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)

Reagan may be considered by some to be one of the US's great Presidents, but compared to the Red Cross, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Desmond Tutu and the Dali Lama, I would think it would be hard to justify why he would receive the Nobel Peace Prize. --Todd 11:22, 16 March 2007 (EDT)