Difference between revisions of "Talk:Nobel Prize"
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
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: [http://whyfiles.org/188nobel_mri/2.html]. 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.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 23:24, 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: [http://whyfiles.org/188nobel_mri/2.html]. 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.--[[User:Murray|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. | ||
Revision as of 14:26, March 16, 2007
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? Crackertalk 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)
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.