This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
For details on why this article is currently named Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, please see the following discussions: |
A news item involving Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 October 2018. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
I propose reinstating the multiple nationality flags, otherwise we're just going to end up with stupid edit wars with parochial POV editors who feel the need to acquire some personal status through their indirect relationship with Laureates such as Mr Modigliani, much like we're about to be subjected to with the Olympics, ugh. Per Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality, there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia on whether citizenship or nationality is preferred. Nonetheless, the information is factual and I can't think of any good reason why both pieces of factual information can't be included (ie Citizenship and Nationality). Personally, I don't find multiple flags next to one individual confusing, and for those that need it clarified one can always click-through to the Laureates 's main article. Debate 木 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The bit about the prize award being biased towards "neoclassical" or "mainstream" is cited by two bits. Regardless of whether "neocleassical" is more accurate, both articles use the term "mainstream", and I think that's a better description of what the referenced articles mean. (For instance, in regards to Nash the issue wasn't his scholarship but whether he'd be embarrassing.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Hapsala has just moved this article from "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (NMPES) to "Nobel Prize in Economics" (NPE). The move log referred to a two year old discussion favoring NPE. The much shorter discussion which was one year old favored NMPES, which name the article has had since.
I think a move like this deserves discussion, so here it is.
For my preferences, I favor NPE as the name to use in other articles because it's pithy and well-known. I favor NMPES as the title for this article because it's more detailed and accurate. CRETOG8( t/ c) 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An even better name would disclaim association with the Nobel Foundation, but at the very least, acknowledge its backing by the Swedish central bank. 68.115.152.250 ( talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to moving the page without discussing it first, user Hapsala keeps replacing the image of the Nobel committee at the top of the article with a picture of Robert Merton or one of Milton Friedman for unexplained reasons. Closest s/he came to offering an explanation was on my talk page; because s/he "doesn't care what you "think"". Other Nobel prize articles usually have the picture of the FIRST person to get the prize, which following that convention would mean that we'd have a pic of Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen. This would be 1) messy and 2) not really possible since a pic of Tinbergen is unavailable. So I don't see anything wrong with keeping the current committee photo. User Hapsala is at this point essentially engaging in vandalism, having been asked to provide a reason for the change and having refused to do so. radek ( talk)
Hapsala, one more revert and you're in violation of 3RR. You were before in fact but I led it slide and instead asked for 3O. Which agreed with me. If you want to discuss this change here you're welcome to do so, but please keep it civil and stop reverting against consensus. radek ( talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the heat gets turned down. Neither of you is vandalizing, as far as I can see, so accusations of such don't help. Both of you are edit warring, and it would be best to stop. CRETOG8( t/ c) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If a third opinion was desired, a third opinion (mine) was given. If the third opinion is judged to be not constructive by one of the editors, then you're looking for something other than a third opinion. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The original Nobel prize categories (Physic, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine, Literature, and Peace) were selected by Alfred Nobel based on his opinion about there objective worth to society. The first three prizes are the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) and the last two prizes are, essentially, sociological in nature. Because economics is not a hard science (in that it is not predictive, rigorous, or finitely defined) it can not be eligible for any of the sciences prizes. However, it is possible that people who contribute to the field of economics could be eligible for the Nobel prize in peace or literature, if their contribution resulted in an achievement in peace, or was in the form of a great work of literature. Thus, the criticism with the economics prize association with the Nobel institute is not that economics is not a worthy field for an award, but that it appears economists who could not win a Nobel prize in any of the five fields, simply created a prize for themselves and associated the prize with the Nobel institute. Thus while the awarding of (and even the categories of) the Nobel prize are highly subjective, they are as the foundation of the prize intended. The Nobel foundation made no stipulation about introducing a new category, therefore introducing a new category is antithetical to the Nobel prize. For example, if the Nobel Prize could be amended to include new categories, astronomy and mathematics would have a much stronger argument for inclusion than economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.135.235.188 ( talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Slight disagreement on the reason for the additional controversy. The controversy stems from the prize stems from the recognition gained in the economic sciences downplays research done on economic phenomena in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology and history. This is particularly interesting in the context of the delay of behavioral psychology taking almost half a century to enter the field of economics from the field of psychology and animal behavior. I have heard quoted and read from two sources, Fredrick Hayek (A laureate of the prize) and Alternet respectively voice the opinion that the prize is harmful to the field of economics. The reasoning stems from the resulting lack of communication between different social sciences. This problem would be reduced substantially if there were similar prizes offered to the other social sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.210.62 ( talk) 08:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As the Sveriges Riksbank awards the prize the winner should be described as a Sveriges Riksbank Laureate, not a Nobel Laureate. Bebofpenge ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this has become a bone of contention I would very much like the input of other editors on what the picture at the top of this article should be. Currently the image is that of "Announcement of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 2008" which, admittedly, is fairly bland. Hapsala keeps removing this image and insists on replacing it with that of Robert Merton. My problem with this is that the choice of Merton to represent the prize is arbitrary and can be construed as POV (as in 'he was more important than others'). Since Hapsala was not forthcoming with his reasons (and uncivil to boot) I reverted his edits and asked for a third party opinion. Cretog8 gave that opinion which was basically in agreement with mine. But to settle this once and for all it would be nice to get input of other editors to get a consensus. I think the three reasonable options for the picture are as follows: 1) The picture of the Announcement of the prize, 2008. The only problem with this is that the picture's a bit bland and none of the members of the committee are as recognizable as some of the laurates. 2) Following the practice at other Nobel prize articles we could use the picture of the first recipient to ever get the prize. The problem here is that there were actually two (Frisch and Tinbergen) and in fact one of them does not currently have a photo. We could put Frisch in and wait to see if someone can locate Tinbergen. Even then we'd have to cram two photos in there which can end up looking messy. 3) A photo of the most current recipient, updated each year. Personally I think this would be the best option since it would avoid the problems with 1) and 2), however, I expect that given who the most recent recipient is someone somewhere is going to complain. So taking this tack may cause some revert trouble in the future. Still, I think 3) is the best option - it's based on an objective, non-arbitrary criteria and avoids the limited-recognizability problem. However, I'd be fine with 1) (status quo) or 2) (Frisch only). What I do object to is one person choosing his 'favorite' and insisting that this must be the photo at the top of this article. radek ( talk) 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hapsala. Studying the revision history, the conflict seems made up by Radeksz who was very quick to delete Hapsala's original contribution with a picture of Milton Friedman from the very beginning. Radeksz was also pushing hard for his suggestions in the midst of asking for a third party opinion which I believe is pretty dishonest. Later, Cretog8 kind of blew his chance of becoming a serious mediator, as his got involved in the edit war only minutes after replying to Radeksz request. As Friedman is probably the best known winner of the prize, a picture of him is fully appropriate. So is also the founder of the Black/Scholes, where Hapsala was adding an interesting comment about the prize committee's recognition of late Fischer Black. Maybe, Hapsala's caption is a bit lenghy, but, in view of the state of the article, the story might be hard to include in the body text. Anyway, the picture of the recent press conference should not be used as the lead image. Best regards, Polipopo ( talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Any more thoughts? As for me, looking at and thinking about the pictures of Frisch and Nash, I get somewhat biased against using them. They're so portraity that I think they give that specific winner undue weight. If there's a good picture of the award ceremony for any economist, that might be preferable. Can we use an image of the medal under fair use, or is that off limits? CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a terrific photo, but it could be zoomed and cropped, of 3 MIT laureates: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. I like that it's three winners, with different focuses of study. Someone could still complain that it's MIT-biased. CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The title is incorrect and misleading, there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". There is a prize called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. I suggest the article is moved to either Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or simply Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize isn't a Nobel prize (one of Alfred Nobel's prizes), it's a Sveriges Riksbank prize and is completely unrelated to the Nobel Prizes, in the same way as the prize commonly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). GVU ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
<-- No, because you are simply repeating things which have been said before and which led to this article being called "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" rather than "Nobel Prize in Economics". As such it is unreasonable for editors to restate all the previous arguments that have been made a dozen+ times. Read the archives, for starters. The name of this article is a result of a long process and lots of discussion. You would really have to come up with some really really new and convincing evidence for there to be a reason to change. radek ( talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Note: The WP:COMMONNAME argument seems stronger. I looked up newspaper references as a sanity check and they uniformly refer to it as the nobel prize in economics. (c.f. [1] and [2]). -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed below that Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences be renamed and moved to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the current title is strongly disputed, and is considered POV and inaccurate, and as such as not encyclopedic, by several editors. This needs to be indicated in the article until the situation can be solved. It seems that it is only a minority that support the Wikipedia-invented title "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The only NPOV solution, and solution appropriate for an encyclopedia, would be to move this article to the actual and official name of the prize, instead of "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" which is a prize that doesn't exist. GVU ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
LOOK. This has been brought up a dozen times. Most recently it was brought up in March, then, after somebody somewhere didn't get their way, it was brought up again in April. After a certain point, bringing up an article for a rename time after time after time again becomes simply disruptive. Each of these many times at the very least there was no consensus to move. Since there was no consensus to move it stays where it is. Since it stays where it is and since there is no consensus to move you cannot add a POV template simply because you do not like the article title. That's just trying to get one way what you couldn't get another. Again, it is disruptive. And if you're gonna count supporters from the previous discussions, then honesty demands that you count the opposers from those as well. radek ( talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At some point in the future, this may be worth bringing up again. I missed the most recent discussion on renaming, and may have supported the move, but that's in the past. It should be given a pretty long rest before it comes up again. Editors who might engage in careful discussion of the merits are simply exhausted from having done so so many times in the past. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Cretog, this seems to have been exhausted into pointlessness. IMO, I'd simply move to Nobel Prize in Economics as the best "common name" over the rather funky title we currently have. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 09:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be "Nobel Prize in Economics", the most common name used by sources. But I prefer a stable compromise, such as the current name, to an unstable NPiE. However, actions by GVU are basically attempts to destabilize this compromise. If this is brought up for a move vote AGAIN in the near future I am going to propose a move to NPiE which has a lot better chance of passing than the SBPiES (or whatever it is) proposal. radek ( talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Give. It. Up. This. Is. Becoming. Disruptive. radek ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is serious political right-wing bias in this sentence too: "It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics[3] and it is identified with the Nobel Prizes, although it is not one of the five Nobel Prizes (in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace) which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895.". The part that makes this statement unncessarily fuzzy is the last part " which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel ". As if a noble prize can be anything else than those that were established by Alfred Nobel in 1895. What is the intention of this sentence? It only adds bias and uncertainty and makes the article in general difficult to interpret. The simplest form is to state "There is no nobel prize in economics. There is however a different prize constructed after his will by a different group of people against his descendants will which is called Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne." The "the new york times quotes it as".. has no importance. The only authoritve source is Alfred Nobel and he is dead. And if you really were to allow popular magazines to define this, can I choose which magazine I want to use as authoritive title too? Let's make everyone pick their paper's favourite nickname for the price. How are you going to pick which paper's favourite nickname is the correct one? No, this is sensless. Name it by its real name, not by something that "many westerners" (or something similiar) sloppily (and biased) like to think. And then will you also add to the stats all the people who consciously stay silent and say nothing because it is not a nobel prize in all of those possible different context which that is possible? Of course not. Such a study would be impossible and retarded to its purpose. As for the "this argument is getting boring"-argument, I do not see how it is really productive. Are we really to stop discussions just because they are boring? And if it really is, why enter the dialogue? In general, the idea of accepting this title is proof of Wikipedia's demographic and political bias. There is no nobel prize in economics. Claiming there is one, is exactly wrong. Unofficial use, "common" referencial name, fantasies, trolls, goblins, etc are not relevant to the article. The prize which is refererred to in the article is an after-construction which was made up long after Nobel against the will of his descedants. There is only one authoritive source for the prizes and that is Alfred Nobel and to some extent the commitee. If 5000 market gorillas claim that it is a nobel prize, it still is not. This title/article lowers Wikipedia's standing in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.65.77 ( talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Opinions of right-wing economist editors notwithstanding, it is by no means "disruptive" to point out the achingly obvious fact that the official name of this prize is, currently, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and that it is not a "Nobel Prize" -- and that colloquial names for the prize are not what should dictate the terms used by encyclopedias. It should certainly be mentioned that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is one of several commonly used shorthand terms for the prize, but that fact does not alter those other facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As other editors have pointed out, the prize is most commonly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics." Winners of the prize are commonly referred to as "Nobel Laureates." A title that emphasizes the "fact" that it is not "really" a Nobel Prize is a highly POV attempt to reduce the prestige associated with the prize (and the legitimacy of mainstream economic theory generally) by disassociating it from the official Nobel Prizes. The current compromise is also unacceptable because virtually nobody refers to it as the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences." The article should either be titled by an English translation of the official prize name or (preferably) as the "Nobel Prize in Economics." Per WP:COMMONNAME, common names are to be used even though they are not the "real" name, as with "Bill Clinton" rather than his legal name, "William Jefferson Clinton." Elliotreed ( talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"The prestige associated with the prize" you refer to is purely "Nobel by association". In his will A. N. was very clear about the "for the benefit of mankind"-aspect. Who other than a selected elite will benefit from the ideas awarded with the Sveriges Riksbanks Pris i Ekonomisk Vetenskap till Alfred Nobels Minne. I could call a prize "the XXX's Price in Plumbing in Memory of Alfred Nobel" any day, and award it to whoever promoted clean drinking water to the thirsty in the third world. Soon it would gain prestige by its "benefit of mankind"-content, and it would be a Nobel Prize. Right? Laelele ( talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This prize is named differently in the infoboxes of different economists. For consistency name should be same in all of them, and in my opinion that name should be same as of this page. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to clean up the lead section by making a few small grammar changes (5 to be accurate), but people keep reverting because they seem to confused about the consensus on the talk page. So I'm going to elaborate them here and any objections can revert, but please explain here as to why.
This is getting crazy. The inclusion of NPE in the first sentence and the second sentence goes against the consensus against repetition we talked about yesterday (see above). We shouldn't have 4 names in the lead, it's terribly confusing, and against WP:LEAD. To summarize the four:
I think the 1st and 3rd are obviously needed, the title of the article for 1, and the official name for 3. The 4th I don't think is necessary, as I outlined above. But I don't think the 2nd one belongs either, we deal with that sufficiently name in the second sentence, and it's bolded and clear; it doesn't need to be repeated. The reason given by the editor isn't convincing, redirects from NPE would see the redirect notification and the NPE is clearly stated in the second sentence, it's already VERY clear and this repetitive nonsense is hampering readability. -- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For whoever contributes a 3O here, this is the text from the original 3O request:
Cleanup of lead section has caused some dispute as to the positioning of a common, but inaccurate, name for the prize. One editor wants the additional common name in first sentence, another wants to leave the disputed name in the second sentence in the lead, which deals with the dispute. Problem is exacerbated by already having 2 alternate names in the lead. Basically we just need someone to pick between Rev A and Rev B.
The comment was neutralized per 3O guidelines. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
While I think the summation above is very good, I am going to take the risk of proposing a third solution as a form of compromise:
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics even though it is not one of the five Nobel prizes established in Nobel's will, is awarded for outstanding contributions in the field of economics and considered one of the most prestigious awards in economics.
That sentence is a little long but it gets all the alternative names into the first sentence without being misleading. I hope this helps. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a citation or two for the claim "one of the most prestigious awards in economics" --- just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.113.151 ( talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It can be that at this official page (given in the article as a source) the prize is called "the prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel" for 1973, but that same page links to this page, where the prize is titled "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1973", as it is at the top of the first page. Possibly, some of the different variants are just due to the use of different translators (assuming the original text is Swedish).
All in all, the table given with different names looks like WP:Original research to me. Is there any source that discusses the different names? Classical geographer ( talk) 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
RaveX ( talk) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
”Oskar” redirects (via disambiguation) to the proper name ”Academy Award”. So let “Nobel Prize in Economics” redirect to the article with the proper name in the heading.
“Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien” themselves uses the proper name. So did Milton Friedman at the banquet.
This is interesting: recipients themselves read Wikipedia and the discussion pages. How else would you interpret the fact that the last two recipients (like M Friedman and E S Phelps) used the proper phrase “in memory of Alfred Nobel”? (OK Oliver Williamsson said “the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” but I guess he was overly anxious to get it right.) Let’s see by this December (2011) what the latest recipient has to say. Laelele ( talk) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
1969 Jan Tinbergen:” the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty, the King, the 1969 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1970 Paul A Samuelson: “an Alfred Nobel Memorial Awards in Economics” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty, the King, the 1970 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1971 Simon Kuznets: “a Nobel Memorial Prize” Presentation: “….the Prize in Economic Science, created by the Bank of Sweden in memory of Alfred Nobel, and ask you to step down to receive it from the hands of His Majesty, the King.”
1972 John R. Hicks: “a Prize of the hands of a Prince” Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Royal Highness the Crown Prince.”
1973 Vassily Leontief: Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty The King the 1973 Prize in Economic Science in Honor of Alfred Nobel.”
1974 Friedrich August von Hayek: “the Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science….a Nobel Prize in economics” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King the 1974 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1975 Tjalling C. Koopermans: “award for economics” Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1976 Milton Friedman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”…”(I myself have been asked my opinion on everything from a cure for the common cold to the market value of a letter signed by John F. Kennedy. Needless to say, the attention is flattering, but also corrupting. Somehow, we badly need an antidote for both the inflated attention granted a Nobel Laureate in areas outside his competence and the inflated ego each of us is in so much danger of acquiring.”) Presentation: “….is awarded the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics….receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.” (Due to the controversy and by decorum M Friedman made sure to get it right, and the presenter didn’t rub it in that it wasn’t a Nobel Prize.)
1977 James E. Meade: “award” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1977 Prize in Economic Sciences, dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1978 Herbert A. Simon: ” honor” Presentation: “….the 1978 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences ….. receive your prize from His Majesty the King.”
1979 Theodore W. Schutz: “the Nobel Prize in Economics” Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1980 Lawrence R. Klein: “the Prize in Economic Science” (“The tax code in US…” This is interesting: You don’t have to pay taxes on certain prizes such as the Nobel Prize. So by the US tax authorities the Prize in Economic Science is a Nobel Prize.) Presentation: “ the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1981 James Tobin: “the Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1981 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1982 George J. Stiegler: “the award” Presentation: “this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences…..your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1983 Gerard Debreu: “the dazzling recognition” Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1984 Richard Stone: “Prize in Economics” ( “… I want to thank BoS for adding to the other Nobel Prizes this one.”) Presentation: “….this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences….your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1985 Franco Modigliani: “award” Presentation:
1986 James M. Buchanan Jr.: Presentation:
1987 Robert M. Solow: “this Prize” (...asked to solve the economical problems of US, Norway, Sweden….”) Presentation: “….your Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1988 Maurice Allais: “le Prix Nobel d'Economie” Presentation:
1989 Tryggve Haavelmo: “this particular Prize” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King, the 1989 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.”
1990 Harry M. Markowitz: “this award” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1990 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1991 Ronald H. Coase: “the honour the recognition” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, this year's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1992 Gary S. Becker: “the superb honor This Prize” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, the 1992 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1993 DouglassC. North: “This prize” Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1994 John C. Harsanyi: “the Nobel memorial Prize” Presentation: “….your Prizes from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1995 Robert E. Lucas Jr.: “Nobel Prize in Economics” Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1996 James A. Mirrlees: “The Nobel Prizes a prize” Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1997 Robert C. Merton: “this ultimate honour” Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1998 Amartya Sen:--- Presentation: ”…. the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1999 Robert A. Mundell:--- Presentation: ” ”…. the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2000 Daniel McFadden:--- Presentation: ”…. your Prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2001 Geogg A. Akerlof: ”the prize” Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2002 Vernon L. Smith: “the economics award” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty, the King.”
2003 Clive W. J. Granger: Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2004 Edward C. Prescott: “this award” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2005 Robert J. Aumann: “this recognition” Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2006 Edmund S. Phelps: “the Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
2007 Eric S. Maskin: “Economics Prize” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2008 Paul Krugman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences” Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2009 Oliver E. Williamson: “the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel” (sic) Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2010 Dale T. Mortensen: “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2011 Thomas J. Sargent, Christopher A. Sims: “My good and dear friend Chris Sims and I thank you for recognizing… Presentation:“…your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
And finally the one economist to actually receive a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of economics (Nobel Lecture, Oslo City Hall)
2006 Muhammad Yunus: “the Nobel Peace Prize”
Presentation: ---
To sum up: three (3) recipients themselves claimed they got a Nobel Prize.
source: nobelprize.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelele ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The part of the creation of the prize misses the fact that the statue of the foundation was changed by the swedish goverment at the same time. The will is specific on the point that only one person can recive the price. During the 60ies the Nobel commities started to notice that most discoveries where made by several persons. Somebody with a good library in Sweden should research the topic and add a section to the article about it. 81.170.188.5 ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit: [3] reverted a change that I made in an effort to neutralize the presentation on ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, I considered the adding of "only" and the italic "not" to be MOS:OPED. The numbers (60% US; 2 non-European-American; and 4 non-N. American/West Europe) speak for themselves, and the added descriptions to the comparisons (along with the edit summary) seek to assert a point. With WP:BRD in mind, I open the topic for discussion. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The current naming of the article is a political choice, even if it is not desired, and has thus to me changed. All wikipedia articles about countries and states follow their official names, even if these states are known by most known words.. It is only needed to redirect and notice the other names known to refer to them (in this case "Nobel prize of economy", even if it is a wrong naming..). I cannot see why it should be different with this article, more over, in the other languages wikipedia articles, the given name is the official one "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT, IT IS REALLY A SHAME. Likemonkeys ( talk) 15:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ronald Coase is described in the article as a heterodox economist. I don't think anyone can reasonably call Coase or New Institutional Economics generally heterodox. This should be removed. 86.183.247.6 ( talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The prize in question is unquestionably a political prize free riding on the good reputation of the actual Nobel prizes. Wikipedia has been coerced into taking a political standpoint by using the current name. I don't believe anyone in good faith can claim that this title is NPOV.
Those who have created this prize and those who support its politics have deliberately confused the issue in the media. This confusion is supposedly the reason it must be named something other than what it's actually called, furthering the confusion.
The official English name of this prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Unquestionably ( talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What a joke this name is. It is so simple to undo this. Who is the founder of the prize? The name of the price itself calls it in it so why the autors of Wikipedia insist any more? The prize calls "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences". Nobel has nothing to do with it (he didnt liked economic scienes, so why do abusing his name then?). Wikipedia is made by people. And all economic scientist should know about how stubborn people can be. So, who does the people follow? Economic scientist or Alfred Nobel? I follow Alfred Nobel, even if i dont accept anything he had in mind. What is your opinion? [12.11.2017 CEST] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8400:6C20:21C6:5877:F5F6:ADC2 ( talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Here it is:
Guerrien, Bernard (15 March 2004).
"A science too human? Economics". Post-autistic economics review (4). commonly called the "Nobel prize for economics" although from this it does not follow that it is one
This article contains utter nonsense like "Yet for a long time some economists have, in spite of everything, undertaken “experiments”. It was not, however, until 2003 that the profession took a little interest in this kind of approach (Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith)."
The Nobel is awarded largely for work that has withstood the test of time. Interest in experimental economics was widespread before 2003. We've got a "journal" here called "Post-autistic economics." I have to wonder if this is much better than a Galileo Gambit group blog that happens to feature a more formal, scholarly style. Yakushima ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Read the section, "Spreading information about the Nobel Prize." [4] The Foundation is clearly vested in protecting the use of the term. Yet it has not moved legally against the Bank of Sweden for its use of what is clearly a trademark of the Foundation [5], in all the years since the econ Nobel was established. Surely, the legal owner of the trademark "Nobel Prize" is the final arbiter of improper use? Yet on their own website, they treat the econ Nobel as close to equally as they can under the limiting terms of Alfred Nobel's will. If they don't have a "correctness" issue with "Nobel Prize in Economics", why should anyone else? Yakushima ( talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the matter of the title of this article.
Likemonkeys gave a perfect policy interpretation of the balance to find between common name and neutrality. Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is commonly used in every official publication or specialized article and assuch qualifies as a common name.
"But in WP:COMMONNAME that we follow, this is also written: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.". As the current name is not neutral, according to many people (people having already asked for renaming, different articles on the internet..), I insist that we should change it, and use redirections for the more known other names.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemonkeys (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)"
This rename will allow to avoid any confusion for the status of the price. The introduction clarifies righteously the relationship between the price and the Nobel Foundation. Oh, and this title contains every word allowing to identify the subject of the article : Nobel, Prize, Economic. -- Dereckson ( talk) 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If we are going to follow the Nobel Foundation's lead that this prize is not a Nobel Prize, then we cannot refer to the "other Nobel Prizes" as that is logically inconsistent. If the prizes in literature, physics, etc are the "other" Nobels, that means (by the nature of the English language) that this prize is also a Nobel Prize. -- Khajidha ( talk) 09:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The lede says "Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony". That is clearly not true, because the Peace prize has a different ceremony (in Oslo not Stockholm) and is misleading (evidence: one of my friends reading it was misled). The source (Britannica) doesn't say quite this, it refers to a ceremony which, I assume the other Nobel Prizes are awarded at. I can't think of how to work the lede better to make this clear. Also, Britannica does not seem like the best of sources here surely? Francis Davey ( talk) 21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved b uidh e 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences →
Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences – Title of this article need an update. Many things have changed since 2009 (last time we discussed as WP:RM). The Nobel Foundation doesn't use the current name and doesn't call it a Nobel.
Danish WP,
Dutch WP,
Swedish WP, and many other use Sveriges Riksbank Prize as a name. The title which Wikipedia uses becomes a common title and this what currently is happening. See search results:
"Nobel+Memorial+Prize+in+Economic+Sciences"&client=opera&hs=Y8w&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi30bfsi_XoAhVdVRUIHRoUA8wQ_AUoAnoECDwQBA&biw=1326&bih=627 5,560 v
"Sveriges+Riksbank+Prize"&client=opera&hs=zwH&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmP33jfXoAhUgTxUIHYPeCWsQ_AUICigB&biw=1326&bih=627&dpr=1 4700 so clearly gap is narrow and we should prefer later results.
Also, read Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms section. Störm (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
RaveX ( talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The following assertion in the introduction:
"While it is not one of the original Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is generally regarded and often referred to as the Nobel award for Economics."
cites https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/ as evidence to back up its claim.
But "Nobel award for Economics" does not even appear on that page and actually says it is "Not a Nobel Prize":
"Not a Nobel Prize
The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) instituted “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, and it has since been awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901. The first Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969."
The actual names used are "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and "Prize in Economic Sciences".
If there is a mistaken common name, it is Nobel Prize in Economics. The article should say something like: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize, although it is commonly mistakenly called Nobel Prize in Economics.
The current name of the article "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" seems to be made up by Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.60.240 ( talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This assertion "it is generally regarded and often referred to as the Nobel award for Economics" is not backed up by its source: https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/
The phrase "Nobel award for Economics" does not even appear on that web page.
Moreover it states "The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize".
It says in this part that the socialist economist Joan Robinson was "snubbed" for a Nobel Prize, but I do not think she was ever even considered. In her Wikipedia page, it states she was a strong supporter of the North Korean dictatorship and even of Mao's Cultural Revolution. It would be a bad joke to award her a Nobel Prize in economics.
These edits have been reverted with any reason given except see talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences&type=revision&diff=1007742305&oldid=1007741983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.60.240 ( talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
political biases).
transform economics from a branch of philosophy and literature [??; is this supposed to be a reference to The Fable of the Bees?] into a mathematical science– rather, it was at most one part of that transformation, which started before the Marginal Revolution and included many more figures and thinkers (e.g. Vilfredo Pareto). Also, all academic disciplines started as a branch of philosophy and then specialized later on. Your assertion that
It was only in the 20th Century that economics emerged as a unique branch of the social sciences.is incredibly incorrect; in fact, economics as a specialized discipline predates most other social sciences, and e.g. sociology emerged as economic thinkers branching out into social research more generally (Marx, Pareto, Weber, etc.).
legitimate subject and scienceand be a
wildly controversial subjectat the same time, that's not a contradiction. You have asked, rhetorically,
What purpose does the criticism section serve readers?; the criticism section serves the same purpose as all other criticism sections, to inform the reader that the subject of the article is, in fact, controversial (see WP:CRITICISM). If there are reliable sources which document criticism and controversies, they shouldn't be excluded from the article, since that would violate WP:NPOV. Your answer, which said
Nothing except conveying the impression that the Prize in Economic Sciences is not a legitimate award, which by extension implies that the achievements of the recipients of the prize are not legitimate achievements.is just your opinion, and is an over-interpretation of the article's content. The section conveys simply that this prize is controversial for a number of reasons. That is all. TucanHolmes ( talk) 17:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2 |
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
For details on why this article is currently named Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, please see the following discussions: |
A news item involving Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 8 October 2018. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
||
I propose reinstating the multiple nationality flags, otherwise we're just going to end up with stupid edit wars with parochial POV editors who feel the need to acquire some personal status through their indirect relationship with Laureates such as Mr Modigliani, much like we're about to be subjected to with the Olympics, ugh. Per Wikipedia:Citizenship and nationality, there is currently no consensus on Wikipedia on whether citizenship or nationality is preferred. Nonetheless, the information is factual and I can't think of any good reason why both pieces of factual information can't be included (ie Citizenship and Nationality). Personally, I don't find multiple flags next to one individual confusing, and for those that need it clarified one can always click-through to the Laureates 's main article. Debate 木 00:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
The bit about the prize award being biased towards "neoclassical" or "mainstream" is cited by two bits. Regardless of whether "neocleassical" is more accurate, both articles use the term "mainstream", and I think that's a better description of what the referenced articles mean. (For instance, in regards to Nash the issue wasn't his scholarship but whether he'd be embarrassing.) CRETOG8( t/ c) 20:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
User:Hapsala has just moved this article from "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" (NMPES) to "Nobel Prize in Economics" (NPE). The move log referred to a two year old discussion favoring NPE. The much shorter discussion which was one year old favored NMPES, which name the article has had since.
I think a move like this deserves discussion, so here it is.
For my preferences, I favor NPE as the name to use in other articles because it's pithy and well-known. I favor NMPES as the title for this article because it's more detailed and accurate. CRETOG8( t/ c) 19:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
An even better name would disclaim association with the Nobel Foundation, but at the very least, acknowledge its backing by the Swedish central bank. 68.115.152.250 ( talk) 15:48, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to moving the page without discussing it first, user Hapsala keeps replacing the image of the Nobel committee at the top of the article with a picture of Robert Merton or one of Milton Friedman for unexplained reasons. Closest s/he came to offering an explanation was on my talk page; because s/he "doesn't care what you "think"". Other Nobel prize articles usually have the picture of the FIRST person to get the prize, which following that convention would mean that we'd have a pic of Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen. This would be 1) messy and 2) not really possible since a pic of Tinbergen is unavailable. So I don't see anything wrong with keeping the current committee photo. User Hapsala is at this point essentially engaging in vandalism, having been asked to provide a reason for the change and having refused to do so. radek ( talk)
Hapsala, one more revert and you're in violation of 3RR. You were before in fact but I led it slide and instead asked for 3O. Which agreed with me. If you want to discuss this change here you're welcome to do so, but please keep it civil and stop reverting against consensus. radek ( talk) 06:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the heat gets turned down. Neither of you is vandalizing, as far as I can see, so accusations of such don't help. Both of you are edit warring, and it would be best to stop. CRETOG8( t/ c) 14:35, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
If a third opinion was desired, a third opinion (mine) was given. If the third opinion is judged to be not constructive by one of the editors, then you're looking for something other than a third opinion. CRETOG8( t/ c) 16:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
The original Nobel prize categories (Physic, Chemistry, Physiology and Medicine, Literature, and Peace) were selected by Alfred Nobel based on his opinion about there objective worth to society. The first three prizes are the hard sciences (physics, chemistry, and biology) and the last two prizes are, essentially, sociological in nature. Because economics is not a hard science (in that it is not predictive, rigorous, or finitely defined) it can not be eligible for any of the sciences prizes. However, it is possible that people who contribute to the field of economics could be eligible for the Nobel prize in peace or literature, if their contribution resulted in an achievement in peace, or was in the form of a great work of literature. Thus, the criticism with the economics prize association with the Nobel institute is not that economics is not a worthy field for an award, but that it appears economists who could not win a Nobel prize in any of the five fields, simply created a prize for themselves and associated the prize with the Nobel institute. Thus while the awarding of (and even the categories of) the Nobel prize are highly subjective, they are as the foundation of the prize intended. The Nobel foundation made no stipulation about introducing a new category, therefore introducing a new category is antithetical to the Nobel prize. For example, if the Nobel Prize could be amended to include new categories, astronomy and mathematics would have a much stronger argument for inclusion than economics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.135.235.188 ( talk) 14:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
Slight disagreement on the reason for the additional controversy. The controversy stems from the prize stems from the recognition gained in the economic sciences downplays research done on economic phenomena in other social sciences such as psychology, sociology and history. This is particularly interesting in the context of the delay of behavioral psychology taking almost half a century to enter the field of economics from the field of psychology and animal behavior. I have heard quoted and read from two sources, Fredrick Hayek (A laureate of the prize) and Alternet respectively voice the opinion that the prize is harmful to the field of economics. The reasoning stems from the resulting lack of communication between different social sciences. This problem would be reduced substantially if there were similar prizes offered to the other social sciences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.181.210.62 ( talk) 08:35, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
As the Sveriges Riksbank awards the prize the winner should be described as a Sveriges Riksbank Laureate, not a Nobel Laureate. Bebofpenge ( talk) 00:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
Since this has become a bone of contention I would very much like the input of other editors on what the picture at the top of this article should be. Currently the image is that of "Announcement of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences 2008" which, admittedly, is fairly bland. Hapsala keeps removing this image and insists on replacing it with that of Robert Merton. My problem with this is that the choice of Merton to represent the prize is arbitrary and can be construed as POV (as in 'he was more important than others'). Since Hapsala was not forthcoming with his reasons (and uncivil to boot) I reverted his edits and asked for a third party opinion. Cretog8 gave that opinion which was basically in agreement with mine. But to settle this once and for all it would be nice to get input of other editors to get a consensus. I think the three reasonable options for the picture are as follows: 1) The picture of the Announcement of the prize, 2008. The only problem with this is that the picture's a bit bland and none of the members of the committee are as recognizable as some of the laurates. 2) Following the practice at other Nobel prize articles we could use the picture of the first recipient to ever get the prize. The problem here is that there were actually two (Frisch and Tinbergen) and in fact one of them does not currently have a photo. We could put Frisch in and wait to see if someone can locate Tinbergen. Even then we'd have to cram two photos in there which can end up looking messy. 3) A photo of the most current recipient, updated each year. Personally I think this would be the best option since it would avoid the problems with 1) and 2), however, I expect that given who the most recent recipient is someone somewhere is going to complain. So taking this tack may cause some revert trouble in the future. Still, I think 3) is the best option - it's based on an objective, non-arbitrary criteria and avoids the limited-recognizability problem. However, I'd be fine with 1) (status quo) or 2) (Frisch only). What I do object to is one person choosing his 'favorite' and insisting that this must be the photo at the top of this article. radek ( talk) 16:40, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hapsala. Studying the revision history, the conflict seems made up by Radeksz who was very quick to delete Hapsala's original contribution with a picture of Milton Friedman from the very beginning. Radeksz was also pushing hard for his suggestions in the midst of asking for a third party opinion which I believe is pretty dishonest. Later, Cretog8 kind of blew his chance of becoming a serious mediator, as his got involved in the edit war only minutes after replying to Radeksz request. As Friedman is probably the best known winner of the prize, a picture of him is fully appropriate. So is also the founder of the Black/Scholes, where Hapsala was adding an interesting comment about the prize committee's recognition of late Fischer Black. Maybe, Hapsala's caption is a bit lenghy, but, in view of the state of the article, the story might be hard to include in the body text. Anyway, the picture of the recent press conference should not be used as the lead image. Best regards, Polipopo ( talk) 22:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Any more thoughts? As for me, looking at and thinking about the pictures of Frisch and Nash, I get somewhat biased against using them. They're so portraity that I think they give that specific winner undue weight. If there's a good picture of the award ceremony for any economist, that might be preferable. Can we use an image of the medal under fair use, or is that off limits? CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not a terrific photo, but it could be zoomed and cropped, of 3 MIT laureates: List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty. I like that it's three winners, with different focuses of study. Someone could still complain that it's MIT-biased. CRETOG8( t/ c) 00:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
The title is incorrect and misleading, there is no prize called the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". There is a prize called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel. I suggest the article is moved to either Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel or simply Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences.
The Sveriges Riksbank Prize isn't a Nobel prize (one of Alfred Nobel's prizes), it's a Sveriges Riksbank prize and is completely unrelated to the Nobel Prizes, in the same way as the prize commonly known as the Alternative Nobel Prize (the Right Livelihood Award). GVU ( talk) 21:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
<-- No, because you are simply repeating things which have been said before and which led to this article being called "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" rather than "Nobel Prize in Economics". As such it is unreasonable for editors to restate all the previous arguments that have been made a dozen+ times. Read the archives, for starters. The name of this article is a result of a long process and lots of discussion. You would really have to come up with some really really new and convincing evidence for there to be a reason to change. radek ( talk) 21:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was No consensus to move. Note: The WP:COMMONNAME argument seems stronger. I looked up newspaper references as a sanity check and they uniformly refer to it as the nobel prize in economics. (c.f. [1] and [2]). -- RegentsPark ( My narrowboat) 15:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
It has been proposed below that Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences be renamed and moved to Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.202.139 ( talk) 11:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion clearly demonstrates that the current title is strongly disputed, and is considered POV and inaccurate, and as such as not encyclopedic, by several editors. This needs to be indicated in the article until the situation can be solved. It seems that it is only a minority that support the Wikipedia-invented title "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences". The only NPOV solution, and solution appropriate for an encyclopedia, would be to move this article to the actual and official name of the prize, instead of "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" which is a prize that doesn't exist. GVU ( talk) 18:43, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
LOOK. This has been brought up a dozen times. Most recently it was brought up in March, then, after somebody somewhere didn't get their way, it was brought up again in April. After a certain point, bringing up an article for a rename time after time after time again becomes simply disruptive. Each of these many times at the very least there was no consensus to move. Since there was no consensus to move it stays where it is. Since it stays where it is and since there is no consensus to move you cannot add a POV template simply because you do not like the article title. That's just trying to get one way what you couldn't get another. Again, it is disruptive. And if you're gonna count supporters from the previous discussions, then honesty demands that you count the opposers from those as well. radek ( talk) 21:58, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
At some point in the future, this may be worth bringing up again. I missed the most recent discussion on renaming, and may have supported the move, but that's in the past. It should be given a pretty long rest before it comes up again. Editors who might engage in careful discussion of the merits are simply exhausted from having done so so many times in the past. CRETOG8( t/ c) 22:22, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Per Cretog, this seems to have been exhausted into pointlessness. IMO, I'd simply move to Nobel Prize in Economics as the best "common name" over the rather funky title we currently have. — sephiroth bcr ( converse) 09:01, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Personally I think it should be "Nobel Prize in Economics", the most common name used by sources. But I prefer a stable compromise, such as the current name, to an unstable NPiE. However, actions by GVU are basically attempts to destabilize this compromise. If this is brought up for a move vote AGAIN in the near future I am going to propose a move to NPiE which has a lot better chance of passing than the SBPiES (or whatever it is) proposal. radek ( talk) 19:26, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Give. It. Up. This. Is. Becoming. Disruptive. radek ( talk) 14:55, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
There is serious political right-wing bias in this sentence too: "It is commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics[3] and it is identified with the Nobel Prizes, although it is not one of the five Nobel Prizes (in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature, and Peace) which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel in 1895.". The part that makes this statement unncessarily fuzzy is the last part " which were established by the will of Alfred Nobel ". As if a noble prize can be anything else than those that were established by Alfred Nobel in 1895. What is the intention of this sentence? It only adds bias and uncertainty and makes the article in general difficult to interpret. The simplest form is to state "There is no nobel prize in economics. There is however a different prize constructed after his will by a different group of people against his descendants will which is called Sveriges riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne." The "the new york times quotes it as".. has no importance. The only authoritve source is Alfred Nobel and he is dead. And if you really were to allow popular magazines to define this, can I choose which magazine I want to use as authoritive title too? Let's make everyone pick their paper's favourite nickname for the price. How are you going to pick which paper's favourite nickname is the correct one? No, this is sensless. Name it by its real name, not by something that "many westerners" (or something similiar) sloppily (and biased) like to think. And then will you also add to the stats all the people who consciously stay silent and say nothing because it is not a nobel prize in all of those possible different context which that is possible? Of course not. Such a study would be impossible and retarded to its purpose. As for the "this argument is getting boring"-argument, I do not see how it is really productive. Are we really to stop discussions just because they are boring? And if it really is, why enter the dialogue? In general, the idea of accepting this title is proof of Wikipedia's demographic and political bias. There is no nobel prize in economics. Claiming there is one, is exactly wrong. Unofficial use, "common" referencial name, fantasies, trolls, goblins, etc are not relevant to the article. The prize which is refererred to in the article is an after-construction which was made up long after Nobel against the will of his descedants. There is only one authoritive source for the prizes and that is Alfred Nobel and to some extent the commitee. If 5000 market gorillas claim that it is a nobel prize, it still is not. This title/article lowers Wikipedia's standing in my eyes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.254.65.77 ( talk) 02:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Opinions of right-wing economist editors notwithstanding, it is by no means "disruptive" to point out the achingly obvious fact that the official name of this prize is, currently, "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and that it is not a "Nobel Prize" -- and that colloquial names for the prize are not what should dictate the terms used by encyclopedias. It should certainly be mentioned that "Nobel Prize in Economics" is one of several commonly used shorthand terms for the prize, but that fact does not alter those other facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.218.107 ( talk) 08:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
As other editors have pointed out, the prize is most commonly referred to as the "Nobel Prize in Economics." Winners of the prize are commonly referred to as "Nobel Laureates." A title that emphasizes the "fact" that it is not "really" a Nobel Prize is a highly POV attempt to reduce the prestige associated with the prize (and the legitimacy of mainstream economic theory generally) by disassociating it from the official Nobel Prizes. The current compromise is also unacceptable because virtually nobody refers to it as the "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences." The article should either be titled by an English translation of the official prize name or (preferably) as the "Nobel Prize in Economics." Per WP:COMMONNAME, common names are to be used even though they are not the "real" name, as with "Bill Clinton" rather than his legal name, "William Jefferson Clinton." Elliotreed ( talk) 19:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
"The prestige associated with the prize" you refer to is purely "Nobel by association". In his will A. N. was very clear about the "for the benefit of mankind"-aspect. Who other than a selected elite will benefit from the ideas awarded with the Sveriges Riksbanks Pris i Ekonomisk Vetenskap till Alfred Nobels Minne. I could call a prize "the XXX's Price in Plumbing in Memory of Alfred Nobel" any day, and award it to whoever promoted clean drinking water to the thirsty in the third world. Soon it would gain prestige by its "benefit of mankind"-content, and it would be a Nobel Prize. Right? Laelele ( talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
This prize is named differently in the infoboxes of different economists. For consistency name should be same in all of them, and in my opinion that name should be same as of this page. -- Vision Thing -- 18:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to clean up the lead section by making a few small grammar changes (5 to be accurate), but people keep reverting because they seem to confused about the consensus on the talk page. So I'm going to elaborate them here and any objections can revert, but please explain here as to why.
This is getting crazy. The inclusion of NPE in the first sentence and the second sentence goes against the consensus against repetition we talked about yesterday (see above). We shouldn't have 4 names in the lead, it's terribly confusing, and against WP:LEAD. To summarize the four:
I think the 1st and 3rd are obviously needed, the title of the article for 1, and the official name for 3. The 4th I don't think is necessary, as I outlined above. But I don't think the 2nd one belongs either, we deal with that sufficiently name in the second sentence, and it's bolded and clear; it doesn't need to be repeated. The reason given by the editor isn't convincing, redirects from NPE would see the redirect notification and the NPE is clearly stated in the second sentence, it's already VERY clear and this repetitive nonsense is hampering readability. -- kittyKAY4 ( talk) 18:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For whoever contributes a 3O here, this is the text from the original 3O request:
Cleanup of lead section has caused some dispute as to the positioning of a common, but inaccurate, name for the prize. One editor wants the additional common name in first sentence, another wants to leave the disputed name in the second sentence in the lead, which deals with the dispute. Problem is exacerbated by already having 2 alternate names in the lead. Basically we just need someone to pick between Rev A and Rev B.
The comment was neutralized per 3O guidelines. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 13:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
While I think the summation above is very good, I am going to take the risk of proposing a third solution as a form of compromise:
The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, officially called the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, and commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics even though it is not one of the five Nobel prizes established in Nobel's will, is awarded for outstanding contributions in the field of economics and considered one of the most prestigious awards in economics.
That sentence is a little long but it gets all the alternative names into the first sentence without being misleading. I hope this helps. Rusty Cashman ( talk) 21:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a citation or two for the claim "one of the most prestigious awards in economics" --- just a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.121.113.151 ( talk) 17:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
It can be that at this official page (given in the article as a source) the prize is called "the prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel" for 1973, but that same page links to this page, where the prize is titled "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel 1973", as it is at the top of the first page. Possibly, some of the different variants are just due to the use of different translators (assuming the original text is Swedish).
All in all, the table given with different names looks like WP:Original research to me. Is there any source that discusses the different names? Classical geographer ( talk) 08:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
RaveX ( talk) 00:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
”Oskar” redirects (via disambiguation) to the proper name ”Academy Award”. So let “Nobel Prize in Economics” redirect to the article with the proper name in the heading.
“Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien” themselves uses the proper name. So did Milton Friedman at the banquet.
This is interesting: recipients themselves read Wikipedia and the discussion pages. How else would you interpret the fact that the last two recipients (like M Friedman and E S Phelps) used the proper phrase “in memory of Alfred Nobel”? (OK Oliver Williamsson said “the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” but I guess he was overly anxious to get it right.) Let’s see by this December (2011) what the latest recipient has to say. Laelele ( talk) 14:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
1969 Jan Tinbergen:” the Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize for Economics” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty, the King, the 1969 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1970 Paul A Samuelson: “an Alfred Nobel Memorial Awards in Economics” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty, the King, the 1970 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1971 Simon Kuznets: “a Nobel Memorial Prize” Presentation: “….the Prize in Economic Science, created by the Bank of Sweden in memory of Alfred Nobel, and ask you to step down to receive it from the hands of His Majesty, the King.”
1972 John R. Hicks: “a Prize of the hands of a Prince” Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Royal Highness the Crown Prince.”
1973 Vassily Leontief: Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty The King the 1973 Prize in Economic Science in Honor of Alfred Nobel.”
1974 Friedrich August von Hayek: “the Nobel Memorial Prize for economic science….a Nobel Prize in economics” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King the 1974 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1975 Tjalling C. Koopermans: “award for economics” Presentation: “….receive your prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1976 Milton Friedman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”…”(I myself have been asked my opinion on everything from a cure for the common cold to the market value of a letter signed by John F. Kennedy. Needless to say, the attention is flattering, but also corrupting. Somehow, we badly need an antidote for both the inflated attention granted a Nobel Laureate in areas outside his competence and the inflated ego each of us is in so much danger of acquiring.”) Presentation: “….is awarded the 1976 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics….receive your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.” (Due to the controversy and by decorum M Friedman made sure to get it right, and the presenter didn’t rub it in that it wasn’t a Nobel Prize.)
1977 James E. Meade: “award” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1977 Prize in Economic Sciences, dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1978 Herbert A. Simon: ” honor” Presentation: “….the 1978 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences ….. receive your prize from His Majesty the King.”
1979 Theodore W. Schutz: “the Nobel Prize in Economics” Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1980 Lawrence R. Klein: “the Prize in Economic Science” (“The tax code in US…” This is interesting: You don’t have to pay taxes on certain prizes such as the Nobel Prize. So by the US tax authorities the Prize in Economic Science is a Nobel Prize.) Presentation: “ the Nobel Memorial Prize in economic sciences from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1981 James Tobin: “the Prize in Economic Science in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1981 Prize in Economic Science dedicated to the memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1982 George J. Stiegler: “the award” Presentation: “this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences…..your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1983 Gerard Debreu: “the dazzling recognition” Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1984 Richard Stone: “Prize in Economics” ( “… I want to thank BoS for adding to the other Nobel Prizes this one.”) Presentation: “….this year's Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences….your prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1985 Franco Modigliani: “award” Presentation:
1986 James M. Buchanan Jr.: Presentation:
1987 Robert M. Solow: “this Prize” (...asked to solve the economical problems of US, Norway, Sweden….”) Presentation: “….your Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1988 Maurice Allais: “le Prix Nobel d'Economie” Presentation:
1989 Tryggve Haavelmo: “this particular Prize” Presentation: “….from the hand of His Majesty the King, the 1989 Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences.”
1990 Harry M. Markowitz: “this award” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King the 1990 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1991 Ronald H. Coase: “the honour the recognition” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, this year's Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1992 Gary S. Becker: “the superb honor This Prize” Presentation: “….from the hands of His Majesty the King, the 1992 Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel.”
1993 DouglassC. North: “This prize” Presentation: “….the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
1994 John C. Harsanyi: “the Nobel memorial Prize” Presentation: “….your Prizes from the hands of his Majesty the King.”
1995 Robert E. Lucas Jr.: “Nobel Prize in Economics” Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1996 James A. Mirrlees: “The Nobel Prizes a prize” Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1997 Robert C. Merton: “this ultimate honour” Presentation: “….the Prize from his Majesty the King.”
1998 Amartya Sen:--- Presentation: ”…. the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
1999 Robert A. Mundell:--- Presentation: ” ”…. the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2000 Daniel McFadden:--- Presentation: ”…. your Prizes from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2001 Geogg A. Akerlof: ”the prize” Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2002 Vernon L. Smith: “the economics award” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty, the King.”
2003 Clive W. J. Granger: Presentation: “….the Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2004 Edward C. Prescott: “this award” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2005 Robert J. Aumann: “this recognition” Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2006 Edmund S. Phelps: “the Prize in Economics in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
2007 Eric S. Maskin: “Economics Prize” Presentation: “….your Prizes from His Majesty the King.”
2008 Paul Krugman: “the Prize in Economic Sciences” Presentation: “….your Prize from His Majesty the King.”
2009 Oliver E. Williamson: “the Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel” (sic) Presentation: “….the Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2010 Dale T. Mortensen: “Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel” Presentation: “….your Prize from the hands of His Majesty the King.”
2011 Thomas J. Sargent, Christopher A. Sims: “My good and dear friend Chris Sims and I thank you for recognizing… Presentation:“…your Prize from his Majesty the King.”
And finally the one economist to actually receive a Nobel Prize for his work in the field of economics (Nobel Lecture, Oslo City Hall)
2006 Muhammad Yunus: “the Nobel Peace Prize”
Presentation: ---
To sum up: three (3) recipients themselves claimed they got a Nobel Prize.
source: nobelprize.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laelele ( talk • contribs) 09:22, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
The part of the creation of the prize misses the fact that the statue of the foundation was changed by the swedish goverment at the same time. The will is specific on the point that only one person can recive the price. During the 60ies the Nobel commities started to notice that most discoveries where made by several persons. Somebody with a good library in Sweden should research the topic and add a section to the article about it. 81.170.188.5 ( talk) 19:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit: [3] reverted a change that I made in an effort to neutralize the presentation on ethnic backgrounds. Specifically, I considered the adding of "only" and the italic "not" to be MOS:OPED. The numbers (60% US; 2 non-European-American; and 4 non-N. American/West Europe) speak for themselves, and the added descriptions to the comparisons (along with the edit summary) seek to assert a point. With WP:BRD in mind, I open the topic for discussion. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
The current naming of the article is a political choice, even if it is not desired, and has thus to me changed. All wikipedia articles about countries and states follow their official names, even if these states are known by most known words.. It is only needed to redirect and notice the other names known to refer to them (in this case "Nobel prize of economy", even if it is a wrong naming..). I cannot see why it should be different with this article, more over, in the other languages wikipedia articles, the given name is the official one "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". WE HAVE TO CHANGE THAT, IT IS REALLY A SHAME. Likemonkeys ( talk) 15:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ronald Coase is described in the article as a heterodox economist. I don't think anyone can reasonably call Coase or New Institutional Economics generally heterodox. This should be removed. 86.183.247.6 ( talk) 05:31, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
The prize in question is unquestionably a political prize free riding on the good reputation of the actual Nobel prizes. Wikipedia has been coerced into taking a political standpoint by using the current name. I don't believe anyone in good faith can claim that this title is NPOV.
Those who have created this prize and those who support its politics have deliberately confused the issue in the media. This confusion is supposedly the reason it must be named something other than what it's actually called, furthering the confusion.
The official English name of this prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Unquestionably ( talk) 17:57, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
What a joke this name is. It is so simple to undo this. Who is the founder of the prize? The name of the price itself calls it in it so why the autors of Wikipedia insist any more? The prize calls "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences". Nobel has nothing to do with it (he didnt liked economic scienes, so why do abusing his name then?). Wikipedia is made by people. And all economic scientist should know about how stubborn people can be. So, who does the people follow? Economic scientist or Alfred Nobel? I follow Alfred Nobel, even if i dont accept anything he had in mind. What is your opinion? [12.11.2017 CEST] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810A:8400:6C20:21C6:5877:F5F6:ADC2 ( talk) 04:55, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Here it is:
Guerrien, Bernard (15 March 2004).
"A science too human? Economics". Post-autistic economics review (4). commonly called the "Nobel prize for economics" although from this it does not follow that it is one
This article contains utter nonsense like "Yet for a long time some economists have, in spite of everything, undertaken “experiments”. It was not, however, until 2003 that the profession took a little interest in this kind of approach (Nobel Prize awarded jointly to Daniel Kahneman and Vernon Smith)."
The Nobel is awarded largely for work that has withstood the test of time. Interest in experimental economics was widespread before 2003. We've got a "journal" here called "Post-autistic economics." I have to wonder if this is much better than a Galileo Gambit group blog that happens to feature a more formal, scholarly style. Yakushima ( talk) 17:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Read the section, "Spreading information about the Nobel Prize." [4] The Foundation is clearly vested in protecting the use of the term. Yet it has not moved legally against the Bank of Sweden for its use of what is clearly a trademark of the Foundation [5], in all the years since the econ Nobel was established. Surely, the legal owner of the trademark "Nobel Prize" is the final arbiter of improper use? Yet on their own website, they treat the econ Nobel as close to equally as they can under the limiting terms of Alfred Nobel's will. If they don't have a "correctness" issue with "Nobel Prize in Economics", why should anyone else? Yakushima ( talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I would like to revisit the matter of the title of this article.
Likemonkeys gave a perfect policy interpretation of the balance to find between common name and neutrality. Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is commonly used in every official publication or specialized article and assuch qualifies as a common name.
"But in WP:COMMONNAME that we follow, this is also written: "Neutrality is also considered; our policy on neutral titles, and what neutrality in titles is, follows in the next section. When there are several names for a subject, all of them fairly common, and the most common has problems, it is perfectly reasonable to choose one of the others.". As the current name is not neutral, according to many people (people having already asked for renaming, different articles on the internet..), I insist that we should change it, and use redirections for the more known other names.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Likemonkeys (talk • contribs) 19:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)"
This rename will allow to avoid any confusion for the status of the price. The introduction clarifies righteously the relationship between the price and the Nobel Foundation. Oh, and this title contains every word allowing to identify the subject of the article : Nobel, Prize, Economic. -- Dereckson ( talk) 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 14:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. 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 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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 02:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
If we are going to follow the Nobel Foundation's lead that this prize is not a Nobel Prize, then we cannot refer to the "other Nobel Prizes" as that is logically inconsistent. If the prizes in literature, physics, etc are the "other" Nobels, that means (by the nature of the English language) that this prize is also a Nobel Prize. -- Khajidha ( talk) 09:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
The lede says "Laureates are announced with the Nobel Prize laureates, and receive the award at the same ceremony". That is clearly not true, because the Peace prize has a different ceremony (in Oslo not Stockholm) and is misleading (evidence: one of my friends reading it was misled). The source (Britannica) doesn't say quite this, it refers to a ceremony which, I assume the other Nobel Prizes are awarded at. I can't think of how to work the lede better to make this clear. Also, Britannica does not seem like the best of sources here surely? Francis Davey ( talk) 21:30, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Not moved b uidh e 00:15, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences →
Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences – Title of this article need an update. Many things have changed since 2009 (last time we discussed as WP:RM). The Nobel Foundation doesn't use the current name and doesn't call it a Nobel.
Danish WP,
Dutch WP,
Swedish WP, and many other use Sveriges Riksbank Prize as a name. The title which Wikipedia uses becomes a common title and this what currently is happening. See search results:
"Nobel+Memorial+Prize+in+Economic+Sciences"&client=opera&hs=Y8w&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi30bfsi_XoAhVdVRUIHRoUA8wQ_AUoAnoECDwQBA&biw=1326&bih=627 5,560 v
"Sveriges+Riksbank+Prize"&client=opera&hs=zwH&tbm=nws&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwilmP33jfXoAhUgTxUIHYPeCWsQ_AUICigB&biw=1326&bih=627&dpr=1 4700 so clearly gap is narrow and we should prefer later results.
Also, read Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Controversies_and_criticisms section. Störm (talk) 18:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
RaveX ( talk) 19:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
The following assertion in the introduction:
"While it is not one of the original Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, it is generally regarded and often referred to as the Nobel award for Economics."
cites https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/ as evidence to back up its claim.
But "Nobel award for Economics" does not even appear on that page and actually says it is "Not a Nobel Prize":
"Not a Nobel Prize
The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank (Sweden’s central bank) instituted “The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel”, and it has since been awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences according to the same principles as for the Nobel Prizes that have been awarded since 1901. The first Prize in Economic Sciences was awarded to Ragnar Frisch and Jan Tinbergen in 1969."
The actual names used are "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" and "Prize in Economic Sciences".
If there is a mistaken common name, it is Nobel Prize in Economics. The article should say something like: The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel is not a Nobel Prize, although it is commonly mistakenly called Nobel Prize in Economics.
The current name of the article "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences" seems to be made up by Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.60.240 ( talk) 10:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
This assertion "it is generally regarded and often referred to as the Nobel award for Economics" is not backed up by its source: https://www.nobelprize.org/nomination/economic-sciences/
The phrase "Nobel award for Economics" does not even appear on that web page.
Moreover it states "The Prize in Economic Sciences is not a Nobel Prize".
It says in this part that the socialist economist Joan Robinson was "snubbed" for a Nobel Prize, but I do not think she was ever even considered. In her Wikipedia page, it states she was a strong supporter of the North Korean dictatorship and even of Mao's Cultural Revolution. It would be a bad joke to award her a Nobel Prize in economics.
These edits have been reverted with any reason given except see talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences&type=revision&diff=1007742305&oldid=1007741983 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.60.240 ( talk) 22:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
political biases).
transform economics from a branch of philosophy and literature [??; is this supposed to be a reference to The Fable of the Bees?] into a mathematical science– rather, it was at most one part of that transformation, which started before the Marginal Revolution and included many more figures and thinkers (e.g. Vilfredo Pareto). Also, all academic disciplines started as a branch of philosophy and then specialized later on. Your assertion that
It was only in the 20th Century that economics emerged as a unique branch of the social sciences.is incredibly incorrect; in fact, economics as a specialized discipline predates most other social sciences, and e.g. sociology emerged as economic thinkers branching out into social research more generally (Marx, Pareto, Weber, etc.).
legitimate subject and scienceand be a
wildly controversial subjectat the same time, that's not a contradiction. You have asked, rhetorically,
What purpose does the criticism section serve readers?; the criticism section serves the same purpose as all other criticism sections, to inform the reader that the subject of the article is, in fact, controversial (see WP:CRITICISM). If there are reliable sources which document criticism and controversies, they shouldn't be excluded from the article, since that would violate WP:NPOV. Your answer, which said
Nothing except conveying the impression that the Prize in Economic Sciences is not a legitimate award, which by extension implies that the achievements of the recipients of the prize are not legitimate achievements.is just your opinion, and is an over-interpretation of the article's content. The section conveys simply that this prize is controversial for a number of reasons. That is all. TucanHolmes ( talk) 17:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)