Talk:List of Nobel laureates

Strange

Something funny's going on in chemistry in the mid 50s. Doesn't agree with Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Sluj 00:56, 11 December 2004

I agree. Can someone confirm that the chemistry in the mid 50s is correct, because I would think the Nobel Prize Site would be more corrrect. User:Jarchie 05:08, 23 April 2007

How about a template for Nobel Prize Laureates, which could be added to every person/organization? --Neoneo13 22:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it is odd that Nobel laureate redirects here, but Nobel Laureate redirects to Nobel Prize. I would think they should go to the same place, probably here. --Steve-o 18:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Only one article should remain, Steve: the one with an uncapitalized "l". Extremely sexy 12:19, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

In fact, both should remain, and both should be redirects to here, which is what happened. Carcharoth 13:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay then: agreed. Extremely sexy 14:39, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize fractions

Unfortunately, none of Wikipedia's Nobel laureate lists is taking into account that not all Nobel laureates are of equal importance. Some obviously had much more impact than others. One of them even achieved superstardom and became "man of the century", while most of them remain largely unknown. Here we cannot judge who deserved it etc. But we ought to report how the Nobel committee expresses its own view of the value of individual contributions by awarding fractional prizes. The official Nobel web site explicitly says for each laureate X how much of a Nobel Prize X really got, for example, "1/4 of the prize" or "1/2 of the prize" or "1/3 of the prize" etc. If X got less than 1.0 Nobel Prizes X is still a Nobel laureate, of course, but it's also clear that X could have done better. Everybody in the field, and especially the laureates themselves, are fully aware of the significance of these fractional prizes. Suppose the physics prize goes to 3 researchers, one of them gets 1/2, the others 1/4 each - it's absolutely clear whose contribution was larger in the eyes of the committee.

I think all Wikipedia Nobel Prize lists must be augmented by this crucial information! This will also put in perspective the recent inflation of Nobel laureates in the sciences, which is easy to explain: most of the recent laureates had to share the prize while most of the early laureates got a full prize. The sum of the Nobel Prizes per year is constant; you may divide it among many laureates, but then the laureates necessarily become less outstanding on average. Science History 14:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the 1/3, 1/4, etc, bits should be added. I disagree that anything should be said about what this implies. Just record the bare facts and avoid speculation about relative worth - it doesn't work when covering more than a century of science anyway. Carcharoth 13:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel Foundation doesn't take a position on whether the fractions have any meaning. If "[e]verybody in the field [... is] fully aware", that's doesn't have any impact on Wikipedia. Find some reliable sources for that claim, and then we can start talking about doing more that merely noting the fractions. RossPatterson (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Country data in Nobel lists

There is currently a Request for Comments about the country data in the Nobel lists at Talk:Nobel Prize in Chemistry#RFC: Country data in Nobel lists. Your comments would be appreciated. The results of the RFC may affect all of the Nobel Prize articles. panda 17:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Laureates is from.....

I dont know if anyone here knows Dutch. But but there is a Laurierkrans Which is given to the olympic games (dont know if games is the right word) winners. Anyone know if Laureates is connected with Laurier or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.80.54.3 (talk) 11:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes: I do, because I live in Flanders, so that's even my own mother tongue, and you are indeed correct, moreover, we also say "gelauwerden" or laureaten for the winners and lauwerkrans (laurier is a tree), derived from the verb lauweren plus its adjective lauwering (in Latin: laudare and laudatio resp.), meaning to honor and honoring resp. Extremely sexy 11:56, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Icons

Should the nobel peace laureates have a nobel medal icon under their name and above their picture while other laureates do not, yet if we look at templates it explicitly states that icons should not placed in this position??? Someone111111 (talk) 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good question for moderators. Extremely sexy (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

This is currently being discussed on Template talk:Nobel icon Zaian (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification. Extremely sexy (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Economics?

There's no such prize... That's the federal banks prize in honor of Nobel, a completely different prize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karpeth (talk • contribs) 15:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it might be better to give it a page of it's own to make clear that distinction. Having the Nobel Prise and the Banks prize in thesame chart, as is done in this article, is confusing.Wikinegern (talk) 08:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It would be more accurate to entitle the column in the table of "List of Laureates" as Economic Sciences rather than simply Economics.RobHickling (talk) 17:41, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Dates of Death?

It would be nifty to add dates of death, or maybe just a "deceased" mark next to appropriate names. I'll start compiling a list, but don't hesitate to jump in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.137.148.197 (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Reformat of the page?

I would like to try for a Nobel laureates FT with this as the main page and I would like to reformat the page. If anyone objects or has any suggestions, this is your chance.

This is my proposed format. It would stick just to names and years and ignore details like nationality and reasoning (for those, one could just go to the appropriate list). However, things such as refusing the prize will be noted. For double winners, I am thinking of using a coloured column so that they will stick out more. Anyway, all opinions are welcome. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Year	Physics	Chemistry	Physiology or Medicine	Literature	Peace	Economics
1901	Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen	Jacobus H. van 't Hoff	Emil von Behring	Sully Prudhomme	Henry Dunant Frédéric Passy	This
1902	Hendrik A. Lorentz Pieter Zeeman	Emil Fischer	Ronald Ross	Theodor Mommsen	Élie Ducommun Albert Gobat	Space
1903	Henri Becquerel Pierre Curie Marie Curie	Svante Arrhenius	Niels Ryberg Finsen	Bjørnstjerne Bjørnson	Randal Cremer	For Rent!

wonderful design Scorpion, it looks really neat. Atif.hussain (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

List per subject?

Isn't there a similar list with the subject the laureates has been awarded for rather than the focus on the persons? Electron9 (talk) 12:44, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

A similar list with the work for which the award was given does seem to be missing from wikipedia. It would be an important page to be added and linked from this page. Atif.hussain (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Expanded Nobel Laureates list

This page is a somewhat comprehensive list of achievers in various fields. Instead of sticking to the literary meaning, "Nobel laureate", which would disqualify even economics, we should try to cover all other imp. subject awards here. This could be named "List_of_Apex_Laureates" or some other suitable name, covering the 5 Nobel prizes, Federal bank's Economics award, Abel award in Maths, etc., and List_of_Nobel_laureates redirected to this page. This would make it a comprehensive list of imp. award winners, instead of sticking to Nobel awards. Atif.hussain (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Photo

Why is a photo of the US president used for this page? The whole picture seems very US-centric and thus inappropriate for an international prize in an international encyclopedia. There ought to be more appropriate photos available? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.233.193.12 (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree 100%, but there really aren't any more free photos that show recipients in multiple categories. Would you prefer an image that shows Dick Cheney instead? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree too. Perhaps this historic photo would be more appropriate? [1] Fraserlind (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion is much better. this may be POV, but having Bush as the first recognizable face on this article, of all articles, is just too weird for me to handle. anyway, there is at least one well known laureate, luis alvarez, in the 68 photo.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

By institution?

Is there any reference/list the reports Laureates by the institution they were affiliated with at the time? (or primarily affiliated with throughout their career?). Note sure if this is a meaningful question, but I was curious :-) Natebailey (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be what you're looking for. I was thinking of rewriting List of Nobel Laureates by university affiliation using that list, but never got around to it (would be hell of a lot of work also :D). — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, my bad. I misread your post. Was "institutions" applied in the broadest sense, or simply to universities? If it is the former, then no such list probably exists, and if the latter, then there you go. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 10:07, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I've summarized the top quantities: List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#Quantity. fgnievinski (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

... Incorrectly. I'd go as far as to say you grossly misrepresented the cited source. It's also rather useless in the first place for the simple fact that the figures depend on the arbitrary decision to be more or less specific when it comes to subdivisions. It just comes off as an inappropriate scoreboard. The table at that article is sortable anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 05:31, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing the matter at a talk page (instead of through edit summaries, see WP:SUMMARYNO). The content removal should be considered in light of content policies WP:CONPOL. You've indicated a failed verification, which has been corrected, thank you. As for the claimed arbitrariness, the source cited (nobelprize.org) is the most authoritative. Let's give an opportunity for others to comment? Please beware of the WP:3RR. Thanks, @TompaDompa. fgnievinski (talk) 05:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

You made a WP:BOLD edit and were reverted. You then reinstated it without discussing it first per WP:BRD. You didn't even properly correct the massive misrepresentation of the cited source when you reinstated it for the second time, but falsely claimed to have done so. What on Earth are you doing?

For that matter, why would you want a scoreboard in the first place? Are you aware of the extremely lengthy discussion that led to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation existing in the state you found it in? I'm guessing the answer is no since you posted to this talk page rather than Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. It used to be a massive WP:OR mess of a scoreboard. Moving away from what amounted to a prestige-measuring contest between universities is an important reason the current format was chosen. TompaDompa (talk) 05:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh my, what a hornet's nest. Can you be more explicit what specifically is missing or misrepresented? The very same authoritative publication currently cited to source the individual affiliations also does the job of counting the number of occurrences and giving the subtotals per university. There is not even WP:CALC or WP:WEIGHT involved, it's just an excerpt of the top ones sorted in descending order. All the caveats stated in the lead still apply (re: affiliations are those at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement). You may not like scoreboards but it's popular nonetheless. fgnievinski (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

As was the case with the original list you added, the updated list you added did not list the complete set of institutions with at least the same "score" as the bottom entry. Anyway, that list has since been removed by Onetwothreeip. Clearly, consensus for inclusion has not been established. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

You mean the institutions with score equal to 6? There were three such institutions. I've double checked now and the authoritative source doesn't give any additional institutions with score 6. Which one are you missing? Anyways, I've trimmed down the list to the institutions with at least score 10. The allegation "contrasts in counting methods with the rest of the article" is simply not true. I'm still not getting what's your argument -- remember, WP:NOTCENSORED. fgnievinski (talk) 22:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

With "score" at least equal to 6 (now 10). And it's still not resolved. This is just sloppy on your part.

My objection is that it does not improve the article. Again, the format that has been used for the last few years, the one that does not take a scoreboard approach, was chosen in part because the editors who worked on cleaning the list up from the absolute WP:OR nightmare that it used to be deemed it desirable not to treat it like a prestige-measuring contest between universities. WP:NOTCENSORED does not enter into it. There exists no consensus that this addition improves the article, and the WP:ONUS to get such a consensus is on you. You have repeatedly re-added material that other editors have removed, as if your version should be the preferred one by default.

Finally, I suggest that we move this discussion to the relevant talk page, i.e. Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. That's where it belongs. TompaDompa (talk) 22:16, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've done some automated text parsing and now I believe the excerpt is complete, thank you. I've archived the raw ranking.

I've posted a notice at the talk about indicating this ongoing discussion; I'm not comfortable moving it because it was started here by someone else a few years ago.

You can't just keep repeating your opinion that "it does not improve the article", because opinions clearly differ. An argument should be made about content policy violations, which I've seen none so far.

It's not up to editors to judge whether "prestige-measuring contest between universities" is something desirable or undesirable. Wikipedia has to stick to the facts, provided they can be reliably sourced and with due weight -- which is the case for the ranking, as per original source cited.

One policy worth discussing is about basic arithmetic not being original research (WP:CALC): I've aggregated the counts of closely affiliated schools and laboratories to the parent university. Again, that's just a sum, hence not WP:OR. For the largest ones it was easy, but it'd grow increasingly more difficult for the smaller cases. fgnievinski (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

You could have just closed this discussion using {{atop}}/{{abot}} and left a link to Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, noting that the discussion will continue there from here. This talk page section had had no comments whatsoever for almost 15 years when you commented here.

There is quite a bit wrong with what you just wrote. To wit:

1. "This does not improve the article" is a policy-recognized reason not to include content. See WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable for inclusion in an article, not all verifiable information must be included. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article. Such information should be omitted or presented instead in a different article. The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
2. We are allowed to make subjective assessments about how something influences the overall article quality. I'm sure you understand this in the context of e.g. including or excluding certain image files.
3. Likewise, we are allowed to make subjective assessments about the best way to present information. The information in the scoreboard is also in fact present in the table, though it is structured and presented in a different way. I'm sure you understand this in the context of e.g. phrasing the same information in different ways in prose.
4. WP:CALC says Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. I dispute that this is the case here—you made the editorial decision to include different subdivisions in the same tally even though the source decided against doing so. You even changed the order by doing this. You are not (supposed to be) the arbiter of which affiliations are close enough to warrant folding into the same number and which are not.

There's also a case to be made that listing the institutions in descending order of number of affiliations violates WP:DUE as this emphasizes the numerical values in a way the source, which lists them alphabetically, does not. TompaDompa (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll quit insisting. But sooner or later this issue will come up again. Love it or hate it, number of Nobelists is used in practice for institutional rankings, e.g., Academic Ranking of World Universities. fgnievinski (talk) 06:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Recipients of unrelated prizes

If the recipients of the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economics are included in this article, we will have to include recipients of other unrelated (non-Nobel) prizes, like the "Alternative Nobel Prize" (the Right Livelihood Award). GVU (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

No, this has been discussed previously and the consensus was that laureates in Economics belong in this article.radek (talk) 21:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus. The only previous discussion was a comment that the Riksbank Prize (obviously!) doesn't belong here, because it's a different prize. If there is any consensus, it's to remove the Riksbank prize. GVU (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the prize was discussed extensively over at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. A single comment by an anon user does not constitute consensus.radek (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. GVU (talk) 21:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

We're only including the prizes recognized by the Nobel Foundation. Winners of other prizes are not officially considered "Nobel laureates" and will not be included here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No, we're only including prizes etablished by the will of Alfred Nobel. Other prizes are not officially considered "Nobel laureates" and will not be included here. For this exact reason, Riksbank laureates belong in a different article, as it is a different prize that has nothing to do with Nobel and his prizes. The recipients of the Riksbank Prize are not Nobel laureates, but Riksbank laureates. GVU (talk) 06:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

...does this this list on the official Nobel Foundation website make it obvious enough that your position is wrong or do you need more convincing? — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, the Riksbank Prize is consistently not referred to as a "Nobel prize" or the laureates as "Nobel" laureates by the Nobel Foundation (compare all the other prizes the foundation is managing, which are all referred to as Nobel prizes, for instance "All Nobel Laureates in Physics", "All Nobel Laureates in Chemistry" and so forth, but only "All Laureates in Economics". The page also clearly states that the name of the prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". Not the "Nobel Prize in Economics". Does this make it obvious enough that your position is wrong or do you need more convincing? GVU (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Regardless, the prize is recognized by the Nobel Foundation (unlike the one you mentioned above), and every media and piece of news in existence refers to them as "Nobel laureates", regardless of whatever is on the Nobel Foundation page; you're attempting to be ridiculously strict and shortsighted here. Anyhow, you have no consensus whatsoever, any changes you attempt will be reverted, and you're harping for nothing here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

<-- It's pretty obvious that here we're dealing with a "true believer" which this topic unfortunately tends to attract. The fact that economics laureates are listed along with other laureates by the Nobel foundation is not enough - Wikipedia should do it differently! Differently than the Nobel foundation. This dispute pops up with a clockwork like regularity and in fact what we have already is a compromise. Again, GVU needs to come up with something entirely new and convincing or else it's a referral to the archives.radek (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have Template:Sveriges Riksbank laureates in economics 2001–2025 but Template:Nobel laureates in economics, Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1969-1975, and Template:Nobel laureates in economics 1976-2000? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Merge?

I think this article should be merged with List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates. SCG 147 00:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

The argument against is that the lists for the individual prizes include the price rationale, and not just the name of the laureates. Tomas e (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Change to heading of Template for Laureates of the Nobel Peace Prize

For a proposed minor change to heading of the Template for Laureates of the Nobel Peace Prize, see Template talk:Nobel Peace Prize#Heading to Template. Davshul (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Lede photo

it was brought up a year ago that the lede photo, while showing many laureates, also shows a us president, which is somewhat us centric. a 68 photo from wikimedia commons was suggested. i propose we change it, as its not us centric, has one well known laureate, alvarez, and is a better photo (close up of faces). unless objected to, im gonna do it soon.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Table organization

I think the table in this article is not organized very well. Organizing the columns by Prize Category doesn't really make sense. I think a table like the one below would allow for a lot more information to be presented, with a much more useful sorting capability. The more information we can present on this page, the easier it is for users to sort by that information and find what they need.

Name	Year	Category	Country	Affiliation	Notes
Wilhelm Conrad Röntgen	1901	Physics	Germany	University of Würzburg	Things
Albert Einstein	1921	Physics	Austria	University of Zurich	Stuff
Barack Obama	2009	Peace	United States	Harvard Law School	Junk

Currently, the table can only be sorted by Year and Category. Using the above table would allow sorting by any parameter, and therefore there would be no need for additional spin-off list articles like List of Nobel laureates by country and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University. All the information would reside in this table and be easily sortable. Any thoughts? SnottyWong talk 19:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, this would be a lot of work too. But it would be worth it. Assuming there is consensus to make this change, it would be much more practical if several people took a chunk of the table and converted it over. At the least, we'd have to look up the country for each person, as well as their university affiliation (can be found here). I'll volunteer to take a large chunk... anyone else up for it? SnottyWong talk 21:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the looks of it, but if you're wanting to merge List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation back in, then you'd have to somehow include "Graduate", "Attendee or Researcher", "Academic staff before or at the time of award", and "Academic staff after award" categories into the "Affiliation" column. I personally have no preference, just pointing out that there's additional information in the other table. There's some similar information in the "Relation" column at List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University, so maybe that's the way to go. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. I'm sure we could figure out a slick way to incorporate that information, perhaps using footnotes to designate the type of affiliations. I'm also not insistent on completely merging this article with List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation as it may only be practical to list the laureates' primary affiliations in this table. I think it's more important to attempt to get as much information as possible into one sortable table rather than spreading it around a bunch of different articles. SnottyWong talk 22:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we cd easily use 4 different symbols after the university name to designate the relationship. Good idea though. Sandman888 (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a valid problem though. Some of these people might affiliations with 6 or 7 different universities. We could stuff them all into this table, but it might start to look nasty. We might just want to come up with a "primary affiliation" criteria so that we can list a single university for each person, and let List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation do the rest. Example criteria possibilities: University where the person did the research associated with their award, University where the person was primarily employed when they received their award, etc. SnottyWong talk 21:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Perhaps. Better ask for consensus at WT:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals and then go with that. Sandman888 (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You're forgetting that there are currently lists for all six Nobel prizes. This table is meant to provide a quick listing of winners, as well as a list of winners per year, which is something wikipedia lacks. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 01:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I figured that having all of the information in one sortable table would be the most efficient way to go, assuming it is practical. If there is no consensus for it, then I would just as well not go through the considerable effort required, and I'm certainly not going to fight for it. Especially considering this is a featured list, if the opinion isn't near unanimous, then I'm ok with just dropping the idea. SnottyWong talk 04:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd oppose the idea in this list. There must be some 600 names in this list. And I think that to have all the extra information in one list would not be managable. Is affiliation really that important. I'm sure it is important for the institution (i.e. bragging rights) but how relevent to the laureate is it in all cases. In some cases it might be where they did the work that got them rewarded but in others perhaps it is just where they graduated from. That is not to say I think the idea of incorportating more information in a sortable way is a bad idea (it's one I quite like) however I think it would need to be somewhere else (sublists?) Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

lead photo down

The lead picture is down. 86.9.199.117 (talk) 11:08, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Nobel laureate in the field of economics

To date no-one has received a nobel prize in the field of economics, because there is no such prize (many people have received prizes from the swedish central bank for economics, but that is not a nobel prize). I propose that the economics parts of the table should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.178.119.139 (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

insert a flag

Insert a national flag against each laureate in the table,so that it becomes easy to trace the country of their origin.Thank you!Skashifakram (talk) 04:21, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• I support this proposition. For example see ru:Нобелевские премии по году вручения NickSt (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I also think this is a good idea. Does anyone actually oppose this? Auguel (talk) 21:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not emphasize nationality without good reason and WP:WORDPRECEDENCE. The Noble Prizes are not awarded to people as representatives of some country. Displaying the flag obscures this fact and thus violates the MOS rule. This is not equivalent to e.g. many sports competitions, political delegations etc. where people are representatives of a country. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Multiple prizes?

The article states that "Six laureates have received more than one prize" but only mentions that the International Committee of the Red Cross has received the Nobel Peace Prize three times. Who are the other 5 laureates who received multiple prizes? The reference is broken. 131.251.252.33 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I fixed the reference and I added the rest of multiple laureats. Einsbor (talk) 08:50, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

External link

Maybe someone can add this external link to this article: http://mediatheque.lindau-nobel.org/ - it lists videos, CVs and Research Profiles of the Nobel Laureates (Requested 01.07.2014). Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.3.136.181 (talk) 08:49, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Notes on posthumous prizes

Since the Nobel prize is no longer awarded posthumously, perhaps notes should be added to winners that have won one, either before 1974, or under the special rule (Ralp Steinman)?

Source: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/facts/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.141.23.110 (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2015

Please add a vertical line between the columns Literature and Peace 176.68.153.99 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a line between the Literature and Peace columns, and looking at old versions, there always has been. I suspect this is a problem with your display - are you looking at this on a tablet or phone? as wide tables or images requiring scrolling sideways, can give display problems.
If this is a problem on a PC, try altering your zoom level CTRL++ will increase the size, CTRL+- will reduce it and CTRL+0 (zero) will return it to 'normal' size. - Arjayay (talk) 13:39, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Nobels laureate

The plural of poet laureate is poets laureate.  So wouldn't the plural of Nobel laureate be Nobels laureate?  50.242.186.54 (talk) 18:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of Nobel laureates. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081015013145/http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/ to http://nobelprize.org/prize_awarders/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081208204301/http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1942.html to http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/lists/1942.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:15, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, there's slight mistake in the "PRIZE" section paragraph of this article. It fails to inform that "the Nobel Prize in Literature is conferred by the Swedish Academy".

Even the link reference [3] correctly points it out on its own website but somehow in this section of the article it's missing.

I am somehow not allowed to edit the article. So i request anyone reading this to please rectify this tiny error.

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sklal84 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2017

It would be even more up to date if I could add the 2017 Chemistry Prize winners: Jacques Dubochet, Joachim Frank, and Richard Henderson. [2]

Locking pages like this down to prevent helpful edits by passers by goes complete against the philosophy that built Wikipedia in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.196 (talk • contribs)

Already done by User:Walterwiki. Please see → Wikipedia:Protection policy for information on why the pages are protected on Wikipedia. regards DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC).

The link that has been added, to Richard Henderson, goes to a disambiguation page. It needs to be Richard Henderson (biologist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.196 (talk) 11:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Done DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 11:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 May 2019

Rclb2 (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

John Gurdon is British.

 Done – Þjarkur (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Flags (again)

The idea to add laurates' countries' flags was previously discussed (see #insert a flag from 2012). There appears to have been no consensus to add, and no flags appear to have been added at that time. Over the past few months, User:SalmanZ has been adding flags. Let's pause and discuss please. I'm not going to undo it all (WP:BRD hardline approach) for the moment, because it's a lot of work spread over many edits, but this is clearly controversial material. I agree with, that per MOS:FLAGCRUFT it's visual clutter in the table and the prize is based on person alone not as a representative of a country. I'm pinging User:Finnusertop from that discussion, not because they agree with me but because they are the only editor involved there who is still active on WP. DMacks (talk) 18:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: Hi, thanks for informing me, unfortunately, I didn't know anything about this discussion #insert a flag it was clearly a controversial material. like many other users,I also thought inserting a national flag against each laureate in the table, rather than emphasizing their nationality, it would make it easier to trace the origin country of each laureate right away. Nevertheless, I'm open minded person and I would like to get to know more about WP: WORDPRECEDENCE that says:"the flags should not change the expected style or layout of infoboxes or lists to the detriment of words."However, as you asked I paused insertion of flags and as you know I can undo it all. but I can wait for any suggestion. Best regards. --SalmanZ (talk) 22:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: I still oppose it, per and WP:WORDPRECEDENCE and MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Noble Prizes are not awarded to people as representatives of a country. It's entirely incidental (irrelevant) that they, just like most other people, happen to be nationals of one or more country. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 09:34, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I came to the talkpage to ask what this flag-crap is about. Get rid of them already. 184.101.92.170 (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2019

The recipient of the 1973 Nobel Prize in Physics, Brian David Josephson was actually Welsh. Displayed next to his name is the English flag. This is misleading, and extremely inaccurate. It promotes the outdated notion that Wales is in fact a principality of England; this is a xenophobic idea, and tremendously offensive. This should be changed. ConnorLeeHughes (talk) 12:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done NiciVampireHeart 12:15, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Should images of Nobel winners, be added to this page?

@4me689: I get the impression that you're pro-image, when it comes to page content. May I recommend that this page, would be the best place for images of Nobel Prize winners. GoodDay (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@GoodDay: to be honest, I don't really want pictures in the Nobel Peace Prize section in the 2022 article, I hesitated to added them because it would be making it longer than it is. 4me689 (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Creating a new article "List of Nobel laureates by age"

Create a list of Nobel laureates by their age when they received the prize. Windywendi (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2023 (UTC)