48.13 (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

backwards

Yeah, descending would be much better than ascending. Put the most recent awards on top. --Michiel Sikma 17:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think it's subject to debate which is more appropriate, but, either way, all 5 lists would have to be reformatted if we were to decide on the other format. Talk about Big-O... EunuchOmerta 03:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The other articles for Nobel Prize Laureates are listed differently (decade by decade). There probably should be a uniform type of organization.

  • Personally i dislike the broken up tables format and the current ordering fits in with those of the other articles so i don't think it's necessary to change it Lemonysam 15:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

2001 B.Sharpless did not developed oxidation process, it was epoxidation!! Luis

Nobel Prize in Chemistry 2006 prediction

It would be nice if the Wiki community would be able to predict the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 2006 (still several months to go), so if you think you know who will win, why not start a short bio and start an article on relevant research. Just an idea. V8rik 22:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The Thomson 2006 shortlist (biochemical people not included): James Fraser Stoddart, Seiji Shinkai, George M. Whitesides, Kyriacos Costa Nicolaou, David A. Evans, Steven V. Ley and Tobin J. Marks see [1]

V8rik 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

links

I've tried to make the subject links more relevant, but there is difficulty with the extremely broad wording of some of the prize statements (and the nature of some of the WP articles.) DGG 02:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reformat

I think the format of the list of winners on the Nobel Prize in Economics is much better then this one. I would suggest a reformat for readability. Goodolclint 19:45, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

What is meant by nation?

The table lists the "nation" for each recipient. What does this mean?

  • nationality at birth
  • nationality at death (or current for living people)
  • nationality at the time of the award
  • nationality at the time of the research
  • nation where the research was conducted
  • nation where the recipient resided at the time of the award
  • nation where the recipient died or lives currently
  • etc...

It gets even more complicated when people have multiple nationalities. Perhaps the easy solution is just to copy the nation listed by nobelprize.org. In that case, there is at least one error in the table (Mario Molina). Itub 13:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Another discrepancy between this table and the one at nobelprize.org is Marie Curie. Itub 14:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Sortable table & nationalities

For the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, I changed the table into a sortable table and added a paragraph explaining the flags associated with each laureate's nationality. (As Itub pointed out, the country column is ambiguous.) The advantage of the sortable table is that it allows people to see the list from last to first, which has been a long-standing request. Someone may want to consider modifying the table on this page to something similar. panda 15:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Better not include nationality: it is nationalistic and an open invitation to heavy edit wars see for instance Vladimir Prelog. What Nobel prize winners seem have in common is their disregard for nationality, you see them move countries several times during their careers and in that sense they are true global citizens. Why not include other data in the table for instance the age of the winners when they received the award or gender or if you really have to place of birth (nations come and go but places tend to last) V8rik 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
You're welcome to add age, gender, and whatever else you may find interesting to the table -- it's just a lot of work since you have to add it for everyone in the table. The names of cities/towns can change throughout its history and you would need to research & include the name changes. But if you'd like to add that info, go for it. Regarding nationality, I meant someone's country of citizenship. Nationality and country of citizenship are not really the same thing -- countries change but nationalities/ethnicities may not. In the case of Vladimir Prelog, according to his autobiography on the Nobel website, his countries of citizenships would be Austria-Hungary, Yugoslavia (1918), and Switzerland (1959). This should avoid edit wars about whether or not he was Croatian -- he can be Croatian even if he was never a citizen of the country of Croatia. For examples of laureates with multiple citizenships, take a look at the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. panda 05:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No I was not volunteering for work just offering a suggestion. I like to focus on the underlying chemistry connected with nobel prizes The femtosecond spectroscopy article for the 1999 Nobel prize still needs to be written! Are wikipedians incompetent or was the award a big mistake!. City names rarely change! (exception: stalingrad, Peking). Why is Bernard Katz (1970) in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine listed with country of citizenship Nazi Germany (complete with swastika flag)! Being born in 1911 why not throw in the German Empire and the Weimar republic? he was born in Leipzig and Leipzig still exists so that would be a safe choice. V8rik 20:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the other items you would like added to the table or changed in Wikipedia, it may be more helpful to create your own "wish list" subsection on this talk page since those who may be interested in making those changes may not read this tread. As stated previously, there is "a paragraph explaining the flags associated with each laureate's nationality" in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine. If you still do not understand why a flag was chosen after reading the paragraph, please let me know which part of the paragraph you did not understand so that I can update it. Thanks! panda 21:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Herbert Brown

Why is HC Brown listed as United Kingdom? I'm holding off on editing the article until someone knows for sure, but he did all his Nobel related work in the United States. Having the list organized by nation of birth doesn't really make sense, does it? EagleFalconn 03:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It was probably a mistake by someone. Has been updated. panda 03:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Country of record

this article (Nobel Prize in Chemistry) is about the award ~not~ the laureate per se. the country is and should be the country of record as reported by the Nobel Foundation at the time conferred. otherwise, relative to this article, the column has no real meaning. --emerson7 | Talk 18:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The "Country" column currently has no meaning and your insistence that it remain so is unfounded. The Nobel Foundation only states "Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award." It doesn't state what the country means, and as stated previously by Itub on this talk page, it is not clear what it is for. Please take the time to read what others have commented on this before taking a stand on something that you don't appear to have a good understanding of. I can give multiple examples of how the country has an ambiguous meaning (country of citizenship, country of residence, and a country that has no relationship to the time of the award), one of which is already mentioned on your talk page. panda 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
i don't see how you can read something, and completely ignore the contents thereof. "Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award." that's really completely self-explanatory. were we to follow your logic, 'country' should be eliminated altoghter as it is otherwise irrelevant to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am attempting to clarify what the country column means in this article, not to remove it.
  • The Nobel sites makes no claim as to what the country means, it only states place at the time of the award. What does the place mean then? Country of residence?
  • You have already written on my talk page "i would presume Country is laureates nationality at the time of award", which I've already shown is incorrect on your talk page.
  • Itub has on this talk page given several interpretations for what the country can mean, in addition to examples of errors in the Nobel site's info.
What additional evidence do you need to understand that the country column in this article and the country info on the Nobel site is ambiguous? If you let me know, I'll provide the evidence.
–panda 21:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Country – ambiguous or not

There is currently a dispute about whether the country column in the table of this article (and related tables in the Nobel Prize articles) and the country info on the Nobel Foundation website is: (1) not ambiguous or (2) ambiguous.

Statements demonstrating that "country" is not ambiguous:

  • Emerson7 states "Country is laureates nationality at the time of award as indicated on the website." Rationale is "the nobel site indicates 'Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award.'" (contributed at 23:54, 29 August 2007 and 02:02, 30 August 2007 on my talk page)

Statements demonstrating that "country" is ambiguous in the Wikipedia Nobel Prize articles:

  • Talk:Nobel Prize in Physics#Otto Stern also has a question about what the flag/country means: "What do the flags in front of the winners names mean? Are they the current flag in the contry where the scientist is living?" (contributed by 84.140.149.198 10:48, 23 June 2007)
  • Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Country also has a question about what the country means: "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?" (contributed by Canking 19:33, 20 April 2007)

Statements demonstrating that "country" is ambiguous on the Nobel site. As a reminder, the Nobel site states "Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award." (See the bottom of [2], for example)

  • Evidence that "country" means country of citizenship: See the majority of the entries. This may also just be coincidence as most people lived in the country that they were citizens of at the time of the award.
  • Evidence that "country" means country of residence: The Nobel website gives Canada as the country for John James Richard Macleod (1923).[3] He lived in Canada at the time of the award but Canadians claim that he is not Canadian. (From the University of Toronto news: "In October 1923, it was announced that Banting and Macleod had been awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. Banting was incensed that he was to share the prize with Macleod and not with Best, and had to be dissuaded from turning it down. He was the first Canadian to win a Nobel prize."[4])
  • Evidence that "country" means country of (citizenship at) birth: The Nobel website gives Austria as the country for Bertha von Suttner (1905).[5] Bertha von Suttner was born in the Austrian Empire and at the time of the award (1905), Austria did not exist. Instead, it was known as Austria-Hungary or The Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Suggestion: Clarify what is meant by "Country" in the Nobel Prize tables by instead using the label "Country of Citizenship".

–panda 15:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

indeed, my original assumption was based on the halve-dozen or so sample i took from the list. it's apparent to me know that 'country' is most likely an indicator where the work was done. either way, the 'suggestion' you make to arbitrarily use country of citizenship is inappropriate in 'this' article. as i indicated early, this article is 'not' about the individual laureates, but the award. the country as given by the nobel foundation, whether ambiguous or not, is part of their official citation. to simply ignore it is rather silly, but to put redefine, or substitute one's own idea what should be there instead, is akin to academic dishonesty. if the nobel foundation citation is indeed, itself ambiguous, it is not up to wikipaedia to disambiguate the citation for them. it should be reported as it is however ambiguous it may be. --emerson7 | Talk 21:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment - I see two solutions: 1) remove the column from the table; or 2) call it "country" and add a footnote stating "this is the country listed by nobelprize.org, and it refers to the time of the award" (and of course, make sure that our list matches the official one). Doing our own research and judgment about what the True Country for a person is violates WP:OR. --Itub 09:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding someone's country of citizenship based on another source is not WP:OR. WP:OR states "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. ... Material that counts as 'original research' within the meaning of this policy is material for which no reliable source can be found and which is therefore believed to be the original thought of the Wikipedian who added it." Citizenship can be found in other published, reliable sources and references can be given.
The question is whether the country info should remain ambiguous or not. If it should remain ambiguous, then all of the Nobel pages should be affected by this decision, not just this article. Furthermore, you then have a question about what flag to include or to remove all flags altogether as several laureates are listed with a country that didn't exist at the time of the award (which doesn't make any sense as the Nobel site states "Titles, data and places given above refer to the time of the award.")
The main problem with all of the Nobel articles is that people keep changing the country, since many laureates have had multiple citizenships. Also no one seems to be offering to check on the country data for all of the laureates.
–panda 19:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
whatever the ambiguity you might see, to arbitrarily change the article as you propose serves only to pollute the historical significance, and intent of the nobel foundation. moreover, as it relates to this particular article, the current citizenship status of each individual laureate in completely irrelevant. once editors understand the source of the data, there will be no problem maintaining the article's integrity and accuracy. --emerson7 | Talk 01:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Of course, just looking up the country (or countries) of citizenship of someone at a given point in time is not OR. But choosing the "best" country that should be listed on the table for the complicated cases is what gives trouble and can arguably be an "original synthesis". It is a very fertile ground for nationalistic claims. For examples, see Marie Curie (we have her as Polish, while nobelprize.org has her as French) and Mario Molina (we have him as Mexican, while nobelprize.org has him as American). --Itub 09:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why I'm in favor of posting all of the citizenships someone has had rather than only one country. If there is only one country listed per multi-national laureate, in practice you can't prevent everyone from changing a multi-national laureate's country all of the time. However, if you post all of the citizenships someone has had, there's no longer any reason to change it (especially if the countries are cited), and the list should become more stable than it is today. panda 10:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
again, this is an historical document in that it is a reflection of "what was" at a specific point in time. citizenship subsequent to the award is irrelevant. as i've stated before, and i believe one other person has stated, the country of record should reflect the that of the the nobel foundation, or it should be removed altogether. i favour the former. --emerson7 | Talk 13:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Panda has asked me to respond to the question of whether the country is ambiguous or not. I thought I had implicitly answered it already, but here it goes. Yes, I think the country is ambiguous. But no, I don't think renaming it to "country of citizenship" will help. In part, because citizenship is often an accidental fact of people's lives with no real relevance. But mostly because the solution I advocate is to simply use the country listed by the Nobel Foundation, which might not be the country of citizenship (it is a bit ambiguous too, as has been mentioned already). Just add a footnote saying "the country given on the table is the one listed by the Nobel Foundation and it applies to the time of the award". Let the readers come to their own conclusions. --Itub 07:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Summary: There appears to be consensus that the country is ambiguous. What to do about the country will be the topic of the next RFC, which hopefully more editors can be involved with. panda 14:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

whether intentional or not, your synthesis of the preceding discussion is misleading. while it is true that the formula used by the nobel foundation for their declaration of country is unclear, the consensus was that the article should nevertheless reflect that declaration. most notably, the sole dissent was yours. --emerson7 | Talk 16:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record, only 3 people responded to this RFC, which was left open for 2 weeks. All 3 agreed that the country info is ambiguous, which is what the RFC asked. For how to deal with the ambiguous country info, 2 felt that the list should only include the countries listed on the Nobel site and 1 felt that the country should be named "country of citizenship". Since the problem of what to do with the country column is a larger problem than just if the info is ambiguous or not, a new RFC has been created to discuss that question with hopefully a larger number of editors. panda 17:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
...that's much better. cheers! --emerson7 | Talk 17:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

This RFC is intended for editors to come to a consensus about what to do with the country info in the Nobel lists. The country data has been ambiguous (see #RFC: Country – ambiguous or not) and several editors have tried different methods of presenting the information in the different lists. It would be better, however, if everyone could decide on a uniform way of dealing with the country info for all of the Nobel lists to avoid edit wars. Below is a presentation of all the options that have been suggested so far. (Feel free to add to the list if your suggestion is not represented below.)

Part 1: To keep the country or not

1. Remove the country data completely. It is nationalistic and an open invitation to heavy edit wars.
2. Only list the countries shown on the Nobel site. Call it "country" and add a footnote stating "this is the country listed by nobelprize.org, and it refers to the time of the award". What exactly the country refers to (country of residence, citizenship, or something else) is left unstated. Let the readers come to their own conclusions.
3. Clarify the country data: call it country of citizenship and include all citizenships. Most people assume the country means country of citizenship anyway and notice when a specific nationality is not listed, resulting in changes in the tables.
3b. Only include citizenships held up to the award of the Prize.

If consensus is to keep the country data:

Part 2: To keep the flags or not

1. Remove the flags completely. Flags have changed throughout the years making it unclear which flag to use.
2. Keep the flags. This option needs to be further defined depending on what country data is kept.

Part 3. Which country name to use

1. Only use the most common name. For example, all variants of Germany (German Empire, Weimar Republic, etc) are called Germany.
2. Only use the names shown on the Nobel site regardless of whether or not the country listed actually existed at the time of the award.
3. Use the common name for a country that actually existed and use time specific names for countries. For example, Austria-Hungary is called Austria-Hungary and not Austria, and all of the specific variants of Germany are used, e.g., German Empire, Weimar Republic, etc.

Part 4. What is the purpose of the Nobel lists?

As this may help the above decisions, what do you feel is the purpose of the Nobel lists?

1. To be a duplicate of the Nobel website. Repeat the same information that is found on nobelprize.org, regardless of whether or not it is unclear what the information means.
2. To not necessarily be a duplicate of the Nobel website. List the Nobel laureates + rationale + non-ambiguous information.

–panda 15:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale please: Just a reminder that RFCs are not votes but a discussion, so please include a rationale with your comment. panda 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment - I agree to #2 in part 1, and #1 in the rest. DHN 19:31, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Use country from nobelprize.org and remove flags. Either use the most common name or the name shown on the website. Regarding question 4, I'm not sure I understand the scope of the question. Regarding countries, I think we should duplicate the information. But in general, I'm open to consider listing other information on the table. My rationale regarding the countries is that a person's "country" is too complicated to reduce to a table cell, so if we want to include it we should at least attribute it to an authoritative source. More information should be given in detail and with appropriate qualifications in the biographic article about the person. The flags are complicated for similar reasons, especially when you get to controversial ones such as the Nazi flag. --Itub 08:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
In short: 1.2, 2.1, 3.1 or 3.2, and no reply to question 4. Please correct me if I misinterpreted. –panda 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - #2, #2, #1, #2. I agree that we should use the info from nobelprize.org and make it clear on the site - although many laureates are multicultural, all of the lists are in the context of the Nobel Prize at the time awarded (similar to the manner that authors of scientific papers are credited with only their institutions at the time of research/publication). Flags are, I think, a useful visual cue and I'd like to keep them with country names found on the site. If we can't come to a large-scale accord, then remove them completely. I'd like to wholeheartedly applaud Itub's comment that nationalities are "too complicated to reduce to a table cell." While the article is not 100% a duplicate of the Nobel site, let readers be directed to articles dealing with individual laureates if they want to know more about citizenship, birth country, and influences. It's not up to us to make that distinction, regardless of our own personal convictions. Irregulargalaxies 16:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Part I option 1. Instead focus on the actual science behind the prize. Although I do realize that people like Panda have put much effort in mainting these tables and moderating this discussion. V8rik 19:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I recomend Part 1 option 2, and then option 1 for the other parts. --Metropolitan90 16:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    1. I recommend Part 1 option 3; some of these are too complex to be summarized by one country, and we don't have to. I would in fact go further and include all reasonably common claims (see WP:UNDUE).
    2. Remove the flags, which are pointless and arguable; and consult WP:Flag. Use the most common name for a country, in accordance with WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCGN; this is not the place to explain such complications.
    3. In particular, make the Germans either Germany (or, for 1945-1991, West Germany - were there any East German laureates?)
    4. Of course this need not be a duplicate of the Nobel website; if we were doing that, a link would be better.
  • Comment
    1. Strongly support Part 1.3: it is simple and unambiguous, and corresponds to what people would naturaly assume. Strongly oppose Part 1.2, which would result in major incongruities: e.g. Max Born, who was German and did all his prize-winning research in Germany, would only be listed as British.
      • A suggested ammendment to Part 1.3: only include citizenships held up to the award of the Prize. Thus Einstein needn't be listed as American, since he received his prize in 1921.
    2. No strong preferences otherwise (apart from Part 4.2, of course), though I do think the flags are pretty. -Udzu 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
  • After watching the Nobel Prize articles, I noticed an edit by an anon on 28 September 2007 to Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar, where the edit summary states "He was Indian when he did the work for which he recieved the prize". (The Nobel site states USA and another editor reverted the edit based on that.) So there appears to be at least two cases of this. –panda 05:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment
    1. Part 1: Keep the country

1. It is exactly nationalistic, however heavy edit wars are unlikely because it is very hard to dispute facts of which country to use if we are all on the same page.
2. Only list the countries shown on the Nobel site.
3. Call it country of citizenship.
3B. Only include citizenships held up to the award of the Prize.

Part 2: Keep the flags. 1. --
2. Keeping the flags will help people learn visually, and it will also help distinguish different “phases” of a country (i.e. the Kingdom of Italy vs. the Italian Social Republic vs. Italy).

Part 3. Number 3. 1. --
2. --
3. Use the common name for a country that actually existed and use time specific names for countries. For example, Austria-Hungary is called Austria-Hungary and not Austria, and all of the specific variants of Germany are used, e.g., German Empire, Weimar Republic, etc.

Part 4. The purpose of the Nobel lists is to make this page complete. 1. To be a duplicate of the Nobel website. If we aren’t going to put a list, why put anything at all? Just refer people to nobelprize.org.
2. Make this page complete so people don’t need to leave wikipedia to get the information they are looking for. --MCMLXXXIII 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • In short: 1.2, 1.3, or 1.3b?; 2.2; 3.3; 4.1 and 4.2? Please correct me if I misinterpreted. –panda 22:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Clarification & Questions related to 3.1 or 3.2
    • 3.1: Changing all variants of Germany to "Germany" would mean that even West Germany should be labeled "Germany".
    • 3.2: The Nobel site differentiates between Germany (up to 1945, example: 1910, 1932, 1944) and Federal Republic of Germany (after 1945, examples: 1964, 1991, 1995), where Federal Republic of Germany refers to West Germany or present day Germany. (There are no instances of anyone from East Germany winning the Nobel prize.) So 3.1 and 3.2 are not the same end result.
    • Q: Should the wikilink for countries be removed? If not, which version of Germany should be linked to?
–panda 06:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I have no strong opinion about this, but my personal preference would be to call it Germany and link to Germany. If there were any laureates from East Germany, it would be a bit more complicated, but history spared us from having to worry about that. --Itub 13:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

My weak preference would be to follow contemporary usage, and call it West Germany; we are talking, at least in part, about citizenship, so Germany is probably too simple. Federal Republic of Germany is high formal, and would imply using the formal names of other states, such as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, duly switching at 1922; this seems pointless. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Germany has a unified country with a shared language and history for much of the time during which the Nobels have been awarded. Federal Republic of Germany is certainly too wordy, and I would vote for West Germany for the period in which it existed if that's the consensus. I feel, however, that using simply Germany is acceptable (since there's no chance of confusion for East German laureates). As with other aspects to this discussion, I favor a less-is-more approach - give the simplest ID we can agree on and let readers go to the detailed biography articles if they want more information. Irregulargalaxies 17:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

  • What about the wikilinks? Should they be removed? Which version of Germany should they link to? –panda 18:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I haven't read the entirety of this post, in part because it seems a bit unnecessarily complex, but FWIW, the way it's presented for people with two countries of origin looks sloppy. Specifically, I was prompted by the list on Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for the most recent recipients - it made me do a double-take, because the way the wiki-text and flags are presented is confusing. Maybe just the flags next to their names (cf. athlete, actor, etc. infoboxes) with a / separating the two countries? Although then of course the question is which flags, on which I don't have strong feelings either way. Luatha 04:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Unless someone can come up with a good way to decide which flag to use, then the current consensus will be to remove the flags. I came up with a scheme for the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine but there's been at least one editor who objected to that version. Another suggestion? (Only using flags instead of the text may not be a good idea partly because it can be difficult to determine which country a small flag represents, partly because they make accessibility a problem for those using screen readers. See WP:FLAG for more.) –panda 04:57, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Country data defined. For those interested, I've discovered that the country data listed on the Nobel Foundation website is supposed to be nationality, according to the 1st edition of Nobel: The Man and His Prizes (1950). Prior to this publication, I have not found any publication by the Nobel Foundation that lists the nationality of any of the laureates (e.g., the yearbooks, Les Prix Nobel, do not state a laureate's nationality). This would kind of explain why Germany is only called Germany -- they're all Germans regardless of what state Germany was in. I don't know if this helps any but I strongly believe that errors in the Nobel Foundation list shouldn't be reproduced here. (Some past errors have been fixed but not all, e.g., Einstein was only listed with Germany in the 1st and 2nd editions but today is listed with both Germany and Switzerland.) –panda 05:22, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This definition is not to be employed in nobel wiki articles as consensus has not yet been established. --emerson7 16:33, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a fact. It is the definition according to the Nobel Foundation. If you dispute the fact, then I invite you to go to the library and check the book. –panda 16:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • unfortunately, your research is beyond the scope of this rfc, which, though completely obfuscated, is whether this article should or should not use the original nobel foundation citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emerson7 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 10 October 2007

comment. your original research, thought i'm sure is quite thorough, is unnacceptable. the overwhelming consensus in each poll has been to defer to the nobel foundation citation. further it is time to bring this polling to a close so that the articles can be updated and corrected accordingly. --emerson7 15:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you should revisit the definition of original research. This poll hasn't ended yet for the simple reason that there hasn't been much activity. I'm asking some other editors to join the RFC so that maybe we can finally come to some consensus. If you have something that you'd like to add, then please do so instead of trying to force a close to an open discussion. –panda 16:14, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • without making any stark allegations, what you are once again doing could be interpreted as endlessly shopping around for views favourable to your own. this has really gone on long enough, and continually dragging it out serves no other purpose than to frustrate the process. i, too, have asked for intercession on this matter that has gone on for well over a month. --emerson7 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not shopping around, I'm specifically asking editors who have been active in these lists to comment on this RFC. In you know of others who may be interested in commenting, then by all means invite them here so that things can move along faster. In case you haven't noticed, when I ask a question, the editors who have so far responded have done so very slowly (often not until I've posted something on their talk pages). That's part of the reason why this has been going on for so long. –panda 17:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • it's gone on so long because, as i've stated before, the goal post has continually moved with the scope being defined again and again. with the scope broadening and polling taking place after each change, the original question has effectively been lost. this notwithstanding, even after all of the polling...the same results. in my oppinion, with or without intent, the incessant polling has frustrated editors, muddled the results, and corrupted the process. --emerson7 18:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You're welcome to start your own RFC that is more specific. –panda 18:21, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
  • you have just provided an example of my point.--emerson7 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to interrupt this fight, but I have a question. Panda, you say that you believe that errors in the Nobel Foundation list shouldn't be reproduced here. Which errors are you talking about? The only one I recall concerns Macleod, but after looking at it I haven't seen any compelling evidence that indicates that he was not Canadian. The utoronto.ca link is not explicit enough to convince me. I still think we should just copy whatever nationality nobelprize.org gives and attribute the data to them. If you are really, really sure that they got something wrong, send them a letter and I'm sure they'll be happy to fix it. --Itub 12:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Another example that is interesting is Max Theiler (1951, Physiology & Medicine). I found an advertisement for the 2nd ed that states in a footnote "Theiler, citizen both of Switzerland (where his family originates) and of South Africa; scientific work achieved in the U.S.A." There's text on the web that supports that he was Swiss. [7] But the website (and the list here) only state South Africa. –panda 13:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm always skeptical of websites showing off how many laureates their country has. They are bound to include anyone with even a tenuous claim, regardless of inconvenient details such as people renouncing their nationality, being born in a country but never actually having the nationality, etc. I don't know if this is the case with Max Theiler, but again I'd rather believe the Nobel foundation unless I see some really convincing evidence (such as a detailed biography published by a reputable source that details exactly how he got and/or lost his various nationalities). --Itub 13:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, the ad mentioned above was, I believe, published by the Nobel Foundation so they've stated the claim about Theiler. Anyway, I can send an email to the Nobel Foundation. Apparently it seems to take them about 2 weeks for a reply so this may take awhile. –panda 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
FYI, the link I posted that supports that Theiler was a Swiss citizen, and have reposted here is from Switzerland Tourism, a site run by the Swiss government. [8] Seems to be a very reliable source to me -- the Swiss government should know best who has and hasn't been citizens of their country. –panda 19:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, that website doesn't seem reliable to me for this claim. It is a touristic website with an intrinsic bias for advertising their country, and does not provide enough detail to back up that claim. It is possible that Theiler did have the Swiss nationality at some point, but this is not clear enough from what I've seen. The only specific detail I found was that his father was "of Swiss origin", so presumably Theiler had a right to have the Swiss nationality. On the other hand, if our article on Swiss nationality law is correct, Switzerland didn't allow multiple citizenships before 1992, which would mean that if he was South African he could not have also been Swiss. I realize I'm speculating a bit here, given the lack of evidence. Which is exactly why I advocate keeping what the Nobel Foundation says; at least we would be consistent and we wouldn't have to speculate, evaluate conflicting sources, etc. --Itub 07:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
The Swiss Tourism site does state specifically that in the list "25 Nobel Prize Winners were Swiss citizens when they received the Prize. 2 others got Swiss citizenship some years afterwards. For 1 his father gave back Swiss citizenship when he was 17 years old.", and then lists the specific years someone held Swiss citizenship, which is why I have no reason to doubt their claims. I suspect the WP article about Swiss citizenships isn't completely incorrect because Einstein had both Swiss & German citizenship, and both those citizenships are listed in Albert Einstein, his citation on the Nobel Foundation website [9], and in the lists here. –panda 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
On further thought, I think I may have been too skeptical of the Swiss tourism site, since as you point out it does give very specific information about at least some of the people. --Itub 20:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I think it makes most sense to just list the countries as found on the nobelprize.org site (ie option 2). Flag or no flag dont matter to me. If anyone is interested in all citizenships, past countries of residence etc that is infomation better relayed on the individual laureates' pages.--Lensor 14:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment I just realized that I haven't stated my opinion about this. I strongly support 1.3 or 1.3b, especially since the nationality is what the data is supposed to be according to the Nobel Foundation. (I also have nothing against emailing the Nobel Foundation and asking them about specific laureates, who may then update their web page so that 1.2 becomes the same as 1.3. :) I have no strong opinions about points 2 or 3. Re #2: I would support keeping flags if someone could devise a suitable scheme. If not, it's easier to remove them. Re #3: If consensus is to only use Germany + West Germany or Germany for all variants, both are fine with me. –panda 18:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Forgot to add that I strongly support 4.2 -- like someone else wrote, if WP was going to duplicate the Nobel Foundation website, a link would be better. –panda 18:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The country column provides information of interest about the laureate and must be included, particularly since the Nobel Foundation thinks so and this articles presents the results of its awards! To anyone who feels that it should be removed, please be realistic; if it were removed then this talk page would be buzzing with comments wondering where it is!! Most people would not be inclined to accept its deletion. The country gives interesting background information and shows where the support comes from for the ground-breaking work being celebrated. This usually relates to the home of the laureate but may instead be the base of the full-time position associated with the work. Money for such work is most readily available in the USA, which explains why such a high proportion of laureates are listed as American. The country shown in the column should be the Nobel Prize's listing and not purely the location of birth as this can sometimes be misleading, for instance Ilya Prigogine (Chemistry 1977). I think the flags are a good idea, they make the page look more professional and they should reflect the previaling situation at the time, not the current one, which could often be misleading--AssegaiAli 11:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, it is always interesting to know which countries supported the research, and that information does show historically relevant trends, such as the fact that in the early 20th century a large fraction of the laureates did their work in Germany, while in the late part of the century a large fraction did it in the USA. However, knowing that someone had certain citizenship because his grandfather happened to have it is useless trivia, except for nationalistic bragging. --Itub 07:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Realistically, is there any reason for listing the countries other than for nationalistic bragging? –panda 04:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, in some cases the country can at least brag about having supported the research, as opposed to just having given a passport to the recipient. ;-) --Itub 05:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't that still be nationalistic bragging? (The Nobel Foundation list wouldn't support that claim for all of the laureates -- if it did, then this would be a non-issue. Come to think of it, that would make a lot more sense than listing someone's nationality.) –panda 06:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes it is. I was just making the distinction that sometimes one has reasonable grounds for bragging and sometimes not. But we are getting off topic (my fault). --Itub 07:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I actually think you made a good point. It would make a lot more sense to instead list the country the laureate performed their Nobel work in. Plus it's relevant to the article. What do you think? –panda 14:41, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: keep countries as listed on Nobel site, since similar information is listed for athletes (e.g. Tour de France, Formula 1) (option 2). Also keep flags (option 2), and country that existed at that time (option 3). But also add institution(s) where awarded work was done.Labongo 16:14, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Closing comments

I'm closing this RFC and going to attempt to summarize it.

Conclusions

  • The country data on the Nobel Foundation list is the laureate's nationality (according to the book "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes"); knowing this, there are at least a couple errors for the laureate's nationality in the Nobel Foundation's list.
  • The countries/nationalities should be included in the list.
  • Use common names for the countries/nationalities. All variants of Germany should simply be called Germany except for West Germany, even though there never were any laureate's from East Germany. Only one editor commented on which variant of Germany should be linked to (the current one), so it's difficult to say if there is any consensus about that aspect.

Inconclusive – No consensus was found for the following:

  • to keep/remove flags
  • which flags to use
  • which nationalities to keep in the list

During this RFC, I've noticed editors adding nationalities that are not on the Nobel Foundation's list and changing the flags. So these issues should be settled at some point, even if it didn't happened in this RFC. –panda 02:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

this page loads slowly.......

I am pretty broadband but I am experiencing loading difficulties. Reason: the flag images are too big. Can this be remedied? Thanks in advance V8rik 20:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The flags are from standard templates. Looking at the comments in #RFC: Country data in Nobel lists, the consensus is moving towards removing the flags, which may then help speed up the loading time. –panda 05:00, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Award cermony and nomitation process

I have added sections about the award ceremony and nomination process by adding content from the Nobel Prize article. The purpose is to have a general introduction about the prize, and some details specific to the chemistry prize in these sections. More work is needed for the later.Labongo 14:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

New Zealand not on the ranking list

how come New Zealand isn't on the ranking list? there are 2 new Zealanders that one Noble Prize in Chemistry - Ernest Rutherford in 1908 and Alan G MacDiarmid in 2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.74.115 (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Nazi-flag edit

I'm reverting these changes. They're completely unnecessary. The editor is clearly POV. The nazi-regime was temporary, anyway. Zarathustra799 15:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 01:44, 13 November 2007 ]

  • Regardless of whether or not it was 'temporary,' reflecting accurate history is NOT POV.--24.107.188.94 01:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


The purpose of listing a winner's nationality is not to promote racist and evil idealogies. You've been reported for vandalism already.–Zarathustra799 16:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 02:16, 13 November 2007 Zarathustra799 ]
  • IIRC, vandalizing the comments of others is strictly prohibited, and I would rather not speculate as to what sort of person would think promoting accurate history is the same as promoting 'evil idealogies.'--24.107.188.94 02:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
That surprises me. I suppose holocaust-denial is a component of 'promoting accurate history'? The only person vandalizing here is you.–Zarathustra799 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ commented actually added 03:02, 13 November 2007 ]
  • This is ridiculous. How does changing the flag icon of German nobel prize winnder circa 1935-1945 equate to HOLOCAUST DENIAL?--24.107.188.94 03:08, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I work from 9 to 5 for this governments economy 6 days a week, I get no free time except about 30 minutes a day to read wikipedia and push that other stuff aside. and I come home and what do I see? Gay nazi propaganda and holocaust denial? Thank you but I'm too proud of this flag for this! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.114.118.117 (talk) 03:24, 13 November 2007
  • You might want to do a better job disguising your sock puppets, Zara.--24.107.188.94 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
24.107.188.94 I like your style please make a proper account so we can see more of youHentai Jeff 05:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you are incapable of understanding wikipedia's user system.–Zarathustra799 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 03:48, 13 November 2007 ]
  • Clearly, Zarathustra spraches too much.--24.107.188.94 03:55, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
..actually, this user-name is a reference to the great Persian prophet, Zoroaster. Though I suppose your area of expertise is restricted to Nazism and holocaust-denial.–Zarathustra799 20:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 04:14, 13 November 2007 ]
  • Simply knowing a lot about Nazis doesn't MAKE me a Nazi. Aren't you familiar with the phrase, 'those who don;t remember the past are doomed to repeat it'?--24.107.188.94 04:25, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


  • I've been a fan of history and this page for some time. I come here to educate my young daughter about the history of the world, not expose her to neo nazis and children. I'm truly outraged and I will be filing a report about this.--RosaParks4Life 02:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
We need to prevent him from vandalizing the article any further.–Zarathustra799 16:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 03:18, 13 November 2007 ]
  • I've decided to fix my commentry and erase the hateful, hurtful remarks left by the neonazi User:24.107.188.94. I want you to know that a lot of people died for the freedoms involved with you being able to take part in a great project such as wiki, let alone voice yourself on it - Such as George Washington, U. S. Grant, J. F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King Jr. I think you should reflect on yourself before you spend a second longer here slandering others and causing mischief. My daughter is more mature than you and she isn't 18 yet. This country is losing it's great people, and in turn getting skin heads that don't bathe and wear nazi arm bands. I'll pray for you. --RosaParks4Life 03:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You're the victim of a hoax, dear. As mature as your daughter must be, surely she can appreciate accurate history much better than her mother can. Furthermore, I see no reason to thank MLK for my constitutionally protected right of freedom of speech, a right that apparent offends your PC, totalitarian sensibilities.--24.107.188.94 03:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Your lack of respect for the talk page's guidelines warrants a permanant ban, I believe. There was no cause for you to attack RosaParks4Life personally. Furthermore, you clearly attack others who don't suit your agenda. This is not an appropriate way to interact on Wikipedia.–Zarathustra799 17:47, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 03:55, 13 November 2007 ]
Also, if I may add. There is never a hoax when it comes to hate crimes. Laugh all you want, but for what you've done tonight you're no different than a murderer. --RosaParks4Life 03:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As much as I hate invoking Godwin's law, at this point it's like urinating in a hate-mongering, bible-thumping ocean of urine. It's exceptionally hard to overlook the irony of the thought police accusing others of being Nazis. With people like Zara and Rosaparks appointing themselves the official Fuehrer und Reichskanzler of Wikipedia, I can only hope that people capable of thinking for themselves will be able to recognize their blatant McCarthyist tactics. This is how the Holocaust began, people!--24.107.188.94 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)--24.107.188.94 04:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may interrupt, displaying the Nazi flag is not vandalism. It is, in fact, in line with a flag policy that other editors have recommended for the Nobel lists. I have asked these editors to comment on this thread. In the mean time, can everyone please wait with reverting each other until they reply? –panda 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

24.107.188.94 is here just to make trouble. There is no need to entertain his edits, especially in light of his abuse. –Zarathustra799 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC) [ comment actually added 04:05, 13 November 2007 ]
Zarathustra799: You've already been warned on your talk page for your inappropriate edits to this talk page. Displaying a Nazi flag is not POV, and as stated earlier, is completely in line with a flag policy that other editors have recommended. Please allow outside editors to also comment on this issue and stop attacking 24.107.188.94 for his good faith edits. And please fix your time as your timestamps are all wrong. –panda 04:12, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Zarathustra799: Please stop modifying other editors' comments. You've been warned again for this inappropriate behavior and you will be blocked if you continue. –panda 04:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Comment: I was one of those who recommended keeping the name and flag for the laureates, since they manage to do this for many lists of athletes. I believe the only way to avoid endless discussions to which names/flags should be used is to use the names and flag that were in use at the time of the award. Finally we cannot start excluding certain states/flags due to their idealogies whether it be nazism, colonalism, gender discrimination, anti-gay, etc.Labongo 08:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I am still against including the flags, in part precisely to avoid problems such as this, but also because scientists are not athletes! By that I mean that a scientist is not representing his/her country in any way, but just happens to have a citizenship. When you think about Olympic athletes, for example, it is the opposite: the athlete has been selected by official sport organizations of his/her country, is being sponsored by the country and is being sent to the Games as a representative of the country. --Itub 08:36, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Comments:
  • I don't care either way about the flags. However, someone needs to devise a suitable system that people can live with. (I maintain that it makes more sense to include all verifiable citizenships so that everyone can stop adding/removing countries from the list.)
  • I don't have anything against flags that represent the status of a country at the time of the award. It's easier to identify the German laureates that were affected by Hitler's decree, which banned Nobel Prizes during the Nazi regime. I've already written about this in the Nobel Prize controversies#Involuntary refusals section and plan to add more to the individual laureates' articles as soon as I find time.
  • The majority of the German laureates who a Nazi flag could be attached to were negatively affected by the Nazi regime.
  • If people stopped seeing the presence of the Nazi flag as promoting "racist and evil idealogies [sic]" and instead understood that the German laureates who won a Nobel Prize during the Nazi regime were threatened and imprisoned, maybe they would understand that it has nothing to do with endorsing any ideology but simply accurately representing history and recognizing the difficulties these laureates faced. I even have a quote from an editorial in the New York Times that questioned Hitler's decree and praised Gerhard Domagk's (1939, Physiology and Medicine) contributions, which I'll add to his article when I find time. The world (including the US) didn't see it controversial then, so I see no reason why it should be made into a controversial issue now.
–panda 18:41, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we be quite clear that WP's purpose is to provide information? Cherry-picking on facts to suit people's sensibilities is just pandering to POV. The official and recognised flag of Germany 1935-45 was the Nazi swastika so just live with it and let's move on. We have the priviledges today of access to information and knowledge that people in the past had no conception of. We cannot appreciate how different things were unless we portray the past as accurately as possible and that includes unpalatable facts. The flags in the article are informative and they are talking points for researchers and casual readers alike. They should remain but they should reflect the situation on the ground at the time.--AssegaiAli 20:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It is remarkable that this discussion, on the talk page for the chemistry prize, can be used to support the appearance of the names of the countries and their flags on the page for the Nobel Peace Prize. That in turn can be used to rationalize inclusion of the swastika next to the name of Carl von Ossietzky, a victim of the Nazi regime. Is this the sort of "information" Wikipedia wants to convey? Or does it unintentionally suggest an affiliation of individual with a regime he opposed, who was incarcerated in a concentration camp by the very regime whose symbol now appears next to his name? Kablammo 13:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
See Talk:Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine#Protection and longer reply in Talk:Nobel Peace Prize#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists closing comments. –panda 14:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Chart of national statistics

There is no reliable verifiable source understandable to English readers to document this chart. See the editorial interpolations. The section needs to be documented with appropriate sources for English Wikipedia articles (verifiable and reliable sources: WP:V#Sources; WP:NOR: see the editorial interpolations in preview mode for that section. Already pointed this out earlier. The section should be removed and not re-added until it can be properly (verifiably) sourced (documented). --NYScholar (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that it should be removed. This is not the place to create a scoreboard because it makes it look like the prize is awarded to the countries and not to the scientists. Neither the Nobel Foundation nor any other reliable source I've seen creates this sort of scoreboard. As I've said before, the Nobel Prize is not the Olympic Games. --Itub (talk) 09:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to set the record straight, there is in fact a chart by country in "Nobel: The Man and His Prizes". However, I still think it should be removed because of what Itub wrote: it looks like the prize is awarded to the countries and not to the scientists. There are instances when the country the laureate happened to be a national of at the time of the award was not the country where they did their Nobel work. –panda (talk) 16:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Altough I have defended the usage of countries in the "main table", even I find this table unecessary. However, if someone wants to maintain it then I don't see any harm in keeping it (provided that it is kept up to date). Also, I do not agree that there is a need for sources, since the table countains the count of different nations in another table. Labongo (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My original point also included the matter that Wikipedia cannot cite itself (German Wikipedia) as a source; plus it is not clear to non-German readers (readers of English Wikipedia) what in the German article is a source for this table. It still appears to be original research without a verifying source. If there is a source in nobelprize.org, it needs citation via a parenthetical note reference or a note citation. (See the previous table.) And see the part of the previous ref. to German Wikipedia which I deleted (editing history):Diffs.. Where also is a source for the statement that such awards can be counted only once (counted by whom only once: Nobel Foundation or something or someone else?): still unclear sourcing and apparently constructed by Wikipedian(s) not a verifiable source. [The count would change as the award years accrue and constantly need revision; point also taken that this article should not support a national "horse race" so to speak. How is the counting of such prizes by nations "neutral point of view?" It seems "nationalistic" (U.S. dominated particularly); such counts have been deleted from other Wikipedia Nobel-related articles and other types of Wikipedia articles when they seem to favor one nation (nationality) or another in non-neutral ways/language. The whole language of the table itself (title, motivation of what it suggests) is called into question by other editors before I posted comments about it. Other Nobel-Prize related articles do not feature such a count by nations table with talk page discussions of similar issues for not doing so. --NYScholar (talk) 20:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a big difference between the previous section (a chart constructed from the official source in nobelprize.org (the Nobel Foundation official website), with its quotations of the citations and facts from the site, as documented, and this undocumented, improperly-sourced (unsourced) chart of "count" by nations, which is unnecessary and adds no important information to the previous section. One can do one's own count if so disposed; but editors doing that is original research and questionable due to joint citizenship and other factors and the "can be counted once" statement, which is odd and not sourced at all as the section is presented currently. --NYScholar (talk) 20:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC); as perhaps related WP, see also: WP:POV#Other points. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the initiative to remove the country rankings from Nobel Prize in Chemistry and Nobel Prize in Physics. Nobel Prize in Literature still has a ranking list but I think it's better to ask the editors there if they want it removed or not. –panda (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

After being alerted to the discussion in Nobel Prize in Literature, I've removed the unsourced charts (rankings by both language and country) from that article too and for the same reasons: violations of core Wikipedia policies. --NYScholar (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Conformation?

I am redirecting the link for "conformation" in the 1969 winner's citation. The page directs to tertiary structure, however the chemists were working on chemical conformations, not macromolecular, three-dimensional structures.

129.133.89.105 (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)Regniweol

All these images..

In my humble opinion, the whole table of laurates looks quite cluttered with the faces. It doesn't really add anything either, and there are a lot of images missing. If anyone is interested they could just click their name and get the image there. The Nobel Prize in Physics looks better and I think this page should have the same layout. Since it's a large edit I thought it would be nice to ask first. What's the general opinion? Axelv (talk) 10:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Nobel Prize in Chemistry. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Dmitri Mendeleev for Nobel award

I remain appalled that after over 100 years, Dmitri Mendeleev has not been awarded the Nobel Prize for Chemistry for his discovery of the Periodic Table of Elements, and his prediction of several elements undiscovered during his time. Even a posthumous award would be fitting. --2600:6C48:7006:200:B056:6066:1296:EF0B (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree, but this is Wikipedia, not the Nobel Prize Organisation. 91.248.88.109 (talk) 06:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize_in_Chemistry/Archive_1&oldid=1181363024"