Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Abbreviations

The correct abbreviations for the UK degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science are BSc and MSc, respectively, not Bs and Ms, which are American usages. Anyone possessing these UK degrees should be accorded the correct abbreviation. Urselius (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Alexander Todd and Peter Debye

Some of the entries are wrong. Alexander Todd never had major appointments at American universities. In October, 1957, he was Charles M. and Martha Hitchcock Lecturer at UC Berkeley.[1] Such lectures are awards/honors/recognition instead of an actual affiliation with the university. He also gave similar lectures at Caltech, MIT and University of Chicago. Peter Debye's lectures at Harvard, Cambridge, Oxford, Berkeley, etc. were also awards/honors rather than an actual affiliation with the institutions.[2] Ber31 (talk) 07:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Minimumbias Vandalism

The issue of claimed Nobel Prize affiliates has been hashed out several times on this page. Minimumbias has taken it upon himself to make a self-determined count of Nobel Prize winners. Assistance with the massive revision of this page that has taken place would be greatly appreciated. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC))

Can someone please address this issue? It seems a user has decided to unilaterally determine his own count. This needs to be addressed as it seems this page has lost activity since the major edit wars were taking place. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

Further it seems user Minimumbias has been warned in the past for making false edits to university pages regarding how many Olympic medal their alumni have won. This could be a pattern of vandalism or a personal motive to skew university accolades in a certain manner. (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 05:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

One more thing - Minimumbias has elected to rank the schools according to "Field and Turing Medal criteria". This is entirely irrational and strange to be honest. We've been having discussion on this page for years now about whether to determine the ranking according to the Nobel Prize Critera and we settled on the unofficial count with the official in parenthesis. Now suddenly he's using the official count of Field and Turing? I would greatly appreciate some input here! Thank you! (PrincetonNeuroscientist (talk) 05:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC))

—== Update of Nobel Laureates Counting ==

Hi everyone, I am a Nobel prize winner in a top 10 university in this list (I retired several years ago, currently holding the title of "professor emeritus"). I've been updating the Nobel prize counting list these days, by performing the following 3 steps. I provide the rationale and reason for each of this step below.


1) The only change in the criterion of Nobel laureate counting is the "special lectureship". Many universities would invite famous people such as the Nobel prize winners to give talks or "lectures" on their campuses; sometimes, the school would even give a title to these "lecturer" as a recognition or honor, for example the "Morris Loeb Lecturer (short-term)" of Harvard university. This is NOT an affiliation by any means, as I explained in the introduction before the updated list. I myself had been to dozens of universities upon invitations, and so did many of my fellow laureates, but we are by no means affiliated to these universities. Hence, such restriction on counting is reasonable and necessary, otherwise any university can claim the affiliation of a Nobel laureate simply by inviting him or her there. Interestingly, while I was updating the list, I realized only Harvard and Columbia had counted such special lecturers as affiliates, wildly promoting their counts. After all, the change of Harvard and Columbia's counts in the new list are mostly due to this correction in counting. (On the other hand, in the worst-case scenario in which one insists to include "special lecturers" in the counting, the old list is not complete either, and the counts for all other universities should be updated to include this part in order to be consistent)


2) The counts of most other schools, either staying the same or going up/down a little bit (<4), changed only because of miscounts in the old list. I carefully re-counted them all. If you have any doubt, you may go back and count again. Most importantly, I updated the list with 3-category representation. This is how the modern research universities are constructed: students (graduates and attendees), long-term staff (professors in residence), and short-term staff (visitors and visiting researchers). The long-term staff are the core of such structure of universities, carrying out various responsibilities from the departments and deciding how their departments function. In particular, the list now clearly shows the most important information of the laureates - the type of affiliations, the time they won the awards, etc.


3) To summarize, I worked on the original list, regrouped the affiliates of each university into the 3-category representation, deleted any unreasonable affiliation described in 1) above, and re-counted the number of affiliates carefully (avoiding multiple counts of a same person).


Since everyone has the right to edit a Wikipedia page and point out mistakes (which includes me), you may point out anything you think is invalid or unreasonable above and make a change. But, you need to give a valid reason like I did, otherwise you are simply doing vandalism to a possible improvement of the page. While no others have expressed disagreement with my update in any form, there is a user called "PrincetonNeuroscientist" who repeatedly called my behavior as "vandalism", right after the count of Columbia university dropped from 104 to 99. He argued that the old list received "collective acceptance" and I was simply using my "ideal" as the basis of the update. When I confronted him/her with my reasoning in his/her talk page and explained that I was simply correcting a mistake in the old criterion, he/she did NOT give back any valid argument or evidence to show the invalidity of my update. Instead, he simply insisted that I was doing vandalism and claimed to have reported me to administration. Obviously, he/she is interrupting the improvement of the quality of this page. Minimumbias (talk) 23:43, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have issues with your edits because they remove a lot of visual information I found useful. Most importantly, I want to know which schools professors were at before and at the time of their awards. Any school with enough money can hire Laureates after they receive the Nobel Prize. But the universities that host people who subsequently receive the award is a different sort of list. Those are places that value and support good researchers *before* they are globally recognized. The asterisks you use to denote this are not effective for someone trying to get an idea of what percentage of a university's laureates were hired after they received their awards.
There should also be a distinction between academic (teaching) staff and research staff. Several universities have research entities that include staff that never teach. I believe this is most common in the Medical sciences. The previous list format attempted to distinguish these people when it differentiated 'staff' from 'faculty'. It is significant when someone is adding to a university's count but is actually associated with a research entity that does not interact with the educational side of the university.
I am not happy about your unilateral edits before discussing them on this page. Justifications given on others' individual user pages are irrelevant to me. I appreciate the amount of work you have done, but the decrease in visual information troubles me.Elriana (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

- This list is to present the university affiliations of Nobel laureates. The central goal is thus to present the affiliations to the public most directly and clearly. At the foundation of academic structure of modern research universities is the three types of affiliations (students, long-term staff, temporary staff), which should be naturally adopted in the presentation. Other information is extra and is not essential for this list, but much can still be readily read off or inferred from the current page. For instance, the current list includes the descriptions of the affiliations for each laureate, which had to be inferred from the old list. Overall, I think the amount of visual information actually increases, a lot. On the other hand, the information you wish to find in the old "Academic Staff Before/After Award" categories is not that accurate:

1) It is untrue that "any school with enough money can hire laureates". A lot of universities in Asia, for example, receive considerable funding from the government and are eager to hire more world-class faculty members and researchers, including Nobel laureates. But due to various reasons (e.g., the lack of strong academic atmosphere currently), not many laureates actually moved there.

2) In addition, a Nobel laureate may have stayed in various universities before receiving the award, but it is tricky to determine the influence (some might be negative) from these universities on the laureate; on the other hand, the award-winning researches of many laureates were not conducted at one place only. For instance, my work was conducted at at least two universities. Nowadays international collaboration has become more and more common, which makes it even harder to accurately distinguish the contributions from different universities. Minimumbias (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

This page is controversial

Although various wiki editors have contributed to this page, the overall quality of the page is poor and the page is controversial. There are so many entries that are wrong and this sort of page will not be accepted by any serious scholarly journal. Wiki editors are more interested in inflating Nobel laureates of their universities instead of producing the best possible list. The inclusion criteria are extremely lax. Emilio Segrè is counted as Columbia's Nobel laureate. He only held a very short appointment at Columbia. Kofi Annan's fellowship was honors/recognition instead of an actual affiliation with the university. A university should count a Nobel laureate if the laureate has spent at least an academic semester at the university. MIT list[3], Cambridge University list[4], and most similar lists only accepts someone who has spent at least 6 months at the university. We should introduce similar inclusion criteria for the page. Ber31 (talk) 07:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


- It is NOT controversial. You are being really subjective by saying it is "poor and controversial". And this is NOT a journal, and it is NOT subject to the criteria of ANY journal. It is NOT a research paper. Do NOT try to peer review this page using the criterion/standard of your own. Why does a university "should count a Nobel laureate [only] if the laureate has spent at least an academic semester at the university"? This list adopts a relatively general/liberal criterion in order to avoid the possible argument and controversy (e.g., adopting the counting criterion of a specific university). This was a consensus reached by many many Wikipedia editors. (This is why the "official counts" are included for reference) This criterion is FAIR and is NOT favoring ANY university. There is NO reason to accept your stricter "6-month" criterion. Finally, the MIT count includes, for example, IPCC personnel, who were NOT awarded the 2007 Nobel peace prize. 159.63.167.146 (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but there is no consensus. Read the arguments of many editors above. Many editors have objected to the way Nobel laureates are counted on this page. User:Elriana, who has contributed to this page, agrees that inclusion criteria are bit lax. University of Chicago has a liberal way to count Nobel laureate - even in their case, they are too embarrassed to count Emily Greene Balch in their Nobel list.[5] Ber31 (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


§ Hi all, I wish to stress a few points.

1) To "159.63.167.146": even though I agree with some of your points, please do not use "NOT" in capital so often and show some respect to other editors. Your attitude is not helpful for establishing a constructive conversation whatsoever.

2) To"Ber31": I understand your frustration. In early November 2016, I started an extensive restructuring on this Nobel Laureates affiliation page and I experienced the opposition from some other editors too, who called my behavior "vandalism". I thus discussed my rationale of modification in this talk page (see "Minimumbias Vandalism" and "Update of Nobel Laureates Counting"). I pointed out that "visiting professorship/lectureship which are awards/honors/recognition instead of an actual affiliation with the university". This cut the number inflation to an extent. And I divided the affiliations into 3 categories as you see today and briefly described the forms of affiliations for each Laureate. This is the same as in the counting pages of Fields Medalists (I created the list) and Turing Awardees (I restructured the list).

I understand you now wish to impose more stringent criteria, but I am afraid that you are going too far for this end.

- First of all, an important thing to remember is that a Wikipedia page is not a research paper, and it shall not report results due to original researches. And the articles should be as "objective" as possible. Hence, I believe it is improper to impose a "minimum time" criterion for "Temporary Academic Staff", for it is a sign of original thinking, which is somewhat arbitrary and subjective. 

    This list is "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation", but not "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation who spent at least half a year in the universities". An affiliation is an affiliation. As Wikipedia editors, we should only look at the word's original meaning. Any over-interpretation (e.g., awards/honors) and further criterion (e.g., half-year minimum time) are not needed or allowed, because they are either over-interpreting the meaning of "affiliation" or are personal opinions/thoughts.

- Secondly, please do not use the counting criteria from any universities and impose them on this list. The reason is explained in the previous paragraph. To be specific, indeed, some major universities keep their lists of the Nobel laureates based on various counting criteria which, again, are products of subjective thoughts and taste. But as Wikipedia editors, we should not bring this "subjectivity" into Wikipedia pages.

- Finally, a practical issue. It is not always easy, if not impossible, to determine the exact lengths (and sometimes forms) of affiliations from reliable online sources. People move, all the time, even in academia. Hence, to be fair and reasonable, it is not a very good idea to impose a "minimum time" criterion unless one is a very serious historian working on a research paper (not Wikipedia editor).

Minimumbias (talk) 22:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


I agree. Wikipedia is not a research journal which collects original research results. One cannot simply use his/her own judgement to set up additional criteria to count the laureates. 159.63.167.146 (talk) 03:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation and List of Turing Award laureates by university affiliation are much better than this page. They are scholarly. It is possible for one researcher to spent less than a semester at a university and publish some important papers, and another researcher to spent few years at a university without any major publication. This page still has plenty of issues. For instance, Barnard College and Columbia are separate schools - although they are affiliated. Elie Wiesel and Leymah Gbowee were affiliated with Barnard College. Whether they should be a part of Columbia University Nobel list or not is also subjective. It would be nearly impossible to create a perfect list. Ber31 (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, regardless of whatever anyone says, a Nobel laureate who has only spend one summer session at a university as a student or staff should not be counted on this page. Ber31 (talk) 06:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

- "It is possible for one researcher to spent less than a semester at a university and publish some important papers, and another researcher to spent few years at a university without any major publication." Wikipedia is not the place to consider or discuss this issue. 205.208.120.172 (talk) 07:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The above quote was to support Minimumbias' observation that it is not a very good idea to impose a minimum-time criterion for this page. Ber31 (talk) 05:59, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I wish to point out that the lists for Fields Medal and Turing Award Winners are a lot easier to construct and maintain because there are only 56 and 65 awardees, respectively and they are all in similar fields. According to the Nobel website, "Between 1901 and 2016, the Nobel Prizes and the Prize in Economic Sciences were awarded 579 times to 911 people and organizations." That is over an order of magnitude more awardees. The Nobel recipients also span a much wider variety of fields and backgrounds. Some, (particularly Peace Prize recipients) didn't even have college degrees. Categorizing the experiences and affiliations of this diverse set of people is never going to be simple. If you have suggestions on how to make this list more usable or relevant, please suggest them on this talk page. But please also keep in mind the shear magnitude of this undertaking and the necessity of avoiding subjective metrics. It's a thorny discussion at times, but this list is still way more useful than trying to compare the individual universities' own counts or relying on the incomplete information at nobelprize.org. Elriana (talk) 23:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

- One comment: please do not use the words "a lot easier". All three pages require hard work. You may say constructing and maintaining the Nobel page is much harder, but please do not use the word "easier". Please respect other people's contributions. Minimumbias (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I did not mean to imply that any of these exercises was 'easy', only that, relatively speaking, this list is harder to deal with than the others for a couple of significant reasons. Elriana (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your observation. Some entries on the page have spent only one summer session - they should be removed. There are so many laureates who have spent one summer at various universities - for instance, Donald Glaser spent one summer at MIT. Those who have spent only one summer session at a university should be removed. Ber31 (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

- I agree. Summer attendees, employees and visitors are generally excluded. Students do not need to enroll in a university to attend the summer sessions. Summer employment is tricky, and only a few percentage can be really counted as "official".Minimumbias (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Summer attendance is much less likely to be touted by the Universities themselves, and often not discussed in detail in biographies and accounts of Nobel recipients. In general, that makes it difficult to include here based on citation criteria alone. If we're trying to be fair, single summer session affiliation/residence/attendance should not be included for anyone because we can't include them for everyone because most do not consider such stints to be notable affiliations. The only exception I can think of is if a laureate him(/her)self credits one such stint as specifically leading to a breakthrough or long-term collaboration. But in the only cases I can remember where such a visit led to something significant, it also led to further affiliations with the same university in the future.Elriana (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Visiting Positions as Affiliations

An issue has appeared when considering Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and so on as the affiliates of Caltech. These laureates visited Caltech via the visiting-scholar program set up by Robert Milikan [6]. However, it seems that no sources have been found stating the nature of such visiting positions - whether it is personal/informal, employment-based, or award-based (any duty required?). It is then an issue that whether we should include affiliates under a university when no sources are available to determine the nature of such visiting positions. Minimumbias (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


This issue is not a simple issue. Even in Law, there are notions like Presumption of innocence and Presumption of guilt, which describe two different attitudes facing a same situation in which evidence is not strong enough to prove a person guilty (positive) or innocent (negative). In Nobel laureates counting, when evidence of a visiting position does not directly point out the nature of the position (i.e., personal, employment, or award) and is ambiguous, I'd recommend a positive assumption so that a laureate is counted as affiliate The reasons are presented below:

1) The negative assumption takes a rather conservative view and will likely to result in controversy, argument and debate over the fairness of the counting method in the list. This is because a number of Nobel laureates had affiliations with many European universities long time ago, when many visits, cooperation and even employments were not well recorded in archives (especially during the war times). In fact, in the past, many visits were also ambiguous by nature, since in the old days the "visiting-scholar" programs were different across the globe and the academia was divided. Things were not as "formal" and "official" as they are today when many consensuses in academia had been reached globally. The mechanism of visiting-scholar program is much more well-defined today than it is in the past.

2) Currently, the positive assumption has been imposed in all three lists: the Nobel prize list, the Fields Medal list (List_of_Fields_Medal_winners_by_university_affiliation), Turing award list (List_of_Turing_Award_laureates_by_university_affiliation). To change this assumption into negative will require much energy and time. One has to delve into many references (and there are hundreds of such references) and explore many new sources online. It it almost impossible to complete such a task by one or two editors in a relatively short time.

3) Finally, since positive assumption applies to all universities, there exists no unfairness after all. Minimumbias (talk) 03:44, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


________________________________________________________

Update for Caltech's issue: first of all, several Nobel laureates (listed below) visited Caltech via the visiting-scholar program set up by Robert Millikan. [7][8] [9]The nature of such visiting-scholar program is clearly shown in the sources for Erwin Schrödinger and Werner Heisenberg below. The visitors came to Caltech to deliver a public lecture or seminar. Thus, the visitors are excluded from Caltech's count, unless other forms of affiliation were formed with Caltech (requires supporting sources).

1) Max Born visited Caltech in 1926 via the program set up by Millikan, giving a public lecture/seminar. From a most authoritative source (the official website of Nobel prize), Max Born "went to Göttingen as Professor in 1921, at the same time as James Franck, and he remained there for twelve years, interrupted only by a trip to America in 1925."[10] Therefore, Max Born only visited the Caltech once, and he stayed there from around late 1925 to early 1926, giving a series of public lectures/seminars. [11] [12] He also gave these public lectures/seminars at MIT, University of Chicago, University of Wisconsin, UC Berkeley, and Columbia University. [13][14] Max Born is thus excluded from the Caltech's count.

2) Erwin Schrödinger only gave a public lecture at Caltech in Feb 1927 (via Millikan's program), and is thus excluded. He also delivered similar public lectures at Michigan (Ann Arbor), MIT, and Harvard. [15]

3) Werner Heisenberg only gave a public seminar at Caltech (via Millikan's program), attended by students and faculty, including Richard Feynman. [16] He also visited Caltech in 1925, but just to deliver a public lecture.[17] He is thus excluded from the list.

4) Niels Bohr visited Caltech via Millikan's program in 1933. [18]Excluded as explained above.

5) Paul Dirac visited Caltech via Millikan's program in 1935.[19] [20] Excluded as explained above.

6) Hendrik Lorentz visited Caltech for several times (1921, 1922, 1924, 1926), which may or may not include a visit via Millikan's program. Nonetheless, he was appointed a lecturer (e.g., winter term 1922) and assumed teaching duties at Caltech. He is thus included. [21][22][23]

7) Wolfgang Pauli was attending conference at Caltech, probably during 1931 summer. [24]

Minimumbias (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

In 1940, Nobel laureate Hans Bethe visited Caltech and stayed for 2 days to see Theodore von Kármán with Edward Teller.[25] In later years, he had always been a professor at Cornell, but he spent many Januarys in Caltech housing (while Cornell was in winter recessions), giving a public colloquium in physics department each year while assuming no formal duties. [26][27]

Removal of Bethe (Again!)

I've removed Hans Bethe from Harvard's count. He was Morris Loeb Lecturer (short-term) in 1982-83.[28] When people are adding visiting professors, they have to be very careful. They have to check the nature of visiting professorship. Ber31 (talk) 03:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The issue of "Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar" at Caltech

I'd like to start the discussion by pointing out that, according to the Caltech's library source [29], "Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar" at Caltech was established by the $7.5 million gift from "Sherman Fairchild Foundation" in 1975 and it is an award-based visiting program. The length varies from 3 months (a term at Caltech) to a year. The Caltech's own source describes the visiting scholarship as "appointment", regardless of time span of the visit. However, there are several issues.

0) This "Fairchild visiting scholarship" has caused a recent "inflation" of the number of Caltech's Nobel laureates. Similar cases had been seen in some other schools like Harvard and Columbia. The inflation was usually settled by discussing the nature of visiting lectureship/professorship/scholarship and setting up some detailed criteria for counting laureates.

1) This Fairchild visiting scholarship highly resembles, for example, the award-based visiting lecturership "Morris Loeb Lecturership" at Harvard University. This visiting lecturership also offers different time spans. We had excluded the short-term Morris Loeb Lecturers from the Nobel counting list (for it is simply an honor/award/recognition) while keeping the long-term Morris Loeb Lecturers, despite the fact that Harvard's official website calls both lectureship as "appointment" [30].

2) Several Nobel laureates themselves (Nicolaas Bloembergen[31], Yuan T. Lee[32][33], John Polanyi[34], Dudley R. Herschbach[35]) specifically list this scholarship as award/honor in their Curriculum Vita/official websites or being ambiguous, while other laureates classify the scholarship as visiting employment/appointment.

3) It looks like the words "appointment" and "employment" are not equivalent in all cases. The former has broader sense and may not always imply a formal affiliation with a university, while the latter is a definite affiliation.

Hence, I believe we need to set up some criteria for inclusion of Nobel laureates who were Fairchild visiting scholars at Caltech. In particular, I think some short-term visitors should not be included, just like the Morris Loeb Lecturers at Harvard University. Please feel free to discuss below. Minimumbias (talk) 08:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

__________________________________________

I have now classified the types of "visitors" and added the following notes to lead of the Nobel counting list. If you disagree, please comment below and we can discuss. Thus, Nobel laureates who were Fairchild visitors at Caltech will be counted if they satisfy 3) below.

- 1) All informal/personal visits are excluded from the list.

- 2) All employment-based visiting positions, which carry teaching/research duties, are included as affiliations in the list.

- 3) As for award-based visiting positions, this list takes a conservative view, which includes the positions as affiliations only if the awardees are required to assume employment-level duties (teaching/research) or they classify the visiting positions as "employment/appointment" in their Curriculum Vita or reliable websites.

To be specific, some award-based visiting professorships/lectureships such as the "Morris Loeb Lecturer (short-term)", "Lee Historical Lecturer" and "Charles Eliot Norton Professor" in Harvard University are awards/honors/recognition without duty requirement instead of an actual affiliation with the university, and thus will not be counted in this list. Positive examples are "Morris Loeb Long-term Lecturer" at Harvard University and "Visiting Miller Professorship" at UC Berkeley. Minimumbias (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Fairchild Visiting Scholarships are awards or honors rather than official academic appointment at Caltech. They should be removed. The affiliations of Max Born and most of the physicists mentioned here[36] were also not official academic appointments. They should also be removed. Miller Visiting Professorship at UC Berkeley also appears to be awards/honors. Richard Henderson's CV[37] suggests that it wasn't an academic appointment. Daniel C. Tsui and Kofi Annan should be removed from Columbia's count. Ber31 (talk) 06:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
1) Complete removal of Fairchild visitors will result in controversy. One example is Fairchild visitor Gerard 't Hooft who published a paper under Caltech's affiliation [38]. What's more, one cannot ignore the fact that several laureates do classify the Fairchild visiting positions as academic appointment (you may wish to look at the sources provided in Caltech's list). This is why we have set up "Criterion 3" above. 2) The visiting-scholar program set up by Robert Millikan at Caltech had brought a large number of Nobel laureates from Europe. We couldn't find any reliable online sources that classify these visits as informal or personal. If you can find the sources, all these visitors should be removed. 3) UC Berkeley's Miller visiting program requires research duties[39]: "Visiting Miller Professors are invited to campus to engage full time in research with host faculty, host departments, and others. Full time and effort should be devoted to research and collaboration." 4) Kofi Annan's Global Fellow title requires teaching duties [40], but for Daniel C. Tsui no reliable sources have been found. Minimumbias (talk) 07:41, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
Hendrik Lorentz lectured at Columbia and published The Theory of Electrons. He isn't counted in Columbia's list because he wasn't officially appointed by the university. UC Berkeley's policy does not permit Visiting Miller Professorship to be counted toward a sabbatical leave. Fairchild Visiting Scholarships and Visiting Miller Professorships are award/honor-type appointments. As far as the visiting-scholar program that allowed Schrödinger and Lorentz to visit CalTech is concerned, those lectures were not official appointments. The source doesn't mention that they were official appointments. Ber31 (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hendrik Lorentz's book includes materials he lectured at Columbia, but it does not necessarily mean that he published the book under Columbia's affiliation. In fact, he published the book under the affiliation of "University of Leiden"[41]. However, if one publishes a research paper (in a research journal) under the name of a university, that really means an affiliation with the university. Thus, one cannot simply remove all award-based visiting positions. To put in another way, a laureate may visit a university and receive salary (employment), or he/she may visit a university and receive fellowship/scholarship (provided by organization like NSF or university & foundation). If the fellowship/scholarship he/she receives does not require any type of duty, then the fellowship/scholarship is a mere award/honor. However, if the fellowship/scholarship requires duties or the laureate carries duties anyway, then it forms an affiliation with the university. A similar but not equivalent situation is that a student or postdoc may receive fellowship or salary (employment), but they are affiliated with the university in any case. Minimumbias (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

________________________

Ber31, you have pointed out a very good point. It is another topic/issue, though. If a source does not explicitly describe the nature of a visiting position, whether we should include the affiliation. This involves certain level of subjectivity. This needs further discussion, but not under this section. Minimumbias (talk) 06:32, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

As for the case of Caltech, if the visiting positions of those visiting laureates from Europe are honor/awards without duties, what are the name of such awards/honor? Unless the award simply served as reimbursement for travel (e.g., travel grant). Minimumbias (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

It is common for universities to allow professors to lecture without any official appointments. Many of those lectures don't have any name. Various universities allow professors to lecture. You have public lectures. If Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Hendrik Lorentz, and Niels Bohr were officially appointed at CalTech, in which year they lectured? I've read various biographies of Schrödinger; I haven't found a single source which claims that he was affiliated with CalTech. Just having a single source[42] is not enough. The source doesn't say anything about the nature of the lecture. Alexander Todd also lectured at UC Berkeley. This source[43] says that it was a visiting professorship. However, after further studies by me, it was revealed that the visiting professorship was only a lecture for few days. Max Born visited CalTech several times in 1920s to deliver short lectures. He doesn't make the cut. There are various Nobel laureates who have delivered short lectures at universities, and they are not counted in this list or by the universities. Ber31 (talk) 12:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
I've removed Daniel Tsui from Columbia's list. Ber31 (talk) 12:23, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
First of all, for "it is common for universities to allow professors to lecture without any official appointments", I was the first person to point this out in the list and removed most unqualified lecturers/speakers from affiliates. So you do not have to convince me of this. These lecturers are award-based visitors who assume no formal duties. Giving public lectures or seminars is not a form of duty. Personally, I'd given such lectures too often. But this is not what we are discussing here. What we are discussing here is, quite specifically, that whether those visitors from Europe invited by Robert Millikan at Caltech are such award-based visitors who assumed no formal duties. And, if there are any sources supporting our claims. I appreciate the fact that you have studied the sources in detail, and I'd agree to remove all such visitors at Caltech if you have found reliable sources. For Max Born's case, please let me know the sources you have found stating "short lectures". On the other hand, I have replied above for Fairchild visitors, in case you did not notice. Once again, the reason why I set up criterion 3) and asked you to join the discussion is that I realized it is problematic to exclude all award-based visitors since some visitors did assume formal duties. Minimumbias (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
In a word, the core idea is that academic affiliation in the list should be extended to "degree program, employment, and other positions with actual academic duties assumed by laureates". Minimumbias (talk) 20:53, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
1. If Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Hendrik Lorentz and Niels Bohr were officially appointed at CalTech, in which year they lectured at the university? The source doesn't say anything about the nature of the visiting professorship - in such cases, you need more sources. Alexander Todd's lecture at UC Berkeley was claimed by this source[44] as visiting professorship. However, it was revealed that the visiting professorship was only a lecture for few days. Without strong evidence, people shouldn't be added to any list.
2. For Max Born's case, this source[45] was the only source on the page when I removed his name from the page. The source says that his visit was in December 1925. That was a short visit. The other source says that he was a visiting professor at CalTech in 1920s. So he will probably qualify.
3. I agree that removing award-type visiting professorships will result in controversy. When it comes to counting laureates, I'm conservative, others are liberal, and you are somewhere in the middle. We have to find the right balance. Ber31 (talk) 04:46, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
First, it is not me who wishes to add all these laureates at Caltech. It is another editor named "SunnyvaleCentrist". If you look at the editing history of the list, I had repeatedly request him/her to provide sources. And the above are the sources that he/she provided. In addition, I had filtered out several unqualified affiliates. Secondly, I was being conservative, until I saw the case of Fairchild visitors at Caltech, especially the case of Gerard 't Hooft who published a paper under Caltech's affiliation and several visitors classifying such visiting positions as "academic appointment". This is why I've slightly extended the criterion of affiliation and invited you to join the discussion. Finally, for those laureates who were attracted by Robert Millikan, including Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, as I said above it was another issue. I will set up another section of discussion. @Ber31 see below. Minimumbias (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
From the perspective of someone who went to Caltech, programs such as the Fairchild Visiting Scholar and historical programs like Millikan's are a big part of what makes such a small school competitive on the international stage. Similar programs at other schools (Harvard, Colombia, MIT) serve(d) a similar purpose and are an indication of the quality of the research and researchers at a given school. That said, most of the visitors brought in by these programs don't materially contribute to the school on the individual level. Just visiting a university does not mean you are affiliated with that university. Some visiting scholars do teach a course or obtain some other appointment/responsibility. Defining where 'affiliation' starts and 'visiting' ends is not easy when dealing with a variety of institutions. I am comfortable with the approach taken by Minimumbias in the next section (#Regarding Visiting Positions as Affiliations). Elriana (talk) 21:43, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Cornell A.D. White Professors

Cornell's A.D. White Professorship imposes no duty requirements. In particular the only mandate is to "present free lectures that are open to the Cornell Community and the public." (http://adwhiteprofessors.cornell.edu/professor-at-large-lectures%20listing/). Awardees are only required to visit the campus "for about a week in each three-year period". (https://adwhiteprofessors.cornell.edu/). This is exactly similar to Harvard's Morris Loeb Lectureship (https://www.physics.harvard.edu/events/lectureships) which has been explicitly mentioned as negative example, unlike the long-term Morris Loeb Lectureship which requires awardees to present a formal, term-long course.

The Official Nobel Prize website considers this only as a prize or honorary distinction: (https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/chemistry/laureates/1967/eigen-bio.html) "Eigen holds the following honours and distinctions: Bodenstein prize of the Deutsche Bunsengesellschaft, 1956; .... ndrew D. White Professor at large at Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1965;"

Of all the 10 AD White Professors on this list, only Kip Thorne and Amartya Sen include it on their official C.V. as a visiting appointment. The rest have no mention of it. Laureates can have very different and liberal definitions of 'appointment', and adding A.D. White Professorships makes a mockery of this entire list - it leaves it open for people to add any and every instance of guest lectures or talks at other universities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rueynshard (talk • contribs) 00:14, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The issue with AD White Professors-at-large at Cornell is that it is indeed an academic appointment. It is professorship-at-large with a definite duration of appointment, which is similar to adjunct professorship by nature instead of visiting professorship. Therefore the classification of visiting professorship stated in the lead does not really apply. Minimumbias (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Award-based Visiting Professorships (and other problems)

The award-based visiting professorship is controversial. The Visiting Miller Professors at UC Berkeley aren't allowed to count the professorship as a sabbatical leave.[46] R.J. Roberts lists Visiting Miller Professorship in "Society Memberships and Award" [47]. Fairchild Visiting Scholarships are award-based appointments rather than official academic appointments at Caltech. Visiting Miller Professors or Fairchild Visiting Scholars or other award-based visiting professors should be counted if and only if they have published paper under university's affiliation or done some significant research at the university. Ber31 (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Summer school: What about those who have spent two summer schools at a university? Summer terms provide important opportunities for many early scholars. And some have done important research during the summer term.

Cambridge University: I don't know much about British university system. However, the Medicial Research Council Laboratory of Molecular Biology isn't managed by Cambridge University. Sources such as this[48] says nothing. Ber31 (talk) 09:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Emily Greene Balch: She only took scattered courses at the University of Chicago.[49] I don't think she was enrolled in a degree program.

Emilio Segrè and Francis Crick: If Emilio Segrè's appointment at Columbia and Crick's appointment at Harvard were official, in which year(s) they lectured at those universities? The year should be clear. I've searched Emilio Segrè's biography (both online and in the library), and I have found no evidence that he was ever officially appointed by Columbia.

Sources are not clear all the time. Some sources don't make distinction between award-based visiting appointments and official visiting appointments. Take this[50] source. According to the source, Bethe was Visiting Professor at Harvard University in 1982. However, I showed above that it was only an award-based appointment. The same website claims that William Fowler was Visiting Professor at MIT in 1966.[51] I'm totally unconvinced. I have read the biography of Fowler, and I haven't found evidence that he was officially appointed by MIT. When one source doesn't make it clear, two (or more) sources are needed. Ber31 (talk) 09:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you would, after such a long time, come back and argue exactly the same topics discussed in previous sections of the Talk Page. But here are my responses.
1) Currently, the policies are extremely clear for visiting positions: employment-based positions are all counted, and award/honor-based are counted if the positions require employment-level duties or the visitors themselves classified the positions as "employment/appointment" in their CVs or reliable websites. For those visiting positions of which the nature is unclear but are mentioned in some reliable sources, we'd count them for now, unless other reliable sources explicitly disprove. The rationale of these policies has been discussed extensively in previous sections: "Regarding Visiting Positions as Affiliations" as well as "The issue of 'Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar'at Caltech". Editor "Elriana" had explicitly expressed her support right before section "Regarding Visiting Positions as Affiliations". No one had expressed objections since then, and consensus had been assumed. But now you come back and argue.
2) I have been implementing the aforementioned policies and carried out the maintenance process since then, in which you contributed trivially. All affiliations of the Nobel laureates I have examined so far are supported by at least one reliable source. Anyone who is interested may verify the affiliations themselves. Thus, if your statement regarding "neutrality" of the page quality is questioning or serves as a personal attack towards what I have been doing or my work, I'd not allow that and I'd urge you to take down that "neutrality" template as soon as possible. Or, I will do so in a timely manner. On the other hand, if your statement is 100% aimed towards the counting policies but not my implementation of them, I can elaborate and summarize the rationale why we made such policies - I will do so below.
3) Counting policy is not mathematics in which things are either right or wrong and everyone uses the same standard/criterion. Regarding the counting policies, a point that you don't agree does not make it "controversial" or "not neutral", and it'd be wrong to simply say your point of view is "neutral". This applies to anyone.
- Objectively speaking, I can say your view is very conservative compared to all others who had expressed their opinions in the Talk Page above. Your view, quite simply, is that visiting positions should only be counted when they were employment-based positions or were award/honor-based positions which had produced papers or similar significant end products. But, why? In practice, in the past implementing your view had resulted in serious controversies and backlash from several other editors. From another perspective, take the award/honor-based "Fairchild Scholars" at Caltech as an example. It is a fact that this scholarship does not require employment-level duties, but several Nobel laureates themselves have classified the positions as "academic appointment". Do you want to argue with them personally why they think that way? Even if you are really able to talk to them in person and draw your conclusions, you cannot add those into Wikipedia because Wikipedia does not allow original research. In addition, the award/honor-based "Visiting Miller Professorship" explicitly requires research proposals & end-of-term reports and research duties at UC Berkeley, regardless how the laureates classify this professorship. This has nothing to do with "sabbatical", which does not directly determine the nature of a visiting position.
- In addition, your view is also very idealistic and ignores the fact that not all visiting positions are well-recorded in archives and online sources. Let me re-iterate: Wikipedia editors are not historians and are not responsible for original researches. If a reliable source "A" states a laureate was a visiting professor at a university but does not mention the nature of such visit, I'd go online and search extensively for verification from other sources "B", "C", etc (this is what I have been doing). If there is no other reliable source available, I'd count the laureate for now because you cannot argue with reliable source A, otherwise it is original research/view which is prohibited in Wikipedia.
4) Summer school - up to now, I have never seen a laureate explicitly said he/she attended summer school at a university twice or more. And up to now I have never seen any laureate who had explicitly mentioned certain summer term played a crucial part in their career. I'd agree to consider adding these laureates for certain universities if they explicitly say so.
5) Long time ago I'd listed reliable sources to support the official connection between "The MRC LMB" and Cambridge University. They are in the "Note" of Cambridge University. T
6) As for Emily Greene Balch, I have not yet examined Nobel Peace Prize winners, so I can't say anything now. However, there are currently two reliable sources supporting her affiliation. Your words "I don't think she was enrolled in a degree program" is original thought/view which is prohibited in Wikipedia. Same applies to Emilio Segrè at Columbia and William Fowler at MIT. These are all cases when sources do not explicitly state the nature of the visit positions. Thus, according to what I have said above, they are counted for now. You just can't add your own view/opinion to Wikipedia. Finally, I can't say anything about Francis Crick at Harvard since up to this date I have not yet examined Nobel Prize Winners in Physiology/Medicine before 1970. Minimumbias (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, for MRC LMB in Cambridge, and I'm still looking for definite online sources to prove its relationship with University of Cambridge. Before May 2013, LMB is inside Addenbrooke's Hospital, a hospital of the University of Cambridge; after May 2013, although LMB is inside Cambridge Biomedical Campus, I just found an evidence that it is however not led by University of Cambridge, but by MRC only. [1] Thus affiliates after 2013 will be excluded. Minimumbias (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me be very clear: my statement is 100% aimed towards the counting policies. Regarding the counting policies, my view doesn't make any page controversial" or "not neutral". However, if I think that certain page is not neutral, I can put the tag. Other Wikipedians should also judge the page. Please don't remove the tag. [52] The tag should stay for few days, and once the issue is resolved, you can remove it. My contributions to the page hasn't been trivial. I've removed many bad entries from the page and added many new entries. No one is the owner of a particular page. I've never tried to push original thought or view. I think we can resolve the issue without (mild) personal attacks. Let me be super specific.

1. Patience: You need to have some patience. On 24th Nov. 2017, I removed Max Born from CatTech count.[53] You reverted my edit.[54] Later you understood that what I was saying was correct and you removed Born from the CalTech count.

2. The current policy for visiting positions was made by you. I think the policy is good, except for award-based visitng professorships. You and Elriana agree with each other. I disagree. Whether a visiting professorship is classifed as a sabbatical leave or not by a university indirectly determines the nature of visiting professorship. Take the case of Douglas Diamond. [55] He was the Fischer Black Visiting Professor of Financial Economics at MIT in 2015-16. The Fischer Black Visiting Professor of Financial Economics is a proper visiting professorship, MIT allows it to be counted toward a sabbatical leave. That is not case with the Visiting Miller Professorship.

3. Fairchild Scholars: Some professors do put award-based visiting professorships in "academic appointment", and some are more careful, and they put it in "awards". However, editors have to make the distinction. Take the case of Masatoshi Koshiba. He has classified Regent Lectureship - which is purely an award-based lecture at UCR - in "academic appointments".[56]

4. MRC LMB, Cambridge: LMB was officially located at Addenbrooke's Hospital before 2013. However, it wasn't managed by the University of Cambridge. After 1962, it become an independent lab. It is like our Salk Institute in San Diego. Currently, this is the biggest problem with the list. Those who were affiliated with LMB after 1962 should be removed.

5. Daniel C. Tsui: I have studied Historical Dictionary of Science and Technology in Modern China. The book says nothing about Tsui's affiliation with Columbia University.

6. Emily Greene Balch: My words "I don't think she was enrolled in a degree program" is not original thought or view, it is a fact. She only took scattered courses at Chicago. She was never enrolled in a degree program. No source says that she was enrolled in a degree program. The two reliable sources supporting her affiliation only say that she took some cources at Chicago.

7. Sheldon Lee Glashow: He was Tetelman Fellow at Yale in November 4-6, 1998.[57] Tetelman Fellowship at Yale is an award or honor.

8. Reliable source: You are missing something: it is possible for a so-called reliable source to publish wrong or misleading information. This source [58] says that Bethe was Visiting Professor at Harvard University in 1982. However, it was only an award-based appointment. The same website (history.aip.org) claims that William Fowler was Visiting Professor at MIT in 1966. What if it was only an award-based visiting professorship? I have read the biography of Fowler - there is no evidence that he was officially appointed by MIT. When one source doesn't make it clear, two (or more) sources are needed. Yes, you can argue with a so-called reliable source - especially when it has published unclear information about another person.

9. Original research: According to Wikipedia:No original research - The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. As for Emily Greene Balch, two reliable sources supporting her affiliation with UChicago only say that she took some cources at UChicago. They don't say that she enrolled in a degree-program. According to "No original research", she shouldn't be counted as an alumni of UChicago. As for Cambridge University/MRC LMB, the source only say that LMB was officially located at Addenbrooke's Hospital before 2013. They don't say that LMB was managed by Cambridge University. Using a source to imply or reach a conclusion not stated by the source is original research. Ber31 (talk) 09:25, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————————

1. [59] According to Wikipedia policy, any editor can remove the "neutrality template" when "[i]t is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given." If you disagree with certain points in counting policies as they are now, I think it is not reasonable to put "neutrality" template, because these policies were not designed to favor particular universities or editors. The neutrality template is valid when, for instance, the policies are not fair and some schools would benefit more than others.
2. You mentioned "patience". Honestly I do not want to reply this personal comment. As for the case of "Max Born", notice that it was another editor "Sunnyvalecentrist" who kept adding laureates to the Caltech's list. When you pointed out the possible issue of "Max Born" and removed this affiliation, you did not have enough sources, if any, to back up your judgement and removal. So it was mainly your own judgement or guess. It was only after I had done extensive searches online (see previous sections in Talk Page above) could I prove with many reliable sources that "Max Born", "Erwin Schrodinger", "Werner Heisenberg", etc, were simply giving public lectures at Caltech. You did not know the answer for sure; you guessed it right, to an extent.
3. Objectively speaking, what I mentioned in "2" above is not uncommon in your edits in this Nobel laureates counting page. Many of your edits here involved certain level of personal judgement or "guess", sometimes too much, without enough citations from online sources (just one example here, more examples below).
- Example 1: "Daniel Tsui". Let me quote what is written in the book (Appendix C, page 510-511), [60]: "A China-born physicist whose areas of research included electrical properties of thin films... Daniel Chee Tsui was previously the Arthur LeGrand Doty Professor of Electrical Engineering at Princeton University and an adjunct senior research scientist in the Department of Physics at Columbia University. He is currently a research professor at Boston University..." Minimumbias (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Later, I will continue to add replies to your comments one by one below. Minimumbias (talk) 19:21, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

———————————————————————————

4. Sabbatical leave only relates to the home university, but not the host university. You words "indirectly determines the nature of visiting professorship" is your personal analysis. In academia, to be very specific, there are five kinds of visiting positions:
1) Employment-based visiting position. This forms employer-employee affiliation.
2) Award/honor-based visiting position, with external award that requires employment-level duties(e.g., Fulbright Scholarship, Ford Foundation Fellowship, Carnegie Foundation Fellowship, etc). Such external awards require employment-level duties, either teaching (lecturing) or research or both. Host universities have to accommodate such visitors by providing necessary teaching/research facilities, and visitors have to be responsible for what they are doing in the host universities and report to the universities and external award agencies (as the third parties). This forms official academic affiliation between the laureate and the host university through work, with a third-party involvement. A similar case for postdocs is that they can receive external fellowship from NSF or similar foundations (instead of internal research assistant-ship or teaching assistant-ship) but are still affiliated with their universities through work. No employer-employee relation has to be formed.
3) Award/honor-based visiting position, with internal award that requires employment-level duties (e.g., Morris Loeb Long-term Lectureship at Harvard, Visiting Miller Professorship at Berkeley, etc). This visiting position establishes official affiliation. The reasoning is the same as in "2)" above, except that there is little- if any -involvement of a third party.
4) Award/honor-based visiting position, with external award that does not require employment-level duties (e.g., Guggenheim Fellowship[2]). This visiting position is tricky, as almost nothing is required. Some laureates classified it as pure "award/honor" and others classified it as "appointment/employment". The reason why we have to respect the classification made by laureates themselves is that, although nothing is required, a laureate may form affiliation with the host university at his or her will through the kind of work discussed in "2)". To put it in another way, one cannot ignore the fact that some laureates had actively got involved in teaching or research work in their host universities, forging affiliation, even though they were not required to do so and no employment was made. In this case it is reasonable for them to classify the visiting positions as "appointment/employment".
5) Award/honor-based visiting position, with internal award that does not require employment-level duties (e.g., Fairchild Scholarship at Caltech, Morris Loeb Short-term Lectureship at Harvard, etc). This visiting position is most common among laureates. See "4)" above. Minimumbias (talk) 21:15, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

——————————————————————————————————————————————————

5. As I mentioned already, when a reliable source A does not specifically point out the nature of a visiting position, I'd go online and search extensively for other reliable sources B, C, etc, instead of spending more time arguing here. But you can't say the reliable source A is wrong with your own judgement - instead, you can say other reliable sources are more detailed.
- Example 2: The HIP website (history.aip.org) is not wrong by stating that "Hans Bethe" was a visiting professor at Harvard, because Hans did pay a visit. He was excluded from Harvard because another more-detailed reliable source elucidates the nature of such visit.
- Example 3: The HIP webiste is also not wrong for William A. Fowler, because he did pay a visit to MIT. And I have found MIT's official appointment:[61].
If no other reliable source is available (such cases exist, but are rare - if one really spends some time searching online and carefully examining the sources), then the policy made is to count the laureate for now. This is not original thought or implying a conclusion that is not stated by the reliable source A. In fact, source A does say "visiting positions"; denying such statement is original thought and may result in controversies. Again, in practice, not all visiting positions are well-recorded, but these cases are rare. Minimumbias (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

————————————————————————————————————————————————————

6. For Emily Greene Balch, I really can't make further judgement now since I have not yet covered Peace Prize.
7. As for MRC LMB, now I have found official sources stating its affiliation with the University of Cambridge: [62], [63] and [64]. In fact, I just noticed that the website of LMB is under University of Cambridge.
8. Up to now, as far as I can remember, Sheldon L. Glashow at Yale & Paul Greengard at MIT are the only recent removals that you made which I completely agree, since these removals are backed up by reliable sources. Moreover, I can tell you more about the maintenance work I'd planned to carry out: after I finish examining Physiology/Medicine, Literature, and Peace, I will go over all "visiting positions" again to make sure they are valid affiliations and no mistake has been made. You may start examining these visiting positions now if you wish, which would be helpful for improving the overall quality of the page.

Minimumbias (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

1. As for Daniel Tsui, you are correct. I somehow missed the Columbia part... As for Emilio Segrè, more sources are needed. The year has to be exact.

2. As for Cambridge/LMB, I don't know what sort of affiliation Cambridge has with LMB. I don't have much idea about British research centers. Someone with BS or MS from a British university can shed some light on this matter.

3. Summer school: Murray Gell-Mann was Research Associate at UIUC twice (1951 and 1953).[65] His collaboration with Low at Illinois resulted in Gell-Mann and Low theorem.[66] He should be included in the UIUC count.

4. Visiting Miller Professorship, Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar, and Overseas Fellowship at Cambridge: Visiting Miller Professorship requires research duty. If other editors don't have any objection, they can be added. As for Fairchild Distinguished Visiting Scholar, it doesn't require teaching or research. Masatoshi Koshiba has mixed award-based visiting professorship and proper visiting professorship in "academic appointments".[67] Daniel L. McFadden only pointed out that he visited CalTech in 1990 as a Fairchild Fellow.[68] As for Overseas Fellowship at Cambridge, it doesn't require teaching or research and also doesn't provide stipend. We need a consistent counting policy. Overseas Fellowship at Cambridge should be removed even if a laureate has classified it in "academic appointments" and Visiting Miller Professorship should be included even if a laureate has classified it in "awards and honors". By the way, Aziz Sancar was Visiting Miller Professor in Spring 2002.[69][70] Ber31 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Is the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) part of the University of Cambridge? See Pelham, Hugh (2013). "Building for the future". ELife. 2. doi:10.7554/eLife.00856.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) which says

Perhaps the single most important factor that distinguishes the LMB from a university department, and from some research institutes, is that over 80% of the funding comes from a single source (the MRC)

.
The other clue is in the domain name which clearly implies that the LMB is part of the University because the address www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk contains cam.ac.uk why would it use that address if it wasn't part of the university? @Ber31: @Minimumbias: Duncan.Hull (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, we have moved this discussion of MRC LMB to a new section at the end of this talk page, where I have listed a same point (the domain name) as yours. Please refer to the discussion there. @Duncan.Hull: Minimumbias (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

________________________________________________________________________

1. For Emilio Segrè, according to [71], he was at Columbia in 1935 and summer 1936. In this interview, he mentioned he involved in some research work. Combining with other sources, [72], [73], [74], it is clear that he was teaching and researching at Columbia in 1935.
2. I will add Murray Gell-Mann to UIUC and Aziz Sancar to Berkeley. Daniel L. McFadden used to have a readable CV at Berkeley's website, but now it's blocked. According to current source from Nobel webiste, he should excluded as a Caltech's affiliate.
3. As for Masatoshi Koshiba at Caltech (Fairchild scholar) and Overseas Fellowship at Cambridge, for now I'd like to keep the original policies (they are the 5th type of visiting positions I mentioned above) and wait a bit for other editors' opinions. Again, those who listed these award-based visiting positions as "appointment/employment" may have got involved in actual teaching and research in their host universities. Minimumbias (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
1. As for Emilio Segrè, he makes the cut.
2. As for the UIUC count, I have provided a note on why Murray Gell-Mann was added.
3. I agree. Ber31 (talk) 09:18, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
DANIEL L. McFADDEN is added back to Caltech. Here's his CV at Berkeley: [75]. Minimumbias (talk) 23:00, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Since McFadden has put "Sherman Fairchild Distinguished Scholar" in "Academic Appointments", he can be added back to the CalTech count. Erwin Neher has also put it in academic appointments.[76] Although it is an award-based visiting appointment, most of the appointees were involved in some sort of teaching or research. Ber31 (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I realized Guggenheim Fellowship is an external award which requires no employment-duty.[3] I have updated the 4 types of visiting positions to 5 types. Many awardees who received this fellowship actively involved in teaching or research work in some universities. It is another reason why, when it comes to award/honor-based visiting positions which require no employment-duty, we need to respect the classification made by laureates themselves.Minimumbias (talk) 22:11, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

_________________________________________

Emily Greene Balch spent a semester studying sociology under Albion Small at University of Chicago, but eventually decided to go to Europe to further her study in economics.[4] [5] She is thus counted as a graduate attendee at University of Chicago (or, she may be counted as a researcher/visitor at the University).

As for Balch, she makes the cut. Ber31 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

__________________________________________

1. I will remove T. S. Eliot from the UChicago count. He only gave four lectures at the university in 1950.[77] (Book: Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher, page: 56) His appointment was an award or honor.

2. The list is becoming more impressive. A formula for 'Normalized' is needed.

3. Franco Modigliani: He was a research consultant at UChicago. That is a non-academic position.

4. UC Berkeley/Lawrence Berkeley Lab: I agree. Before 1971, the Lawrence Berkeley Lab was technically affiliated with the UC Berkeley Department of Physics.

5. Argonne National Laboratory/UChicago: As for Stanford Linear Accelerator Center/Stanford University, the research lab is a part of the university.[78] As for the Argonne National Laboratory, it is not a part of UChicago. It is only managed by the university. Counting the affiliates of the Argonne National Laboratory as the affiliates of UChicago may be over interpreting the meaning of "affiliation". Ber31 (talk) 10:46, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Yes, according to the source, T.S.Eliot should be excluded from UChicago's count. But Franco Modigliani served a term of research associate and two terms of research consultants.[6] He is counted as an affiliate of UChicago.
2. According to official sources, SLAC (STANFORD LINEAR ACCELERATOR CENTER) has always been a national lab of D.O.E.; however, Stanford leased the land to the U.S. federal government, and has been officially managing the lab since the beginning (1962).[7] [8] I think by saying "[a]lthough it is a part of Stanford University", the AIP website actually means Stanford owns the land. In 2008, the D.O.E changed the name "SLAC" to "SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory."[9] [10] Similar reasoning applies to "Argonne & Fermi - UChicago", "LBNL & LLNL - University of California" and "JPL - Caltech". The universities all contributed to the founding of these labs (regardless of the ownership of land), respectively, and play a significant role in operating/managing the labs. The universities are responsible for research activities occurring inside the labs, and researchers must report their activities to these operating universities. This forms an official academic affiliation (although different from the employee-employer affiliation between the researchers and D.O.E/NASA).
This is like a company. The investors are the employers, and CEO, CFO, and all other company staff are just employees. This is employer-employee affiliation, or affiliation through employment. But any junior member may be affiliated with a group or a team, which has a manager, and the team manager is further affiliated with the managing director, and so on. This is structural affiliation. Same applies to the case of national labs.The D.O.E or NASA are the employers, and all others are employees. In addition, the operating universities are like company CEOs, and the researchers are like company staff; they form structural affiliations. In a word, both academic employment and structural affiliation are academic affiliations. This resembles the reasoning for award/honor-based visiting positions that require employment-level duties.
3. By the way, because of the large number of sources/references cited in the Nobel counting page, template "reflist" is constantly overloaded (exceeds space limit). I've made several adjustment to constrain the space within the limit. For instance, the sources for universities with 1-5 nobel laureates will not be fully displayed. Later when going over Nobel peace prize & literature prize winners, I will test other citation methods instead of continuing calling for template "reflist". Minimumbias (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Óscar Arias was a fellow at Harvard IOP in Spring 1998. IOP Fellowship isn't an academic appointment. "... Fellows lead a not-for-credit study group, participate in Institute activities, and engage in informal interchange with students and faculty."[79] I will remove Arias from Harvard count.

2. Argonne National Laboratory/UChicago: It is different from Berkeley Lab/UC Berkeley. Before 1971, the Lab was technically affiliated with the UC Berkeley Department of Physics. Counting Lab's staffs as UC Berkeley's affiliates will not result in any controversy. The Argonne National Laboratory has never been affiliated with any department of UChicago. It is only managed by the university. UChicago has the most liberal method to count Nobel laureates. However, it is somewhat reluctant to count Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov.[80] Abrikosov was a long-term scientist at Argonne. The lab not just works with UChicago - it works in concert with other universities, industry and other national laboratories.[81] Many scientists has also had non-formal appointments at Argonne. Ada Yonath is counted as Argonne affiliated by DOE.[82] However, her CV says nothing about Argonne.[83]

3. As for Peter Grünberg, he has mentioned that he was a visitor to Argonne for a year.[84] He can be included. Alan J. Heeger, Brian Kobilka, Johann Deisenhofer and John Pople should be excluded. They were never visitors at Argonne, they were simply facility users at the lab.

4. Laureates who have mixed award-based visiting professorship and proper visiting professorship: J. Michael Kosterlitz has mixed award-based visiting professorships and proper visiting professorships in his CV.[85] He was visiting professor at Princeton University, Bell Laboratories and Harvard University in 1978. Also in 1978, he was appointed Senior Lecturer in Birmingham (England). It looks as if he went to lecture tour in the US in 1978, before his appointment as Senior Lecturer in Birmingham. There are other laureates who have mixed award-based visiting professorship and proper visiting professorship. This creates a problem.

5. Eric A. Cornell: He was only a teaching fellow at Harvard Extension School in 1989.[86] That is not a proper academic appointment. Many professors who were appointed at nearby schools teach at Harvard Extension School for a short period. Laureates with short-term appointments at extension schools should be excluded. Ber31 (talk) 06:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1. I have not really started going over Nobel peace & literature prize winners. Indeed, Óscar Arias should not be counted as affiliate. And yes, Eric A. Cornell, being a teaching fellow at Harvard extension school, should not be counted. Extension school is similar to summer school. I will add a note to the counting page.
2. There is no such thing called "proper visiting professorship". You can't use your subjective criteria to name a visiting position as "proper". However, "employment-based" and "award/honor-based" are objective descriptions. Now, J. Michael Kosterlitz was not just having a lecture tour in 1978 (i.e., award/honor-based or personal); he did get involved in research [[87]]. As for "[t]here are other laureates who have mixed award-based visiting professorship and proper visiting professorship", I had noticed this issue while I was doing the maintenance work and in most cases I was able to determine the nature of different visiting positions. If the nature is really not clear, I had left the laureates in the list for now. Again, as I said before I'd go through the visiting positions again - just to make sure there's no mistake - once I've completed all the maintenance work.
3. As for national labs in the U.S, the central topic is whether staff members of a lab being officially managed by a university should be counted as affiliates of the university. I think yes, and the reasons and argument are already given above. Researchers do form affiliations with their Managers. And to be specific, there are three general cases:
1) Argonne National Lab. Currently, the lab belongs to D.O.E and is directly managed by a limited liability company named "UChicago Argonne LLC.", which is a subsidiary of the University of Chicago.[11] However, the land of the lab is purchased by and belongs to the federal government.[12] But for Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov, I don't know how you can tell that UChicago is "somewhat reluctant" to include him. Inclusion is inclusion, and I'd not use such "subjective" description/guess in Wikipedia. And how do you know (not guess) that Alan J. Heeger, Brian Kobilka, etc are "never visitors at Argonne"? The only thing I've seen is that D.O.E has listed them as affiliates. In Wikipedia, a claim should be provable with reliable sources. Given this, I will also comply and change the current description of "Argonne researcher" to "Argonne affiliate".
2) Jet Propulsion Lab (JPL) and Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC). The lands of JPL and SLAC belong to Caltech and Stanford, respectively, and that might be why the labs are counted as a part of the universities. [13] [14][15]
3) Lawrence Berkeley National Lab (LBNL). The land always belongs to the University of California, before and after 1971. And it is unclear if the lab is still counted as a part of the University of California today. [16] But this bothers us the least since University of California is not a university. Minimumbias (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

1. Agree. Extension schools are like summer schools, and extension school-affiliates should only be included if they have produced some significant results.

2. Proper visiting professorship = Employment-based visiting professorship.

3. UChicago is somewhat reluctant to include Abrikosov. In addition, Alexei Abrikosov of Argonne National Laboratory (which has been operated by the University of Chicago for the U.S. Department of Energy since the laboratory was established in 1946) shared the 2003 Nobel Prize in Physics “for pioneering contributions to the theory of superconductors and superfluids.”[88] Alan J. Heeger, Brian Kobilka, etc have never mentioned in their CV about Argonne. As for Grünberg, he has mentioned that he was a visitor to Argonne for a year, so he can be included.[89] What I am trying to say is that facility users at Argonne should be excluded from the UChicago count. Ber31 (talk) 06:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

4. Robert Woodrow Wilson: He is a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.[90] SAO and the Harvard College Observatory (HCO) form the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. However, SAO has nothing to do with Harvard University, it is a research institute of the Smithsonian Institution.

5. Gerald M. Edelman (Again!): He doesn't classify the visiting position at Harvard as "employment/appointment", his visiting position is listed in "Lectureships" alongside other award-type visiting positions.[91] His affiliation as visiting proffesor at Harvard was an award or honor. He was Medical House Officer at the Massachusetts General Hospital. That is an administrative duty. Thus he will be excluded from the Harvard count. I removed him on 23th December 2017.[92] I will remove him again!

6. Albert Szent-Györgyi: He gave series of lectures at Harvard Medical School in 1935.[93][94] It wasn't an employment-based visiting professorship, and thus he will be removed. Ber31 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)


As for Alexei Alexeyevich Abrikosov, I had noticed that statement in UChicago's website. But I don't know how you can conclude that the school is "somewhat reluctant" to include this laureate. This is your personal analysis/feeling. More importantly, this discussion has gone out of the scope of the policy discussion regarding "award/honor-based visiting positions". This is a discussion of individual cases. I will create a new section below. Minimumbias (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Ref

  1. ^ http://cambridge-biomedical.com/about-the-campus-2/masterplan-2/
  2. ^ https://www.gf.org/about/faq/
  3. ^ https://www.gf.org/about/faq/
  4. ^ https://books.google.com/books?id=gshDDyZg7fcC&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=Emily+Greene+Balch+uchicago&source=bl&ots=SHOuF3Ke-S&sig=2cvU5TLNbIn_xPNBxeb6bTkbnJw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyyKyS-b_ZAhVK8IMKHef6B-M4ChDoAQhBMAU#v=onepage&q=Emily%20Greene%20Balch%20uchicago&f=false
  5. ^ https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=lib_articles
  6. ^ https://cowles.yale.edu/archives/uc-staff-39-55
  7. ^ https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-overview
  8. ^ https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-history
  9. ^ https://history.aip.org/phn/21609005.html
  10. ^ https://history.aip.org/phn/21609006.html
  11. ^ https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapid=46954838
  12. ^ http://www.anl.gov/about-argonne/timeline
  13. ^ http://www.caltech.edu/content/jet-propulsion-laboratory
  14. ^ https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/jpl.pdf
  15. ^ https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/about/slac-history
  16. ^ https://www.ucop.edu/laboratory-management/index.html

Discussion of Individual Cases

The following is a copy from the previous section.

4. Robert Woodrow Wilson: He is a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory.[113] SAO and the Harvard College Observatory (HCO) form the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. However, SAO has nothing to do with Harvard University, it is a research institute of the Smithsonian Institution.

5. Gerald M. Edelman (Again!): He doesn't classify the visiting position at Harvard as "employment/appointment", his visiting position is listed in "Lectureships" alongside other award-type visiting positions.[114] His affiliation as visiting proffesor at Harvard was an award or honor. He was Medical House Officer at the Massachusetts General Hospital. That is an administrative duty. Thus he will be excluded from the Harvard count. I removed him on 23th December 2017.[115] I will remove him again!

6. Albert Szent-Györgyi: He gave series of lectures at Harvard Medical School in 1935.[116][117] It wasn't an employment-based visiting professorship, and thus he will be removed. Ber31 (talk) 12:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)''


1. Robert Woodrow Wilson is a senior scientist in Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (HSC CfA)[95][96], an affiliated organization of Harvard University. This is official and there is no controversy, and I'm not sure why you'd "deny" this fact. Even the Smithsonian Institution describes SAO as "affiliated with Harvard College Observatory". [97][98] Your source from [99] only indicates that Dr. Wilson participated in the "The Submillimeter Array" project under Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) of HSC CfA.
2. Gerald Edelmam: he does not explicitly classify his visiting positions.[100] In particular, he held visiting professorships at Harvard in 1965, City University of New York in 1975, College de France in 1978 & 1985. You can't say these are award/honor-based positions simply because he mixed and put all visiting positions together. This is your personal guess. On the other hand, I am not claiming that these positions are qualified as affiliations. As I've said repeatedly in previous sections, there exist cases in which the nature of visiting positions is unclear (such cases are rare); but, again, as for now I'd leave these positions in the list to avoid controversies and for future references. Some further work targeted these positions will be done consistently and systematically, and you are welcomed to join later.
3. Albert Szent-Györgyi. Please argue with complete sources, not guesses. I have searched for as many sources as I can, and I realize the sources are divided:
Source A: Nobel official biography [101], National Foundation for Cancer Research [102] and Leopoldina (German National Academy of Sciences) [103] all claim that he was a visiting professor at Harvard in 1936. But they do not specify the nature of such visiting professorship.
Source B: Journal [104], Science [105] and other sources [106] state he was a visiting professor/lecturer at Harvard in 1935. These sources combined state Albert Szent-Györgyi visited Harvard in Feb. 1935 to give 3 lectures.
Since source B are more detailed, they should be used for the page. Albert Szent-Györgyi will not be counted as a Harvard affiliate according source B.
4. I carefully checked the Argonne-related papers of "Alan J. Heeger (Argonne Affiliate)", "Brian K. Kobilka (Argonne Affiliate)", "Johann Deisenhofer (Argonne Affiliate)", and "John A. Pople (Argonne Affiliate)". They have used the Advanced Photon Source (APS) at Argonne. But they do not form official academic affiliations with Argonne laboratory. So, yes, they should not be counted as UChicago's affiliates. As for other Argonne scientists and researchers, they are still counted.
5. Let me emphasize again. I have not completed the maintenance work - still in the process of examining Nobel peace prize winners. All visiting positions will be examined again after all the maintenance work is completed. Indeed, your recent edits did help to improve the quality of the page, which is good. And you have every right to make edits to the page. But in reality, the maintenance work is now being regularly interrupted and slowed down considerably, especially when I had to spend much time adding many words here in the Talk page. I'd appreciate if you can postpone your examination of visiting positions and act less like a peer reviewer of a research paper in Wikipedia (e.g., use more sources rather than guesses/opinions). Minimumbias (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Relationship between universities and research institutes needs a thorough examination. As for Berkeley lab/UC Berkeley, we have done that and reach a consensus. As for other universities/research centers, we can do that later. I am not guessing. I am using sources and on many occasions, I am right. Thanks for removing Alan J. Heeger, Brian K. Kobilka, Johann Deisenhofer and John A. Pople from the UChicago count. As I mentioned above, they were only facility users at Argonne. I will postpone my examination of the list, and you can continue with your work. Ber31 (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
"I am not guessing. I am using sources and on many occasions, I am right." Among all the affiliations (~10-15) you doubted recently in the Talk page above, you were wrong on about half of them because you formed your judgement based on 1-2 sources which do not offer complete information. For the other half, you were right in many occasions not because you have studied all possible sources and carefully drew your conclusions, but because you happened to find & read the sources that turn out to be the most complete after all. To be specific, each time I removed an affiliation you pointed out in the Talk Page, I had to search for many other sources besides the 1-2 sources you provided, in order to form a complete picture. Indeed, I admit that, due to the huge amount of maintenance work, I made mistakes sometimes by adding some unqualified affiliations to the list. That's why I've said repeatedly that I'd come back to examine all visiting positions again to make sure there's no mistake. Anyway, no matter what, we all have one thing in common: to improve the quality of the page to the best possible. Minimumbias (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
No, I wasn't wrong on half of them. I raised the issue of the inclusion of Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born in the CatTech count, and Alan J. Heeger, Brian Kobilka, Johann Deisenhofer and John Pople in the UChicago count. My conslusions are carefully drawn. Do you want an example? I removed Albert Szent-Györgyi from the Harvard count.[107] I knew that he didn't visited Harvard in 1936 because of what I read in a liberary. His only affiliation with Harvard was in 1935. He only gave series of lectures at Harvard Medical School in 1935. You reverted my edit[108], and later you understood that what I was saying was correct and you removed Albert Szent-Györgyi from the Harvard count.[109] As for Gerald Edelmam (and other laureates that I don't want to discuss right now), the jury is still out. You are obviously the leading contributor to the page. However, I have played my part in a positive way. Summer school and extension school affiliates are excluded because of me. You should continue with your good work, and after you finish the maintenance work, I will raise many more interesting points. Ber31 (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Do note that the examples you provided above are not the cases in which you were wrong. These are not the "wrong cases" I mentioned. But let me analyze these examples you provided one by one.
1) "Paul Dirac, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg and Max Born" was not an issue raised by you. There was another editor who kept adding these laureates to the list and I had noticed that inflation. The only source that editor provided at the time was from the official Nobel website, which does not specify the nature of these visiting positions. I kept asking for more detailed sources from that editor while searching for these sources myself online. Meanwhile, you guessed that these positions were award/honor-based positions without providing complete proof of sources. No, you did not. It was only after I spent much time searching online and found many sources could I show that these positions only involved public lectures.
2) "Alan J. Heeger, Brian Kobilka, Johann Deisenhofer and John Pople" case was a more typical one. You claimed that "they were never visitors at Argonne" and "are only facility users". But where's your proof that directly says they "never" visited Argonne and were "only" facility users? Their CVs? Note that when a reliable source does not mention a visit, it does not necessarily deny such visit, especially when D.O.E explicitly lists them as affiliates of Argonne. It was only after I had carefully read all of their Argonne-related papers could I drew conclusions that in their researches they only used the data collected from Argonne's Advanced Photon Source (sometimes with a contract with D.O.E), and that's it. They only included acknowledgement to Argonne at the end.
3) You really want to talk about the case of Albert Szent-Györgyi? Did you ever see that his official biography states he visited Harvard in 1936 instead of 1935? Did you ever see that National Foundation for Cancer Research and Leopoldina (German National Academy of Sciences) also state the visit was in 1936? And did you ever compare all the possible sources online and notice that they were divided? And how did you know he did not visit Harvard twice before reading and comparing all the possible sources? Unfortunately, I don't see any sign of your doing this comparison (but maybe you did, and I don't know), and all that I had seen was you stated your conclusion based on two Google-books which claim he visited Harvard Medical School in Feb.1935 to give a series of public lectures. But, with these two sources only, how could you deny/disprove that Albert Szent-Györgyi also paid a visit to Harvard in 1936?
4) I have mentioned many times that the visiting positions such as Gerald Edelmam at Harvard have unclear nature. Again, the current policy of inclusion is temporary and future work has been scheduled for such positions. The maintenance work is not completed yet.
5) Yes, for summer school and extension school, you take most credits. This is good. But these are not the "individual cases" we have been discussing. These are general counting policies.
6) Okay, go ahead and raise more interesting points later. Hopefully, it will continue to improve the quality of this page. Minimumbias (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
In this type of list, who is right and who is wrong is less important. When there is an investigation about a laureate, new facts can emerge. Because of the investigation of the nature of Francis Crick's affiliation with Harvard University, we know when he was affiliated with the university. Ber31 (talk) 06:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you are trying to discuss. Minimumbias (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Arthur H. Compton at Berkeley

1) First, these two sources [110] [111] cannot be used directly to determine the title of Arthur H. Compton and the nature of his affiliation with UC Berkeley. This is because the sources only say "He intended to..." and "He was planning to be ..." These were merely his thoughts.


2) This source [112] says,

Arthur Holly Compton: Systemwide

1893-1962 University Professor-at-Large

The University of California appointed Arthur Holly Compton as a Professor-at-Large for the spring semester of 1962.

In addition, within the left column of the source, each person in Memoriam except Compton has a campus affiliation. Thus, this source is telling us in the most direct way possible that this is an appointment from the University of California, and it never says the appointment is from University of California, Berkeley. The only thing this source mentioned about Berkeley is

Professor Compton taught at Berkeley in the Summer Sessions of 1921 and 1922 and was awarded the LL.D. degree at the Berkeley commencement exercises in May of 1930.

However, this source does not deny any further connection between Arthur H. Compton and UC Berkeley.


3) This source [113] directly says Arthur Holly Compton also held the title of "Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley". One can't assume personally that this title is only due to the fact that he taught two summer sessions at Berkeley. You can't always put in so much of your personal judgement. Right or wrong is based on sources, not personal opinions. Even though your intuition may tell you something is right/wrong, you can't use it in editing. You must find sources to directly support your intuition. Minimumbias (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

1. This source [114] directly says that Arthur Holly Compton held the title of "Professor of Physics" at UC Berkeley. So what was he teaching at UC Berkeley as "Professor of Physics"? Some advanced courses in quantum mechanics? Was he doing some research at Berkeley? The source says nothing. You cannot rely on one source.
2. This source[115] doesn't directly says Berkeley. Apart from the stuff that you mentioned above, it also says that Compton delivered some lectures. Compton arranged a series of lectures on the general subject of “Man, Science and Society.” The first lecture on the subject of “Science and the Changing World” was given on February 15, 1962, and the second lecture entitled “The Good Life in an Age of Science,” was given on February 22, 1962. It is totally unlikely that he delivered those lectures on Mars. He must have delivered them at a UC campus.
3. This source[116] says that He [Compton] was planning to be active in retirement as professor-at-large between Washington University, the University of California (Berkeley) and the College of Wooster (Ohio), and had gone to Berkeley to deliver a lecture series on "Man, Science and Society."
From 2 and 3, it becomes clear that the University of California appointed Arthur Holly Compton as Professor-at-Large for the spring semester of 1962 at its Berkeley campus. It is also clear that it wasn't a tenure/tenure-track academic appointment, and University Professor-at-large was a title from UC Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I understand your motivation & intention. But unfortunately, your logic has entered a dead end and is a very typical behavior of original research/synthesis [117], [118].
1) Why do you want to know what Compton was doing as a "Professor of Physics" in Berkeley? Does it change the fact that he held the title of "Professor"? Many many Nobel laureates list in their CVs that they were professors at certain universities without mentioning what they were actually doing there. Do you want to investigate what courses they taught and what researches they did in order to add them as affiliates to those universities?
2) Compton delivered those lectures on Berkeley campus as a University Professor-at-Large of University of California System. I don't see any problem.
3) Overall, your analysis is a typical behavior of synthesis and original research. For example, your claim that "University Professor-at-large was a title from UC Berkeley" is never mentioned in any source. It is a conclusion you drew after reviewing several sources. Please keep in mind that this is Wikipedia. I understand that you may wish to push this article towards the peer-reviewed level, which can stand the examination of researchers. I also have that intention or dream privately. But, Wikipedia is ultimately not the ideal place to achieve that due to policy constraint. We can only do our best here. Minimumbias (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
No, my behavior and work has nothing to do with synthesis and original research. Study this[119] source:
He had retired last year [1961] as distinguished service professor of natural philosophy in Washington University (St. Louis) where he had served as chancellor from 1945 until 1953. He was planning to be active in retirement as professor-at-large between Washington University, the University of California (Berkeley) and the College of Wooster (Ohio), and had gone to Berkeley to deliver a lecture series on "Man, Science and Society."
I am not using my personal opinions. I am only pointing out what the source says. From the sources, it is clear that Compton went to Berkeley to deliver a lecture series on "Man, Science and Society" and his formal appointment with the university lasted for less than a month.
According to me, Arthur H. Compton should be in "Temporary academic staff" and not in "Long-term academic staff". Let's wait for other editors' opinions. Ber31 (talk) 02:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are doing a typical synthesis, and you are becoming more and more fact-denying. I have said above that "He was planning to be..." is his thought. This is a fact you can't deny. And this cannot be used to determine his actual title held in Berkeley. Yes, he went to deliver lectures at Berkeley, but as a University Professor-at-Large of University of California System, as this source directly claims [120]. No source ever says his title as "University of Professor-at-large" is from UC Berkeley. But this source [121] directly says his title as "Professor of Physics, UC Berkeley". Why do you want to deny these facts? Why don't you study the sources? If you want to continue playing this, I'd be glad to continue defending till forever. Minimumbias (talk) 07:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
I am not denying facts or doing a typical synthesis. Instead of using logic and arguments, you are trying to engage in personal attacks. The source you pointed out directly says that Arthur Holly Compton held the title of "Professor of Physics" at UC Berkeley. However, because it doesn't say anything else (for instance, how long was he "Professor of Physics" at UC Berkeley?), more sources are needed. You cannot rely on a single source.
The University of California system is not a university, and its appointments are for individual campuses of the UC system. There are plenty of sources to support my claim. Here are some sources:[122][123]
From the above sources, it is clear that Compton was Professor-at-Large at UC Berkeley and his formal appointment with the university lasted for less than a month. He should be in "Temporary academic staff" and not in "Long-term academic staff". Please study the above sources carefully. Other editors can also study the sources, and make up their own minds. Ber31 (talk) 10:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
1) Please find a single word that I used to prove your claim that there was any "personal attack" or bias. You need to show that those words are groundless and are not a conclusion based on logic and evidence. I don't care if you read anything undertone based on your own interpretation. That's your own interpretation. Most importantly, my personal feeling emerged as a result of your editing behavior and language cannot be used as evidence since they are on my side because of you but not towards you.
2) Any source that uses language such as "he planned to ...", "he announced that he would...", "he intended to" or similar cannot be used to determine the affiliation of Compton with UC Berkeley. If you think your logic is sound without personal synthesis, you would agree that these were his thoughts instead of actual appointments.
3)[124] This is the official source of appointment from UC system for Arthur H. Compton. Compton's official title as "University Professor-at-Large" is system-wide and is appointed by University of California. I am simply copying these words from the source. You can't deny these facts. If you think your logic is sound without personal synthesis, find a sentence in this official source of appointment that claims Compton held such title at UC Berkeley instead of at UC system-wide. Delivering lectures on Berkeley campus is not an evidence showing that his appointment was at UC Berkeley, since the official source has stated clearly that Compton held the title at UC system-wide and delivered lectures on Berkeley campus. Again, I am simply copying these words from the source. [125] This source also indicates Compton's appointment is not made by Berkeley campus.
4) [126] Continuing with this source from 3) above. Most importantly, since this source is the official statement of appointment from University of California, it is the most direct and authoritative source. If you think your logic is sound without personal synthesis, you would agree that any external source stating his title of appointment at UC is a secondary source in front of this official source. For example, if any external source states that Compton held a title as "Professor-at-Large" at UC Berkeley after 1961, this statement would come second in front of the authoritative source from UC system.
5) [127] This is the official source from UC Berkeley stating the official title of Arthur H. Compton at UC Berkeley. He held the title "Professor of Physics". If you think your logic is sound without personal synthesis, find a sentence in this or any other source you have found that directly denies such statement (i.e., deny Compton's title as "Professor of Physics" at UC Berkeley). With this title, his actual activities as Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley does not affect his nature of affiliation as a Professor of Physics at Berkeley. It's not like award-based visiting positions such that we have to worry much about the actual activities of a laureate at a University. It is an official title of "Professorship" at UC Berkeley. On one hand, Compton delivered public lectures on Berkeley campus as a University Professor-at-Large of UC system, on the other hand he could also do research on Campus or in Lawrence Lab as a professor of physics. In fact, this source [128] shows the picture of Compton at the lab, although this cannot be used as direct evidence of doing research. But why does a source have to be so detailed to record his activities such as research? Even the C.Vs of most laureates do not record the details of their activities at their universities. Be aware that I am not claiming that he did conduct researches, I am just showing that he did not have to teach a course or whatever to hold the title of "Professor of Physics". His actual activities does not change his affiliation as a Professor at Berkeley, and it is unnecessary to investigate this issue as we do for award-based visiting positions. Finally, it doesn't matter how long he held the title of "Professorship". Even if it was only for one day, the title of "Professor of Physics" solely classifies Compton as a long-term academic staff member. Minimumbias (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
You accused me of "fact denying". I was only pointing out what the source says. Anyway, let me be super specific:
1. This source[129] (page 29) clearly points out that Compton became Professor-at-Large at the University of California, Berkeley.
2. The University of California (System) is not a university, and its appointments are for individual campuses of the UC system. I am not denying that Compton's official title as "University Professor-at-Large" was appointed by the University of California (System). I am pointing out that the University of California appointed Arthur Holly Compton as Professor-at-Large for Spring 1962 at its Berkeley campus. Ber31 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
You denied the fact that the appointment is made by University of California and it is only a systemwide title (not for Berkeley campus). These are actual words from the source of University of California. You denied the fact of "systemwide". University of California is not a university, so? Why can't it make an appointment for system-wide which is not for any individual campus? What is wrong with this? Why does an appointment from UC needs to be for certain campus? For example, Regents of University of California are appointments for UC system but not for individual campuses. The source you mentioned (Page 29) is secondary in front of the official sources of appointment [130][131]. I discussed this issue extensively in 3) and 4) above, and it seems to me that you did not even read my words carefully. Now, I have made my argument carefully and listed my evidence piece by piece above, but you didn't even read my words carefully and directly answer my questions. So, I don't know what else to discuss. Minimumbias (talk) 06:29, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
I have read you argument carefully, and I have made my points. I am not aware of any appointment of a professor by the University of California system which is not for any individual UC campus. Anyway, whether he was appointed by UC Berkeley or UC system is not important. What we are discussing is whether he should be in in "Temporary academic staff" or in "Long-term academic staff". This source[132] says that he was Professor of Physics at Berkeley. However, I have not seen any other source calming that Compton was a Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley. Apart from one source, other sources only say that he delivered lectures on "Man, Science and Society" at UC Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 11:17, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
In the sources of UC, all appointments with specific campus affiliations are followed by the corresponding campus names. Compton is specifically listed as "system-wide". Your claim that Compton is a member of temporary academic staff is based on that he held temporary academic title as "University Professor-at-Large" at Berkeley, which is not supported by the sources. On the other hand, "Professorship" is a long-term academic affiliation, even if Compton only held that title for less than 2 months (maybe doing researches). And, as I said, not finding any other source describing his Professorship at Berkeley cannot be used as evidence to deny his title as a professor (long-term staff). While personal opinions, analyses or guesses do not play important roles in Wikipedia editing, you may continue searching for further reliable sources regarding Compton (to support your opinion). But, currently, given the Berkeley's source, there is no way an editor (including me) can deny Compton's title as "Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley", which is a long-term academic title by default. Editing is something different from doing researches. Minimumbias (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Many sources do claim that he held the title of Professor-at-Large at UC Berkeley. However, they are secondary sources. After a careful examination of all sources, it seems that Compton's title of "University Professor-at-Large" was a system-wide title. This source[133] is the only source that says that he was Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley. At least one other reliable source is needed. I won't object keeping Compton as long-term affiliated member of Berkeley for now. Ber31 (talk) 03:46, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. As a Wikipedia editor, I fully understand the frustration when only a few reliable sources is available and compromise has to be made (temporarily or permanently). As a researcher outside Wikipedia, I also have personal judgement and sometimes guess for each unclear affiliation in this list. Some of my opinions and guesses agree with yours. However, these cannot be used in editing. Minimumbias (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Re the Uk (MRC LMB - Cambridge University)

What an appalling layout in the section(s?) above! I won't attempt to add to it. Re the Cambridge MRC Institute, this page may clarify the situation, or possibly not. Degrees are awarded by Cambridge University, but students must be affiliated to one of the colleges. None of the Cambridge colleges are "managed by Cambridge University", though the faculties are. Hope that helps. Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

The problem here is whether we should count LMB affiliated Nobel laureates on the Cambridge University count or not. I don't know what sort of affiliation Cambridge has with LMB. Ber31 (talk) 03:09, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I would say yes - from the page I linked to you can only get a degree there from Cambridge U, and Cambridge U students can do all their work at the Institute. That seems like "affiliation" to me - I don't know exactly what you are looking for. One can't get too legalistic, which it rather sounds as if you want to do, not least because that won't work in an international context. Johnbod (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, the current sources we have which directly support the affiliations are [134], [135] and [136]. In addition, the MRC LMB website is under the URL of University of Cambridge [137], and the University's Department of Medicine Molecular Immunity Unit (MIU) is housed within LMB [138][139]. However, [140] says "LMB is not a department of the University of Cambridge", and we can't find any official documents online explicitly stating the relationship between the university and the lab. (Is it true that the university officially manages the lab?) Thus, the current counting policy is to include those Nobel laureates affiliated with MRC LMB as affiliates of Cambridge University. Should we not be able to find more sources, I'd say we continue with such policy. Do you agree? Minimumbias (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________________________________________

The following comments are moved here from a previous section.

Is the Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) part of the University of Cambridge? See Pelham, Hugh (2013). "Building for the future". ELife. 2. doi:10.7554/eLife.00856.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) which says

Perhaps the single most important factor that distinguishes the LMB from a university department, and from some research institutes, is that over 80% of the funding comes from a single source (the MRC)

.

:The other clue is in the domain name which clearly implies that the LMB is part of the University because the address www2.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk contains cam.ac.uk why would it use that address if it wasn't part of the university? @Ber31: @Minimumbias: Duncan.Hull (talk) 23:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC) __________________________________________________________________________________________

Cambridge University's Department of Medicine Molecular Immunity Unit (MIU) is housed within LMB. However, that cannot be used as an evidence to claim that LMB is a part of Cambridge. I really don't know much about British universities and British research centers. Relationship between universities and research centers needs a thorough examination. If LMB has affiliation with Cambridge University, what sort of affiliation is it? Someone with good knowledge about British research centers can shed light on this matter. Ber31 (talk) 02:44, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Molecular Immunity Unit (MIU) being housed within LMB is not an evidence used to claim anything. It is a clue, like many others presented above by different editors. I've said that there are only 3 sources being used as direct evidence to support the affiliation between MRC LMB and Cambridge University, although the direct sources do not specify the nature of affiliations.
Finally, I'm not sure what other "research center-university" relationships need further "thorough examination" besides the one of MRC LMB-Cambridge University. But for MRC LMB and Cambridge U, "thorough examination" requires as many sources as possible. That's what we've been doing. Anyone who's familiar with the British system is definitely a plus. Minimumbias (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
MRC LMB is also in the campus directory of University of Cambridge [141]. Minimumbias (talk) 06:45, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
LMB using the same domain name as Cambridge is not an evidence. If it were a part of Cambridge, why hasn't it mentioned that it is a part of Cambridge anywhere else in its website? A student can get a degree from Cambridge, while working full-time at LMB - this forms an affiliation. That explains why LMB is in the campus directory of Cambridge. However, this type of "affiliation" can't be used to claim LMB Nobel laureates as Cambridge Nobel Laureates. LMB is not a department of Cambridge. Its funding comes from elsewhere. It isn't managed by Cambridge. I am discovering that Cambridge also uses a very liberal method to count Nobel laureates.[142] They haven't counted those who were only affiliated with LMB after 1962. It is clear that after 1962, LMB become an independent lab. Those who were affiliated only with the LMB (and not with Cambridge departments or colleges) after 1962 should be removed from the Cambridge count. Ber31 (talk) 03:17, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't think this topic has a definite answer. Thus, compromise has been made, and so are the relevant adjustments. It's a half-half case. It is also interesting to notice that many of the MRC LMB laureates were also fellows in the University. So the impact of such adjustments is not huge. Finally, a special note has been added to the "Notes" of Cambridge University, with Thomas A. Steitz still being included due to the description [143].
You will also notice that Gerald M. Edelman (Visiting Professor at Harvard, City U of New York) and Alexander R. Todd (Visiting Professor at UChicago) have been moved to the "Notes" of these universities, respectively. As far as I can remember, these are the visiting positions I have not found other sources to determine the nature. The final round of fine-tuning examination has been started. You are welcome to join. Minimumbias (talk) 03:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I have found the source for Alexander R. Todd. Ber31 (talk) 06:20, 27 March 2018 (UTC)


Multiple Laureates per year

there is a noticeable tendency to award the same medal to multiple researchers. This seems to accelerate in the past 2 decades. It makes sense: smart people at the U figured out that teamwork pays off. But does this not skew the sums in a way which is not purposeful ? Universities which happened to be successful in the 1990-2012 period and received "awarded jointly" medals suddenly carry a much bigger weight as the table counts heads and not "part-of-medal". Any bright ideas how to weed out this time-bias ?

Patrick Blackett

I removed Patrick Blackett from King's College London last night and explained my reasoning, but to my complete astonishment User:Minimumbias reverted by edit with the summmary "Undid revision 837606518 by Uhooep (talk) Obvious vandalism". Seriously. I have checked Who's Who, King's College London Fellowship lists, and Blackett's CVs. He was not at King's College London, but rather King's College, Cambridge. These two institutions are easily mistaken by writers. One incorrect citation should not be enough to justify incorrect material on WP. Uhooep (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't pretend you are innocent. You edited the introduction of the page too. You changed "hold" to some non-sense "hking'old". And, you can't just remove someone from this fully referenced list simply because you think it's wrong. I don't care if you have checked "Who's who" or whatever, you need to provide your sources here in order to make an argument, since the current source from "American Institute of Physics" is regarded as a reliable source. In order to disprove this source, you have to provide other reliable sources which directly say something against the current source, but your personal thought or guess cannot be used as evidence in Wikipedia editing.
Now, I have done you a favor. By searching online extensively I've found sources that support the claim that Patrick M.S. Blackett was affiliated with King's College, Cambridge, instead of King's College London:[144][145][146]. These sources can now be used to argue against the original source [147]. I will modify the page with reliable sources accordingly. Minimumbias (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
I am innocent. I was trying to navigate to the King's College London section of the page by pressing Ctrl find on my keyboard and accidentally typed "king'" into the lead of the article. As you can see I was correct in my original assertion. I don't want to edit war with you but feel you could have been more respectful towards other editors in this instance. Uhooep (talk) 18:38, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, in this case, I believe there's misunderstanding. I noticed you changed the introduction to some other words, which seems a common behavior in many vandalism, so I assumed this was a vandalism. I apologized for my misunderstanding. And thanks for pointing out the case of "Patrick M.S. Blackett". Minimumbias (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
No worries Uhooep (talk) 19:25, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/Archive_2&oldid=1158990209"