Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 (Discussion from 2004) 2 good 3 Ridiculous 4 unsourced POV 5 Universities trying to boost their reputation 6 Unconvinced 7 neoliberalism and the prize 8 History category 9 Requested move 9.1 Survey 9.2 Survey pt. 2 9.2.1 "Alfred Nobel" vs. "Nobel" 9.2.2 "Memorial Prize" vs. "Prize" 9.2.3 "in Economic Sciences" vs. "in Economics" 9.3 Discussion 9.4 Result 10 Name used in other articles 11 Peter Nobel 12 Controversy

[edit] (Discussion from 2004)

Kokiri is wrong. The whole purpose of Wikipedia is to establish the truth, and not repeat the "common" usage established by a marketing ploy by fame hungry economists who want to rule the world. --- They knew very well. In Memory of Alfred Nobel, is a marketing ploy. Look at the Diploma www.nobel.se. Bank of Sweeden is in black letters, in memory of ALFRED NOBEL, is in red.

---

Wait a second. This needs to be explained. Did the Bank of Sweden really just call their prize in memory of the dynamite maker Alfred Nobel because they really liked his memory? Or was it because either they oringally forgot that the reason there are certain noble prizes was becuase of a bequest, and simply called their prize originally "the noble prize in economics", in the same way people might call something "the world series of x", and then only later changed it because of complaints from the Nobel family?

---

I'm very tempted to change the lead paragraph. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not wrong, it simply is misleading. The wording "Nobel Prize in Economics" doesn't purport to mean "at Nobel's bequest". As such to call it erroneous is also inaccurate. Furthermore who would like the mouthful when "Nobel Prize"? I'll change it; see what you think. Mandel 01:52, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

---

No one has still answered my question. It seems to me that the intention of the Bank of Sweeden was just to create a prize they called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", but the family got pissed off and they had to redoo it with the long name. Is that correct?

IMHO, this article should be moved to Nobel Prize in Economics, because this is the common (if wrong) use of the title. It's Wikipdedia policy to use the most common use. Of course we mention the correct term in the opening paragraph... Kokiri 19:23, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

I am sure the formatter meant well but does anyone else find the current formatting a little gawdy? If the goal is to make the content as readable as possible then the the formatting has the opposite effect in my opinion. What do you think? --ShaunMacPherson 10:39, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

---

Nobel did not create a Nobel in Economics, nor does his Foundation support it. The Bank of Sweeden, run by economists, is "free-riding" the Nobel Prize, with public money, to enhance the status of their own profession. Why not create an endownment, or a research fund, or a donation to the poor in order to celebrate their 300 aniversary? A self laudatory prize, with public money, when there already existed the John Bates Walker Prize for economics ? Common on.

They named their prize In Memory of Alfred Nobel, which is not a fact, but an injuction, basically a jingle, a marketing ploy. Not even a neo-liberal economist would honor a monopolist, a businessman, or a war industry supplier. His only merit for fame was creating THE NOBEL PRIZE ! Great marketing trick !

Take a look at the Diploma at www.nobel.se . Its disgusting, the words Bank of Sweeden come in black, but In Memory Of Nobel, comes in RED.

Read Lucas "Nobel" speech where he admits to the hoax. Browse recipients home pages, only one is honest enough to admit he only received the Bank of Sweeden Prize.

Half, blatantly misrepresent themselves as a "Nobel Prize" winners. The other half does worse, they misdirect us as having received the "Nobel Memorial Prize". Do they misrepresent the economic data they use as well ? Is this a group evolutionary strategy to enhance their profession?

Half the Prizes go to Central Bank advogates and monetarists, just as in 2004, there is dissent even among economists, since economists at the Central Bank have their say in who gets their Prize. Alfred Nobel gave private tax payed money to fund the prize, not tax payers money.

The question is, was this all deliberate by design, or it just happened ? Does this not damage the reputation of future economists ?

What was wrong with the John Bates Clark Award in Economics, which already had awarded recognition to the same recipients in the past.

I propose correcting every single instance of the sham, on every recipient of the "Sweedish Bank Prize in Economics".

The Walker metal was awarded every five years by the American Economic Society for outstanding lifetime achievement. It was made superfluous by, but was not the same as, the Economics Nobel. As far as the J.B. Clark Medal, you should know that it is awarded every two years to an exceptional economist under age 40. Please get your facts straight instead of making the facts fit your agenda.

---

It's not just a random prize with the name. It's awarded together with the other Nobel Prizes. Whether people like that or not is another issue, but it's one of the prizes awarded at the Nobel Prize awards ceremony, so it seems reasonable that it's referred to as a "Nobel Prize in Economics", as it's the Economics prize awarded at the Nobel ceremony. --Delirium 06:16, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] good

I'm glad this page exists. Of course there are the people here who want to rewrite history and pretend that Nobel established a prize for economics (was it even called economics back then or political economy?). Hold the fort! Ruy Lopez 23:18, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It isnt about rewriting history. The world community holds - generally - a great value to Nobel prizes, and not many a person really cares specially about mr. Alfred Nobel or his dynamite capital. The mere insistute of the prize, and what it had become throughout the years, is what matters. When this "Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" is generally regarded as a prize for economics which is similar in ststus as for example the nobleprize for physics for in the physicists, then i think its overly politcal correct to keep calling the prize with its long name. I, for instance didn't know that my famous Dutch fellow countryman Tinbergen did not win the nobel prize on economics but a second grade bla di bla company prize. Although it might be factual correct, I need to remind you that prizes are a human invention, and that the way we perceive (the status) of the prize is what matters, not the 'factual' - but also constucted - orgin. We don't talk about the twin towers without talking about the 9-11 events, although the original designer never planned that, now do we? (sorry for the provocation). --145.99.202.92 14:38, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ridiculous

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/tenets.htm

I can't believe that this heap of balderdash is linked as if it were a credible piece of work. If you're going to put something as outrageous and hypocritical (the author is as extreme left as the "fringe" Chicagoans he portrays as being far right), at least post a counter argument.

Well, that "heap" might not be relevant to the Nobel prizes, but it does seem to establish fairly clearly the links between liberalism and socialism, particularly the idea of planned economies so favored in the Communist countries. Ironically, it points out how poverty leads to lots of bad stuff but fails to mention how all the planned economies of Communist nations have increased poth poverty itself and the gap between the rich and poor. (Recall that the Russian word nomenclatura was not coined by Western free-market economists.) Uncle Ed 14:30, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unsourced POV

Cut from end of article:

Members of the economic discipline and the winners often make the mistake that they have won a real ‘Nobel Prize in Economics’. The media also often refers to the prize as the Nobel Prize in Economics, repeating the error.

If it's a "mistake", they've been making it for 35 years. Paul Samuelson is said to have won the "Nobel Prize" for Economics in 1970.

Who says that it's an "error" to refer to the B&S prize as a "Nobel prize"? One of his descendants? Then that's just his POV. Let him have it, and make sure we attribute it to him. If he raises a furor about it, let's describe the precize tenor of that furor, the exact flavor of his discontent.

But let's not side with or against him. Uncle Ed July 6, 2005 16:25 (UTC)

[edit] Universities trying to boost their reputation

One reason why this problem won't go away: Several universities are trying to boost their reputation by ignoring the difference between real Nobel Prizes and the Bank of Sweden prize, claiming there are Nobel laureates among their faculty, although these researchers are in fact just recipients of the Bank of Sweden Prize.

Science History 16:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unconvinced

Quite honestly, I fail to understand all this fuss about the pedigree of the "Nobel" prize in Economics. Nobody anywhere really thinks that the prestige of the "real" Nobel prizes comes from their association with the late Mr Nobel or his family. It's the selection mechanism, which leads to chose people recognised as outstanding by their peers. Now this mechanism is the same for Economics, with the same results. So I don't see the point of all this emotionality, unless it is just a question of ideological bias against Economics as a subject, coming from people who don't always understand it very well. Mario 11:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Actually, the prestige of the Nobel Prizes comes from their genealogy. If otherwise, the economists should be perfectly content that it be called something else. Speaking of "emotionality", is it not just like an emotionally-invested partisan to claim this legitimate debate is fuled by "ideological bias" from people "who don't understand" economics? I for one happy to see that this debate has been settled in favor of historical truth. 70.137.149.221 10:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] neoliberalism and the prize

Please consider that 80% of the winners are american or englich. This is totally out of proportion, when compared with other prizes. And the vast majority of these winners are clearly in favor of a strong liberalism.

This is a big unfair bias towards economists of other nations, and to those who support other visions of economics.

I wish someone adds a thing on it rather than the dubious questions of the "Controversy" section.

Can I point you to the fact that, this is because most Economists have been white, male and English speaking until recently. Though obviously (as you can see yourself), this is changing as the composition of Economists change. Amartya Sen for example? There is no more inherent bias in the Economis prize than there is any of the others, for example I believe women make up only about 5% of recipiants thus far (excluding peace), as more women take leading roles in science this will increase. If you believe your criticisms are valid, they are valid for all the subjects (except for peace definately, literature maybe).

[edit] History category

This article surely belongs in the Economic history category, not in History of Science. Also, it is not one of the Nobel prizes even if it is informally referred to as such in certain circles. Please stop pushing this deceitful POV. 80.203.115.12 16:13, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Espenrh could you please explain why you insist that this article belongs in History of Science and not in the Economic history category? Your constant reverts, without any kind of discussion or explanation, is bordering on vandalism. 80.203.115.12 16:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

David, if I may comment on your question, about the "minimum of ambiguity": There is no ambiguity here, as the title "Nobel Prize in Economics" has only one meaning; it never refers to anything else but the prize described here. (The detailed rules about ambiguity in naming are at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)). It's more of an "accuracy in the title" versus "common name" debate. These debates are often (but not always) decided in favour of the common name (e.g. North Korea vs Democratic People's Republic of Korea). Eugène van der Pijll 06:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Good point; thanks!  If you have a moment, I'd appreciate your thoughts here. Best wishes, David (talk) 07:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

PS Re North Korea / Democratic People's Repulic of Korea, I don't reckon the former risks any misleading connotations.

The current title is ridiculus! This is not a Nobel Prize, no polls in the world can change that fact. That's like renaming "United States" to "Divided States" just because a majority of wikipedians think so. It's name isn't, has never been and will never be "Nobel Prize in Economics" --The monkeyhate 14:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, here, monkeyhate, you're referring to the United Mexican States, I assume? There is no country called the "United States", and, as you say, no polls in the world can change that. Still, except when deliberately making a point, most of understand what is meant by references to the United States, and Wikipedia reflects this.JQ 22:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't thnk you're getting my point. Renaming "Nobel Prize in Economics" is as stupid as if we would rename the "United States" article to "Divided States". "Nobel Prize in Economics" simply isn't the correct name, since it's not a Nobel Prize. --The monkeyhate 15:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I think you're missing my point. "United States" isn't the correct name either, so the fact that you use it as an example undermines your position. You are happy for Wikipedia to use the common name in this case, rather than the correct "United States of America", so why not do the same with the prize?

Because "Nobel Prize" is misleading because it makes people think that it actually is a Nobel prize, which it's not. "Nobel Prize in Economics" is not the "common name", the Swedish media never use it, and if any foreign media does, than that's a mistake they've made and it should not be reflected in this article. --The monkeyhate 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First, this is not the swedish wikipedia, in most(all?) of the world the name "Nobel Prize in Economics" is used, and even in Sweden most people I know use it, the only people that don't use it is leftists with axes to grind and maybe some of the Swedish media that tries to be "politically correct" and not offend those with axes to grind. --Lost Goblin 20:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but I thought that an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate, but maybe I've gotten it all wrong. "Nobel Prize in Economics" will be the wrong title no matter how many Wikipedia polls you host. --The monkeyhate 15:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, an encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate, and 'Nobel Prize in Economics' is the name that by far most accurately reflects what name most people in the world use.--Lost Goblin 12:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name used in other articles

Taking a look at the links to this article, many different versions of the name are used in various articles, often resulting in endless edit wars between proponents of different versions of the name. Given that there has been some agreement in this article about the name, can we agree to use the same name in references to this article, in particular in the biographies of winers of the prize? --Lost Goblin 02:09, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Nobel Prize in Economics" should be used. Official name to most people doesn't mean a thing, and it is given in the first sentence of this article. "Nobel Memorial Prize in Economics" is neither correct nor is most commonly used. -- Vision Thing -- 21:31, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If used within quotes (such as "John Doe won the "Nobel Prize in Economics" in 1989.") then it would work, but I would prefer that we use the official full name in the running text and the official short name where a short version is needed. I find it wrong to knowingly give missleading information in Wikipedia articles. // Liftarn

• Agree with Liftarn, accuracy should never take second place to laziness. —ExplorerCDT 18:53, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There is no non-accuracy - it is explained ad nauseam in this article and every article on a laureate that this is just the usual name, albeit inaccurate. Moreover, I would point out that consensus is not unanimity, and consensus has been reached. It's just that some guys (especially Liftarn lately), which generally have no usefull contribution to the actual articles (again Liftarn), jut insist on pushing some agenda. AdamSmithee 02:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

• I've been a useful contributor for over two years, so casting aspersions about "no useful contribution" and "agenda" is disingenuous and wrong-headed. This debate wouldn't come up if people just did the correct thing and if the naming conventions didn't perpetuate laziness under the guise of "common names." If Wikipedia were concerned about accuracy, the common names would redirect to the official name of a subject. —ExplorerCDT 02:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask for mediation? -- Vision Thing -- 17:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• Why? Because you think that being lazy and incorrect is a position worth defending? Geesh. —ExplorerCDT 18:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, because I'm not lazy and because I think my position is a correct one. -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

In your self-deluded laziness, you'd probably call a Gorilla a "monkey", too. —ExplorerCDT 22:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that ExplorerCDT has no useful contrib. My point is that the bios of most of "this" prize (is that polit. corr. enough?) are little more than stubs, and some editors spend a lot of energy waring on the name instead of doing more useful additions to the actual articles... Anyway, I noticed that in your case, you actually did contribute to Milton Friedman, which is great, and to lots of other stuff, but on the other hand over the last few month 90% of your contribs to Nobel prize related articles is warring over the name. I would also point out that it is not laziness and many editors actually spend a lot of efort to defend "Nobel prize in economics" AdamSmithee 08:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Effort best directed elsewhere, yes, I agree. But intellectual laziness leads people to make incorrect shortcuts like NPiE. Not even the Nobel Foundation uses that nomenclature. I refuse to stand for shortcuts like that. It's one reason I hate the naming convention that supports "common names". Common names (yes, especially the incorrect ones), I firmly believe, should redirect to the correct names and not the status quo which is the other way around. And 90% of my contributes to Nobel Prize related articles? I didn't know, aside from Milton Friedman, that I contributed to any. I'm too busy bringing like 20 more important articles up to FA-worthiness. —ExplorerCDT 09:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

To claim that disagreeing with your point of view is "intellectual laziness" is disingenuous. Just look at all the discussion about this on this very same talk page under "Requested move". At the same time people trying to push for a particular name that doesn't agree with the one chosen here have consistently refused to discus the issue and have resorted to endless edit wars. If you really think that people can spend their time in more productive ways, lets all work to settle this issue once and for all in a single place instead of engaging in this ridiculous guerrilla warfare all over wikipedia. If you can't accept that people that disagree with you might have good reasons for their points of view, then collaboration is impossible. --Lost Goblin 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This should be the only word on this subject. All we add it just background noise. —ExplorerCDT 09:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Why? an encyclopedia reflects the real world, and in the real world things are known by different names, nobody has a supreme authority to decide how everyone should call something. The names of things are based on consensus between all the speakers. That is precisely why the meaning of words changes over time, and the names for the same things changes also. Nobody has the authority to impose the use a name over the rest of the world. --Lost Goblin 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

In this case there is a "supreme authority" that have decided what the prize is called. // Liftarn

How 'supreme' could that authority be when its decision is universally ignored? --Lost Goblin 15:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It's only ignored by people who want to ignore it. And it's their prize so they hev the right to name it. The Right Livelihood Award is othen called "Alternative Nobel Prize", but we don't call it what on Wikipedia because that's not the official name. // Liftarn

It is ignored by pretty much everyone, and everyone has a right to name it whatever they like, nobody has a monopoly to decide the meaning of names or words. As for the Right Livelihood Award, I don't think most people have even heard of it, and in any case I don't think it is relevant to this discussion. This discussion is about an universally accepted and used name versus the 'official' name that nobody uses. --Lost Goblin 12:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It is called "Right Livelihood Award" because that is a more common name than "Alternative Nobel Prize" (easily determined by simple Google search). -- Vision Thing -- 17:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I see. And when people talk about Mozart they are refering to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, so obviously the Wikipedia article is called... // Liftarn

On Wikipedia lot of things are not in accordance with its policy. However, policy is clear. If you want to be useful, make sure that it's followed. -- Vision Thing -- 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No, that would be WP:POINT. // Liftarn

On what grounds? -- Vision Thing -- 19:06, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Obviously there are people on Wikipedia who care about accuracy over laziness or "popular name", while working on the Robert Pinsky article, I noticed that the article for Poet Laureate Consultant in Poetry to the Library of Congress isn't named Poet Laureate of the United States. Thank God. —ExplorerCDT 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you please stop the ad hominem accusations of "laziness"? Thank you. --Lost Goblin 12:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

No. Because it's an accurate depiction. When you stop being lazy and wrong, I'll stop calling a spade a spade. Therefore, in tit-for-tat, will you please stop being intellectually lazy and wrong? —ExplorerCDT 18:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Nobel

Unsourced, with no assertion of the notablity of this individual beyond being the great, great, great, great, great newphew of Alfred Nobel. Even the citation admits that he's a periphal member of the family. Not to mention that there are probably hundreds of individuals just as closely related to Alfred. --RaiderAspect 15:17, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

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

Sorry, I've been a bit occupied in other areas. I'll fix it. // Liftarn

Done. It should perhaps be edited to reflect that all living relatives of Nobel is opposed to the incorrect naming. // Liftarn

Well, if it can be verified I'd much prefer that than just mention one with a talent for self promotion and a grudge against economists. But that said I'd be very suprised if ALL of the dozens (if not hundreds) of Nobel's relatives are opposed. --RaiderAspect 12:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

The controversy section appears to be shorter than the last time I saw the page - why were parts removed. It used to mention that criticism of the prize fall into one of 3 categories, basically

• Not a true Noble prize
• neo-liberal bias in recipients
• Economics not making significant contributions to humanity, a lesser science etc.

Now only the first point remains. Whay was the "3 broad categories" theme done away with? - Matthew238 03:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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

The decades are wrong. the Sixties started in 1961 and ended dec. 31 1970. Count to 10 and you will understand why,10:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)