Talk:Nobel Prize/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Economics

Britannica article [1] talks about six Nobel Prizes: "any of the prizes (five in number until 1969, when a sixth was added)..." Encarta [2] also talks about six prizes when it defines them as "annual monetary awards granted to individuals or institutions for outstanding contributions in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, international peace, and economic sciences." Anon edit to which I referred to was this. -- Vision Thing -- 12:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read further down the page, the Encyclopedia Britannica article [3] states:

"These prizes as established by his will are: the Nobel Prize for Physics (Nobelpriset i Fysik); the Nobel Prize for Chemistry (Nobelpriset i Kemi); the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine (Nobelpriset i Fysiologi eller Medicin); the Nobel Prize for Literature (Nobelpriset i Litteratur); and the Nobel Prize for Peace (Nobels Fredspris). The first distribution of the prizes took place on December 10, 1901, the fifth anniversary of Nobel's death. An additional award, the Prize for Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Priset i Ekonomisk Vetenskap till Alfred Nobels Minne), was established in 1968 by the Bank of Sweden and was first awarded in 1969."

which is a direct contradiction of the first sentence that you referred to. We also all know that the econ prize is not a Nobel prize, as stated by the Nobel Foundation, [4] which is obviously the more reliable source. So please stop reverting. –panda 14:55, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how the passage you have quoted contradicts the first sentence. Nobel Foundation lists prize in economics as one of the Nobel Prizes. -- Vision Thing -- 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, The Nobel Foundation does not call it a Nobel Prize anywhere on their site. They only list it as the "Prize in Economics" or "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". If you find a reference where they call it a Nobel Prize, please post it. BTW, this is what the entire controversy is about. The text that you removed also included a more reliable source (The Nobel Foundation) than the Encyclopedia Britannica article. So what exactly was the reason for your reverting it? –panda 22:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

They have put it in the Nobel Prizes category. Also, article about Nobel Prizes in UK's Encarta [5], which is reviewed by Nobel Foundation, defines Nobel Prizes as "awards granted annually to people or institutions for outstanding contributions during the previous year in the fields of physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature, international peace, and economic sciences." -- Vision Thing -- 23:22, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Simply putting something into the Noble Prize category doesn't make it a Nobel Prize. If you look at the names for each prize, you'll see that the other's do include the word "Nobel" while the econ prize does not. The UK Encarta article may have been reviewed by the Nobel Foundation, but that doesn't mean they wrote it or even endorsed it. I'll remind you that you removed a reference to the Nobel Foundation and replaced it with a reference to Encyclopedia Britannica Encarta. Are you trying to say that other sites are more authoritative than the Nobel Foundation's site about this matter? –panda 00:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Foundation site puts prize for economics in Nobel Prize category. For me that is enough to consider it a Nobel Prize. However, since they don't simply say whether this is or isn't a Nobel Prize we need to check other sources. And the Encarta article, which Nobel Foundation reviewed, says it is a Nobel Prize. So matter is clear. -- Vision Thing -- 11:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Allow me to explain the fault in your reasoning. I have reviewed your changes to this article. You may now state in the article reviewed by panda. However, I do not endorse your changes, in fact I oppose them. You, OTOH, are not required to change them. This still makes the article reviewed by panda even though I do not endorse the text. –panda 11:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

That assumes bad faith in Encarta, since it is implying that they have put Nobel Foundation name under the article with which Nobel Foundation doesn't agree with. -- Vision Thing -- 12:14, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I'm assuming that the Nobel Foundation doesn't have time to check every single web site that has text about the Nobel Prize. Also, I don't know if you've noticed or not but encarta.msn.edu does not include the text "Reviewed by: Nobel Foundation", which is copyrighted by the exact same Microsoft Corporation and probably updated more frequently as there is more text in the encarta.msn.edu version. –panda 12:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is a quote from the Nobel Foundation:[6]

Every year since 1901 the Nobel Prize has been awarded for achievements in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and for peace. The Nobel Prize is an international award administered by the Nobel Foundation in Stockholm, Sweden. In 1968, Sveriges Riksbank established The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, founder of the Nobel Prize. Each prize consists of a medal, personal diploma, and a cash award.

The definition of a Nobel Prize is one of the awards administered by the Nobel Foundation. The econ prize is not administered by the Nobel Foundation.[7] Thus, it is not a Nobel Prize. I believe the Nobel Foundation would be the most reliable reference about this. BTW, the 2nd reference is the one you removed from the article when you reverted my edit. –panda 22:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Another Swedish website, written by the Swedish government, which is more reliable than MSN/Encarta:[8]

The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel: Sveriges Riksbank (The Central Bank of Sweden) instituted a prize in economic sciences in memory of Alfred Nobel at its 300th anniversary in 1968. The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences selects a prize winner and the Nobel Foundation has accepted that this prize is awarded in the same manner as a Nobel Prize. The prize amount is also equal to the other Nobel Prizes. 58 men have received the prize so far.

Also, links from The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences (the organization that selects and awards the prize): [9], [10], and [11]. Notice that they do not call it a Nobel Prize and are careful to keep it separated from the Nobel Prizes.

–panda 23:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

And another reference from Sveriges Riksbank (the Bank of Sweden) to show that the money for the econ prize comes from Sveriges Riksbank, not the Nobel Foundation:[12]

The prize amount is the same as for the Nobel Prizes, 10 million, and is paid by the Riksbank.

Thus the Nobel Foundation does not administer the econ prize.

If there's no objections, I'll be replacing the text you removed. I'll give you some time to reply. –panda 23:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Swedish government website says: Nobel Foundation has accepted that this prize is awarded in the same manner as a Nobel Prize. The prize amount is also equal to the other Nobel Prizes. That means that they consider prize in economics a Nobel Prize (you accepted that meaning of other here).

As for other links, you can't use them as a source for claim that prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize, because they don't say that. You are relaying on your personal interpretation, and that is not acceptable, especially because we have a reliable source which straightforwardly says that prize in economics is a Nobel Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 16:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Read what you just posted: "in the same manner as a Nobel Prize." If somebody say, "Vision_Thing sings mellifluously, just as the angels do", this clearly implies that Vision_Thing is not among the angels. If the Swedes thought it was a Nobel Prize, they wouldn't say "same... as a Nobel Prize". Encarta is a Microsoft product, and as susceptible to bugs as any other. You seem intent upon denying all the most reliable cites, clinging stubbornly to common misperceptions. Please re-read this warning about "owning" articles. --Orange Mike 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources which say this is not a Nobel Prize. We just have reliable sources which say that it is (btw, Encarta article was reviewed by Nobel Foundation, so if it did contain some "bugs" they have corrected them). -- Vision Thing -- 17:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to the Nobel Foundation's FAQ:

"The prizes, as designated in the Will of Alfred Nobel, are in physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. Only once during these years has a prize been added – a Memorial Prize – the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, donated by the Bank of Sweden to celebrate its tercentenary in 1968. The Board of Directors later decided to keep the original five prizes intact and not to permit new additions."

Still not convinced? –panda 20:29, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Um ... you're nitpicking on wording -- they're Swedish, not perfect English speakers. Claiming that the references I listed can't be used means you're blatantly ignoring the definition of a Nobel Prize from more reliable sources. Anyway, I've asked a few others to come and look at this issue so maybe we can get some consensus about this. –panda 17:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this paper, all six prizes are administered by the Nobel Foundation. -- Vision Thing -- 18:14, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm here at the invitation of panda. As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether the Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize passes the duck test. It is awarded at the same time as the other prizes, the same basic process is used to determine the winners, popular press often refer to the winners as Nobel Prize winners, the monetary amount of the prize is the same. That the Nobel foundation and others might want to make a distinction is perhaps understandable, but that horse has left the barn long ago. In popular culture, the Prize in Economics is equivalent in every meaningful sense to the other Nobel Prizes. older ≠ wiser 18:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Also here at panda's invitation. While I can frequently be found arguing (e.g., at Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics) that we must follow ordinary English usage in naming our articles, the same emphatically does not apply to the content of our articles. There we should strive to accurately reflect the true state of affairs. On that note, perhaps this quotation from the Swedish Wikipedia page on the Nobel Prize may be of interest:

Samtidigt som prisen enligt Nobels testamente delas ut, utdelas också Sveriges Riksbanks pris i ekonomisk vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne, som instiftades 1969 i samband med Riksbankens 300-årsjubileum. 1969 beslutade man också att det inte skulle få vara ytterligare ämnen vid framtida utdelningar. Det ekonomiska priset förvaltas av Nobelstiftelsen, pristagare utses av Vetenskapsakademien och priset överlämnas av Konungen vid samma tillfälle som de fyra ("svenska") andra. Det ekonomiska priset har därför ofta kallats för ett Nobelpris, ibland "det alternativa Nobelpriset". Nobels släktingar har inte velat acceptera det ekonomiska priset som ett nobelpris.

Translation:

At the same time the prizes specified in Nobel's will are given, the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Science in memory of Alfred Nobel is given. This prize was instituted in 1969 in connection with the 300th anniversary of the Bank of Sweden. In 1969 it was also decided that no additional prizes would be awarded in the future. The prize in economics is managed by the Nobel Foundation; the winners are chosen by the Swedish Academy of Science and the prize is given by the King of Sweden on the same occasion as the other four (Swedish) prizes. For these reasons, the prize in economics has often been referred to as a Nobel Prize, and sometimes as "the alternative Nobel Prize." The Nobel family has been unwilling to accept the prize in economics as a Nobel Prize.

I also find rather persuasive that the Nobel Foundation does, indeed, refer to the other five prizes as, e.g., "Nobel Prize in Physics," but to the economics prize simply as the "Prize in Economics" (e.g., here; see the row of prize names toward the top). Also, this FAQ page rather ostentatiously avoids referring to the economics prize as a "Nobel Prize," calling it a "Memorial Prize," and says that "The Board of Directors later decided to keep the original five prizes intact and not to permit new additions" (emphasis mine).

My conclusion is that it ain't a real Nobel Prize, based on the Nobel Foundation's Web site. --Tkynerd 23:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow original research. If something is not clearly stated, we can't derive our own conclusions, epecially when there are reliable sources which say the opposite. -- Vision Thing -- 17:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Trying to make sense out of a source is not WP:OR, and neither is trying to make sense out of conflicting sources. If it were, we'd never be able to use any outside sources at all without violating copyright by reproducing them outright. --Tkynerd 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear, Tkynerd, that you are basing your decision on "the Nobel Foundation's Web site," because earlier you had quite different grounds: "it annoys me that this prize is known as a Nobel Prize when it isn't one; to me it's just a cheap-jack right-wing attempt to provide cachet for a prize in the pseudoscience of economics. (I mean, Milton Friedman? Please.)" When some editors on one side of a debate have an ill-concealed political agenda, it makes it a bit hard to assume good faith.--Anthon.Eff 16:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised to hear, Anthon.Eff, that you are basing your "criticism" on what I wrote elsewhere rather than dealing with the arguments I've presented here. When an editor is unable or unwilling to distinguish between an explicitly stated POV and arguments that do not rely on that POV, it makes it a bit hard to assume good faith. --Tkynerd 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• Compromise solution. What do you think about following text:

The Nobel Prizes (Swedish: Nobelpriset), as designated in the Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, are awarded for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. Prize in economics was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968. The first five prizes were first awarded in 1901, while the first prize in economics was awarded in 1969. All six prizes are administered by the Nobel Foundation and are widely regarded as the supreme commendations in their subject areas. -- Vision Thing -- 17:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I believe the plural of Nobelpriset is Nobelpriserna. Check with panda to be sure, since he is apparently an expert in Swedish orthography and grammar. --Anthon.Eff 19:47, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I like this compromise text as well. My only change would be that the second sentence should begin with "A prize in economics in memory of Nobel..." rather than just "Prize in economics..." (Whether or not that alternative wording is accepted, the sentence needs to begin with an article.) Also, the first sentence should read "...as designated in Alfred Nobel's will..." rather than "...as designated in the Alfred Nobel's will..." And yes, Nobelpriserna is the correct definite plural form in Swedish. --Tkynerd 20:12, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite coming late and this topic being moot, since the Swedish plural is not in the article, I must protest. The correct plural definite form is certainly not -erna but -en. If you write -priserna that means prices (food prices have gone up). If you mean prizes (the Nobel prizes) you should write -prisen. Nonetheless, major Swedish newspapers make this mistake occasionally. The current article correctly uses the Swedish singular definite form (Nobelpriset). --LA2 (talk) 22:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• I would recommend reorganizing the text into chronological order as well as including a few more details. I removed that the Nobel Foundation administrates all 6 prizes because it's not 100% true for the econ prize -- there is joint administration for the econ prize. So, this is my suggestion, incorporating the general ideas from above:

"The Nobel Prizes (Swedish: Nobelpriserna), as designated by the Swedish scientist Alfred Nobel through his will in 1895, are awarded for Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Peace, and Physiology or Medicine. They were first awarded in 1901. A prize in economics, The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel, was instituted by Sveriges Riksbank (Bank of Sweden) in 1968 and first awarded in 1969. All six prizes are widely regarded as the supreme commendations in their subject areas. With the exception of the peace prize, which is handed out in Oslo, Norway, they are all handed out by the King of Sweden in Stockholm at an annual ceremony on December 10, the anniversary of Nobel's death." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panda (talk • contribs) 00:18, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I know you feel you have repeated yourself ad nauseam, panda, but to save the rest of us from trying to piece together from your previous comments what exactly you mean, would you mind detailing the ways in which the prize is jointly administered? Thanks. --Anthon.Eff 11:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• The references are cited above. If you still have questions after reading them, please let me know. (If everyone did their homework first, then no one would have to be repetitive.) –panda 12:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Now panda, no need for a snide comment. I asked politely for what you meant when you said "there is joint administration." My browser cannot find a prior occurrence of the word "joint" on this page. I patiently await a response.--Anthon.Eff 12:47, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Have you read the text or are you only searching for text? –panda 13:42, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• I also didn't find a source talking about joint administration for the prize in economics. -- Vision Thing -- 18:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• What does "administrating" the prize mean and what does it involve? –panda 18:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

• Maybe we can focus on the selection process for the awards, at least as a start. The committees are picked by the bodies making the awards (Nobel foundation statutes). Medicine is awarded by the Karolinska Institute; chemistry, physics, and economics by the Swedish Academy of Sciences; literature by the Swedish Academy; and peace by a group of five people appointed by the Norwegian storting (all of this is in the current article). The Nobel Foundation manages the assets of all of the awards except for economics [13]. What else should we consider? --Anthon.Eff 14:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• There is no question who awards the prizes. (The info about the institution that awards the econ prize is one of the items that Vision Thing removed from the text, even though it was citied. [14]) I see the info about which institutions make the decisions for which award isn't already in the text. So you may want to add it to the "Nomination and selection" section or the introduction. You can also find the exact name of each committee per awarding institution on each institution's website. (They are not all called the "Nobel Committee".) –panda 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think you are right, the selection process should be presented in more detail. The article discusses also how the committee turns over a report to a larger assembly within the institution, where some kind of vote is taken, and gives the example of the Karolinska Institute (the article gives no reference, but this arrangement is in the KI statutes). For the economics prize, there are statutes that state that the committee's "report and proposal" shall be submitted to the Academy, that the "Ninth Class" shall examine these and make it's recommendation to the Academy, and that the Academy as a whole shall make its decision. All of these meetings in the Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien are secret. Special statutes governing the other three prizes are linked to this page: (below the index at the top).--Anthon.Eff 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• You may find easier to read prose about each institution's nomination/selection process on their websites. (Click on the UK flag for the English version.) I believe there is a link to them via the Noble Foundations' website. Otherwise just do a Google search. –panda 00:10, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• I followed your suggestion panda, and checked the sites--they seem to all be at the press-release, public relations level, and don't really provide much information about the nomination and selection process. From what I've seen, the statutes on the Nobel Foundation site seem to be the best source. If this article were to go through external review again (Nature did one in 2005), it would be important to use the best sources. The statutes would of course also be the best source for determining in what ways the economics prize differs from the others. So far all I can come up with is that the economics prize was not specified in Alfred Nobel's will and that the Nobel Foundation does not manage its assets. Otherwise, it seems to be handled in the same way as the other prizes, and is clearly considered by the Nobel Foundation and the Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien to be a prize of the same stature as the chemistry and physics prizes.--Anthon.Eff 23:03, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is a prize of the same stature, but that doesn't make it a Nobel Prize. What name did you find for the awarding committee for the econ prize in comparison with the chemistry and physics prizes? –panda 03:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

• To me it seems silly to focus on something as superficial as a name. Alfred Nobel didn't include economics in his will. Riksbanken put forth funds so that the Nobel Foundation could award a prize in economics. There was nothing sneaky about this, and the prize was given an honest name: "Sveriges Riksbanks" is in the name to show who put up the funds; "in Alfred Nobel's memory" is in the name to show that--like the other prizes--it is in Alfred Nobel's memory. The procedure by which the prize is awarded is like all of the other prizes, because it is the intention of the Nobel Foundation that it be a Nobel prize like all of the others. It is called a "Nobel Prize" by the press, by the public, and even in a few places on the Nobel Foundation website (for example this comment about the 1996 prize in economics). The Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien awards prizes that have nothing to do with the Nobel Foundation: the Crafoord Prize; the Rolf Schock Prize; the Gregori Aminoff Prize. These prizes are treated quite differently in the KV website, and--unlike the economics prize--you will not find links from the pages of these prizes to the Nobel Foundation or to the Nobel prizes. Your effort to separate the economics prize from the other prizes seems to be based solely on its name. As Shakespeare said, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." panda, this article needs work, and there is a lot you could do here that other editors would not oppose. Why not try to find that common ground? --Anthon.Eff 16:16, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

If it were a Nobel Prize, why isn't it called "Nobel Prize in Economics?" Because in the strict meaning, it IS NOT a Nobel Prize, it's a prize awarded in the memory of Nobel, or whatever it's called. Doesn't the name of the prize say just about everything? -- Mackan ^{talk | c} 12:22, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• Anthon.Eff: Could you please answer the question? What name did you find for the awarding committee for the econ prize in comparison with the chemistry and physics prizes? –panda 05:17, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• panda, can it really be that you've forgotten the name? We've been talking about it over the talk pages of two articles for nearly a week. If you've forgotten the name, then almost certainly you have forgotten the other points that we've discussed. If that's the case, then continuing this conversation is pointless. We tried to engage you, but it just didn't work. So back to business: I propose that we accept Tkynerd's modification of Vision Thing's compromise text, as follows:

"The Nobel Prizes (Swedish: Nobelpriserna), as designated in Alfred Nobel's will in 1895, are awarded for physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace. A prize in economics in memory of Nobel was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968. The first five prizes were first awarded in 1901, while the first prize in economics was awarded in 1969. All six prizes are administered by the Nobel Foundation and are widely regarded as the supreme commendations in their subject areas." --Anthon.Eff 15:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

This looks much better, as it is factually correct (even though it does imply that the prize in economics is also a Nobel Prize). I am happy to see that this change has now been implemented. --Lensor 07:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Just stumbled upon this page, and the very first sentence jumps out with a huge factual error, casting the entire article in doubt. The prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize, no way no how. There are only five Nobel prizes, the ones Alfred Nobel himself made in his will. The prize in economics is given in Alfred Nobel's memory, and is financed not by Nobel's willed money, but by the Swedish tax payers. I cannot believe that the reference from Encarta is somehow viewed as more "valid" than the Nobel Foundation itself. Although human error and/or space constraints on a couple of occations have indirectly put the Prize in Economic in the "Nobel Prize categorgy" on the webpage (see Anthon.Effs link above) that does not mean you can blatantly diregard that the Nobel Foundation itself time and time again say it is not a Nobel Prize; on the webpage, in the Museum (which I have personally visited on several occations), in all press releases, during the prize ceremony (which I have attended) and during the banquet afterwards (which I have also attended). Be as it may that popular view say it is a Nobel prize, in my opinion popular view should not overrule facts; The prize in economics is a very prestigous award that is treated like a Nobel Prize, but it really isnt one. When the Nobel Foundation itself in no uncertain terms has said that it is not a Nobel Prize, it does not help to use conjecture based on the wrong use of a word here and there to "prove" that it is.--Lensor 12:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Anthon.Eff: You seem to be avoiding the question -- please answer the question. What name did you find for the awarding committee for the econ prize in comparison with the chemistry and physics prizes? Are you also ignoring Lensor's and Mackan's comments as well as my changes to the suggested text just to push your POV? –panda 16:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• panda is contesting the fact that the Nobel Foundation "administers" the six prizes. Does anyone else have trouble with the phrase all six prizes are administered by the Nobel Foundation? If you have trouble with it, please specify who actually administers the prizes. Support for the Nobel Foundation role in administering the economics prize can be found in § 4 of the special statutes for the economics prize:

The funds placed at the disposal of the Nobel Foundation by Sveriges Riksbank for defrayment of its expenses shall, after deduction of the administrative expenses incurred by the Nobel Foundation in conjunction with the donation and other general expenses, be used for defrayment of the expenses incurred for the presentation of the Prize. The amount not used to cover the year's expenditure shall be reserved for future expenditure. (emphasis added)

--Anthon.Eff 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• What I am contesting is already stated above. It's not 100% true that the Nobel Foundation administrates the econ prize and stating so is misleading. I will remind you that you haven't replied to my earlier question. –panda 19:49, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

panda, I opened a new topic, to address an actual edit of the article. The topic is at the bottom of the page so that everyone can easily find it. Please do not move this section elsewhere on the page. The intention is to commence editing the article, and to terminate a pointless conversation. But now that I have your attention--who, according to your sources, are the other parties that administer the econ prize? --Anthon.Eff 20:24, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment is an extension of #Economics as the original text that we're discussing is in this topic. I'm sorry that you see this topic as pointless but you were the one who chose to stop replying to my questions, which I'll remind you remain unanswered. To reply to your question, look at what the Nobel Foundation does, according to their web page, and compare that with what that they do for the econ prize. What's the difference? Then check what the definition of "administrate"/"administer" is. –panda 22:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• panda, there is some relevant policy that would make things a bit easier on this page: WP:CIVIL, and WP:POINT. Why did you move this thread when I asked you not to? Why are you constantly badgering me about answering a question that you already know the answer to? May I remind you that before you asked that question I asked what you meant by "joint administration" and that you failed to answer it? That was a question that I didn't know the answer to and still don't. But I'm not badgering you about that question because I'm trying to have an open discussion, and trying to improve the article. Badgering you would not help accomplish those goals. Now, let me reiterate to those who wish to improve the article: are there any objections to the phrase employing "administered" in the first post on this thread? --Anthon.Eff 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

• Your comment is a continuation of the #Economics thread as it refers specifically to text in this thread. So please stop moving it to a new one where we'll waste time repeating the same comments again. I'll also remind you that you've already changed the text without consensus, as I've already given a different suggestion which you ignored. The answer to your question is already given above. What part of the answer do you find unsatisfactory? Also, what part of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT are relevant here? –panda 00:36, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you have already given an answer, it would be polite to repeat it or quote it. What is not polite is to move around other peoples comments. -- Vision Thing -- 17:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• The only reason I can see for Anthon.Eff starting a new thread was to hide the fact that this has already been discussed. So here's the long answer, which has already been answered previously with fewer details.

1. According to M-W, administer means:

1 : to manage or supervise the execution, use, or conduct of <administer a trust fund>

2 a : to mete out : DISPENSE <administer punishment> b : to give ritually <administer the last rites> c : to give remedially <administer a dose of medicine>

intransitive verb

1 : to perform the office of administrator

2 : to furnish a benefit : MINISTER <administer to an ailing friend>

3 : to manage affairs

2. The Nobel Foundation exists to: [15]

• manage the assets made available through the will for the awarding of the Nobel Prize in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace.
• represent the Nobel Institutions externally
• administer informational activities and arrangements surrounding the presentation of the Nobel Prize
• administer the Nobel Symposium Program

3. For the econ prize, the Nobel Foundation is paid by Sveriges Riksbank (the Bank of Sweden) for: [16]

• administrative expenses incurred by the Nobel Foundation in conjunction with the donation and other general expenses [which includes presenting information about the econ prize on the Nobel Foundation's Internet museum/website.]
• the presentation of the econ prize

(The amount the Nobel Foundation is paid by Sveriges Riksbank does not include the prize money. See next point.)

4. Sveriges Riksbank provides the money for the econ prize [17] and thus obviously manages the money in a special fund.

So yes, the Nobel Foundation manages/administrates aspects of the econ prize but Sveriges Riksbank is also involved with managing/administrating the money for the prize. Plus, the Nobel Foundation is being paid by Sveriges Riksbank for its involvement with the econ prize, which it doesn't do for the Nobel Prizes. So it's not 100% true to say that the Nobel Foundation administrates the econ prize when there are other factors involved. If someone can show me that Sveriges Riksbank does not administrate the money for the econ prize, then I'll revoke my statement. I'll simply add, however, that the 2006 annual report for Sveriges Riksbank, which is in Swedish, does list the econ prize (Ekonomipris) as one of their administrative costs (Administrationskostnader. [18]) –panda 23:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort. Although not conclusive, this looks compelling enough. What do you think Anthon.Eff? -- Vision Thing -- 18:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

Something that's a little bizarre with the infobox is that there is a picture of the Nobel Prize medal but the econ prize is also mentioned. The econ prize has a different medal. So should a picture of the econ medal also be included in the infobox, since it's mentioned? Or should the econ prize be removed from the infobox, since it's not a Nobel Prize? –panda 20:37, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the caption under the picture. -- Vision Thing -- 21:40, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Rationale? It's still not a Nobel Prize and doesn't address the question above. –panda 22:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a page with pictures of all the Nobel Prize medals. Which brings me to another question, what about the Peace Prize? It has a different picture than the ones handed out in Sweden. Shouldn't it also be represented in the infobox? Could we apply the same fair use rationale that is currently used for the image in the infobox to images of the medals from the Nobel Foundation? –panda 22:54, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyn Bell / Pulsar discovery

[edit] Jocelyn Bell / Pulsar discovery 58.168.59.103 02:39, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Jocelyn Bell discovered the first pulsar. Her senior scientist Anthony Hewish won the Physics Nobel prize for this same discovery. Jocelyn Bell co-wrote the paper on pulsars. her name came second on the paper after Anthony Hewish's (as it should have). However, Hewish won the prize and Bell didn't. Up to three people may win any given prize, and in this instance only two were named.

Jocelyn Bell made the physical discovery and participated heavily on the theory and mechanism behind this. Many other scientists, (including Hewish himself and Fred Hoyle) believed Bell warrented the Nobel Prize for this discovery.

If made today, Bell would have been a recipient. This was simply an error, albeit a massive error and injustice made by the Nobel committee.

This should be mentioned amongst the grievous errors made on behalf of the committee

This is covered in Nobel Prize controversies. –panda 05:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Peace prize awarder

The article states that the King of Sweden hands out all the prizes expect the Peace Prize. Who awards this? Ygoloxelfer 17:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

You can find the answer at the Nobel Foundation website. I'll add this to the article when I find time if no one else does beforehand. Thanks for pointing out this omission! –panda 01:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Prize in Economics - Nobel Prize or not

I'm starting this discussion so that both sides can state their arguments and facts for why the Prize in Economics is or is not a Nobel Prize. Please present your argument in the appropriate location and only comment on an argument in the Comments section. –panda 03:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now found a reference from the "Nobel Foundation" that states:[19]

The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize.

So end of discussion. –panda 04:51, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize

The Prize in Economics is a Nobel Prize because:

1. [add your argument & fact here]

Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize

The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize because:

1. There is no Economics Prize in the will of Alfred Nobel
2. The prize money is not coming from the estate of Alfred Nobel, but from the Bank of Sweden (ie the Swedish tax payers)
3. The Nobel Foundation never calls it a Nobel Prize
4. The Bank of Sweden never calls it a Nobel Prize
5. The Nobel family never sanctioned it, in fact they are actively against it.
6. It is never referred to as a "Nobel Prize" during the award ceremony.
7. It is not referred to as the "Nobel Prize" in Swedish media.
8. It is not called a Nobel prize
9. It is never said so in the diplomas. (See link http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/diplomas/index.html)
10. "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."[20]

Comments

Please list your comments here, starting with a bullet.

• from JayHenry I've well aware of the debate but I don't believe I've previously commented on Wiki. The name of the prize is "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" thus it seems to me that on first reference, we should almost always use this full title. Then, on second reference, it's fine to call it the Prize in Economics. This is the convention followed by nobelprize.org and it seems quite reasonable. As the Nobel committee lists the Prize in Economics alongside the other Nobel Prizes it is also reasonable that we do the same. The page on the prize should, of course, include a section on the debate, as it is commonly called the "Nobel Prize in Economics" though this is somewhat imprecise. Either opinion above can be held by rational people, but it seems that we can just be more precise and avoid any major dispute. --JayHenry 04:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• JayHenry: I agree with your position but there are others here who don't. (The issue isn't about removing info about the econ prize from this page, but calling it what it is instead of what it isn't.) I don't know if you've noticed yet but some users here have intentionally (and possibly unintentionally) removed all mention of "Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" from the Nobel Prize article. –panda 00:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Please state your opinion on the matter first, your reasons for posting this, and the past history of all of your actions concerning this issue with diffs. Thanks.

KP Botany 03:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also is User:Lensor your sock puppet? Please be very careful about this if this is the case. KP Botany 04:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not sure how to respond, except telling you that I am noone's sock puppet..--Lensor 07:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite your inflammatory remarks, I'll answer you. If you're interested in knowing my opinion about this, read #Economics and Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Rename the page. Why did I post this? Because Vision Thing decided to visit my talk page to tell me why the econ prize is a Nobel Prize [21] [22] and I think it would be more constructive if he wrote it for everyone to examine. As for your comment about a sock puppet, I'll humor you with saying "doesn't everyone enjoy talking with themselves?" Perhaps you should revisit WP:AGF and WP:NPA. –panda 05:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you had cleanly stated your intentions to begin with, I would have agreed with the facts you presented. However, as this is a personal battle between you and another user it does not belong in article space. Please don't drag this battleground around Wikipedia with you any more. KP Botany 06:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If this were a personal battle, then there wouldn't be so many editors involved. See #Economics and Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Rename the page. –panda 06:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, if anyone has dragged this issue around Wikipedia, that would be Vision Thing:

• 21:42, 26 September 2007 [23] Wikidea started Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Rename the page
• 08:26, 28 September 2007 [24] Wikidea moved Nobel Prize in Economics → Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel
• 20:31, 28 September 2007 Vision Thing noticed the rename discussion and requested a formal RFM in Talk:Nobel Prize in Economics#Rename the page [25], and then reverted the page move [26].
• 20:52, 28 September 2007 [27] Vision Thing changed the text in the Nobel Prize article so that the econ prize was listed as a Nobel Prize.

And thus began the #Economics thread. If you'd like more evidence from other pages, I can provide that as well.

–panda 07:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an observation: if you look today, Oct 11, on the nobelprize.org website, it has a section titled Nobel Prize Announcements 2007 which ennumerates, with no formal distinction made: medicine, physics, chemistry, literature, peace, economics. So they don't make such a big deal of the distinction. And, although they choose to use the formal name, I've never heard about the organisation officialy complaining of the popular use of Nobel Prize in Economics. AdamSmithee 07:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is not a Nobel Prize. As I've said before, just because space contstraints sometimes indirectly (if you really really want to misunderstand) put the economy prize in the "Nobel Prize" category, does not make it so. If you click on the individual prizes, there is no misunderstanding to the fact that the prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize. The menu on the announcement page even states: "Nobel Prize" in chemistry/physics/medicine/literatue and "Prize in Economics". I can understand that some people want to name the article "Nobel Prize in Economics" because that is the name many incorrectly use, but I cannot fathom why some keep debating wether or not it actually is one. It isnt. Just because it is more or less treated like a Nobel prize does not make it one.--Lensor 07:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians should not engage in original research, but in adding sourced claims. And sources say prize in economics is a Nobel Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 08:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

An which sources would that be? I personally think the Nobel Foundation itself is a much better source than some random foreign encyklopedias. It has nothing to do with original reseach, just the choice of source. The Nobel Foundation calls the Economy price "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel" [[28]], and that should be the end of it. --Lensor 08:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What do mean by "random foreign encyclopedias"? Encarta and Britannica are neither random nor foreign. -- Vision Thing -- 10:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

See my comment above. The Nobel Foundation informally ennumerates it among the Nobel Prizes on its web page, today AdamSmithee 08:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to read the page more carefully [29]. Yes, the heading says "Nobel Prize announcements" (due to space constraints), but the actual text says, and I quote: "Announcements of the 2007 Nobel Prizes and The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel will be held on the following dates". Not particularly open to the interpretation.--Lensor 08:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The point is that, at least in one place, they (albeit informally) count it as a Nobel prize, without other qualification. I'm aware that in most cases they use the full name. AdamSmithee 09:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So basicly you are doing WP:OR since you interpret in a certain way instead of using what it says. // Liftarn

Could you please point to this one place? As the announcment page you are talking about above clearly does not count it is a Nobel Prize.--Lensor 09:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They also call it a Nobel Prize here at All Nobel Laureates list.-- Vision Thing -- 10:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

No, they don't. // Liftarn

Yes, they do. They say: 772 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize, prizes in economics are included in that number. -- Vision Thing -- 10:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They don't say "The Bank of Sweden Prize is a Nobel prize." // Liftarn

And I don't think they could be much clearer than this. --Tkynerd 11:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They are not clear on this in general. Just because of things like this original research is forbidden. Wikipedia's policy is to depend on reliable secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

They are indeed very clear on the subject. "The Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize."[30] // Liftarn

They are very clear on it. You might be able to dig up one or two examples on the page where human error and/or space constraints indirectly put the Economy Prize in the "Nobel Prize" category, but at every single occation the Nobel Foundation makes specific mention of the price it is always as the "Prize in Economics" or the longer "The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel". It is never anything else, and certainly never "Nobel Prize in Economics", so to say they are not clear is simply not true. It is not original research, it is to use the most reliable source.--Lensor 11:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Just want to point out that those of you who state that it is a Nobel Prize have not added any points yet to your subsection. –panda 13:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• As I stated before Vision Thing has already visited my talk page to tell me why the econ prize is a Nobel Prize. I'm copying over the conversation so that he doesn't need to repeat the same conversation again:

They do not say that prize in economics is not a Nobel Prize. By attributing such view to them you are conducting original research. -- Vision Thing -- 18:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC) You might be interested to know that Nobel Foundation under all Nobel Laureates list says: "771 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize" and they normally list prize in economics with rest of them. This means that they consider it a regular Noble Prize. -- Vision Thing -- 20:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC) You might also be interested in know that the Nobel Foundation states "Nobelprize.org provides comprehensive, first-hand information about the Nobel Prize and Nobel Laureates in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, Literature and Peace starting in 1901, as well as the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel and the Economics Laureates starting in 1969."[31] There's more examples of this on their website. If they consider it a Noble Prize, why do they never actually state "Nobel Prize in Economics"? Your example is just an example of grouping for the sakes of simplicity. –panda 20:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC) They are not just groping for the sake of simplicity. They say: "771 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize", they don't say "715 individuals and 19 organizations have been awarded the Nobel Prize and 56 individuals have been awarded Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel." -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC) First, your example text would be false, which is probably why they don't write it. (There haven't been 715 individuals or 19 organizations that have won the Prize in Economics.) Also, what do you believe the rationale is for why they wrote the above text, which clearly separates the Nobel Prizes from the Prize in Economics, is...? Also, once again, why do they never state anywhere on their website "Nobel Prize in Economics"? –panda 20:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

–panda 19:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Check out the diplomas. http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/diplomas/index.html The recipients of "Sveriges Riksbanks pris i Ekonomisk Vetenskap till Alfred Nobels minne" are never lured into believing that they have got a Nobe Prize.BERd 23;05, 11 October 2007 (CET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.241.186 (talk) 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I believe the Econ prize should be directed from the Nobel Prize page to it's own page with no further mention of it. Simply hyper linking it is not sufficient. Something like this: "A prize in economics("The Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel") was instituted by Sweden's central bank in 1968. For further details go here." This would help in separating the two topics. This is my first comment after a reading this lengthy discussion. --Remmik 07:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism.

This is quite likely vandalism, and if not, it needs a reference. · AndonicO ^Talk 11:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Pictures of the medals

According to the Nobel Foundation's website, [32]:

Photos or images of the Nobel Medal

Permission to use an image or photo of a Nobel medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration for an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize® or a Laureate.

An image of the Nobel medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc, nor for publicity or commercial purposes.

If permission is granted, "®© The Nobel Foundation" must be indicated.

I assume this means that even personal photos of the medal need to be granted permission to be shown in Wikipedia, for the same reason why personal photos of stamps need permission. So can someone send the Nobel Foundation an email and request for permission to use one of the images that have been here before?

100px 100px

Until then, it's probably best to not have an image. –panda 18:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Panda, thank you for your concern and checking into this matter. However, the issues you bring up only concerns the content of the NobelPrize.org website as indicated under its "terms of use" page. In other words, according to the general understanding of international IP law (as ambiguous as it may be at times) this picture taken by me of the medal is most definitely not copyright infringement. In fact, this medal is not even under the ownership of the Nobel Foundation. On the other hand, if it were to be used for commercial purposes, that would be a separate issue that might need checking into (that is, concerning permission from the owner of this specific medal). But this should not be the case for Wikipedia under the indicated license. Let me know if you have any further questions. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reply is not in keeping with previous discussions about this matter elsewhere in Wikipedia: see, e.g., Image talk:Nobel in Literature.jpg and the notices featured with the image in Nobel Prize in Literature. The Nobel Foundation warning notices throughout its website (see the links to them) clearly relate to images of the medals, which are both content copyrighted on its own website nobelprize.org and trademarked. There is substantial discussion in talk pages relating to the Nobel medal images. Taking a photograph of the medal and distributing the trademarked image is infringement of the Nobel Foundation's trademarked image. Your declarations to the contrary are not convincing and they are dubious and need review by administrators with expertise in Wikipedia's use of images. --NYScholar 08:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The notice featured is "Original design ®© The Nobel Foundation." That is what is needed even with the permission of The Nobel Foundation, which Wikipedia does not, to my knowledge, yet have. --NYScholar 09:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed possible copyright and trademark infringement until it is satisfactorily resolved. Also reverted obvious vandalism to infobox. --NYScholar 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

---

NYScholar, I am not sure if there is a need for using language such as "dubious" when edits are made in good faith. If you have a problem please express this with civility. Also, please at least attempt to prove otherwise. The mere fact that you (or anyone else for that matter) are not convinced that this is a free image does not entitle you to remove it. Provide a valid explanation why it should be removed and then it should be dicussed. Again, do some research on IP law and I am sure you will find that this image taken by me is not copyright or trademark infringement.

I really should not have to explain this to you since this is rather straightforward and available in many IP law resources but:

1) The copyright of this image belongs to me because it is my own work and has a degree of originality to it. This is absolutely regardless of the subject of the photo. (The same would go for any photo you take) This should not even be in question here.

2) The trademarks of the Nobel Prize foundation are relevant insofar they can control how a photograph of its trademark is used.

The issue here, therefore, is "scope of use". That is, the financial impact of this photo has to be questioned. Would the use of this photo exhibit an association with the trademark that would cause a significant financial impact to the owner of the trademark (may apply to the owner of the medal as well)? The answer is simply NO because neither the use of nor the license of this photo is intended for commercial purposes. In fact, it is a reasonable assumption that use on wikipedia under this license does not carry have any financial implication attached to it. However, I did add a copyright template to ensure that further use of this photo recognizes this existence of the trademark.

Lastly, I want to mention that it would make little sense to seek a model release from the Nobel Foundation for use of this photo and trademark. In other words, giving release to an unknown third party is not exactly a prudent decision since there might be financial implications attached to it. To think that thats how any company with financial interests operates is rather naive. So, I hope I could answer some of your concerns and hopefully lull into contentment. If you do however have any more questions let me know hopefully with civility this time. Best, aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 22:12, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The replies above are not satisfactory responses to the questions raised. An image of "dubious" provenance has nothing to do with "good faith"; if the image is of a dubious nature, it is of a questionable nature. The questions raised relate to the clearcut notices of trademark and copyright on the Nobel Prize site. Other such images have been removed from Wikipedia for similar reasons. My comments have been entirely civil. Please use a dictionary for the meaning of dubious. Please consult WP:COPYVIO and Wikipedia's "fair use" policies. Thank you.

There is not an adequate "fair use rationale" provided for this image that you created from a photograph of a Nobel medal on display in a case. Your interpretation of copyright and trademark focusing on "financial" issues does not pertain to the violation of the organization's own notices on its website. The Nobel Foundation organization is able to protect images of its Nobel medals as it wishes; it is its trademarked image. The notices are clear. I do not think that this is a permissible image for Wikipedia and I do not think that the claims of licensing it are accurate. Wikipedians do not get to invent their own rules. If in doubt re: a "dubious" image, one consults Wikipedia policies pertaining to copyright and images. It does not appear to me that you have done that and it does not appear that you have a proper license for this image of the Nobel medal (which is not your property). The photograph is a personal photograph; you can use it for your own private use; to distribute it publicly on the internet and to claim a license to do so is not proper. The medal that you have photographed is not your property. The image is still the property of the Nobel Foundation, which claims its rights to all images of Nobel medals and which retains the right to license them and to grant permission or to withold permission to others to distribute (publish) such images. After getting written permission from the Nobel Foundation, one must still provide a trademark and copyright notice showing ownership of the design of the image and the image to be that of the Nobel Foundation. NYScholar 02:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not exactly sure I should respond to these comments but it is not entirely right that you keep removing a perfectly free image on the basis that you do not understand its legality/use. You seem to be assuming admin functions or simply instigating an edit war (which I would rather stay far away from). But, again, I think where you misunderstand is at the "terms of use" page for NobelPrize.org that concerns only the content of the website (i.e. images from the website). However, a photo taken by me is under MY COPYRIGHT regardless of the subject. Could you at least try to understand why this is the case? This has nothing to do with fair use rationale. The trademark is the issue here but it is not a trademark violation because its use is limited. In other words, the Nobel Foundation trademark is not being ignored but is clearly recognized (by its scope of use and the additional template under the license). Here is an example of another image[33] in the wikicommons that is valid by the same principle. If you continue to have a problem, which I hope you don't (in a sign of good faith in resolving this matter), please set up an RfC or ask an "expert" (like you said earlier) rather than delete my copyrighted work. I also do not appreciate you marking this my image for speedy deletion on no basis whatsoever. Since there are no grounds for this you will find that it will be quickly denied. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 04:19, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of basis for marking this image for speedy deletion; do not delete the templates; they are not to be deleted according to Wikipedia policies. --NYScholar 03:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for the image of the medal in an article about the Nobel Prize. Using it as an illustration is not in keeping with policies requiring that explicit discussion of what it illustrates and your license description is not accurate. The image of the medal is not your property. Your photograph is your property; but you cannot distribute the image of the medal throughout the internet in the manner that you claim that you can without explicit written permission of the Nobel Foundation. See the notices already cited from its website. Your continued insertion of this disputed image will appear to be vandalism if it persists. More than one user disagree with your description of the license. The templates require review. --NYScholar 03:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Since the design was published in the United States before 1923, there can be no current U.S. copyright in it. And as Anubis3 has rightly explained, the use which is made of the image on this page is not use of the kind that a trademark confers the right to restrict.

There is no legal basis on which to object to the use of the image in this article. Jheald 00:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

A user (NYScholar) is attempting to delete an image [34] (work of Anubis3) since user claims they are not convinced by its legality/use...but, user Anubis3 argues, for the reasons described in the above discussion (i.e. paragraph directly above) this image is completely usable (it is under the copyright of Anubis3 and the trademark of the subject of the photo has been noted on image page). Issue is whether this image is usable or not. Your comments are welcomed/appreciated in advance.15:30, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

For RfC, please comment here:

---

It appears that the above comment is that of User: Anubis3. There is no convincing fair use rationale or accurate licensing explanation for the image in question. It should not be used in Wikipedia without a detailed fair use rationale that is acceptable to Wikipedia and accurate licensing. I am not the only Wikipedia editor who questions the legitimacy of this image and its use in Wikipedia articles. Its use is contrary to trademark and copyright notices relating to images of Nobel medals; such images are the property of the Nobel Foundation, not the user who photographed the medal and who is claiming ownership of the image. Please see the talk page of that image (Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG) and User talk:NYScholar/Archive 16#Previous discussion re: Image:Nobel in Literature.jpg for copy of comments re: related images of Nobel medals. Thank you. --NYScholar 23:54, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

See WP:Copyvio and WP:Non-free content#Acceptable images and WP:Non-free content#Unacceptable images: questionable images and images without adequate fair-use rationales are to be removed. See: WP:Non-free content#Implementation and enforcement. --NYScholar 00:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The use of this image of the Nobel Prize medal does not relate to the content of the article; the article is not about Nobel Prize medals. It is about the Nobel Prize itself. The threshold for fair use is clearly defined in the WP linked above. There is no necessity to include an image of the medal in this article's infobox (other than the one already in Wikipedia Commons). I don't think the license claimed in the image page is accurate. I've added a template requesting that the claims be reviewed. The Nobel Foundation notifies the public of its trademarked and copyrighted Nobel medal image (which includes the image of Alfred Nobel in profile) in clearly-posted notices on its website (foot-of-page notice links). Such uses (public distribution, publication) of its image (whether in one's own photographs or others' photographs) requires written permission from the Nobel Foundation. One can only use one's photograph of the Nobel medal image for one's own private use, not post it on the internet. --NYScholar 00:16, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[Also: after the Nobel Foundation grants its permission in writing, it still requires that one provide the "trademark" and "copyright" symbols followed by "the Nobel Foundation" in any such use of the Nobel medal image(s). --NYScholar 00:40, 19 October 2007 (UTC)]

As the person who accidentally started this, IMHO it would be in the best interest of Wikipedia to not include any image until the rights to use the photo(s) has been resolved. PLEASE -- just email the Nobel Foundation and ask if it is okay to use the photo. They do reply, albeit slowly at times. If they decide the image does not violate their copyright/trademark, then feel free to put it back in the article. Including or not including an image of a Nobel Prize medal really doesn't add or detract from the article. This really shouldn't be taken lightly as the Nobel Foundation threatened legal action this month (October 2007) for what they considered a trademark violation. (see Nobel Foundation and the Michael Nobel Energy Award.) –panda 00:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above comment by Panda. --NYScholar 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

NYScholar, please stop carrying on lengthy conversations with yourself. The conversations you refer to are also simply lengthy discussions in which you are the ONLY participant. I and anyone who reas the above discussion, is very aware of your position because you have repeaded it continually. PLEASE allow outside commentary for the RfC. After all, that is the intended purpose of the RfC, to have third party perspectives.

I also don't know why you keep trying to delete this image but please DO NOT attempt to change the licensing on this image in order to mislead other users. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 03:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Until it is clear that this image is permissible in Wikipedia, it does not belong in Wikipedia articles. You need to read the template messages that were added to the image page; they are not supposed to be ignored or deleted. The image is to be removed until its licensing is vetted. Right now, more than one editor has questioned its legitimacy. --NYScholar 03:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please do not use more than one user name in signing your comments; the comments are being made by the same user despite the different signatures. The user is the one who created the image: User:Anubis3. See the warnings in User talk:Anubis3 re: this image. Please stop reinserting it into this article. It belongs deleted until the review of the claims re: licensing (a non-free image review) occurs. --NYScholar 03:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Both Panda and NYScholar are challenging the license and use of this image by User:Anubis3. --NYScholar 03:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

• IMHO it's inappropriate to have an RFC about a possible trademark/copyright infringement. WP:Consensus does not apply in this case since it is a legal matter. Someone who has the appropriate legal expertise should examine it. At any rate, since no one is volunteering to email the Nobel Foundation, I'll do it. –panda 15:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me repeat what I have recently added above.

Since the design was published in the United States before 1923, there can be no current U.S. copyright in it. And as Anubis3 has rightly explained, the use which is made of the image on this page is not use of the kind that a trademark confers the right to restrict.

There is no legal basis on which to object to the use of the image in this article.

I have no particular axe to grind here. NYScholar posted a request at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Image:DSCN0732.JPG for users familiar with copyright law to comment, to which both myself and User:Butseriouslyfolks responded. NYS came asking for advice. It was given. NYS now seems unwilling to accept the advice. I cannot say why, because he seems unwilling or unable to engage with the points made to him. Jheald 00:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

You are not an expert in copyright and trademark laws and do not appear to be one in Wikipedia's policies pertaining to them. What you say contradicts the Nobel Foundation's own statement of proprietary ownership of its images of its medals (including the Nobel Peace Prize Medal) and the design of those medals (registered trademark of the organization; copyrighted images on its website; clear notice restricting "use" of images of the Nobel Prize Medals). Therefore, I do not accept your misstatements here or elsewhere.

I did not post this RFC; the uploader of the image (User:Anubis3) posted it (without a clear signature).

It was you that asked for comments at Fair Use Review. That is what I stated, and it is clear in the history of that page. Jheald 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If your comments pertain to my report in the fair-use pages, they do not belong here. Please stop taking my comments elsewhere out of context. Your incivility there was unnecessary and a violation of Wikipedia:Etiquette. This is not a "personal" matter; this is a matter pertaining to Wikipedia:Non-free content and fair use provisions of copyright laws and trademark (Wikipedia:Trademarks; already linked in the fair use problem discussion. There is no need for me to repeat it here. As I state there, the comments posted there by both Butseriouslyfolks and you are simply not in keeping with either copyright laws, fair use provisions of copyright laws, trademark laws pertaining to registered trademarks (such as the images of Nobel Medals), or Wikipedia's own policies and guidelines pertaining to these matters. The points that you made are not based on facts. You have refused to consult the clear statements of proprietary rights of the Nobel Foundation and simply pooh-pooh them. You fail to understand that the designer of the medals does not own the copyright to his designs. The Nobel Foundation has subsequently copyrighted, registered the copyright, trademarked and registered the trademark for those Nobel Medals/designs/images. The Nobel medal images have been removed from Wikipedia in the past for similar reasons as those I have been pointing out. Your "Advice" is not based on substance or fact about the designs of the medals or images of the medals (I did not seek your advice. I posted information about a problem that requires review by seasoned administrators who are well versed in these issues.) I suggest you reread what I stated already above and elsewhere and follow the relevant links to the policies and guidelines both in Wikipedia and in nobelprize.org. Unless and until the Nobel Foundation grants permission to use its copyrighted and registered trademark in writing, those images of its Nobel Prize medals cannot be featured in articles in Wikipedia. It is not clear where that photograph in the image comes from. There is no clear way to verify the claims for it. I'm logging out of Wikipedia for extended period of time to do my pressing work. --NYScholar 01:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

NYS. The design of the medal is in copyright in Europe until 2013. But what is relevant for EN-Wikipedia is the law of the United States, in particular the law such as it is in the State of Florida. In the United States there is no copyright in works published before 1923. Therefore, there can be no U.S. copyright in this design, whatever the Nobel Foundation on its website does or does not say. Jheald 02:11, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This design of the medal published in images on the Nobel Foundation's own website and its registered trademark as such is copyright 2006 and 2007; its copyright is clearly renewed and up to date. I really don't think that what you are stating is at all accurate. The design of the medal is a trademark of the organization and it is currently still in copyright. You are falsely assuming that the copyright of the image is not current. It is current. The design of the medal is not owned by the dead designers; it is owned by the organization paying them to design it. There was no "publication" of the design prior to 1923. A minted medal is an artifact not a publication. You are mixing up "apples and oranges" and you should delete that misleading template about "public domain" [in another Nobel image under dispute and under review]; Nobel medal images are not in the public domain. They are the registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation and their images are currently copyright-protected as "proprietary" images by the Nobel Foundation. --NYScholar 02:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

Now that is has been established that the Prize in Economics is not a Nobel Prize [35], I think the intro paragraph needs to be fixed to make this clear. However, every time I edit it, another user claims that I have changed it against consensus. [36] So are there others who agree that there is no consensus about the current intro text so that everyone can freely edit it again? –panda 16:22, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I hope that the link that I have provided corrects the problem satisfactorily. --NYScholar 00:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Can we just agree that there is no consensus so that everyone can start editing the first paragraph again? I've been basically given a gag-order by a two other editors who came to what I considered a false consensus. There are some other misconceptions that should be corrected. (The text isn't wrong, it's misleading.) –panda 00:46, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not think that the sentences relating to the Economics prize are misleading anymore (nor is the infobox); the link to the Wikipedia article on the Economics prize makes clear what it is. There are reference sources linked in the article which one can read for further information if one wants more information. --NYScholar 00:48, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, the text that I don't entirely agree about has to do with the Nobel Foundation administrating all six prizes. It's not entirely wrong, it's simply misleading since the Bank of Sweden pays the Nobel Foundation to administrate the econ prize, which is something that it doesn't do for the other prizes. The reference is also to the Australian government, versus a reference from the Nobel Foundation which would explain this in much better detail. The 2nd reference is to UK Encarta, which has already been shown to have errors in the text -- it would make more sense to change it to a reference from the Nobel Foundation. (Also, the text in Nobel Prize in Economics is highly subject to change since it's in the middle of an edit war that hasn't ended yet AFAIK.) –panda 00:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I have revised the lead further. --NYScholar 01:20, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! –panda 01:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

GA review quick failed

Sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but I've quickly failed the GA review. The main issue was discussion of the the uncertain copyright status of the picture, and to a lesser extent the discussion of the Prize in Economics. Once a consensus has been reached, but preferably not before, a renom can be considered.

Before you do re-list it, however, please notice that all sections before "Controversies and criticisms" are soreley lacking in references. Good luck! -Oreo Priest 10:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Related information re: images pertaining to Nobel Prize (R) Medals

Please consult Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg and Image talk:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg; informative links to other discussions are in templates there and throughout the image and talk pages. I'm offline after this comment. --NYScholar 21:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Are Monetary awards within the scope of this article?

I came to this page to settle a bet as to the monetary part of the prize- but it appears that there is no example or discussion of the amount of any award on the page. It may be "base" or it may be trivia, but I'm interested in the amounts that were awarded. There is discussion of how the monetary awards are divided among multiple recipients...

My brief search also did not turn up a "list of Nobel Prize recipients". Of course "List of" articles are deprecated, but it would provide the background for some interesting statistics on what the monetary value of the prize has been over the years, assuming that information was included.

Do you think a section on the monetary aspect of the award is warranted? I'll check back, and if the consensus is "yes", then I'll try to throw something together.

thanks,

-Tzf 05:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Take Nobel Prize in Physics, and for example 1989. The prize was split between

• Norman Foster Ramsey

and

• Hans Georg Dehmelt
• Wolfgang Paul

Ramsey thus got 1/2 of the prize, and Dehmelt and Paul 1/2.

Fred-J 15:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe the info you're looking for is: Nobel Prizes, Prize in Economics. I agree that it could be added to the article, but the article is still protected so only admins can edit it. Lists of laureates for each Nobel Prize can be found via the "Nobel Prizes" template at the bottom of the page:

Chemistry · Literature · Peace · Physics · Physiology or Medicine

Prize in memory of Alfred Nobel: Economics

–panda 16:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! It looks like the admin lock has been taken off (at least for the moment) but now that you've shown me that the info is so handy, perhaps all that's needed is a brief note and a link to the url's you mentioned. This would avoid having another "list" page on Wikipedia, which is I guess a good thing. Thanks! --Tzf 09:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize (R) Medal images

[cross-posted from my own talk page as it relates to this image. --NYScholar 20:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)] I do remember a specific situation regarding that image. I'm not sure of the specifics, or what I can say about it, but I'll get back to you ASAP. Ral315 » 21:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There was an OTRS request regarding this image (ticket #2006092110007177). The Nobel Foundation didn't appear to have any problem with us using the 200x200 resized version. I don't think that means Wikipedia has rights to use it any way we want to, but I do take that to mean that we can use a straight-up claim of fair use, which I think is defensible in Nobel Prize. Since they weren't too concerned about the image, I don't see a problem.

For what it's worth, Panda should not have e-mailed the Nobel Foundation; that's really something that should be handled within the Wikimedia Foundation, if at all. Ral315 » 11:31, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for this response. I did provide a "working" "fair use rationale" for the image for general reference with that possibility in mind. If the Nobel Foundation has already been contacted in writing and responded in writing, it would be helpful to cite that correspondence in the image page, explaining for those who do not know what "OTRS" stands for (with a link to numbered the "ticket" item) [if that is Wikipedia procedure (I don't know)]. I will archive this exchange a bit later. [corr.] --NYScholar 19:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is Wikipedia:OTRS for those who need it. Thanks again. --NYScholar 20:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [cross-posted from my own talk page as it possibly relates to this image as well. --NYScholar 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)]

The infobox for Nobel Prize still seems an inappropriate place for posting an image that is a photograph of a 1933 Nobel Peace Prize, which is still a registered Trademark of the Nobel Foundation; please see that article as well. See other previous discussions relating to other images of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals provided throughout Wikipedia (this image and discussion of it does not occur in a vacuum; the discussion has been going on for over two years. Another editor has also requested that the "black" space in the Anubis3's posted image (please click on the image to get to that image page and its discussion) be edited (reduced) as all that black space takes up more space than needed; if used at all, the image could be much smaller. [Note: this talk page is for comments relating to making improvements to the article Nobel Prize.] --NYScholar 21:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About Panda e-mailing the Nobel Foundation, I see nothing wrong in Panda doing that (presumably that he/she didn't speak as an official representative for Wikipedia?) since the Foundation is located in Sweden, and Sweden being a democracy, doesn't stop people from mailing its institutes. For more information, see Freedom of information legislation. 130.241.18.31 17:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Administrative help requested for editing while protected

[I've removed the template because I have been involved in the dispute about this image; however, I am requesting some help from administrators who can edit this article.] [re-added the template as asked to below; this earlier editing assistance request precedes the later one. --NYScholar 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)] --Removed template, after protection removed. [Updated.] --NYScholar 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Please add to "External links" the following:

• "The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics" – By Birgitta Lemmel; an article on the history of the design of the medals featured on the official site.

Thank you. --NYScholar 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to that article, the image currently being featured in the infobox for Nobel Prize is actually from a photograph of the front side of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal, which does not appear on most of the Nobel Prize (R) Medals. A different image appears on the front side of the four medals for disciplines (Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) and a different image also appears on the front side of the Prize for Economics administered by the Nobel Foundation. This particular image, which is from a Derivative work depicting the front side of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented to Norman Angell appears to be inappropriate for this infobox. Wherever it might be used, an accurate caption for the image is necessary as well. For a comparison, please see Nobel Prize in Physics. Please see related talk pertaining to these two medal images. The caption for this particular image (in place of all that black space) could state, for e.g., "1933 Nobel Peace Prize awarded to Norman Angell on exhibit to the public at the Imperial War Museum, London, England."

If images of the medals are going to be featured in this article, they need to pertain to a relevant section in it and used as illustrations of it. E.g., one could add a section on "Nobel Prize Medals". Then the External link that I am suggesting could be converted to a citation link with a full citation of its author, title, place of publication, date of publication or copyright, and date accessed as documentation of such development. Otherwise, as currently presented, this particular image (a illustration without a caption and thus misleading) is inappropriate and misplaced in the infobox for Nobel Prize. --NYScholar 17:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

In order for editors to be able to continue to improve this article, the protection needs to be removed. --NYScholar 18:00, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You have no case, NY. Derivative works of PD are still PD. Drop the gun and raise the flag, please, all of us have debunked your arguments. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

If you do the rudimentary research of reading the infobox content, you will see that the Nobel Prize is being attributed to Sweden (and, for the Peace Prize, Norway Oslo). The medals are minted in Sweden. All of that has nothing to do with "public domain" in the U.S. None of you who claim (falsely) to have "debunked" my "arguments" seems to know anything about the subject of this article, Nobel Prize, or Nobel Peace Prize or any of the other Nobel Prizes; nor have you apparently even consulted its sources or its official website (listed in the infobox). You all provide absolutely no sources for your claims. --NYScholar 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Jheald's earlier claim "Since the design was published in the United States before 1923" is totally bogus and has no basis in fact. "The design" [of this particular Nobel Peace Prize Medal from 1933, first minted in 1902 in Sweden, with a currently still-registered trademark and copyright]) has not been "published in the United States before 1923"; the design, still a registered trademark and still copyrighted by the Swedish Nobel Foundation (in Sweden, where in 1902 it originated and remains protected property of the Nobel Foundation) has never been "published in the United States"; that is a total red herring. Even Jheald has by now removed that false claim from the image page of the other medal (see Nobel Prize in Physics#The award) and click on image for image page. (Where is the evidence to support these claims of publication of the "design" of these medals in the U.S.? The Nobel Foundation currently still protects its design; it's not a person who has a "life span" and who has died; it is an "author" which is a still-existing corporate entity owning the rights to the designs (which it paid to have designed, modeled, and minted), [and their publication]. No one else owns the rights to them. All that Anubis3 or David.Monniaux own is their own photograph. They cannot license images of the Nobel medals for sale, which is what a GFDL enables one to do. Use in Wikipedia is extremely restricted and limited: WP:IUP. --NYScholar 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no way that this image is "in the public domain" in the U.S. If you read the discussions, you will see that I am not the only one disputing this claim (see the fair use noticeboard) and scroll way up to start of various talk pages, where claims of "public domain" (in the U.S. or elsewhere) have been in dispute from the start. If you go to the image page for the other image, currently in Nobel Prize in Physics#The award, you will see what an image page is supposed to look like (even though parts are still in dispute). These two images are based on similar situations. Even the user fighting me for days about the other image has conceded that that image page needed revisions. At least that image has a caption that indicates what it is, with a proper non-free-use dispute template in it. The reason this image does not is because users deleted the templates, replaced them with inaccurate ones and incomplete image information, and then you protected both the image page and the one article page in which it appears. This is not "cricket" and violates WP:IUP among other policies (such as Wikipedia:Etiquette and WP:AGF. The template showing that this image's being "non-free" (based on currently trademarked and copyrighted materials) needs better presentation on the image page; replacement) on the top of the image page, where it can be seen. --NYScholar 09:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update regarding related request for editing assistance

[Removed template after protection removed. (Updated.) --NYScholar 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]

• Please see updated entry in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and related links there. The current image in Nobel Prize in Physics has a caption w/ related templates. That image and the one currently used in this infobox have very similar problems relating to their image pages. (See its editing history for the link to the no. of the correspondence ["OTRS request regarding this image (ticket #2006092110007177)"] with the Nobel Foundation. That information was deleted by another user.)

• Until I get word that there is an OTRS tick out on the image, I'm not touching it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[As a regular Wikipedia editor, I am not able to access the OTRS ticket item; according to a later uploader of the other image, it pertains to such images of Nobel Prize medals; I have no way of verifying that claim. Shell might be able to access the correspondence. Another user deleted the ref. to the correspondence ticket no. link in the other image's image page decription; it's in the editing history. I am not familiar w/ such procedures. --NYScholar 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]

• The image in dispute in the infobox of Nobel Prize needs a caption. See the other image for kind of caption needed. Templates on the image page of the image in this article were removed after they were placed and therefore the relevant instructions in those templates have been lost. (I may add further links to entries in administrative pages referring to the disputed image.) --NYScholar 20:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Come up with the caption and use the {{editprotected}} template; I or another admin will add it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• The use of the image of the front side of a 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented to Norman Angell currently placed in the infobox in Nobel Prize does not meet the requirements in Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity; see the policy project page in WP:IUP for further guidance. --NYScholar 20:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) [moved here.] --NYScholar 20:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The article is on the Nobel Prize en generale; this argument has no merit here as the picture clearly illustrates a Nobel Prize. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[See below: where I've already explained that the image illustrates the front side of a Nobel Peace Prize Medal not a "Nobel Prize"; the reply re: caption separates that reply from the comment above. --NYScholar 09:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]

[. . . . [scroll up to earlier request to add an external link to EL sec.] --NYScholar 09:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)][In response to JC's req. for editprotected template, see both above and below; they relate to different edits needed. --NYScholar 09:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]

[Removed template after protection removed. (Updated.) --NYScholar 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I already described the medal in several places (as the image page does): scroll up or down. An appropriate caption is:

{{quote|Front side of the Nobel Peace Prize® Medal presented to Sir Ralph Norman Angell in 1933; photograph: Anubis3, the Imperial War Museum, London, August 26, 2005

---

The file File:DSCN0732.JPG has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

The template November 2007 {{pui}} relating to the disputed status of this image needs to be restored to the image page (see editing history and current templates on other image Nobel Prize in Physics#The award. --NYScholar 08:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)] [Added corr. image name in template; updated. --NYScholar 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

That illustration (if deemed usable) should be taken out of the infobox of this particular article and placed w/ the appropriate caption (and the puic template tag within it) only in a section of an article that it actually illustrates: e.g. a section discussing this particular medal (Nobel Peace Prize® Medal) in Nobel Peace Prize or in Norman Angell in a section specifically discussing his particular medal. --NYScholar 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The photograph-based image illustrates a Nobel Prize® Medal, not a "Nobel Prize": please see the differences, which are clearly stated throughout nobelprize.org. The Nobel Prize involves several items only one of which is a medal; there is a monetary award of Swedish crowns amounting to over a US$1,000,000, there is a box containing the relevant Nobel Prize (R) Medal, there is a hand-designed calligraphic certificate ["the Nobel Diploma"], and ceremonial meetings involved in such Prizes; the "medal" is not the "prize"; it is simply one component of the prize (a gold medallion). People discussing these matters really need to read the article and to consult its sources before making such statements. The photo is a non-essential illustration, not "encyclopedic" and not even placed in the proper article space. Please consult the various explanations of what constitutes a "Nobel Prize®" on the official website listed in the infobox. --NYScholar 06:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And, just for the record, when I attended Nobel Week in Stockholm in December 2005, I observed firsthand what is involved in receiving a "Nobel Prize" and it is not just getting a gold medal (which is also part of trademarked merchandise [like foil-wrapped chocolate "coins"] that are facsimiles of such medals sold in the gift shop of the Nobel Museum; they are trademarked as well). (See the links on the site for the Nobel Foundation's own descriptions of what the "Nobel Prize®" is, what it means, and what receiving it entails.) The Nobel Prize® medal and the Nobel Peace Prize® Medal is each simply the Nobel Foundation's trademarked symbol of one component of the award (it is not a "Nobel Prize®"; it is a gold medallion that symbolizes having received the Nobel Prize [the whole "award"].)"The Nobel Prize Ceremonies" (which features a photograph of the one that I attended in 2005) has this information.] [added link. --NYScholar 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)] [[Gold-foil-wrapped medals with chocolate inside are given to guests of the banquet, with many strewn along the long banquet tables as decorations.Photo of the one I attended. I still have the one I received at the 2005 banquet, which I am saving rather than eating. (I have another one that I bought for a gift at the Nobel Museum, also being saved.) These are symbolic of the actual medals as the "Nobel trademark"; they have only one side [the image of Alfred Nobel that is on [four of the five] medals [for the disciplines (Chem., Physics, Lit., Physiology or Medicine).] --NYScholar 08:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)] [updated info.]

Compared to the equivalent of a million-plus US dollars, and the ceremony and banquet, and the prestige of the award (the "Nobel Prize"), the medal is the very least part of Nobel Prizes (R). Please see the sources and particularly the explanation of what such prizes entail to understand the subject better .... --NYScholar 06:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC) [added a link from a source posted in the official Nobel Prize website above. --NYScholar 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)][shortened. --NYScholar 08:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]

It is inappropriate to feature this front side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) medal in the infobox for the article on Nobel Prize. It is not encyclopedic, it is not pertinent, and it is no more than a gaudy illustration with too much black in it that distracts from the pertinent content in the infobox.

This particular image is not an illustration of a "Nobel Prize"; it is an illustration of a Nobel Peace Prize® Medal given out in 1933 to one person, Norman Angell; the image was not created prior to 1923 in the U.S.; it was created on August 26, 2005 and uploaded later (according to its uploader). The date of the creation of the image in question that pertains to its copyright (the only one "owned" by its uploader is the one pertaining to his/her own photograph, and that image was created in 2005, not prior to 1923 in the U.S.; moreover, the image is edited from the photograph was taken in the Imperial War Museum, and none of the information about the image appears in any caption describing it (also contrary to WP:IUP). --NYScholar 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC) [tc. --NYScholar 08:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)]

For comparison, see Nobel Prize in Physics, specifically Nobel Prize in Physics#The award. --NYScholar 07:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

For the format of other Nobel-Prize-related articles, see each of the separate articles (listed in the template at the bottom). --NYScholar 08:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

In the ceremony in Stockholm, each Nobel Laureate receives the three components of the award (the "Nobel Prize®"): the medal, the diploma (which one can see the Laureates holding in the photo in the link I posted above ["The Nobel Prize Ceremonies"], and something indicating the cash part of the award (a certificate ["document"]); the actual "check" (or some other financial arrangement; wire transfer or whatever) for the "cash" part of the Nobel Prize® seems to be handled privately with each of the Laureates rather than during the public ceremony; there is a box that holds (displays) the Medal (pictured on the website). (Publicly "receiving" the "Prize" seems to be "ceremonial"; financial details are arranged privately.) The "diploma" also has a webpage illustration. There are meetings at some point after the banquet (which directly follows the ceremony) when related details are arranged with each Laureate (while others are still dancing; they go off for a while to confer as a group or individually. A lot of information about these matters is available at the links in the website; please see them for further details. There is also a full week of related events, and before and after that week related lectures that they give at institutions throughout Scandinavia. Please consult the site for sources of such additional information. --NYScholar 08:34, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This link is also helpful and adding it would be an improvement to this article:

"What the Nobel Laureates Receive": information on the components of a "Nobel Prize" according to the official source, the Nobel Foundation (which should know what it awards!). --NYScholar 09:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The highlight of the Nobel Prize Award Ceremony in Stockholm is when each Nobel Laureate steps forward to receive the prize from the hands of His Majesty the King of Sweden. In Oslo, the Chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee presents the Nobel Peace Prize in the presence of the King of Norway. Under the eyes of a watching world, the Nobel Laureate receives three things: a diploma, a medal and a document confirming the prize amount.

--NYScholar 09:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: the false, still-erroneous claims of "public domain in the U.S.", see other user's reply to jeské: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2007 October 21: Possibly unfree images: October 21, 2007: As the other user states, there is no evidence to support these "public domain in the U.S." claims regarding the registered trademark and copyrighted images of these medals and/or the medals themselves, 3-dimensional objects minted in Sweden and protected by Swedish proprietary rights by the Nobel Foundation. The initial reply to jéské [there] is by another user, not I. --NYScholar 11:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[Please see previous requests for editing assistance:]

Updated comment:

Just because this page has one image which is contested [see copyright status and pertinence and encyclopedicity for info.] is not a reason to protect the entire article until January 2008. In Wikipedia when the copyright status of images is contested, images may be removed from articles in which their use is questionable, until the problems are fully resolved. There has been no response to the requests for editing assistance, despite the clearcut reasons for them. I provided text for an appropriate caption for this image.

[Removed template after protection removed. (Updated.) --NYScholar 02:01, 6 November 2007 (UTC)]

Scroll up: repeating here:

<< I already described the medal in several places (as the image page does): scroll up or down. An appropriate caption is:

{{quote|Front side of the Nobel Peace Prize® Medal presented to Sir Ralph Norman Angell in 1933; photograph: Anubis3, the Imperial War Museum, London, August 26, 2005

---

The file File:DSCN0732.JPG has an uncertain copyright status and may be deleted. You can comment on its removal.

The template Image:DSCN0732.JPG|log=2007 {{pui}} relating to the disputed status of this image needs to be restored to the image page (see editing history and current templates on other image Nobel Prize in Physics#The award. --NYScholar 08:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)] [Added image name to template; it should post correctly on the image page, not refer to this talk page. (All refs. to "Talk:Nobel Prize" would have to appear as the image page name instead.) Updated. --NYScholar 00:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)]

That illustration (if deemed usable) should be taken out of the infobox of this particular article and placed w/ the appropriate caption (and the puic template tag within it) only in a section of an article that it actually illustrates: e.g. a section discussing this particular medal (Nobel Peace Prize® Medal) in Nobel Peace Prize or in Norman Angell in a section specifically discussing his particular medal. --NYScholar 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC) >>

The templates need to be replaced at the top of the image page.

The status of this image is still under review, and it should not be in this article with a protection template preventing other registered editors from making improvements to the text of the article due to an image that does not pertain to its content. Since the image page has also been protected, it is not open to improvements either. The date posted on the protection for Nobel Prize (see the recently changed log) does not make sense either as there are recent developments that pertain to the subject ("Nobel Prize") which cannot be taken account of in the article and that will occur between now and mid-December that relate to it. It seems wrong to protect the article due to the disagreement about one image (I believe inappropriately placed in its infobox). It makes more sense to remove the image and/or to move it to a more-appropriate article (e.g., a section of the Nobel Peace Prize that discusses the appearance of the medal and/or Norman Angell's medal (1933), while the review is ongoing, to provide an appropriate caption for the image (see the request for editing help template tag above), and to remove the protection template from Nobel Prize. The so-called "edit warring" relating to the article currently only involves questions about the presentation of the image in the image page and its placement in the infobox. An image is not required for even "good article" status in Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Good articles for the criteria and scroll up to the top of this page for the template tag. This article failed a good article review due in part to this image in the infobox (scroll up for the reviewer's comment). Thank you. --NYScholar 19:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC) In order for editors to be able to improve the article according to "good article criteria", the protection needs to be removed so that they can do that. --NYScholar 20:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The image in the infobox does not relate to four of the five Nobel Prizes: Chemistry, Physics, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature. It is only on one side of a medal for the Nobel Peace Prize received by one man, Norman Angell, in 1933 (when it looked different from how a current one for the other four ["Swedish"] Nobel Prizes looks).

Quotation from the URL that I've asked to be added (the featured article on the history of the medals (scroll up):

Up to 1980 the "Swedish" medals, each weighing approximately 200 g and with a diameter of 66 mm, were made of 23-karat gold. Since then they have been made of 18-karat green gold plated with 24-karat gold.
Today the "Swedish" medals are cast by Myntverket - the Swedish Mint - in Eskilstuna and the Peace medal by Den Kongelige Mynt - the Royal Mint - in Kongsberg, Norway.

That 1933 Peace Prize medal received by Norman Angell in the image photographed by Anubis3 is not the same as current medals for most of the Nobel Prizes; the engraving on the edge of the Peace Laureate's name also differs from the engraving of the other Laureates' name on the back side of the other medals. Please see the source I've cited and asked to have in "External links"; if a section on the "components" of the Nobel Prize can be developed in this article, with discussion of the different kinds of medals, then perhaps the image could be used to illustrate what the Peace medal looked like in 1933 as an example. (A thought.) --NYScholar 06:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this image belongs in the infobox for this article. I don't think any such image should be in the infobox for this article. The Nobel Prize (in the five areas) consists of more than a medal. (The "Economics Prize" is not a "Nobel Prize," as has been amply demonstrated by Panda et al.) Scroll up for sources given and related quotation to what a "Nobel Prize" consists of. (The Prize in Economics is given at the same time in the same place with similar but not the same components.)

An appropriate caption identifying what this image is a photograph of should state that it is based on a Wikipedia user's photograph of the front side of the Peace Prize Medal given to one person, Norman Angell, in 1933, and exhibited in the Imperial War Museum. A proper caption [I provided one--scroll up to it] demonstrates how inappropriate this particular image is for the infobox of Nobel Prize.

I have considered this image a lot, and I just don't see how its inclusion is an "improvement" to this article. Even the current medals offered for four of the five prizes do not have the same amount of gold in them that the Peace medal did in 1933; they are a different three-dimensional object according to the URL (article featured on the official website of the Nobel Foundation) that I've asked to be posted in "External links." (24-carat gold-plated as opposed to 23-carat, etc. [scroll up to quotation].) The image is currently obsolete as well as inappropriate. --NYScholar 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Nobel Prize for Music

This tells us that Maurice Ravel's brother, who inherited the composer's estate, intended to donate the money to found a Nobel Prize in Music, but nothing came of it. Has anyone else ever tried to get such a prize started? It never occurred to me before reading this, but a Music Nobel now seems a very glaring omission. -- JackofOz 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

There can be no more "Nobel Prizes" as this name is trademarked and reserved for the five prizes mentioned in Nobel's will. It is hard to know why he chose the ones he did, but the view is that he chose subjects close to his own heart. For instance, he was a budding writer, so there was a prize for literature. Had he been a wannabe musician, there might have been a Nobel Prize for Music in stead. Even though there was the addition of the "Alfred Nobel Memorial Prize" for Economics, the Nobel Foundation has since decided to not allow any additional memorial prizes. --Lensor 13:09, 30 October 2007 (UTC)add: The reference you give state that he wanted to give the money to the city of Paris.. which might be why nothing came of it. The Nobel Prize being Swedish and all.

Thanks for that. I live in the hope that the Nobel Foundation might one day change its mind about no more memorial prizes. -- JackofOz 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unprotection

I have unprotected this article and hidden-commented out the image under dispute. If I notice that editwarring on the image starts up again, I will reprotect the article. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:32, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Image Debate

I want all of us here, right now, to once-and-for-all come to a consensus on the image, which we already know is PD (since it was (a) first struck before 1923 and (b) was trademarked and copyrighted in accordance with US law). I want to see where eveyone stands on this. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia:Consensus is reached ("I want all of us here, right now, to once-and-for-all come to a consensus on the image": that is not how reaching consensus in Wikipedia functions.

There are still-pending questions about the appropriateness of the presentation of these images in Wikipedia. "Consensus" "once and for all" from "everyone"/"all of us right now" and "for-once-and-for-all" does not get reached in a talk page in this manner. That is not Wikipedia's definition of how "Consensus" is reached.

The comments that JC has just posted (apparently, in response to continuingly-misleading comments on his/her talk page by the uploader of this disputed image (Anubis3) are an inaccurate presentation of the situation of the Nobel Prize (R) Medal images.

The medal that the photograph from which the image in question derives (making it a derivative work) is a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal minted in 1933 (not 1923). According to the history of these medals (in the source cited in Nobel Prize: the design of the Peace Prize (R) medal was commissioned by the Nobel Foundation (which still claims "proprietary rights" to it) in Sweden in 1901-1902. These medals were designed and minted in Sweden; its still-current registered trademark is to a Swedish entity, the Nobel Foundation. There is no evidence that it "was trademarked and copyrighted in accordance with US law" [provide a source for that claim] and there is no source provided to establish the veracity of that statement (no verification of it). The front side of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) medal is currently still a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation.

Those who state that "it" (the medal "struck" in the photograph that this image derives from) was "struck before 1923" are not accurately stating a fact about that medal. The medal is a minted medallion--not a work of sculpture as some have sometimes stated. The design of the medal (minted medallion) presented as a component of a Nobel Peace Prize in 1933 is that of an "engraver" who also happened to be a sculptor who also made a model of ("modeled") the medal before it was minted at the commission of the Nobel Foundation. [The designer was commissioned to design and to model the medal prior to its being minted and paid for that commissioned work ("work for hire"). [...See the article given as a source by Birgitta Lemmel: "The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics"); given in Nobel Prize.] The front side of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal minted in 1933 and given to Norman Angell and then placed on display in the Imperial War Museum in London is what is depicted in the photograph that Anubis3 uploaded a version of to Wikipedia (not a pre-1923 medal). That noted, the design (the front side of Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medals) is still both a registered trademark and a copyrighted image featured by the Nobel Foundation with notices as such in its website nobelprize.org. I provided a caption for the image uploaded by Anubis3, which lacked a caption (scroll up and see the infobox caption in editing preview mode).

Given what it depicts (the front side of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal) presented in 1933, I do not think it appropriate for the infobox of Nobel Prize. It is not an image of a "Nobel Prize"; it is an image of the front side of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented to Norman Angell. None of the other Nobel Prize (R) medals (for Physics, Chemistry, Literature, Physiology or Medicine) or for the Prize in Economics have the same front side as is featured on the front of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal (1933 or any other one).

The image also has too much black space in it and needs further editing if its copyright/trademark status is approved for use in Wikipedia and it is used in a more pertient, more encyclopedic manner to illustrate content in a Wikipedia article: For related links, see WP:IUP and [[Wikipedia:Image#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. I do not think that the use of this image in the infobox of Nobel Prize "improves" this article. I think that its use will likely contribute to its continuing failure as a "good article" in Wikipedia. Wikipedia "good articles" do not require illustrations; see the criteria linked in the template tag at top of page.

Wikipedia:Consensus occurs over extended periods of time among many editors. Consensus is not a matter of an informal poll seeking "consensus" among a small group of interested editors who already have made it clear that they do not agree and who have sought further comments on the merits of these images (which have related but distinct problems) in Wikipedia. --NYScholar 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For related information, please scroll up and consult Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images. Thanks. The problems posed by this image have larger contexts discussed there and in the related linked pages. --NYScholar 00:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will start by politely requesting you make sure you have everything you want to say posted at once; edit-conflicts make it hard to talk.

My understanding of it is that the copyright and registration make it PD because the medal was initially struck before 1923. Only if the Foundation copyrighted each and every mint of the medal would a fair-use problem arise, and the burden is on you, not Anubis the 3rd, to provide such proof, NYS. That is what has been stated at the only thread you started on this imaged graced with an uninvolved editor by said editor.

Second, iff the fact it is a Peace Prize should matter, then tell me why the fact that it is a metal in a different field (Physics, Literature, etc) would be any better. In any case it's still a Nobel Prize. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This image of the 1933 photograph was created in 2005 (not before 1923); it is the image that is being described in the image page, not the Medal on display. However, even if you are talking about the medal itself in the photograph; that was minted in 1933, not before 1923. The image is not an image of a "Nobel Prize"; it is an image of a Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal presented in 1933. It is not pertinent to this infobox or even to this article. [Since posting that, I've added a new section to the article and provided the image in a spot where it can serve as an illustration of content in the article; but not in the infobox. [See the next section of comments on "The Nobel Prize Medals".]--NYScholar 04:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]

What it illustrates is not a "Nobel Prize"; the front side of this Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal is a trademark of the Nobel Foundation (not the "Nobel Prize"). The organization has registered its images of its medals as its trademarks and it has copyrighted those trademarked images on its website. The amount of mental gymnastics going on to make it appear that the image that Anubis3 says s/he uploaded from a photograph of a 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal given to Norman Angell and put on display in the Imperial War Museum in London is "in the public domain in the U.S." appears an attempt to put into an infobox an image that is inappropriate (not pertinent) and not encyclopedia for the article on Nobel Prize. I do not think that any such image should be in the infobox for Nobel Prize. See each of the other articles for their content in comparison: they are linked via the template at the bottom of Nobel Prize. There is one disputed image in a section of Nobel Prize in Physics in a section relating to "What the Nobel Laureates Receive": only one of the things that they receive is the Nobel Prize (R) Medal. Please read the content of the article cited "What the Nobel Laureates Receive" for the context.

In my view, putting images of any of the medals in the infobox for the articles on Nobel Prize or any of the individual prizes is not an improvement of them. I have explained why and provided sources for my explanations. --NYScholar 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Our job as editors is to improve articles. If the image does not improve the article, it does not belong in it. --NYScholar 00:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's the link to Lemmel's article cited above and in the article Nobel Prize: "The Nobel Prize Medals...". Anyone who wants to see what a Nobel Prize (R) Medal looks like can simply click on the link to the source, which is featured in nobelprize.org, along with the notices of registered trademarks and copyrights. --NYScholar 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

JC: Have you investigated the correspondence with the Nobel Foundation that was cited earlier? Apparently, administrator Shell is able to see it; it is locked to regular editors. What does it state? Does it give permission to Wikipedia to feature images of the Nobel Prize (R) medals in pertinent sections discussing the medals in Wikipedia? See links in Nobel Prize in Physics for comparable page relating to that image; I think the (locked) URL for the correspondence is in its editing history; another user edited it out of the image page last week or so. --NYScholar 01:02, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

These images have two potential layers of copyrights. The first is in the design of the medal. This layer of copyright has expired because it predates 1923. So the design of the medal is in the public domain.

The second layer is the photographer's right in the photograph of the medal. The images here have been properly licensed or released to the public domain by the photographers, so the second layer of copyright is no impediment to our use of these images.

The trademark issue is a red herring. Trademark law does not preclude every use of a mark or symbol. Only those uses that can be construed as passing off a product as being made by the owner of the mark, or those likely to cause consumer confusion, are barred. In this case, it is obvious that Wikipedia is not a product of the Nobel foundation, and we are not conferring prizes in any way that is going to confuse anybody. We are an encyclopedia, and we are currently using thousands of registered trademarks in a perfectly legal, acceptable and policy compliant manner. (See, for example, Category:Logos.)

Accordingly, these images are properly used here as free images. They should be tagged as PD images for the first layer of copyright and however they are licensed by the photographer for the second layer. -- But|seriously|folks  01:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

(editing conflict)The front side of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal to Norman Angell is the same design as the front side of the image that is currently depicted as the registered trademark and copyrighted on the Nobel Foundation's website in the link to the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal from that webpage: "Nobel Peace Prize Medal". --NYScholar 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the sources cited in these Nobel-Prize related articles, and particularly in Nobel Peace Prize and Norman Angell, the photographed 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal given to Angell relates more to these two other articles or to potential additional sections of them than it does to Nobel Prize's infobox (or any section in it). That is why I have suggested (several times in several places) that the uploader or another editor consider placing the image (after possibly deleting some of the unnecessary black space that takes up so much room) into a more-pertinent section of a more-pertinent article that it does relate to. If one fears the image being deleted due to being orphaned, new pertinent encylopedic content of these other articles could be created for it to illustrate. --NYScholar 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen no sources to document BSF's statements pertaining to "Public domain in the U.S." Regardless, the image does not belong in the infobox for Nobel Prize. I've already explained why. The lack of it in the infobox does not do any damage to this article. Its use does not improve the article. --NYScholar 01:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The copyright for the "design of the medal" is still in force in Sweden; I know of no source that supports the claim that "copyright" for the "design of the medal" is "in the public domain in the U.S." Wikipedia editors have stated that it is, but they have provided no verifiable source to document that statement. The design was commissioned in 1901-1902 by the Nobel Foundation; the design and engraving and modeling of the first Nobel Prize (R) Medals (and of the Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal) were "completed" in 1902; since then, the Nobel Foundation has claimed "proprietary rights" to those designs, the Nobel Prizes (R), the Nobel Prize (R) Medals, and other of its trademarked and copyrighted properties. I don't see how Wikipedians' claims to the contrary invalidate its claims of "proprietary rights" to those designs. The Nobel Foundation is the "author" of the design according to copyright laws (international and U.S. acceptance of international copyright laws). These claims that since the medals were first "minted" in 1902, their "designs" are currently in the "public domain in the U.S." has no substantiated proof. Please provide a verifiable source and/or sources pertaining directly to the copyright status in the U.S. of commissioned "designs" and related work for hire pertaining to physical three-dimensional medals created by an organization (the Nobel Foundation) in Sweden. Thanks. --NYScholar 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 (U.S. law). --NYScholar 01:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In my view of the related legal links, the copyright situation of this particular image is so dubious that one is best off omitting it from this article (espec. from its infobox). Until the situation is clearly resolved with unimpeachable, verifiable sources, I don't think the image should be inserted into this article. I think that it should be deleted from the infobox. --NYScholar 01:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If it matters, I received a reply from the Nobel Foundation where they only stated that the medals are a registered trademark of the Nobel Foundation. They didn't mention its copyright status but I can ask to be certain. If it turns out they no longer hold a copyright on the image in the US, does that solve this? –panda 04:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

As NYS points out, the United States is a party to the Berne Convention. This means that Article 7 “Term of Protection” is applicable. In particular:

• “(3) In the case of anonymous or pseudonymous works, the term of protection granted by this Convention shall expire fifty years after the work has been lawfully made available to the public….” So works first published in 1957 or later are protected by this paragraph. But the design of the medal was first published in 1902.
• “(8) In any case, the term shall be governed by the legislation of the country where protection is claimed….” So United States copyright law governs copies made in the United States. By United States copyright law, works first published before 1923 are in the public domain. The design of the medal was first published in 1902; so it is in the public domain in the United States. The fact that copies were made after 1923 does not extend the copyright.

NYS repeatedly states that http://nobelprize.org/ claims copyright on the design of the medal, but I find no such claim on that page. It claims trademark on the medal and copyright on the web page.

On one point, however, I agree with NYS. Image:DSCN0732.JPG is ugly and should not be used. (Sorry, Anubis) --teb728 21:43, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The works in question (the Nobel Prize (R) Medals) are not "anonymous" or "pseudonymous": the "author" is the Nobel Foundation, which commissioned their designs from two people who are named in the featured article "The Nobel Prize Medals and the Medal for the Prize in Economics"; in such a case, the commissioning entity (organization here) owns the copyright to the [images of the] designs, which it appears that it still claims according to its posted copyright notices: see the links throughout nobleprize.org to its "copyright and trademark" notices; they are prominently linked and impossible to miss. They are provided in User talk:NYScholar in the section about them. They are quoted in various discussions; go to the image pages, archived talk pages on Nobel Prize and scroll up. The passages quoted do not pertain to these medals. There appears to be a misapplication of the categories in "public domain" throughout users' references to it. For other information, please consult the image pages and their links to related discussions; see also the archives of related talk pages and the history of the discussion by a number of other Wikipedia editors. (I am not actually the first one to raise questions about the propriety of how these images are being presented and used in Wikipedia.) --NYScholar 22:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The reference to "first published" is a misnomer. The designs are not "published"; the medals are created from the designs and minted. The three dimensional medal is not in the same category as a "published" work; as a three dimensional work of art, there are specific numbers of years that pertain to it; these are cited in other discussions of the medals by me and others. According to some interpretations re: U.S. laws pertaining to what is or is not yet in the "public domain," there are some years still to go for the particular medals being photographed (1933 and 1947) to be considered "in the public domain" in the U.S. Please consult the 'non-free images" and "media copyright questions" pages and/or archived pages for those discussions. Thanks. --NYScholar 22:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

For the talk page of the image, one clicks on the image and goes to its talk page; for each image of various Nobel Prize (R) medals currently being reviewed in Wikipedia, there are talk page discussions to consult: e.g., for this one Image talk:DSCN0732.JPG. This is not a new discussion; it has been going on for about two years and has involved previous users who have also questioned the propriety of the presentation of these images and the licenses being used for them in Wikipedia. There have been a number of conflicting claims presented about them. Those conflicting claims need to be consistently resolved in a way that does not violate WP:IUP and WP:Copyright (provides refs. to trademark). Trademark is not a "red herring"; it is related to the presentation of the images on the image pages. (Click on the images currently in the section I added for those image pages.) --NYScholar 22:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

There are three links from User talk:NYScholar to nobelprize.org: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medals/, http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/medal.html, and http://nobelprize.org/contact/copyright/index.html. The linked pages do not claim copyright on the design of the medal but rather on the documents and materials presented at nobelprize.org. Can you give me ONE link where nobelprize.org claims copyright on the design of the medal?

Sorry. Instead of “published” I should have said “lawfully made available to the public.” --teb728 22:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I see you have been active and posted about 80 edits since I asked my question. Do I conclude correctly from your lack of a reply that you now agree that nobelprize.org claims copyright only on the documents and materials presented at its website and NONE on the medal design. --teb728 08:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No. I simply didn't see this comment at all until after I posted that I updated my talk page sources. I provide the link in the last comment I posted below. In my talk page, I explain that I have no more time to devote to this matter. I took the time to provide the sources. Anyone may read them. They reveal how complex these matters are and how much information Wikipedians still lack about those "designs." I've provided all the links already in my own talk page. Please go to them. I am tired of the personal attacks on me for raising these questions in good faith. My activity in Wikipedia has been done in good faith and I resent the implications otherwise. Dealing with personal attacks is unpleasant and unworthy of my efforts. The talk page provides all the links anyone could need to U.S. Copyright Code and U.S. Revisions of the Code (which are plentiful) and to all the notes and appendices qualifying various comments being made about these images. It also provides the links to the Nobel Foundation's copyright and trademark notices, which are very specific. I see no need to respond further. --NYScholar 09:03, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not personally attacking you; I'm sorry if someone else is. I read all the nobelprize.org pages linked from your user talk page, and none of them justified your assertion that nobelprize.org claims copyright on the medal design. Please give me just one link where they claim copyright on the medal design. --teb728 10:10, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Terms of use: Copyrights (all of it, inc. related links to notices [in the webpages)]. --NYScholar 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

“ Copyrights

Everything, including but not limited to the articles, texts, photographs, images, data, files, audio and video clips, illustrations, designs, educational games and documentation in whole or in part (the "Content") which appears on the Site is either proprietary to Nobel Web or used in accordance with applicable law or third party consents.
You may not reproduce, distribute, display, transmit, modify, perform, adapt, generate derivative works or otherwise use the Content without prior written permission – if not expressly stated elsewhere in these Terms and Conditions of Use.
The following listed copyright protected material: photos of the Laureates, other photos, the Nobel Diplomas, the Nobel Lectures, speeches and biographies – of which the Nobel Foundation is the proprietor – and the Nobel Posters and the Swedish Nobel Stamps, of which a third party is the holder, are encompassed by special regulations.
Photos or images of the Nobel Medal
Permission to use an image or photo of a Nobel medal is only granted if the image is going to be used as an illustration for an editorial text about Alfred Nobel, the Nobel Prize® or a Laureate.
An image of the Nobel medal may, however, not be used on the cover of books, booklets or other printed matter, on posters, in exhibitions etc, nor for publicity or commercial purposes.
If permission is granted, "®© The Nobel Foundation" must be indicated.
Other photos
For uses of other photos, permission from the Nobel Foundation, and in certain cases from the photographer, is required.
If permission is granted "© The Nobel Foundation" and the photographer must be indicated. [Bold added for the word "designs"; other bold the Nobel Foundation's.] ... Copyright © Nobel Web AB 2007. All rights reserved.

”

--NYScholar 20:59, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [Logged out after typographical corrections to this reply (tc). Please consult the entire page entitled "Terms of Service" and all the linked copyright notices pertaining to each webpage and images, designs of the medals depicted in Birgitta Lemmel's featured article about the medals (which illustrates each "design"), etc. on the site. Linked via the copyright notices at bottom of each webpage, inc. Lemmel's article.] --NYScholar 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC) [corr. of Lemmel's name (source cited in Nobel Prize).] --NYScholar 23:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)]

Is it acceptable to everyone to put this conversation on hold until after I get a reply from the Nobel Foundation? They replied very quickly last time so I image it shouldn't take so long this time. –panda 18:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. [But one needs to consult previous correspondence already linked with the Wikipedia Foundation pertaining to the other image as that correspondence may relate to usage of more than one image of the medals on Wikipedia. The administrator named Shell says that s/he has access to that correspondence. It is a locked file. It is accessible via the editing history of the Physics medal image. Archive 1 refers to my own earlier private e-mail correspondence with the Nobel Foundation from over a year ago. I already linked to that archived discussion above. Please see talk archive 1.[37]. The Wikipedia Foundation's locked correspondence file may postdate the Nobel Foundation's reply to me saying that it was referring the matter to its legal dept.] --NYScholar 21:39, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[Please see updates to this section below, in #The Nobel Prize Medals relating to Nobel Prize section on them that I added, which currently features two images uploaded by Wikipedians with questionable copyright status and inconsistent presentation on image pages. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]

The Nobel Prize Medals

For those interested in possibly composing a section on "the Nobel Prize Medals," see the articles about them in "External links" section; a short summary linked to "more" information is accessible through "What the Nobel Laureates Receive: The Nobel Prize Medals". --NYScholar 01:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

E.g., the summary paragraph quoted from "What the Nobel Laureates Receive":

The Nobel Prize medals in Physics, Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine and Literature are identical on the face: it shows the image of Alfred Nobel and the years of his birth and death (1833-1896). Nobel's portrait also appears on the Nobel Peace Prize Medal and the Medal for the Prize in Economics, but with a slightly different design. The image on the reverse varies according to the institution awarding the prize. All medals made before 1980 were struck in 23 carat gold. Today, they are made from 18 carat green gold plated with 24 carat gold. ("What the Nobel Laureates Receive: The Nobel Prize Medals")

--NYScholar 01:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the section. If the image in question is usable in Wikipedia, an appropriate place for it to be placed might be in that section, so that it posts opposite the mention of the Nobel Peace Prize Medal; the q. provides links to the related articles in Wikipedia. The template at the foot of this article does so as well. --NYScholar 02:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added two images for illustrations of the content of that section; please let us know how this revision works. It is okay if you remove the images or "edit them out" as JC already did in the infobox; but I thought I would provide this possibility. If used in this section, the previous "edited out" material can be removed from the infobox, but the image will at least not be orphaned while their copyright/trademark status is still under review (in each case). --NYScholar 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [corr.; addition --NYScholar 02:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]

I’m sorry but this is going a little too far. First, NYS takes hard line stance (and is certain) that this image is a copyright violation and, now, NYS is saying is being used on the wrong page! Are we in the Twilight Zone here? What is going on? I think we lost sight of the overall goal. I don’t know how many different ways, on how many different pages and by how many different editors it needs to be established that this image is PD.

In my opinion a continuation of this discussion will only prove futile. The fact is that NYS has been given the benefit of the doubt way more than should be allotted to any single user making an argument. Moreover, NYS has been given the burden of proof and it was on NYS to prove that this image was not PD. Needless to say…NYS did not.

So, I suggest that before this image is removed from WP altogether (it has already been ORPHANED for no reason at all), something should be done. I, on the other hand, do not want to make edits so as to avoid a conflict. But, if this image is removed, I will not make another effort to upload it again. Then all of our efforts over this image will be in vain and WP has to wait for another editor to take a picture of the medal and upload it. Buy why I ask, when this image is already here? Please let’s not be drawn into this again. NYS, you might want to vist here. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 17:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your image is not orphaned since it is in the article, and was added by NYScholar at 02:19, 10 November 2007. –panda 20:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

OK so I guess we are in the Twilight Zone here. Panda, I guess you should have said "your image is NO LONGER orphaned" since NYS placed it in another section of the article only today. If you don't believe me, I encourage to see the notice on my talk page. Oh yea ,and it still makes no sense whatsoever, that the image is being moved! If, according to you, it is not free then it shouldn't be in the article at all. Then, why move it? Because, NYS, in their fury of writing and writing and thinking and thinking developed this new theory that the medal itself is not the Nobel Prize??? Excuse me, but this kind of misreasoning absolutely amazes me. Of course, the medal persay is not the prize in itself but, rather, a very concrete symbol of it...just like the Coca-Cola logo is a symbol of the drink. The technicalities are really NOT impressive to anyone and are nothing more than a red herring! The problem here is that NYS can't stand moving on from this issue even after consensus has been reached. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 22:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It would appear to me that NYS has moved on since the image is in the article. Please don't put words in my mouth stating something that I haven't commented on since the entire issue started. Anyway, I don't know why you're still complaining when the images of the medals are in the article, none of them are orphaned, and they were added back to the article before you first commented on this thread. I am quite aware of exactly when they were re-added to the article: 02:19, 10 November 2007 (your photo) and 02:31, 10 November 2007 (David Monniaux's photo). I also have to agree with teb728 and NYScholar that your image is not flattering and should not be used. –panda 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok so, all along I thought the issue being debated concerned the copyright. So why all of a sudden are you making potshots about the quality of the image? Maybe you should complain to the designer...oh wait...he's dead so I guess you will just have to live with it. Seriously though, I really can't help it, the only thing I would change is crop the black area out, but since this argument began I couldn't do it because the page had to be protected. Other than that I cannot possibly phathom how the image is not "flattering" when it is nothing else but the medal. Plus, if a user dislikes it so much, they shouldn't just remove it but, rather, REPLACE it with a equally free image (the one by David Monniaux seems to be the exact one from nobelprize.org...and that, my friend, IS under copyright). aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 00:34, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you try asking teb728 why he thought the picture is ugly? David Monniaux's picture is in the exact same position as your's. If it's deemed that your's is usable wrt the copyright issue, then his is as well. David Monniaux's picture is simply a better picture and IMHO your's doesn't look good. You're always welcome to ask for a 3rd opinion. –panda 01:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Yea ok, so there is absolutely no need for a third opinion and, in case you didn't notice, I own the copyright to my image while the other image is strikingly similar to the first image that comes up on a basic google search (if you're have trouble look here [38]) In that case, it is not free. The other image also doesn't have any metadata attached to it seeming to support this conclusion. So, NO Panda, the two images are NOT comparable and are NOT in the same position. And you are the one that said the picture was "not flattering" but you don't seem to have any good reason why (except for the background which can be cropped out). aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 03:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I simply don't think your picture looks good, plus it's half blurry. If you believe cropping the background would help, then why don't you just do it? Like I said, you're always welcome to get a 3rd opinion. And instead of attacking me, why don't you go ask teb728 why he thought your picture is ugly? Also if you have issues with David Monniaux's picture, then please take it up with Ral315, the editor who uploaded David's picture. I'm not involved with that image so it doesn't matter what you write to me about it. –panda 04:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please, this is not productive. You've stated your positions. Let's try to remain calm and wait for others to weigh in. -- But|seriously|folks  04:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop making this discussion about users; it is about the image and the image page claims; they need to be accurate. See WP:NPA: focus on content not on contributors. I provided a possible way of dealing with this problem by adding a section that pertains to the images of Nobel Prize (R) medals. Scroll up for my first attempts to get some administrative assistance while this article was protected to enable the sources about the medals to be placed in this article. Scroll up to the template tags in this article talk page re: the talk page about making improvements to the article. Wikipedia does not permit users to make personal attacks on other Wikipedia users. See Wikipedia:Etiquette. --NYScholar 22:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

See Archive 1 of this talk page from Sept. 2006: [39]. --NYScholar 22:30, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Is that your response to the issues I've raised? Please stop bringing up red herrings and try to answer other user's questions/concerns. No one is going to be fooled by this response NYS. Do you no longer consider this a copyright violation as you alone so viehemently argued up until now? If so, why would it be better in under a new Medals section? Have you any concrete evidence that the image is not in the public domain? aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 22:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded in the various other pages to claims of "public domain"; I think that the "public domain in the U.S." template is misleading and faulty and should be removed from the image page. I have been very clear about that. I have, however, already posted the questions that I have about the propriety of this image page (and other image pages); all those points can be found in the properly-cited pages, which are already linked. This is not a personal matter and the other users should not be making it into one. I stand by all the points that I have already raised. See the other image pages in Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images for the posting. It is all already posted and already accounted for in the templates on the image pages of the other images. Someone protected the image page of this image. It needs to have the templates that were previously posted on it indicating that it has questionable claims. What I regard as a faulty "public domain in the U.S." template is already in one of the other image pages; it is not in this image page. This image page and the image pages of other images of the medals with similar situations need to be consistently presented in Wikipedia in ways that are consistent with all of Wikipedia's own policies pertaining to both trademark and copyright. There are no "red herrings"; the templates in the other image pages demonstrate that the issues raised are raised in good faith. Images in Wikipedia articles must illustrate pertinent encyclopedic content in the articles: see WP:Image#Pertinence and encyclopedicity. As I have argued ever since the uploader placed the image in the infobox of Nobel Prize, the infobox of this article is not an appropriate place for that image. I created a section where, if the image is deemed to have a proper image page (proper license, proper templates), it is more appropriately placed ("pertinent" and "encyclopedic"). The references to this image should be removed from the infobox entirely. It is now being used as an illustration to a more appropriate portion of the article; see WP:IUP for policies as well as Wikipedia:Image. [See also: WP:Image#Image choice and placement.] --NYScholar 23:06, 10 November 2007 (UTC) [added relevant link to WP sec. --NYScholar 23:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)]

Quite lengthy yet again, NYS, but NOT a response to my questions. aNubiSIII ^{(T / C)} 00:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Is anyone else thinking "spamigation" yet? All I see from NYS (no offense) is arguments that have been (a) defeated ten times over or (b) dancing around the actual question. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 05:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I personally don't understand what the current issue is about. The images of the medals are in the article. So what's the problem now? –panda 05:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added some additional sources pertaining to copyrights for images of medals based on designs that were commissioned (work for hire) to my talk page. If one wants to know what revisions to the U.S. Copyright Revision of 1976 state, the links are provided there (see the refs. to the information made available on the Library of Congress). The "complicating factor" referred to is relevant as are the references to automatic renewals of copyright in the U.S. and to various complex matters pertaining to international copyright laws. This is not as simple a matter as some seem to think. There may still be "problems" with the ways the image pages are presented. The images are in the article, but the ways the image pages (which one accesses by clicking on the images) are presented are inconsistent with one another. (There are three that I referred to together because they are of related images.) Since I can devote no more time to discussing these matters, I simply updated the copyright- and trademark-related sources on my talk page so that people can refer to them themselves. --NYScholar 07:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Here is the direct Link. --NYScholar 07:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I've heard that before. -- But|seriously|folks  07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have returned to post a pertinent update re: the image that another user left on my talk page pointing to his/her comments on Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22/Images. To this other user and me, there appears to be no basis for claims of "public domain" for the images in question, and the "fair use rationales" on David.Monniaux's image page are necessary (the public domain template should be removed from it as it is entirely dubious); the other image (relating to the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal to Angell) misleadingly claims "public domain" in the image page and provides no fair use rationales or copyright information as does the other image page. Please re-consider, lift the protection from the image page, and fix the problems so that presentation of the image is consistently within copyright restrictions on Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Circular 23 indicates complexity of these records pertaining to Work for hire produced in foreign countries; see again the related circulars pertaining to works that may never have been registered for copyrights in the U.S. which are nevertheless protected due to the nature of those works (like designs for medals commissioned by the Nobel Foundation). There are different legal codes and different revisions of legal codes pertaining to copyrights of different kinds of works. We are not talking about an "artistic work" like a painting or a publication like a book or an article; we are talking about designs of medals that are minted, which come under different laws according to the complex categories in Title 17 and revisions of it under different treaty agreements. --NYScholar (talk) 12:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I have received a reply from the Noble Foundation. Their PR representative stated that the medals are protected by copyright in the US and are registered trademarks in the US. I don't know when they last renewed the copyright status of the medals and have asked them, but I haven't received a reply yet. The medals are not listed in the Library of Congress copyright database so it wasn't renewed from 1978 onwards. (If someone has a lot of time on their hands and wants to go to the Library of Congress to search through their copyright records prior to 1978, that would be nice...) I'll post more when I find out more. –panda (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

"so it wasn't renewed from 1978 onwards" is not a reasonable conclusion and is based on little to no information about copyright renewal processes relating to such designs/design marks/images/medals. According to revisions of U.S. Copyright Code (Title 17, see links to circulars listed in my talk page), renewals of certain copyrights are automatic. To the layperson (non-lawyer), these laws often appear very arcane; intellectual property law exists because it is a complex area of the law (a specialty). This matter is not so simple a matter as some posting dates of "1923" etc. claiming "public domain" seem to understand. There is a strong possibility that, due to not only possible registered copyright applications but also due to automatic renewals and the 28-year-plus rule (1902 plus 28 plus 95 to next year=2026), the copyright may extend to at least 2026 (and, depending on years of renewal, possibly beyond that). The Nobel Foundation clearly states on its site that it is not responsible for conveying this kind of specific legal information to visitors of its site and those who write to its public relations contact addresses. If it states that [in Panda's words] "the medals are protected by copyright in the US and are registered trademarks in the US," one needs to respect its statements. They are tantamount. [According to the Fair Use provisions of U.S. Copyright Code--Title 17--revised circular], once one writes and asks for information, according to U.S. Copyright fair use provision, one needs to abide by the answer one receives. If one asks in writing for permission to use copyright-protected properties and one receives it in writing with conditions (like the stipulation to feature registered trademark and copyright symbols and "The Nobel Foundation"), then one must abide by that in featuring the properties; if one is denied permission, one cannot feature them. It will be interesting to see whether or not the public relations officer responds further. If so, please inform us of the reply; quoting it in whole would be helpful. It would be helpful too if you would quote precisely what you asked in your queries. Thanks. (My previous correspondence with the Nobel Foundation public relations officer is cited in archive 1 of this talk page, as mentioned before.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[See also the link at the U.S. Copyright Office government website to "Notice of Restored Copyrights" and keep in mind that the online search facility is not a totally-reliable method of determining extended terms of copyright due to the nature of the Copyright Code in Title 17 and revisions pertaining to various different classes of properties and also foreign laws that pertain and that are respected by the U.S. in subsequent revisions (post-1978); e.g., 1995, pertaining to literary and artistic works registered in foreign countries, etc. (Links are also on my talk page.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]

The Nobel Foundation has neither given nor denied permission to use the pictures of the medals that can be found here, and I've already asked a couple times. I'm fairly sure that even though the medals are copyrighted, Wikipedia can claim "fair use" as long as there is commentary about the medals, that is, so long as they're not purely decorative. So the section that you added them to in the article makes sense. Anyway, like I said, I'm waiting for a reply from them. –panda (talk) 22:41, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The fair use provision of U.S. Copyright Code (Title 17) states (in its circular) that if one asks for permission (raises the matter of permission, which suggests that one knows that one needs it) and if one does not receive it (via non-answer or a negative answer), one has not received permission. All along, I have been saying that one needs "fair use rationales" and to delete "public domain in the U.S." templates (and/or claims) from these image pages. If you (Panda) do not receive a response to a request for permission, it is the same as not getting permission. Please see the fair use provision circular updates posted on the U.S. government site. The problem with the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal (Angell) image page is that it has no fair use rationale and faulty other claims of licenses that it is not legal to feature. A GFDL-compatible license cannot be featured for these copyright-protected images; see Derivative works for related information pertaining to the Nobel Foundation's prohibition on them in its trademark and copyright notices. (Those are linked in my talk page.) --NYScholar (talk) 22:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel website indicates that the medals' design has not changed since 1902. So it's in the public domain. There's no need for permissions or to resort to fair use. -- But|seriously|folks  22:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a misinterpretation of copyright law. You keep making these false statements as if they were factual; they are not. The "design mark" and other content (images) are still protected by both trademarks and copyrights enforced by the Nobel Foundation as per its notices; your repetitions of the same false claims have no veracity. --NYScholar (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, the article about the history of the medals explains changes to the medals' composition in 1980 and the images featured on the Nobel Web and the copyright notices of "The Nobel Foundation" are repeated and explicit throughout the site. You are misleading people by making such false statements. It appears to me that you just don't care if you subject Wikipedia to potential claims of copyright infringement. It is much safer to feature the fair use rationales required by Wikipedia in such a case as this one than not to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 23:06, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

All I know is that it's important to know if a work was first published and/or copyrighted before 1978 and when/if it has been renewed. See the FAQ: How Long Does Copyright Protection Last?. The length of copyright protection for items copyrighted before 1978 was different. Relevant information about works that were under statutory protection before 1978 can be found in Circular 15a. Also, the medals didn't get their copyright automatically restored in 1996. (I've already checked all of the files.)

If you provide a link to the fair use provision you're talking about, then I can take a look at it.

I also see from this article's archive that you contacted the Nobel Foundation around a year ago about this. Did you ever get a reply from their legal team? If so, you never posted their response. –panda (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I did post [about] the reply; as I've already stated both in archive 1 and above in this current talk page referring to it (and/or in other discussions about these images), the public relations officer said that she would contact the Nobel Foundation's "legal" department. As I stated already, I left any further correspondence between the Nobel Foundation and the Wikipedia Foundation. There was apparently other correspondence (which could have been subsequent): the locked item that the other image medal uploader (of David.Monniaux's image) refers to; Shell has seen it apparently; I have not. I do not know what it says. I have not seen it quoted and I believe that the "locked" nature prohibits its being quoted. Scroll up for references to it. My correpondence with the Nobel Foundation dates back to September 2006, when I first raised these problems relating to the images; I no longer have access to it. Archive 1 refers to it clearly enough. --NYScholar (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Panda: I have already provided all the links to all the copyright information, going back to early pages of my own archived talk pages, including the fair use provisions [revised] circular [Wikipedia's own updated changes re: copyright relate to it]. All that information is already easily accessible from the U.S. Copyright Office government website which you have linked above. For ease of finding links, try my section on these medal images on my talk page (they are all there and/or also in the archived talk pages, probably beginning with archive 1 of my talk page; there are 16 archives. I did not expect to have to comment any further on this, but someone posted another comment about these images on my talk page yesterday; it is in archive 16, and I have already updated my comments on the image page (DM's) about it. It refers to the first medal pictured in Nobel Prize's section on the medals. I'm leaving this matter; all the information is accessible (except for the locked corr. between the Nobel Foundation and the Wikipedia Foundation, which pre-dates your e-mail messages to the NF); these matters do not exist in a vacuum; they have a history of over a year of discussion (and perhaps more). --NYScholar (talk) 23:30, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[Please don't "try to invent the wheel"; I've already taken a lot of time to post the links to the relevant U.S. copyright circulars and written about how they relate to these Nobel-Foundation properties (both trademark and copyright-protected). One ignores copyright notices at one's own risk. Please see my talk page(s). Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)]

I found the relevant information in your archive#1: Title 17 of the United States Code and Fair Use info. I don't see anything in either of these that state that if you ask for permission for fair use and don't receive a reply then it automatically means that you have not received permission. If you have a specific paragraph in mind, then please state which one. I'm pretty sure the whole purpose of fair use is that you do not need to ask for permission to use something that is copyrighted. Also, I'm not reinventing the wheel. The links I've posted above are the relevant ones as we are talking about something that has been in existence before 1978. –panda (talk) 23:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

For earliest discussion of these Nobel Prize (R) Medal images in my talk page, see archive 1; for the Fair Use circular from the U.S. Copyright Office government site and other related links, start with User talk:NYScholar#Some related United States Government resources: it is a government publication of guidelines for understanding fair use provision (Section 107 of Title 17) dated "(July 2006)." Click on "Fact sheet for Fair Use (July 2006)" in that section of my talk page. For prior discussions leading me to post those links, see archive 1 of my talk page. I updated the links over the past week (see editing history). [Logging out after this.] --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

FYI, that's the same link that I just posted above. –panda (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

(editing conflict in our two posts being simultaneously written):

“ The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.

When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered “fair” nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney.

”

Those who are used to dealing with fair use and permissions requests pertaining to copyright-protected materials (prevalent in literary research) understand that if one writes for permission that means the author to whom one writes (in this case the Nobel Foundation) has the impression that one knows that one needs to ask permission; if one writes and asks for permission and does not get a reply granting permission (in writing), then one cannot claim to have permission. No reply from an author (copyright owner) is not the same as a granting of permission in writing from that person or entity (in this case entity/organization). As fair use provision states, "If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney"; clearly, it states "The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered 'fair' nor advise on possible coyright violations"; its online records facility makes clear that some searches are required of paper records or records only accessible in the Library of Congress, that an online search may not suffice. (See the links I've already posted in reply to you.) You are operating on very partial information and ignoring what the Nobel Foundation has already told you; if it states that it has copyright, it does. (It is no longer necessary to register a copyright to claim copyright; U.S. Copyright Statutes were revised re: that quite some time ago.) Its notices refer to prevailing laws (which are multiple). It is not incumbent upon the Nobel Foundation to tell people who write to it when and how its copyrights are filed, renewed, etc. Its copyright notices state that it does not do that kind of thing. The onus is on the user of the materials not on the Nobel Foundation. Fair use provision applies only to fair use, not to non-fair use. Either fair use rationales are required, or they are not required. By asking permission, one gives the impression that one thinks that one needs it. The fair use rationales are a means of dealing with situations in which Wikipedia has not written and asked for and been refused or not gotten permission in writing to use copyright-protected materials that it believes its uses are within fair use to use. "Public domain" is already ruled out by the Nobel Foundation's reply that you cited in your previous message today. --NYScholar (talk) 00:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

[It is also clearly not "impracticable" to write and ask the Nobel Foundation, because it gives a contact address for doing so (an e-mail address for its public relations officer), and people have already done that. So that part of the quotation from the fair use "fact sheet" that I have cited above (and before) is moot. --NYScholar (talk) 00:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]

[Note also the kinds of examples that the fair use "fact sheet" gives; none are comparable to a design of a minted medal (a whole image); in the case of adaptations of the "fair use" provisions (fact sheet and section 107 itself), revised U.S. copyright laws relate to intellectual and artistic properties like television programs, movies, sound works (music), etc. In the case of a professional scholar giving a paper at a conference, for example, consultations with university research librarians (in the U.S.)--who are experts in such legal matters about which they advise their faculty and students--have advised me that I could play only very short clips of under 1-2 minutes long (a part of a whole work, not a whole work) within "fair use" guidelines in U.S. copyright law, and that is in giving a paper to a research audience for a scholarly conference. (Posting the same clips [even a small part of the whole] on the internet without permission would be prohibited by those same copyrights and not considered within "fair use" of U.S. copyright law.)

Posting on the internet (via Wikipedia) is an entirely different matter; it is not for private personal research use and it is not for limited use (a one-time public presentation, e.g.) in the context of educational institutional research. The differences in the examples given in the fact sheet and the images used in Wikipedia are noticeable.

Wording a fair use rationale according to Wikipedia's own requirements for each use of such an image is often difficult to do; the image page of the 1947 Nobel Prize (R) Medal for Physics has a detailed fair use rationale for its use in Nobel Prize; the image page of the 1933 Nobel Peace Prize (R) Medal does not have a detailed fair use rationale for its use in Nobel Prize. I suggest looking at the one that does as a model and deleting the erroneous "public domain in the U.S." template from it and deleting refs. to "public domain in the U.S." from descriptions/summaries in these image pages. The only thing in the "public domain" is the photograph of the uploader who released copyright claims to it, not the design of the images which it depicts. Those, as the Nobel Foundation stated to Panda, and as its notices claim, are protected by copyright in the U.S. and elsewhere. The designs of its medals (its design mark), the Nobel Prize (R) medals, the Nobel Prize (R), etc. (the content featured and imaged on its website) are not in the public domain according to the Nobel Foundation's featured notices of copyright and trademark and reply to Panda, et al. --NYScholar (talk) 09:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)]

Wikipedia is not an educational institution (according to most observers); it is something different; an internet site. [....]

In light of my above example and how the examples in the "fair use" fact sheet are not comparable to a whole design image, see also the "fair use" "fact sheet" passage:

“ The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. ”

[Maybe one could use Nobel's nose or an ear to illustrate w/o permission w/in fair use; not the whole front side of the medals [the Nobel Design mark]....]

Writing and asking and not receiving permission is not the same as "obtaining permission." Given the Nobel Foundation's response to date, it still appears to me that the safest course is a very-clearly worded "fair use rationale" for each use of the images in question and (perhaps) the featuring of "Original design (R) and (C) [symbols] The Nobel Foundation" at end of each descriptive image caption (in my view). --NYScholar (talk) 10:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC) [correction.] --NYScholar (talk) 10:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

So we agree that the pictures of the medals need a fair use rationale. Correct? –panda (talk) 15:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The design is so old as to be in the public domain, so there is no need to resort to the non-free content policy. -- But|seriously|folks  17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

The Nobel Foundation has stated in an email to me that the medals are copyrighted in the US. So either you're wrong or you're claiming that they're lying. –panda (talk) 17:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

There are other options. They could just be innnocently incorrect, not intentionally trying to mislead. Did they give you the registration year? If they have reason to believe it's registered in the US, they must know the year in which it was registered. -- But|seriously|folks  02:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm guessing you missed my earlier comment. –panda (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I read it earlier and forgot that detail when I made that last post. -- But|seriously|folks  07:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not necessary to "register" copyright in the U.S. for works to be considered copyright-protected. Please read the Title 17 and the multiple revisions referred to in notes to various parts of the legal codes. In terms of writings, for e.g., a writing is copyright by virtue of "authorship" in the United States (just putting one's name on what one writes; it is integral to authorship), and copyrights for certain kinds of properties that have been renewed in other countries are respected by virtue of recent revisions of copyright laws and conventions (e.g., Berne, Uruguay, etc.). Please see the links provided. Also, as stated earlier, the online search facility for registered copyrights (again, not a necessity to register) does not include all copyrighted properties in the U.S. (In the U.S., the only reason that these comments that we are writing are not our own "copyrights" is because we have already accepted the terms of Wikipedia, whereby we relinquish our copyrights to these words. Otherwise, they would be copyright-protected; when one reassigns one's copyright as an author (owner of the intellectual/artistic property) to a publisher, the publisher generally pays the U.S. Copyright Office the fee to register it. That a copyright is not "registered" does not invalidate copyright. --NYScholar (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

See U.S. Copyright Office: Copyright Registration (para. 1)]. --NYScholar (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As pertains to "Visual art works": Visual Arts Works: Registration. These works are still copyright-protected whether or not their owners have registered their copyrights. The registration of a copyright w/ the U.S. Copyright Office is simply a "public record" of the copyright, not the fact of the copyright. It is just a convenient public notice for which one must pay the U.S. government the $45 fee (administration cost). But the copyrights exist without their being registered. --NYScholar (talk) 04:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Notice particularly the phrase used "Your registration becomes effective....": the copyright is already "effective"; it is just the date of registration of copyright that the phrase refers to; it is not referring to the fact of "copyright" itself. Please visit the other links relating to "visual art works" as these exist throughout various parts of Title 17 and subsequent revisions of copyright law in the notes provided throughout the text and the various additional "circulars" published by the U.S. Copyright Office and accessible via the Library of Congress and the U.S. Copyright Office government website, etc. (Links are on my talk page.) --NYScholar (talk) 04:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

The registration regulations appear to relate to "visual art works" and "materials" [of composition relating to those works] "published in the United States" (originally and/or subsequently; in "editions" of those works "published in the United States"): Circular 40a. For works [such as visual art work "designs" like those of the engravings and "models" for the Nobel Medals(R)] "published" (or "created") in other countries whose copyrights may have been registered and renewed there, matters are more complex and accounted for in parts of Title 17 and revisions of it which are the subject of various other circulars published by the U.S. government's Copyright Office (and accessible via the Library of Congress site too). --NYScholar (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Are you are aware that you are applying post-1977 law to a design from 1902? -- But|seriously|folks  07:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read the law(s). It (they) allow(s) for renewals of copyright and is much more detailed than you suggest. [E.g., 1, 15, 15a, 15t: on "How long copyrights last" on copyright duration via the Library of Congress.] I have already linked to these codes and revisions of codes and pointed to the relevant sections of the circulars in my talk page. At this point, given the Nobel Foundation's own reiteration of its copyright assertions, to debate this any further is a waste of time. --NYScholar (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

As the fair-use rationales have already been developed for the other image, there is no reason not to develop them for both of them consistently. Please read the prior discussion on my talk page and elsewhere and respect the notices of the author (the Nobel Foundation); e.g., the contexts for the Nobel Foundation's reply to Panda: Copyright Notice: Copyright and Trademark and Legal Notice. --NYScholar (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC) [added links and threaded. --NYScholar (talk) 10:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC) and --NYScholar (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)]

Absolutely. See Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Nobel Prize (R) Medal images and most recent comments from administrator commenting on the other medal in Nobel Prize (:Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg); (Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2007 October 22/Images) re: incorrectness of public domain claims and need for fair use rationales due to their being "non-free content" (at least in part in one case, if not in whole in 2 other cases). Once the image pages are correctly presented, there should be no need to delete these images [three so far] from Wikipedia. (They could not, however, be uploaded to Wikipedia Commons.) Once the problems are resolved, the dispute could be resolved and not referred to in their captions and related templates could be removed from the image pages. --NYScholar (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[After an administrator removed the "pui" template from the image page of Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg, I removed the template from the caption of the image in Nobel Prize. The other image is still disputed due to its lacking a detailed fair-use rationale for use in Nobel Prize in its image page. The relevant discussions are previously linked in comments above. --NYScholar (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)]

Arbitrary section break

FYI, I advised User:Jéské Couriano that I would like to unprotect Image:DSCN0732.JPG and correct the templates. With all due respect to the volumes of discussion about the image, the image (and any other photo of a nobel medal) needs to be tagged with a copyright template and have a proper fair use rationale. Anything otherwise is a violation of our image policy so it's not really a "consensus" issue. Nobel is still using the medal and they have clearly claimed copyright on it as recently as this year. These photographs are absolutely not derivative works and they are absolutely not PD, GFDL, CC, etc. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 19:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A couple of points. Firstly, these are photographs of 3d objects. Therefore they ARE considered to be derivative works, and we have to consider two potential copyrights: firstly the copyright in the photograph, secondly any potential copyright in the object itself. Wikipedia's own lawyer has recently made this point in connection with photographs of old coins - unlike photgraphs of 2d art, we can't cite Bridgeman vs Corel for old coins, because unlike photographs of 2d art, photographs of 3d objects ARE considered to contain a creative element in their own right. The photographers' disclaiming of the rights in their photographs is therefore important, and should be restored to the image pages. I hope you will do this.

Secondly, the rights in each 3d object itself. It's worth noting that it's certainly currently copyright in the European Union (artist's life + 70 years). However, the rules in the United States are different, and turn on whether it was "published" before 1923 -- where "published" does have an established meaning for 3d works. I don't propose to give that discussion yet another cycle; but I don't think there is any way you can say this image is "clearly" still copyright, still less if your claim is just because the Nobel website has put up a (C) note without any detailed rationale or analysis, and without any indication of what territory it is even referring to. If it is correct to believe that the medals were published before 1923, the images should be tagged {{PD-Roundart-US}} -- Jheald (talk) 20:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a link to where Wikipedia's lawyer advised us about a new definition of derivative works? Incidentally, "old coins" are not the same as medals that being used by a current institution. The legal definition of a derivative work is that it "must be different enough from the original to be regarded as a "new work" or must contain a substantial amount of new material." How precisely does a photograph of a medal fit into that definition? As to your second point, copyright exists on all works unless specifically expired or disclaimed. Nobel has not disclaimed its copyright and it actively asserts it. I don't even understand why this has to be a big stink since there is a clear fair use case for the images. Just place the copyright tag, write the stupid fair use rationale, and go write some articles. Enough time has been wasted on this. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 21:28, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As you say, copyright exists on all works unless specifically expired or disclaimed. If the work was published in the U.S. before 1923, then the copyright has expired. As to why people care, Wikipedia is about freedom and reusability, not just fair use.

On your first point, the discussion is here. -- Jheald (talk) 21:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no source documenting that "the work [and which one?] was published in the U.S. before 1923". --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC) [If the "design of the medals" is what you refer to: that is a work that was commissioned Work for hire; the copyright owner of those designs of those Nobel Prize (R) Medals is still the Nobel Foundation, as per its 2007 notices. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, it was not a Work for hire. Even in the U.S. where that term has some meaning, a medal falls outside the statutory list of things which can possibly be works for hire as a commissioned objects. Jheald (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

For the other image page and how it presents the image's "fair use rationale" for its use in this article, please see: Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.jpg. (It's also accessible by clicking on the image in the section on the medals in Nobel Prize.) Thanks. (Will be away.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, according to documents posted on its official website, both the "designs" of the medals and the "modeling" of the medals were commissioned by the Nobel Foundation from individuals who were paid for their work; that makes the designs and their models in common parlance as well as in legal parlance work for hire.

No. It doesn't. Read the work for hire page. Even in the U.S. there are stringent limitations on when a commissioned object can be considered a "work for hire". These do not fall into any of those classes. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The copyright that the Nobel Foundation claims includes images of its medal designs, which it claims to own (and for which work for hire would describe it as their "author" of record. Work done by commission is owned by those who commission it.

Actually, by default, it isn't. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

(According to work for hire in Wikipedia and the copyright laws on which the article is based. For the basis in the sources pertaining to U.S. and international copyright law and copyright conventions to which the U.S. is a signatory, one must go to the sources in the U.S. Copyright Office (a government site) and the Library of Congress, which links to its circulars and notes and explanations of them. --12.10.239.130 (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

The relevant section for commissioned works in the United States would be 17 U.S.C. sec 101, and you can find the relevant clause of that section actually quoted on the work for hire page. Note, in particular, part (2) of the definition, which is the bit that applies to commissioned works. A commission like the Nobel commission wouldn't fall into any of those classes, even if the artists were prepared to agree (and even if U.S. law were relevant).

Instead copyright in works like these automatically vests in the artists. They or their descendents may then have agreed to transfer any and all their rights to the Nobel foundation, either at the time, or subsequently by some more recent agreement. But that doesn't make these "works for hire" in Copyright law. Jheald (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Those are entirely false statements. The Nobel Foundation posts copyright notices claiming ownership of its Nobel Prize (R) medal designs and images of them (which are also its trademarks. The "life" span of the original designer is irrelevant both in the U.S. and elsewhere; Jheald has no knowledge of what the Nobel Foundation's agreements were with its commissioned designers. Recent correspondence with the Foundation clearly asserts its ongoing copyright as well as trademark. Medals are designed, modeled, and minted and not publications and there are special sections and related circulars relating to such works. More than one person worked on the designs and modeling of these medals. Please don't apply regulations that pertain to written publications to works that are considered works of art. If Work for hire is not relevant, then please cite the proper other legal regulations that are relevant. But inventing interpretations of the laws as if one is a lawyer when one is not is not helpful. If one wants further details about the history of the Nobel Foundation's Nobel Prize (R) medals, please read the linked source article (Lemmel) and if more information is required, please contact the Nobel Foundation for it. Thanks. --12.10.239.130 21:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Ongoing edit warring and deletion of verifiable sources

Please see the discussion pertaining to the Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel for problems that are occurring now in the editing of this article too. (Related misleading claims of "consensus" in the editing summary boxes are not warranted.) Thank you. --NYScholar 09:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Variety of English

Hi. I recently changed an American spelling to a British one, on the basis that I thought the article was supposed to be written in UK English. However, per this revision, it appears to have been in American English from a very early stage. I don't mind which dialect this is written in, but we should pick one and stick with it as that would look more professional. --John (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason for this article to be written in British English. American English is used more than British English. Consistency is the hallmark for version of English. American English is the prevailing version of English used consistently in the article until that change. British English is not "more professional looking" than American English. That is a myth. --NYScholar (talk) 01:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Human Sciences in the Nobel Prize of Literature

I think it should also be mentioned that, despite the fact that there isn´t a Nobel Prize for History, Philosophy, Sociology or Psychology, according to Alfred Nobel testament, any person with important contribution to these kind of sciences, can also win the Nobel Prize for Literature. Even if it´s very rare, and since 1965, it never happened again, two historians, Theodor Mommsen and Winston Churchill, and three filosophers, Henri Bergson, Bertrand Russel and Jean-Paul Sartre, also a novelist, already won it. Sigmund Freud was also nominated. This shows that, if the Swedish Academy wanted, the Nobel Prize of Literature could be a Nobel Prize for Literature and Human Sciences, in general.Mistico (talk) 01:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

("Philosophy" is misspelled above.) History and Philosophy are currently considered disciplines in the Humanities, in more contemporary parlance [in most American universities and colleges; in some History is considered a "social science"; see College of Arts and Sciences; Division of Humanities; etc. for rubrics in such academic institutions; how to classify History is often contentious.] "Human sciences" is a rather outdated term (19th/early-20th- century; thus the language of the will). (Sociology and Psychology are Social sciences. Literature is a discipline awarded the Nobel Prize in Alfred Nobel's will. Economics (the so-called "economic sciences"--also a social science) is a prize established later by the Bank of Sweden in memory of Alfred Nobel; it is not a Nobel Prize per se; that is, it is not a category of Nobel Prizes established by Alfred Nobel's will; see the linked article and its talk page for sources and discussions of the distinction. [This article is about the Nobel Prize/Nobel Prizes; it is not about what are not Nobel Prizes.] One of the philosophers (not "filosophers") wrote literary works (Jean-Paul Sartre (plays, philosophical literature); thus, Sartre is also a playwright (most famous play--No Exit. The above statements need documentation with reliable sources that can be used to verify the points made. Otherwise, the statements would not be in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies of WP:V#Sources and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If one wants to find a reliable verifiable source or sources to develop some of the points mentioned, then one can cite them as such in notes. Otherwise the statements would really not be admissible in the article. How would the statements improve this article about the Nobel Prize? --NYScholar (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [addition in brackets. --NYScholar (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

I ask sorry for the silly mistake. In fact, in my first language, we say "filosofia", so I wasn´t in a good day (lol). I will try to find the exact quotation from Nobel last will about how the Nobel Prize of Literature can also go to people with remarkable written work, not only in Literature. But the fact that historians and philosophers already won it, proves it.Mistico (talk) 02:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The term "Literature" is already very broad (especially in current Literary theory). It includes writing that is not only "creative writing" (novels, plays, poems, short stories, other fiction [e.g., novels]); two broad categories of "literature" are "Fiction" (which can include more "fictional" writing than that in the "Genre" of "fiction") and "non-fiction" (e.g, Documentary writing, Memoir, Diary, Case study, etc.). There can be "philosophical literature," or even (as in the case of Sigmund Freud) particularly, psychological writing that is highly creative (e.g., The Future of an Illusion (Freud's treatise on religion), or even his The Interpretation of Dreams, which provides many examples from what we ordinarily consider "literature"; his Oedipus complex, which draws upon Sophocles' tragedy Oedipus Rex, and psychoanalytic discussions of Shakespeare's dramatic tragedy Hamlet (particularly, his analysis of the character Hamlet. Sources would help to make your point more clearly. (I really didn't know what you were getting at until your second comment.) But I really don't know how necessary it is to make that point. Most people already would know that "literature" is a broad term according to the will of Alfred Nobel, which is already a source linked in the article. One can read the terms of the will via that document link (provided by nobelprize.org). Sometimes those who are not in the discipline of "literature" (English and comparative literature and other language literatures) may not realize that those in these fields accept that writers come from many disciplines. Many famous and not-famous writers (poets, playwrights, novelists) actually have other occupations where they earn their primary livings, but they are still considered "writers" who contribute to the field of "literature." --NYScholar (talk) 03:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC) [Keep in mind that Nobel Prizes are given only to living people; not posthumously. (Unless it was awarded before the person died.) --NYScholar (talk) 03:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)]

Inaccurate/incorrect citation of source

The correction I made was based on WorldCat and other sources of the book's ISBN no. (3rd ed., 1972); those earlier names are from the 1950s volumes. Please restore the correct information and provide a quotation to verify the statements made; what on page 210 of the book cited makes those statements? Please see the talk page of the other article. The format of the citation is incorrect. If one is citing the 3rd ed. published in 1972, one provides the names of the editors for that particular edition. The link goes to an incorrect source citation improperly listed now in refs. My correction was based on checking the ISBN number in several sources, including WorldCat and booksellers online. The rumor being cited as from this source needs better and more accurate documentation, otherwise it should be omitted entirely. --NYScholar (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobel: The Man and His Prizes, 3rd ed

I have this book in front of me and the reference information that I've included is correct. Regardless of what Worldcat may state about it, the individual sections of the book was written by the authors listed and was edited by The Nobel Foundation and W. Odelberg, Coordinating Editor. So I've changed back the in-line ref for Otto Heinrich Warburg and added the editors to the reference in the Nobel Prize and Otto Heinrich Warburg articles. But if there were other in-line refs that I missed, I would appreciate it if you could help change them back. Thanks for being thorough! –panda (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If you give me all of the bibliographical information and a quotation from page 210 from the article by a specific author or authors, I can try to put the reference citation in a proper format. It is not currently presented accurately. If you are citing an article published in an edition, there is a proper way to do that (article in a book collection of essays). The citation formatting in the Wikipedia article is not currently in a consistent format; ACS would be appropriate for an article in the sciences; MLA or APA or Harvard or some consistent format for Nobel Prize (a more general subject); there is not a consistent use of the unwieldy Wikipedia citation templates (which are not recommended in Wikipedia necessarily; just an option among several options for citation formats). It is not incorrect to cite a page in an edition by citing only the editor's or editors' names (last name and page ref.); unless using APA or Harvard, the date in parentheses is not nec. It is easiest just to key to last name(s) of editor(s) with a page ref. (p. or pp. no longer nec. either). --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[I think that this exchange should be moved to the talk pages of the articles in question. (I will be copying and pasting it there shortly. Please carry on disc. on the talk pages of the articles. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)] [moved here. --NYScholar (talk) 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)]

See your talk page. –panda (talk) 23:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's the quote you requested:

"WARBURG received the 1931 prize 'for his discovery of the nature and mode of action of the respiratory emzyme.' ..."

"To be effective, certain enzymes sometimes requires the presence of so-called 'coenzymes' which usually consist of thermostable substances of less complicated structure than the enzyme itself. Warburg and Christian have shown [1935] that the coenzyme which acts together with the yellow enzyme contains nicotnic acid amide as its active constituent. These discoveries by Warburg of two groups of great importance to intermediary metabolism, namely flavine [in the yellow enzymes] and nicotinic acid amide, as well as his other important achievements, caused him to be nominated for a prize a second time in 1944, when he was again found to deserve the honour, but he had to make place for others." (p 210 of Nobel: The Man and His Prizes, 3rd ed, 1972)

–panda (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Now that you bring up the citing issue, the in-line citation probably wasn't done properly. The text comes from the section called "The Prize in Physiology or Medicine" that was written by Göran Liljestrand and revised by Carl Gustaf Bernhard, pp 139-278 of the book. So should it be cited as a page from a section of the book? The complete reference for the book is correct, however. –panda (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here is the info link for the 3rd ed. from WorldCat: [40] --NYScholar (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Who is or who are the author(s) of the particular article being cited as on page 210? What is the title of the article? What are the inclusive page numbers of the article? Is it in the 3rd edition of the volume published in 1972 (as being cited)? Or is the article from one of the editions published in the 1950s? Please look at the title page and back of title page for the information about the most recent edition that you are using. Please indicate if it is actually the 3rd edition. If so, it is not proper to cite the 1950s information. One needs the author(s)' name(s) and title of the article or chapter of a book to cite the particular chapter; otherwise, one just cites the whole book (the edition, volume title, ed. no. w/ the editor(s)' names). Other citations are incorrect as well, but I do not have time to fix them. You can correct them yourself if you have time by providing the parallel information to that just requested. Thanks. (I think that the citing of a "rumor" might be better documented by using an exact quotation from the source and documenting it as appearing in the article or chapter of the book per se, as just suggested.) --NYScholar (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quotation. At first glance, I don't see how the quotation documents the "rumor" being stated and cross-ref'd to the Wiki. article on Warburg. But I'll look at it again later, if/when I have more time. --NYScholar (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You're correct. The text doesn't say anything about the rumor. It just states that he wasn't awarded the 1944 prize. The rumor comes from other places like Encyclopaedia Britannica and some books, which state that he was awarded the 1944 prize but couldn't accept it because of Hitler's policy against the Nobel Prizes. –panda (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

FYI, the Nobel Foundation is the primary editor for the 3rd ed. W. Odelberg was the Coordinating Editor and is listed second. –panda (talk) 00:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The coordinating editor would be listed first and has been listed first in all the publication information that I've seen for this title--WorldCat, book stores, Google, etc. If you follow the links to the 3 editions in WorldCat, you will see how it is listed. It would be customary for the Nobel Foundation to highlight the coordinating editor and to list itself second. Same would be the case in 1950 for the original edition; all named editors would come first (alphabetically) and then the Nobel Foundation would list itself. Otherwise one would list the name separately as: "Coordinating ed., Wilhelm Odelberg"--e.g. Simplified format is just to list the editors' names (last name, first) in ref. list as "Odelberg, Wilhelm, and the Nobel Foundation." Otherwise it would be hard to alphabetize: "Nobel Foundation, ed. Title. Coordinating ed., Wilhelm Odelberg. 3rd ed. etc. (no 1950 and no listing of 1950 editors or those of 2nd ed.). --NYScholar (talk) 00:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a ref. entry following the info. that you have given, emending it slightly to accommodate the additional info. about Odelberg being the "Coordinating Ed." --NYScholar (talk) 01:00, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. Thanks! –panda (talk) 01:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks too. The other article, which cites these sources, still needs correction and revising (the part about "rumor" is citing a source that is apparently wrong; why cite an incorrect source?).

I just updated the Otto Heinrich Warburg article (using citation templates). I'll stop by the library later in the week to get the relevant info for the 1st edition of the book. As for the rumor, it is worth citing since it's been written in more than one place that he was awarded a 2nd Nobel Prize and people like to believe what is written in Encyclopaedia Britannica, even if it's not true. ...You already know about the issue with the Prize in Economics and the Nobel Prizes that is in EB. –panda (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Questionable sourcing of most of a section?

Please see the section on "Nobel Prize#Lack of a prize in mathematics"; most of it appears to derive from a self-published source which also is a host to unverifiable user comments. That is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia articles: WP:V#Sources. (I added a transition, identifying the nature of the source and where its use begins in that section; in sentence one.) As the mathematics issue may pertain to living persons as well, one needs to be very careful. I have always wondered why this section is here at all. One needs more reliable sources to document the discussion of this subtopic: its notability, as stated by an authoritative source. Perhaps there are some reliable and verifiable sources cited by Wu that can be used as appropriate authoritative sources. But Wu's article (Wu's site hosting it) includes and links to comments that are user comments and the site functions as, in effect, as a message board; the comments on it are published by the users (self-published), not by reliable "third-party" sources. I wonder if (parts of) this section needs to be deleted and/or moved to the talk page until it can be developed with more appropriate sources that meet Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. The last couple of paragraphs of material appear to be original research and/or taken from Wu's article and are not sourced (documented). I added the templates indicating that. --NYScholar (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [Most of the section appears to have been lifted (plagiarized from) Wu's site. --NYScholar (talk) 01:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)]

I'll see if I can get a hold of the following articles to help source the section properly:

• "Why is There No Nobel Prize in Mathematics?" by Lars Gårding and Lars Hörmander (pgs. 73-4 of The Mathematical Intelligencer 7:3,1985)
• A Nobel Prize in Mathematics by John E. Morrill (The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 102, No. 10 (Dec., 1995), pp. 888-892)

If you have other suggestions for relevant articles, let me know and I'll see what I can do. –panda (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved section to talk page

[possible editing conflict here; didn't see the previous comments while doing this; looks as though Wu may have used the source that Panda cites above; the first source looks appropriate. Material could be revised and cite the actual published source (which Wu appears to draw from). --NYScholar (talk)] —Preceding comment was added at 02:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved section

Lack of a prize in mathematics

Ona Wu addresses the question: "Why is there no Nobel Prize in Mathematics? in The Nobel Prize Internet Archive. According to Wu, there are several possible reasons why Nobel did not create a prize in mathematics. One reason may relate to the specific terms of Alfred Nobel's will, in which he institutes prizes for those inventions or discoveries of greatest benefit to mankind, suggesting perhaps practical rather than theoretical works. In that mathematics is not considered as practical a science as the others recognized (chemistry, physics, and physiology or medicine), Wu speculates that he may have omitted it for that reason.

Another possible reason that there is no Nobel Prize in Mathematics is that there was already a well-known Scandinavian prize for mathematicians. The existing mathematical awards at the time were mainly due to the work of Gösta Mittag-Leffler, who founded the Acta Mathematica, a century later still one of the world's leading mathematical journals. Through his influence in Stockholm he persuaded King Oscar II to endow prize competitions and honor distinguished mathematicians all over Europe, including Hermite, Bertrand, Weierstrass, and Poincaré.

Some mathematicians have won the Nobel Prize in other fields: Bertrand Russell for literature (1950), Max Born and Walther Bothe for physics (1954). Others have won the Bank of Sweden Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel: Kenneth Arrow (1972), Leonid Kantorovich (1975), John Forbes Nash (1994), Clive W. J. Granger (2003), Robert J. Aumann and Thomas C. Schelling (2005), Andrew Fire (2006), and Leonid Hurwicz (2007).

Several prizes in mathematics have some similarities to the Nobel Prize. The Fields Medal is often described as the "Nobel Prize of mathematics", but it differs in being awarded only once every four years to people younger than forty years old. A comparison may be made with the Crafoord Prize, awarded by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences since 1982. Other comparable prizes are the Abel Prize, awarded by the Norwegian government as of 2001; the Shaw Prize in mathematical sciences given since 2004; and the Gauss Prize, first introduced by the International Mathematical Union and the Deutsche Mathematiker-Vereinigung at the 2006 International Congress of Mathematicians for practical and applied mathematics research. The Clay Mathematics Institute has set up seven "Millennium Problems," the solving of which results in a significant cash award. This prize differs from the Nobel in that it has a clear, predetermined objective for its award, and these prizes can be awarded whenever a problem is solved.

--NYScholar (talk) 01:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Notes

---

Added refs.; editorial interpolations show up in preview mode. --NYScholar (talk) 01:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC) [I've moved most of the last two paragraphs back into the text; see the related editorial interpolations in preview mode in the above version. Some sources still appear to be needed. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2007 (UTC)]

I've made some further mostly-minor changes to the section. Unfortunately, I'm not feeling well and will not be able to do more editing in Wikipedia in at least the near future. Thanks to those who helped or will help to improve it. --NYScholar (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Question on the Peace Prize

Nobel's will clearly indicates that the Peace Prize will be determined by "a committee of five persons to be elected by the Norwegian Storting." However, the article provides no explanation as to why he directed Norwegian participation for this Prize. Is there any explanation for his actions? Jaedglass (talk) 04:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's a relevant quote from Nobel: The Man & His Prizes, 3rd ed, 1972, pp 486-7:

There is no reliable evidence to explain why Nobel gave the Norwegian Storting the right to choose the Peace Prize Committee. Some people have declared that Nobel's thought was that this in itself would bring about a relaxation of tension in the Swedish-Norwegian Union conflict which had just become acute at that time. There is, however, nothing to indicate that Nobel was particularly concerned with this conflict. Nor did the decision result in any immediate relaxation of tension, when it was made known. On the contrary, several Swedish newspapers were exceedingly indignant at the idea that the distribution of the Peace Prize be entrusted to the 'separatist Norwegians'.

Another explanation which seems rather probably is that the regulation was a recognition of the Storting's positive attitude to international cooperation and especially to the question of arbitration; though here too there is no real proof. A third explanation involved that Nobel's stipulation with regard to the Peace Prize was based on his admiration for the great Norwegian poet Björnstjerne Björnson, who at that time played a prominent rôle in the peace movement.

(Norway declared its independence from Sweden in 1905.) The bottom line is no one knows but there are a few hypotheses. –panda (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Otters

Also it is said that Master Lee James Lobb, of Cornwall, South West England was awarded the prestigious award in 1999, however due to a disagrement during a scientists social outing, was reprimanded by his fellow associates, and lost his title, and a farm of otters.

Is the above, particularly the last bit about otters, vandalism? If not, it needs a cite, and there are 2 spelling errors - "disagrement" should be disagreement, and "scientists" should end with an apostrophe. Also, was it a "title" or an award? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Introduction: Statements about "swedish prizes" appear incorrect

The introduction states:

The Nobel Foundation refers to those six prizes awarded in Stockholm as the "Swedish Prizes."

I first noticed it because there are only five prizes awarded in Stockholm (according to the article), but upon further investigation I can't find any evidence supporting the statement.

The citation (here) only talks about the medals not the prizes:

The front side of the three "Swedish" medals (Physics and Chemistry, Physiology or Medicine, and Literature) is the same, featuring a portrait of Alfred Nobel and the years of his birth and death in Latin - NAT-MDCCC XXXIII OB-MDCCC XCVI.

...and after a fairly detailed web search, I can't find any example of the phrase used in this way.

That sentence should be deleted, but the text that follows from it needs to be fixed up too, since it mentions the "Swedish Prizes". Could someone help out here? I'm unsure of how to fix it. DonkeyKong64 (Mathematician in training) (talk) 07:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

The text has been updated as requested. –panda (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5