Talk:Nobel Prize

YO! User:Sid_3050, the sentence, "In two cases, the Nobel Prize was denied to the person most responsible for the discovery apparently..." meaning the discovery of what, exactly? Cracker^talk 17:53, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

...why are you asking ME? I didn't add that sentence. Check the edit history. However, the two cases are shown in the following paragraphs. For what it's worth: The article doesn't state what discovery Hoyle should have received a Nobel Prize for, as I pointed out in my edit summary. General advice: Chill out, yo. --Sid 3050 17:59, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh sorry. It was the Boss' edit. I'm chilly already, but, hey, thanks for the advice. Cracker^talk 18:05, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Awesome! :) --Sid 3050 18:07, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually if you look around you'll find other possible reasons that Damadian at least didn't get the Nobel (I'm not familiar with Hoyle). See, for example: [1]. It would be more accurate to say that some think it's because of his view of evolution, or something to that effect, since clearly other reasons have been put forth.--Murray 23:24, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

The article says "as the prize was not given to Ronald Reagan or Pope John Paul II" but does not state *why* they should have received the prize, or even which Nobel Prize.

Hm, good point. I'll see if I can dig out what this sentence is based on. For now, the stub note and the fact tags are enough to say "This article should be taken with a grain of salt", but you are of course correct, and the sentence should go if it can't be backed and/or explained. --Sid 3050 10:33, 16 March 2007 (EDT)