Talk:Controversy raised about 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_I._Gordon seems to be the guy claiming that Michael F. Tompsett should have won.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://nobelprize.org/prize_announcements/physics/ - this is the primary source about the prize. WereSpielChequers (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Patent: http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4085456 (only Tompsett named) Mike Peel (talk) 20:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Articles on the people involved: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_S._Boyle, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_E._Smith, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_I._Gordon (Mike Tompsett isn't on) Mike Peel (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• [1] photo of building where the work was carried out (Murray Hill, New Jersey) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Peel (talk • contribs) 21:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• wikipedia:Nobel Prize controversies Mike Peel (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• wikipedia:Michael Francis Tompsett now exists WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Previous award won

The two Nobel winners in question also won a $500,000 prize in the past. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0601/06010503boylesmith.asp

I wonder if controversy erupted somewhere about this one, but didn't make press notice due to it not being as famous as Nobel?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/technology/05prize.ready.html --Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of the history of the invention, from 1974, by the Nobel winners

The Inception of Charge-Coupled Devices http://www.ieee.org/netstorage/spectrum/pdfs/SmithBoyleRemembrancCCD1974.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimbo Wales (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 926884 [Passed]

Revision 926884 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've been source-reading in advance, hence the quick review. Well done everyone. Good work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 926884 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've been source-reading in advance, hence the quick review. Well done everyone. Good work. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Controversy raised about 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics

Smith is the American, and Boyle is the Canadian. Smith was the Head of the Department, not Boyle. The question is whether the Nobel Prize was awarded for the invention of the CCD, or for its application in imaging.In the first case the Nobel Committee is right,in the second case it would be wrong. Rudolph J. Kriegler —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjkriegler (talk • contribs) 16:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)