Wikipedia

Talk:Nobel Prize/Archive 4

< Talk:Nobel Prize
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Esuzu in topic Conductive polymers controversy
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Removed conductive polymers from "overlooked achievements"

Latest comment: 14 years ago34 comments4 people in discussion

Surely, there are plenty of scientists unhappy with their achievements being overlooked by the Nobel Committee. Yet, such information should be confirmed by reliable sources. In case of conductive polymers, the Nobel Prize information does admit that they were synthesized much earlier than 1977, which does not obliterate the achievements and the nomination of Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa. Materialscientist (talk) 02:47, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, looks good to me now. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: Arguable point about the citations. So I am providing them. The first is a picture with a link to an organic electronic device now in the Smithsonian collection. This device dates from roughly four years before Heeger et al.. The Smithsonian guys are the worlds foremost experts on the history of discovery. Go argue with them about provenance, etc.
Also see: *"An Overview of the First Half-Century of Molecular Electronics" by Noel S. Hush, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1006: 1–20 (2003). And most especially Inzelt's summary of the history of conductive polymers-- " Historical Background (or there is nothing new under the Sun), Inzelt,G. "Conducting Polymers", (2008), chapter 8, p265-269." The title refers specifically to the fact that the Nobel committee got the history wrong. I will cite these in the next iteration.Nucleophilic (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
(ec Hold on with reverts, discuss here first) The removed part was referenced to primary sources only and thus read as "a wikipedia editor believes that ..". Adding a minor secondary source would read as "a scientist believe that". What we need is "a community or a major scientific body or a large group of scientists believes that". This case is merely an example - same should apply to Nobel Prize controversies. As I understand, all the references above talk about priority, which is not relevant - Nobel Committee doesn't dispute that, but awards a prize for achievement. Materialscientist (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/ArchiveOR. Actually, by Nobel's will "The Prize" goes to the person who "Shall have discovered", not for achievement. Look it up. This is why the Nobel cites a specific discovery. True, Heeger et al have many achievements. But they did not discovery highly-conductive polymers. In fact, they were no better than fourth.
As for why no one knew about this work -- its called citation amnesia. Look in vain in Heeger et als work for any citation this prior art. Also, science is not a democracy. The secondary sources I cite are authoritative. Or do you claim (e.g.) that the device now in the Smithsonian does not exist. Also read Inzelt. If the Nobel committee had known about this stuff, they would have cited it, if only to show they did their homework. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nucleophilic (talk • contribs) 22:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
We are getting into right direction: As I mentioned above, the Nobel Prize information does not question priority in this case; they mentioned some prior work, and that they did not mention all prior work is not relevant. What is relevant is that the prize was given for achievement rather than priority. If this is an important point for the article, it could be elaborated (again with reliable secondary sources). I have to repeat, to me, priority is irrelevant - too many Nobel laureates were arguably not the first. Materialscientist (talk) 23:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
The following comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive Nobel's will says: ".... The said interest shall be divided into five equal parts, which shall be apportioned as follows: one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery or invention within the field of physics; one part to the person who shall have made the most important chemical discovery or improvement; one part to the person who shall have made the most important discovery within the domain of physiology or medicine;.."
Don't see any mention of "achievement" here. In fact, if the Nobel foundation gave "The prize" for achievement, they would be in violation of Nobel's will. This is why they always give Nobels for a specific and named discovery. The difference may seem trivial to you, but if violated could set the Noble Foundation up for legal problems, Swedish law apparently being picky about founder's original intent. In this case, they clearly got the discovery part wrong, which is the issue.
BTW, this is one reason the Nobel Foundation is so defensive about their choices for the Science prizes. If the criteria were something completely subjective like "achievement", as opposed to the objective "discovery", nobody would ever have reason to question their choices. Which reinforces the point. Unfortunately, this puts them in the position of often distorting the history of discovery. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Achievement is put forward in the lead of this article and on the Nobe Prize web site. As I recall, the Committee did not strictly follow Nobel's will in a few matters. If this is a point which can be supported by reliable secondary sources, it could be reflected in the article. Materialscientist (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/ArchiveYou make a straw argument-- the alleged "discovery" was highly-conductive polymers, specifically iodine-doped oxidized polyacetylene derivatives, not conductive polymers per se. But you hopefully knew that already. Certainly, a Nobel-class discovery is also an "achievement". Likewise, Swedish law has allowed some leeway because of Nobel's preceived primary intent of rewarding discovery. E.g, the prizes can now be given to as many as three individuals and for a long-ago discovery. But always for a specific discovery. No exceptions, though sometimes the committee fudges a bit. E.g., in 1921 (?) few really credited general relativity and some gave Poincaire at least as much credit for special relativity. So Einstein got "The Prize" for the photoelectric effect. The fact that the citation flatly states that Heeger et al discovered highly conductive organic polymers, when they could have similarly fudged around, is one more reason to believe the committee did not know about the three (at least ) prior reports. Nucleophilic (talk) 00:53, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
We could argue for (p)ages on that, but I am not interested - WP is not about "truth" or personal opinion, it should reflect notable facts referenced to reliable secondary sources. Materialscientist (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive I agree. I have given you my secondary sources. By most standards, they are quite authoritative and far beyond what wikipedia generally requires-- an item on the select Smithsonian Chips list of key developments in semiconductor technology, an authoritative textbook, and a chapter on the history of organic electronics in a NYAS tome on the subject. Now you show me yours. You can't just make this stuff up because you don't like what they say. Also, you have done three reverts. Gotta watch that stuff.
Still, we do seem to be in general agreement that Heeger et al did not "discover" highly-conductive polyacetylenes, the proported discovery on which the Nobel committee hung their Prize. You can argue that "The Prize" was to acknowledge their "achievements", body of work, etc., but that is not what the prize is supposed to be about. So it is quite reasonable to question the resultant erroneous assignment of discovery credit, as others have done for similar miss-assignments. This is simply inescapable when the prize is fundamentally based upon the virtual "first to invent" provisions of Nobel's will. Interestingly Nobel himself was an inventor and well aquainted with similar concepts in patent law. P.S.: A lot of my comments on the mechanics and history of the "The Prize" comes from: "The Politics of Excellence: Behind the Noble Prize in Science", Robert Marc Friedman, Henry Holt and Co, New York, 2001. Nucleophilic (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Now having the authoritative secondary sources in hand, I intend to do a revert incorporating them. If these sources are not sufficient to meet the Wikipedia rules, please explain why, without making up your own criteria. All I originally did was a slight edit, but it seems to have stirred up a sh!tstorm. I have a life. So don't post much here and never intended to get this deep. But facts is facts.

While not as well known as some other Nobel mis-assignments of discovery credit, the 2000 Chemistry prize mishap is arguably the cleanest example. That is, the easiest to prove by objective means. The prize was for "the discovery and development of conductive organic polymers". Based upon the citation, the Noble committee meant oxidized doped polyacetylene derivatives having resistivities less than (say) 100 ohm/cm.

So, all it takes to falsify the discovery credit assignment is to find prior examples. There are at least three, comprising a dozen papers or so. Amusingly, one example, an organic electronic device with a highly-conductive "ON" state, is even featured in the Smithsonian's select list of key developments in semiconductor technology. Likewise, by the late 1960's. Weiss' Aussie group was achieving resistivities of less than 1 ohm/cm with materials a lot like those of Heeger et al ten years later. Does anybody still argue that the Nobel discovery credit assignment was correct ? If so, I'd like to interest you in a bridge.

And yes, arguably the intent of the Nobel committee was to honor a body of achievement. Unfortunately, having to pro forma follow Nobel's will, they picked the wrong discovery to hang the award upon. Similarly, Nobel's requirement that "discovery" be rewarded does sometimes require some rather procrustean maneuvering. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but unfortunately it seems to amount to original research, a necessary evil of Wikipedia. What is needed is a reliable secondary source stating that the 2000 Chemistry Nobel Prize should not have been awarded to Heeger and co or at least stating there was controversy about the award. Plenty has been written about Nobel prize controversies so it should be available (I could not find anything with a quick search through google) and if it has not been mentioned in a reliable source then it is obviously not worthy of being mentioned in the main Nobel Prize article. I cannot access the Inzelt source, but after reading a few reviews [1] [2] it could possible mention the Nobel Prize. The other sources that I can access do not. Either way if it is to be included it needs to be rewritten and the picture removed. Personally I would be happy with a brief mention here and a longer one if necessary on the Nobel Prize controversies page. AIRcorn (talk) 22:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
Second that (sorry, I haven't looked up the mentioned sources yet). I would just add that the secondary sources we need should focus specifically on the Nobel Prize matter, not on science and history of conductive polymers - those issues are more appropriate for the conductive polymer article. Information based on the primary sources like this is not suitable here. Materialscientist (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I'll have to agree with AirCorn and Materialscientist here. It might be suitable for conductive polymer article but not here. Secondly, did you not read the hidden text in controversies? No text is to be added to this page until it is added to the Nobel Prize controversies page; after that you need to start a discussion on this page whether to add it to this article or not. I'll give you some time to transfer it to the other page, then it should be removed. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive In reply: the following monograph is available online at [3]
Conducting Polymers, A New Era in Electrochemistry
10.1007/978-3-540-75930-0_8
György Inzelt
8. Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun)
Abstract
"The Nobel Prize in Chemistry, 2000, was awarded to Heeger, MacDiarmid and Shirakawa "for the discovery and development of electrically conductive polymers." However, there were several forerunners to these distinguished chemists. The most important representatives of the family of electrically conductive polymers, polyaniline and polypyrrole, were already being prepared by chemical or electrochemical oxidation in the nineteenth century. In fact, the discovery of polyacetylene in the 1970s—which had no practical importance but helped to arouse the interest of researchers and the public alike—was another episode in the history of conducting polymers. The story of polyaniline is described here in detail."
This chapter describes examples of highly-conductive polyanilines well before Heeger et al's rediscovery of high conduction in an oxidized, iodine-doped, polyacetylene. Note this is with specific reference to the miss-assignment of discovery credit to Heeger et al in the 2000 Nobel Prize. Thus, Dr Inzelt's chapter title .. ..There is nothing new under the Sun... Again, because the Nobel citation can be so easily falsified simply by showing the prior papers, the 2000 Chemistry Prize is arguably the cleanest example of such missignment. That is, there are not the usual subjective complications such as who did what and how important was it? Which is why it is a good example to incorporate into the article. Nobody can really argue that the Noble citation is correct or argue that we ought to defer to the opinion of the Nobel committee, who almost certainly had no knowledge of this "prior art". Nucleophilic (talk) 16:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I checked the source quickly and as a first impression I have no problem with it. However, you did not read the hidden text and thus I moved it to the Controversies page. There are A LOT of Nobel Controversies, many of them not important enough to be on the main Nobel Page. That is why we have the rule the hidden text explains.

For a new section to be added here it should be well written and well referenced. It should also be appropriate for the main page. In its current state I personally do not feel it lives up to the standard of the rest of the page.

The part you have written might be, as you say, interesting but it does not (at least not now) belong to the main page. Please improve it on the Nobel Prize controversies page instead. I have moved it there. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive Uh, this section has been on the Noble prize page for years. So, evidently all this was fought out long ago, with concensus, etc.. Long ago, this was also apparently worked out on Nobel controversies, as you demand. Which maybe how it got on the Nobel Prize page.
Simply stated. I did not add it. All I did was to remove a reference to charge-transfer complexes because it was incorrect in this context. Suddenly, the entire section gets jumped upon. Everyone called for cites, etc.. So I provided them. Now, suddenly the additions I added to defend the section get used to claim it is new. Throwing in the towel-- My suggestion is that it be reverted to its status before I removed those 3-4 words and just the citations added. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Right you are. Probably looked it through too quickly since I had no time and figured I ought to answer. Checked it more closely now. I can still see some problems but I'll look into them asap. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:51, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
No. That it stood for years on WP is absolutely irrelevant with its being true or appropriate. Materialscientist (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

== The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/ArchiveMore on conductive polymers == Re-added in more condensed form, only citing Inzelt. Might come back and re-add other citations without comment. Also, this issue has apparently been on Nobel prize controversies for a long time. Look at the "post 1990" section. Any issues seem to have died long ago. My wild guess is that all this was worked out here long ago, which likely explains how it got on the Nobel prize page in the first place. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

It is indeed only a wild guess that this issue has been verified earlier - plenty of blunders remain on WP for years. Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Ok. I'm still not sure if one ref if enough for that part. Have you found anything else? I'll search the books tomorrow if I have time. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
The Inzelt source seems fine to me, thank you Nucleophilic for providing the link. I have reworded it slightly to more resemble an earlier revision [4], hopefully making it more concise. AIRcorn (talk) 04:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Can anyone verify that it was specifically Donald Weiss' work that is mentioned by Inzelt? Materialscientist (talk) 04:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
I can't reach the whole springer article, so no. I don't know whether Nucleophilic can though? If it can't be verified we can not have it on the page. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 07:09, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive I can't recall whether Inzelt cites Weiss et al or not. But I do know he cites several reports on earlier conductive polyanilines. The one I remember for sure is the next example after Weiss' series of papers-- Electrochemical Cells Using Protolytic Organic Semiconductors", R. DeSurville et al., Electrochim. Acta, 13, 1451 (1968), which reports a highly-conductive polyaniline nine years before Heeger et al. So it will do as an example. In support, a google search on this reference brings up Inzelts's article and still another chapter in his monograph.
As Inzelt notes, Heeger et al were just one of several groups and definitely not the first. My preliminary and definately OR count says they were no better than fourth in line, even narrowly-defining "conductive polymers" as doped, oxidized polyacetylene derivatives with a resistivity of less than 50 ohm/cm. Again, I like this example because it is elementary to objectively prove the Nobel committees' miss-allocation of discovery credit just by the reports of highly-conductive polymers before the nobelist' paper. Hard to argue with this kind of data. Also, the people who got screwed are likely dead or retired. So the usual hurt egos and personalities are missing. Anyway, I suggest that we just say something like Inzelt points out that there were multiple reports of highly-conductive polymers before Heeger et al, give a few references without comment, and leave it at that for the moment. Nucleophilic (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Another secondary source is this review [5] of Inzelt's monograph which says:
  • "...Chapter 8, Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun) reminds us that ..even before the great trio (Shirakawa, McDiarmid and Heeger), who earned Nobel Prize for the discovery of conductive polymers, certain conductive polymers were produced, studied and even applied. (emphasis-added ) So, is there really anything new under the Sun? No, there is not, but we have not been aware of CPs, as of the materials that offer a variety of new possibilities. So the real era of conductive polymers chemistry/electrochemistry has started actually thanks to a student mistake, and clever scientists who learn on/from mistakes..."
That is, while Heeger et al did not discover conductive polymers (on which there is pretty general agreement), they do deserve credit for popularizing the field. I suggest that this reference be incorporated as an example of how the two can be confuted. Again, the Science Nobels are given for discovery, not popularization. This is unlike the Peace Nobels, which are occasionally given to popularizers such as Al Gore. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:09, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
On a first look it doesn't seem extremely reliable but if anybody else have an opinions please give them.
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive Uh, it is as good a confirming source as one can get. Namely, another figure in the field of electrochemistry specifically-agreeing with Inzelt while quoting him. True, he says it does not matter, since Heeger et al did publicise the field, getting it going. A point that Inzelt also makes. Unfortunately, the Noble citation mistakenly assigns "discovery" credit. Which is what this is about. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Is it now? It might be serious but frankly just the hamster and all that doesn't create a very serious look to me. And we will not need that source anymore now either. Or the other you provided. They can both be removed. I don't know why Google Books haven't been looked through there but a simple search there reveals that the whole book is there... [6]

If you can provide the pages where the things you like to reference are I can add them to the article. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 08:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Uh, the google book site only exerpts a few pages. Anyway, the relevant stuff is chapter 8. I may just need to go to the library again. Damn, how did I get sucked in this deep ? Google-searching Inzelt's book for back-references-- Also see a comment on this page [7], again pointing out that conductive polymers had been reported before the Nobel winners. This was in the context of citation amnesia, to which the author ( arguably the last researcher to report a highly-conductive polymer before the Nobelist's "discovery" ) pleads guilty.Nucleophilic (talk) 13:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Well the whole book might have been a bad choice of word ;) Now we can at least add it to the bibliography and just point out the pages which is a much better source than those we have used before. I can't enter the scientist page since I don't have an subscription but I'm not sure we have to use "citation amnesia" on this article (even though I find it quite interesting). --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:34, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: Your latest edit looks fine to me. I might come back later and add some addition cites. But then I might not either <grin>. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondly, about your note about Nobel Peace Prize, please refrain from adding your own viewpoints into this. It's not them we are representing on Wikipedia. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:55, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:It's news to me that personal opinion cannot be expressed on discussion pages. Anyway, nothing original-- Gore was given the peace prize for publicising and popularizing the concept of Global warming. If not that, then what? Simply-stated, shining such light is often part of the Peace Prize's function, while rewarding "discovery" is the function of the science prizes. Nucleophilic (talk) 01:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 14 years ago28 comments3 people in discussion

Copied this here from the FA page to make it easier to rule out the problems and cross them. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 13:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Last Images

There are few additional issues I neglected to mention at the FAC:

  • File:Nobelpristagare Fleming Midi.jpg - Needs indication of status in the US. Source provides a creation date, but does not discuss publication or author death (the latter two being the determinates unless the author is anonymous and the work unpublished).
    • I've mailed the source. They said they probably would have the information after the weekend. --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I found this: [9], could it help? I don't really understand the "British Library Add. MS 56115, f.81 " etc --Esuzu (talk • contribs) 10:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Since this seems un-fixable or at the very least very hard I suggest to remove the image from the article until it is good again. The image is not overly important as it is at the moment anyway so it wouldn't be an enormous loss. Anybody who agrees, disagrees?

Controversies and criticisms, Math section

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I would like to talk more about this section again. I feel like it is quite redundant for the main article of the Nobel Prize. I also believe that it doesn't have the same quality as the rest of the article since it is mostly based on urban legends. It should be enough if it was present on the Controversies and Criticism page.

--Esuzu (talk • contribs) 16:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Since nobody have answered this I took action myself and removed the section. It is now in Nobel Prize controversies instead. If you aren't happy by my choice please do not revert immediately. Discuss it here first if you have objections. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The two Thomson Physics laureates

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I found this ironic, but I'm not sure if it belongs in the article: "In 1906, J. J. Thomson had received the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are particles; in 1937 he saw his son awarded the Nobel Prize for proving that electrons are waves. Both father and son were correct, and both awards were fully merited." Quoted from page 91 of John Gribbin (1985) In search of Shrödinger's Cat: Quantum Physics and Reality. London: Corgi. ISBN 0-552-12555-5 MartinPoulter (talk) 20:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never thought of that before but it is indeed ironic. I think it would be a good idea to add it, it is definitely relevant and interesting. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from UltraMeh, 20 May 2010

Latest comment: 14 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

{{editsemiprotected}} For the caption under the image for Nobel Banquet, please change "are treated a five-course meal" to "are treated to a five-course meal", because without the word "to", this sentence is grammatically incorrect.

UltraMeh (talk) 18:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

  Done Nice catch! ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: Re controversies: Comments on Inzelt book

BOOK REVIEW: GYÖRGY INZELT, " Conducting Polymers - A New Era in Electrochemistry " [10] by Ljerka Duić

"...Therefore, no wander that Prof. F. Scholz, the editor of the series, decided to print an additional book on that topic pointing out by the subtitle "A New Era in Electrochemistry" that these materials are interesting for the use in electrochemical devices and practical applications. " I.e, Inzelt, who is a major figure in the field, was asked to do the book by the series editor.

" The book presents a valuable guide through the great deal of the research done on conductive polymers, and although it might not be the easiest book for student to study from, it is definitely welcome to the researchers as a precious stock of 1633 references! "

" Chapter 8, Historical Background (Or: There Is Nothing New Under the Sun) reminds us that even before the great trio (Shirakawa, McDiarmid and Heeger), who earned Nobel Prize for the discovery of conductive polymers, certain conductive polymers were produced, studied and even applied. "

I.e., Duic confirms that " The great trio " ( whom he clearly honors ) did not "discover" conductive polymers while mentioning " the Noble prize " in the same sentence. Unfortunately, the Nobel was for "discovery", not for popularizing the field. Thus Inzelt's "controversy".

Confirming the latter role, Duic states: ....So, is there really anything new under the Sun? No, there is not, but we have not been aware of CPs, as of the materials that offer a variety of new possibilities. So the real era of conductive polymers. chemistry/electrochemistry has started actually thanks to a student mistake, and clever scientists who learn on/from mistakes." I.e, "the great trio" did not discover conductive polymers, but they did make everyone aware of thm.

Doubtless, we can find equivalent material. But this should be enough. If Inzelt ( and Duic ) are not a reliable source, then what is ? Nucleophilic (talk) 13:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

It was decided on the peer review, Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2 that this section should go. Please read it through. Basically, what the problem is with the section is that the sources say nothing about if this has happened before. Thus the sentence "On rare occasions, the prize committees have missed entire previous bodies of work and given credit to relative late-comers." becomes unsourced. It has nothing to do with Inzelt being a bad source, which I am sure he isn't. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Point made. Howabout, "At least once,..." ? Nucleophilic (talk) 20:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
That feels kind of... well, how notable can this "missing an entire previous work" thing be if it has only occurred once? (or rather, notable enough to mention here? Bear in mind that only the really really notable controversies are mentioned here, I do not really think this is important enough for this page, perhaps for the controversies page.) Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
I've replied at the peer review page and will briefly repeat the points here - one(two) professor objecting a certain Nobel award is not enough for it to become a community opinion or a phenomenon related to the Nobel Prize in general. If there is a solid voice in the scientific community on that - fine, we should include it, but I see no evidence for that. So far, there is only evidence for a concentrated campaign to produce a controversy on WP pages. Note, that this campaign is quite old and first used primary sources only, promoting a certain research group; Inzelt and Duić is a recent inclusion necessitated by the need to provide secondary sources. Materialscientist (talk) 22:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:This is a rather small area of research. Likewise, most of those immediately-concerned are either dead or long-retired. In any case, not in a position to complain. So this controversy doesn't generate the heat a similar situation in ( say ) the medicine prize would. What is notable is that even strong partisans of the prize-winners like Duic ( a good secondary source here -- it is not just Inzelt ) agree that the Prize winners didn't really "discover" highly-conductive polymers. BTW, do any of you still believe they did ? Come clean now...
That is, unlike most areas of disputed Nobels, the case here is "clean". Not only that, it involves the denial of an entire body of prior research. The problem is that "discovery" assignment. Nucleophilic (talk) 13:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Lots of straw here. The Noble committee completely blowing their prior art search even once is pretty significant. This just happens to be an instance that is easily provable and completely unambiguous. And obviously this field is important enough to rate a Nobel prize. Here is what I posted over at Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2:

  • First, the issue is not what the Nobel winners missed. Rather, it is what the Nobel committee missed. IIRC, they spend roughly half their budget to insure this sort of thing does not happen. Here they clearly blew it. The problem is that their "discovery" assignment is so easy to falsify by the prior art. BTW, do any of you-all still maintain that the prize winners discovered high-conductive polymers ? Enough said.
  • That is, unlike most areas of disputed Nobels, the case here is completely "clean" and unambiguous. Not only that, it involves missing an entire body of prior research, man-years of work, etc.. -- " three obscure 1963 Australian" papers is a straw argument. E.g., In addition to a slew of other stuff over the years, there were also two papers in the journal "Science", not exactly "obscure". One of these was even the subject of a "News and Views" article in Nature, another one of the big three journals. This alone makes it notable.
  • As for Inzelt, etc. This is not just " one professor ", but a major figure in the field writing an invited book in a well-established series of text-books. Can't get much higher up the "secondary source" chain than that. BTW, where in the wiki-rules does it say " community opinion " is necessary in the face of a good source. Impossible to determine in any case. Not only that, but another good secondary source (Duic), who is very favorable to the winners ( "the great trio" ), concedes Inzelt is right. Nucleophilic (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:What happened here ? A consensus is claimed, but I cannot find the details. Vaultdoor (talk) 17:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion continued on Wikipedia:Peer review/Nobel Prize/archive2 for some reason. The discussion is still ongoing. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: I suggest that the case of Salvador Moncada (sources in bio article ) and the '98 medicine prize be added to controversies as an example of how "three-winners rule" inherently causes controversy. The '98 medicine prize has the added advantage of being in the London Times article on the 10 top Nobel controversies, although the reporter gets the controversy completely wrong. Hey, its your source. Keep the reference to Inzelt, etc. because its literally a "textbook" case. It's grant-writing time. so I will be back later. Nucleophilic (talk) 16:37, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Conductive polymers controversy

Latest comment: 14 years ago24 comments8 people in discussion

The discussion has for a long time been on the peer review but since it says it is an archive the RFC might have problems with discovering it. So I propose we continue the discussion here where everybody could state a simple Oppose or Support and state your reason. I will also add a request for comment. Please try to keep your statement concise and keep to the subject. This way I hope we can make everybody understand when we have a consensus. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Statement - This dispute begun when Nucleophilic added a paragraph to the Nobel Prize article about conductive polymers (seen in the quote below). Soon after the paragraph was removed by Materialscientist (if I remember correctly) and this discussion arose. The discussion ended somehow and the paragraph was kept. During the peer review MartinPoulter also commented on the paragraph and recommended to remove it, which it was. Nucleophilic added it again and somebody reverted his edit etc.

So the big question is Should we add the following part to the Nobel Prize article? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


References

  1. ^ György Inzelt (2008). Conducting Polymers: A New Era in Electrochemistry. pp. 265–269.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Oppose - I'll begin. The Nobel Prize has a lot of controversies, on this page we can only house so many. Thus only the most notable controversies can be here. This conductive polymers article is not notable enough to be on this page. Also it what this part is an example of (that prize committees have missed previous bodies of work and gave the credit to people who worked on it later) does not seem to have happened more than once. Thus the purpose of having the part on the article is non-existent.Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose for reasons that have been set out at length in the Peer Review. The sources are inadequate and crucially depend on interpretation and synthesis to be a negative comment on the Nobel Prize. Even if it were a genuine controversy, there's no indication that it's notable enough (in terms of third-party reporting) to deserve mention in the main article on the Nobel Prize, when there's already a separate article for controversies. Those who speak in support of the paragraph need to 1) assume good faith rather than accuse other editors of "shenanigans", 2) point to third-party reliable sources describing this as a controversy, rather than trying to persuade other WP editors directly that the Nobel Prize was wrongly awarded, and 3) obey the consensus even if it doesn't go the way they want. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose - essentially agrees with Esuzu. Given the existence of a separate "controversies" article (something of a WP:POVFORK which needs continuous cleanup), only highly notable and well-sourced controversies belong here. The standard "why didn't I get the Nobel when my area was awarded" type of complaints (of which there tend to be a couple every year) on the other hand, don't belong. Also, because of the strict 50 years' rule regarding secrecy of all documentation, basically all claims about "discoveries missed" referring to the last 50 years are based on speculation, because it's actually not known if these discoveries where investigated by the Nobel Committee and its "consulting assessors" or not, which assessment they made in such case. Tomas e (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Science is different from, e.g. sport in that its every medal issued can be called unfair. There are always individuals unhappy about Nobel Prize, but this should be a mainstream opinion to warrant inclusion (in any WP article), i.e. WP:REDFLAG, not just WP:RS. Materialscientist (talk) 22:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
  • OpposeThe content, as presented above, is not appropriate, very close to POV, with a hint of COI. It slightly disparages the Laureates who did receive the prize while resting on questionable verification. The section on Controversies and criticisms gives a balanced criticism, using higher profile examples, while leaving no doubt that controversy does exist. For this reason the article does not suffer from lack of inclusion, nor can I see any benefit to its inclusion. Nobel controversy is only part of the story and need only represent an equal part of this article. Whereas this fact would perhaps withstand inclusion to an article exclusive to Nobel controversy, it does not, by its own scope, demand inclusion into this more broad article. That is as briefly as I could state my opinion. FWIW My76Strat (talk) 01:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Abstain. Wikipedia:concensus requires a particular procedure, as detailed below. The waters are now throughly muddied, far in excess of the rather trivial point at issue, which I only defended out of principle. For one thing, the record shows that the majority of those voting here expressed no particular interest in this page until being canvassed to vote. What is of particular concern for anyone who cares about wikipedia is that materialscientist, who, much to my surprise, I now realize is an admin, not only did not put a stop to the clear abuse of process ( hey, its what you sign up for ) , but actively participated. Nucleophilic (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I will wait some time more then and see if we get more opinions. If not I think we have a quite clear consensus. If the consensus is "oppose" I will ask you not to add this section again. Thank you. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 21:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Are those opposing inclusion of (something like) the sentences above saying that Inzelt's statements are incorrect? Are there no other reliable sources that agree that this award was, basically, in error as its recipient was not in fact responsible for the "discovery and development" of the materials in question? My inclination would be that, even if a unique incident, as long as there is a consensus amongst sources that the Nobel appeared to overlook "prior art" (Nucleophilic's phrase), something might warrant inclusion here. Don't agree with Materialiscientist here, that "Science is different from, e.g. sport in that its every medal issued can be called unfair". Actually they are similar in this regard; but more to the point, the question does not apepar to be of fairness but of accuracy in characterising the award (specifically the claim of "discovery"). hamiltonstone (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
The only other source I have seen was a review of Inzelt's book which I would not be very appropriate. I am not saying he is incorrect (neither am I saying he is correct). The main problem is notability, there are hundreds of Nobel Prize controversies, only the most renown can be included here. The rest can be in Nobel Prize controversies. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Remember, the only issue is the Nobel committees' "discovery" assignment for conductive polymers. In his review of Inzelt's book[1], Duic [11] agrees with Inzelt that conductive polymers were "produced, studied and even applied" (sic) before the laureates' work. Check it out.
So, we have a key textbook ( tellingly-entitled " Conductive Polymers " ) from an authority in the field that questions this "discovery" assignment in no uncertain terms, giving examples. Significantly, Inzelt even makes this the subject of a chapter entitled "There is Nothing New under the Sun". Plus, we have a review of this book that agrees with Inzelt. These are about as good secondary sources as it is possible to get. No "synthesis" or "original research" here.
As for "notability", this matter has caused considerable fuss in conductive polymer research. I suspect some of this has spilled over into this discussion, itself evidence for "notability". Irrelevant to the real world ? -- look at your cell-phone display. Also, see below about the implications concerning the unique failure here of the Chemistry committee's literature search. This is not just the usual case of questioning the subjective opinion of a Nobel committee. Face it, they either missed a whole field or deliberately missassigned discovery credit. The latter is quite unlikely. Nucleophilic (talk) 22:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I am not sure just how good a review is as a source. At least not if one are already using the book reviwed as a source. That review has not necissarily fact-checked the book, most reviews do not.
The case might be notable but not notable enough for the Nobel Prize page. It might be notable for the controversies page or perhaps the conductive polymer page, but not here. The consensus seem to be pretty clear on that part. If nothing big happens here on the talk page I think we have reached a very clear consensus and I will probably nominate Nobel Prize for FA later tonight. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 12:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Result - I think we have reached a very clear consensus against the section with six editors opposing, none supporting and one abstaining from the vote. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 18:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)


The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Wikipedia:Consensus

First, esuzu misstates the situation. I did not add anything, but merely defended an existing passage. I have reminded Esuzu of this over and over. But he the still repeats this claim. Don't believe me-- check the record. Very unwiki behavior. Similarly, much of what you-all object to was added to compromise and arrive at a consensus. In fact, the record also shows that the offending phrase was essentially composed by esuzu himself. Similarly, tracking to talk pages, it appears esuzu went out actively recruiting support from editors who previously had no apparent interest or input to this page. All this is expressly forbidden. As for the "peer review" page: Wikipedia:Consensus states: " To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. ( emphasis-added ) "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus." Nucleophilic (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, we have discussed it a lot already and I don't think more can be gained by saying the things over and over. Thus, again I will say, I do not try to recruit people for their support. I contacted Chzz only to get help with how I should do (that he then decides to write his opinion is his choice, I did not ask him of that). I have not contacted anybody else. Secondly, please just add your support or oppose so we can try to get a clear consensus. Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
It is rather immaterial who formulated or added the text passage. You have obviously disagreed about its inclusion or non-inclusion, and Esuzu has sought outside comments to have the issue resolved, and this has given a very clear result. Tomas e (talk) 20:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive: Improper consensus-building

There are methods of building a consensus or the appearance of a consensus that are improper in Wikipedia.

Canvassing is sending messages to many Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion. It is normal to invite more people into a discussion to obtain new insights and arguments. Messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion, however, compromise the consensus-building process and may be considered disruptive. Invitations must be phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., sent to all active editors of the subject or posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects.

The use of multiple sock puppet accounts by an editor to give the illusion of more support for a viewpoint than actually exists is prohibited. Meatpuppetry is a similar technique that involves the recruitment of editors to join a discussion on behalf of an editor, usually with the aim of swaying consensus in that discussion, and is also prohibited. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

So you are accusing me of having sock puppets then? Esuzu (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
As predicted, rather than acknowledge the genuine consensus that is emerging for "Oppose", Nucleophilic dodges the arguments, cites irrelevant policy, and throws out allegations against other editors. Who are these other editors who have opinions on this but not been invited? MartinPoulter (talk) 16:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Strawman-- I did not allege pockpuppetry, but rather gross violation of the rules concerning solicitation of editors to manipulate a concensus. Read the emphasized passages, which are from the wikipedia:concensus page, a point I thought was obvious. This whole business is very irregular and has throughly poisoned the waters. Also, the comments of the editors illustrate why discussions of this sort are supposed to be limited to discussion pages, so any issues can be raised and answered before being voted on. Not the situation here.
E.g., note my statement above:
  • "Your latest edit looks fine to me. I might come back later and add some addition cites. But then I might not either <grin>. Nucleophilic (talk) 20:02, 29 March 2010 (UTC)"
This was giving my approval for Esuzu's edit, the same edit that he is now attributing to me. Check it out. BTW, after giving my approval, I left the page and went on to more important matters, only to find that it had been changed, contrary to our original "consensus".
BTW, If anyone wants to call an arbitration on all of this, go for it. Right now is grant-writing time. But when I get the opportunity, I may do it myself. I have been working hard to "assume good faith". But this is about the most aggravated series of wikipedia rule violations I have yet seen. I note it here for documentation and so that if it happens to someone else, they can act accordingly. Nucleophilic (talk) 18:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
For the record, the message which led me here to comment was exemplarly formulated and definitely no canvassing. And why would there be any need for arbitration since there is clear consensus? And BTW, good luck with your grants! Tomas e (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The following italicized comments were contributed by blocked User:PProctor and his sockpuppets, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pproctor/Archive:Again, see wikipedia:concensus. Any direct contact was forbidden, unless you had somehow been involved with the page previously. There are good reasons for this, E.g., what if (e.g.) I had done the same, contacting everyone on wikipedia that might support my position. You would surely have objection, and rightfully so. Still, if these are the new rules.....

Also, this decision was made off the talk page and presented as a fait accompli. Personally, I don't care to much about the matter at issue, but am defending a principle.

BTW, you got the issue wrong-- the matter is not someone questioning the subjective opinion of a Nobel committee, which does happen all the time. Rather it was their assignment of "discovery" credit for conductive polymers to researchers who were rather far down the discovery chain. Anyway, the "real" discoverers were probably dead. So that was not an issue.

In a sense, there is no controversy-- pretty much everyone in the field, including acknowledged partisans, now agree that the "discovery" assignment was wildly-erroneous. Too many prior papers reporting essentially identical material have since popped up. This is even the subject of its own chapter in Inzelt's text-book on conductive polymers, which is all we were trying to cite.

Usually Nobel citations are worded to work around any potential problems. Since this particular Nobel "discovery" assignment is so unequivocal ( "for...the discovery and development" ), one reasonable conclusion is that the Nobel committee messed up its prior art search. Otherwise, we must assume they knew about the prior art and chose to ignore it, which is unlikely. So this episode does have unique significance. And yes, I understand that Swedes do tend to defend the institution. But facts are facts. Nucleophilic (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ György Inzelt (2008). Conducting Polymers: A New Era in Electrochemistry. pp. 265–269.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nobel_Prize/Archive_4&oldid=1115134242"