Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Restoring deleted links
Since I don't know where else to put this, and the deletion page says to discuss it on the talk page, I am putting it here.
From Special:WhatLinksHere/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation there are 252 pages linking to the now deleted page. This link will be useful to those who want to edit those pages. It seems that I don't know how to extract the list with actual links. Gah4 (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Extended content
|
|---|
Alfred Nobel (links | edit) Ivy League (links | edit) Nobel Prize (links | edit) Nobel Prize in Physics (links | edit) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (links | edit) University of Paris (links | edit) Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education (links | edit) Talk:Ivy League (links | edit) Chicago school of economics (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools (links | edit) Talk:Imperial College London (links | edit) Template:Nobel Prizes (links | edit) Rockefeller University (links | edit) Norwegian Nobel Committee (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Indian Nobel laureates (links | edit) Nobel Prize controversies (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates by country (links | edit) List of female Nobel laureates (links | edit) Nobel Foundation (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Lists of people (links | edit) User talk:Patken4 (links | edit) Nobel Committee (links | edit) User talk:Cjs2111 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Biography (science and academia) articles by quality log (links | edit) Talk:Stanford University/Archive 1 (links | edit) Talk:Rockefeller University (links | edit) Nobel Committee for Physics (links | edit) User:Nbauman (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates in Literature (links | edit) User:Sephiroth BCR/Workshop (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago (links | edit) Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive 5 (links | edit) User talk:99.236.171.156 (links | edit) User talk:PantsB (links | edit) List of Belgian Nobel laureates (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Cleanup listing (links | edit) Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings (links | edit) List of black Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates in Chemistry (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates in Physics (links | edit) List of Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine (links | edit) User:Sephiroth BCR/List of female Nobel laureates (links | edit) User:Sephiroth BCR/List of Nobel laureates in Literature (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive1 (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Washington University in St. Louis (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the City University of New York (links | edit) List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/November 2008 (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards (links | edit) Talk:United States/Archive 34 (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University (links | edit) Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard/Archive 6 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29 (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Schools/Article alerts (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates/Archive 10 (links | edit) Talk:Hebrew University of Jerusalem (links | edit) List of Illinois Institute of Technology alumni (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Johns Hopkins University/archive1 (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Imperial College London (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with King's College London (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education/Article alerts (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Failed log/April 2009 (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Higher education/Archive index (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Article alerts (links | edit) Nobel Prize in Literature (links | edit) User:Kookyunii (links | edit) User:Kookyunii/Education (links | edit) Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists/Article alerts (links | edit) User:Pascal666/external (links | edit) Nobel Committee for Chemistry (links | edit) Nobel Assembly at the Karolinska Institute (links | edit) List of Chinese Nobel laureates (links | edit) User talk:Wisdompower (links | edit) Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 22 (links | edit) Nobel Prize in Chemistry (links | edit) List of Japanese Nobel laureates (links | edit) Talk:University of Manchester/Archive 1 (links | edit) Nobel Peace Prize (links | edit) User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 29 (links | edit) User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard (links | edit) Talk:Columbia University/Archive 3 (links | edit) List of prizes known as the Nobel or the highest honors of a field (links | edit) User talk:64.134.234.166 (links | edit) Nobel Committee for Physiology or Medicine (links | edit) Committee for the Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 June 3 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University (links | edit) User:MacDaid/sandbox 1 (links | edit) Talk:RealClimate/Archive 2 (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria/Archive 3 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2010 August 9 (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Inclusion criteria for Lists (links | edit) List of Welsh Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Jewish Nobel laureates (links | edit) User talk:Rossi101 (links | edit) List of Australian Nobel laureates (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Sweden/Article alerts/Archive (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education/Article alerts/Archive (links | edit) User talk:Beeblebrox/Archive 20 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 March 18 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with University College London (links | edit) User talk:86.8.242.191 (links | edit) User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 12 (links | edit) User talk:Thetruthnow2012 (links | edit) User talk:24.5.132.234 (links | edit) User talk:Thetruthof2011 (links | edit) User:West.andrew.g/Dead links/Archive 30 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 2 (links | edit) User talk:Mnbv5432 (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 1 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Two days ago (links | edit) List of Muslim Nobel laureates (links | edit) User talk:Coolbb (links | edit) User:Beaucouplusneutre/drafts/List of Nobel laureates in Economics (links | edit) World Summit of Nobel Peace Laureates (links | edit) User talk:128.147.28.77 (links | edit) User talk:Contributor321 (links | edit) User talk:207.106.178.178 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles with the most references (links | edit) User talk:XFEM Skier (links | edit) User talk:128.237.144.194 (links | edit) Template:Nobel abbr (links | edit) User:Ossypechos/Books/Mybooks (links | edit) User:Ossypechos/Books/OssyPechosbooks (links | edit) User:Ossypechos/Books/OssyPechoss (links | edit) User talk:Ohconfucius/archive32 (links | edit) List of Christian Nobel laureates (links | edit) Portal talk:San Francisco Bay Area/Years/Archive (links | edit) User talk:5.69.97.249 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive859 (links | edit) User:Chsh/sandbox (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Edinburgh (links | edit) User:PantsB/sandbox (links | edit) User:TritonsRising/sandbox/UC San Diego article expansion (links | edit) Talk:Harvard University/Archive 7 (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/C50 (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Kyoto University (links | edit) User:Jobas/List of Christian Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of nonreligious Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Israeli Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Hungarian Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Italian Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Spanish Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Pakistani Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Russian Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Argentine Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Polish Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Danish Nobel laureates (links | edit) Talk:University of Cambridge/Archive 5 (links | edit) List of African Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Asian Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Latin American Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Arab Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of heads of state and government Nobel laureates (links | edit) User talk:In Heels (links | edit) Nobelinstitut (links | edit) List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation (links | edit) User talk:Minimumbias (links | edit) Wikipedia:Database reports/Articles by size (links | edit) List of Korean Nobel laureates (links | edit) Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Tokyo (links | edit) User talk:Derek R Bullamore/Archive 20 (links | edit) User:Tgr/RelinkingGovt (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher education/Popular pages (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia/Popular pages (links | edit) User:Minimumbias (links | edit) User talk:Call me when you get the chance (links | edit) User talk:Ber31 (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the London School of Economics (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Target1 (links | edit) User:铭爷 (links | edit) Lists of Nobel laureates (links | edit) List of Nobel Laureates affiliated with the University of Rochester (links | edit) User talk:74.108.156.96 (links | edit) User:Jnhernandez-torres/sandbox (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Awards/Article alerts (links | edit) Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 123 (links | edit) User talk:Barek/Archive 2018 (links | edit) User talk:MelanieN/Archive 41 (links | edit) User talk:204.128.127.5 (links | edit) User talk:202.88.240.61 (links | edit) List of Bengali Nobel laureates (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 2 (links | edit) User talk:Minimumbias/Archive 1 (links | edit) User talk:3ommy25 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive372 (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Questionable1 (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 3 (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago/Archive 1 (links | edit) User talk:2405:204:A4A7:528D:5764:AB90:9655:17AB (links | edit) List of Cornell University alumni (education) (links | edit) List of Cornell University alumni (natural sciences) (links | edit) Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 January 15 (links | edit) Talk:Imperial College London/Archive 3 (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/Publisher7 (links | edit) Template:Nobel abbr/doc (links | edit) User talk:David J Wilson/archive (links | edit) Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with University College London/Archive 1 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Onetwothreeip/Archive (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Cambridge (links | edit) Talk:University of California, Berkeley/Archive 7 (links | edit) User:Natgosha/sandbox (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Stanford University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology (links | edit) Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Journals cited by Wikipedia/DOI/10.3000 (links | edit) User talk:Fasweaf (links | edit) User talk:Asdfwef23r (links | edit) User:SDZeroBot/AfD sorting (links | edit) User:SDZeroBot/AfD grid (links | edit) User:Sharper/sandbox/3 (links | edit) User:Hubble-3/Harvard University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with California Institute of Technology (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Oxford (links | edit) List of Humboldt University of Berlin people (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Yale University (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Copenhagen (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Humboldt University of Berlin (links | edit) Talk:McGill University/Archive 4 (links | edit) User:Tangerine6789/sandbox (links | edit) List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Literature (links | edit) List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Chemistry (links | edit) List of female nominees for the Nobel Prize (links | edit) List of organizations nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (links | edit) List of Nobel laureates from Sweden (links | edit) List of nominees for the Nobel Prize in Physics (links | edit) Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Archive 222 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University/archive1 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Featured log/July 2021 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1 (links | edit) User:JPxG/Oracle (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 12 (links | edit) User talk:84.160.71.130 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (links | edit) Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/log/October 2021 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 October 18 (links | edit) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Fields Medal winners by university affiliation (links | edit) |
- The list can also be found by looking through the contributions here. I'm not sure if there's any way to mass revert them? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- If I figured it out right, the count is now 161, so 91 links got removed. So now the list is needed, so someone can find those 91.
University of Pennsylvania
Why is there so many people affiliated with University of Pennsylvania on this list? Checking the references a lot of these don't even check out. The ref for Aung San Suu Kyi says Oxford, not UPenn. I also found no relation to UPenn in several others I spot checked. Wikiman5676 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Wikiman5676: So in addition to the other problems, the list didn't even reflect sources accurately? If you find problematic entries, I suggest you trim them rightaway: that will make everyone's job easier. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Interestingly enough, the inaccuracies i saw earlier werent on the page prior to the deletion proposal. It looks like things simply got screwed up in the recent edits. However with the page reverted back to the original, it seems like this problem was fixed and the page reworking can start from a more accurate base. Wikiman5676 (talk) 05:36, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks all for getting the page restored, which I believe is correct. However, the WP:OR question is still here. Just a reminder, the important statement (to me) is: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. I think I agree with the removal of the summary tables. Some might believe that they imply a conclusion that a higher rank implies a better school. There are many things that go into school ranking, and I don't believe that this is commonly one of them. In any case, removal of the summary tables was one that I suggested in the deletion discussion. If anyone else has thoughts, either way, related to WP:OR, we can discuss them here. (Or somewhere else, if there are better places.) Gah4 (talk) 23:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
- This list should match the information found at The Nobel Prize. --Enos733 (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. The WP:OR issue is in the construction of the list, i.e. in the criteria. I think the best way of doing it is making a sortable table with four columns: One for the laureate, one for the discipline (Physics, Chemistry, and so on), one for the year (of the award), and one for the affiliation. I have started this. We'll have to add sort keys, add all entries, and turn sortability on. TompaDompa (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I suppose that sounds good. I don't think I was completely convinced that without the summaries it wouldn't survive, but the table seems fine, too. Gah4 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- OK, I extracted the names, schools, year, and prize from the previous table and put it in: Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/list. I could probably make a table directly, but for now it is just there. Gah4 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- It is tab separated with last name, rest of name, whole name, prize, year, and the whole entry including references. Gah4 (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gah4: Your table seems to have multiple errors (too many "University of Pennsylvania" entries, for example). In addition, it's been superseded by the better Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/temp, so suggest further efforts go there. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be clear, I agree, and already pointed it out when I had tagged this, that this should indeed match the nobelprize.org list, for the reasons expounded at length at the AfD and the DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Some years ago, I extracted tables from IAEA.org for the article on fission products. I also asked to make sure that I was allowed to do that. I believe that would count as a secondary source, and I suspect that nobelprize.org would be secondary for this. (Schools would be primary.) I tried to get some discussion in the AfD on what might, or might not be WP:OR, but never got anything started. Gah4 (talk) 20:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Indeed. The WP:OR issue is in the construction of the list, i.e. in the criteria. I think the best way of doing it is making a sortable table with four columns: One for the laureate, one for the discipline (Physics, Chemistry, and so on), one for the year (of the award), and one for the affiliation. I have started this. We'll have to add sort keys, add all entries, and turn sortability on. TompaDompa (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Let's figure out where to go from here
I'm seeing massive changes being made to an article that was just the subject of discussion by 50+ people. Folks, if you want to redo something quite this large, this old, and so recently discussed, you should start an RfC and propose what it is you think should happen and why. Or better yet, let's see if we can't find 2 or 3 options, in addition to what we've had all these years, before we do something this radical. I think the current definition of "affiliation" is good, but that the article structure needs love. A lot of love. But I think it's crazy to call "school where they were when the award was given" "affiliation". Most important is where they were when their work was published. But that can be hard to define. Where they went to school is also important. Where they were when they won? Who cares? But it's certainly not a reasonable definition of "affiliation". Hobit (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well the massive improvements by TompaDompa do have one definitive advantage, which is that they are actually based on an actual source, unlike the version which was rightfully deleted by Sandstein as being total OR. Whether you, Hobit, think that it is "not a reasonable definition of affiliation" does not matter if it is the one of the sources. As you are well aware WP:V is policy, and WP:VNT is a hell of a good explanation. I've restored the WP:TNT version, since that is the only one which does not breach either of OR or V. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:20, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The suggestions I can recall seeing are either turning this into a WP:list of lists/WP:set index article (i.e. turning this into a navigational page for finding the articles List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, and so on), or adopting the method used by the official Nobel Prize website. I think the latter option is the better, and I suspect most people would agree, so I figured I'd just be WP:BOLD and do it. Was some other option discussed that I missed or have forgotten about? TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- At the very least, we should 1) remove the ranks, 2) put the schools in alphabetical order, and 3) remove the total counts. We should probably also 4) replace the concept of affiliation with something that is more narrowly defined and justified by reliable sources. One way to do all of these things is to match the Nobel website [1] as suggested above. TompaDompa's sortable table idea (with a default ordering of laureate last name) with affiliations based on the Nobel website seems like a good way to do that. The idea of turning it into just a list of lists would make it perfectly redundant with this category [2] Danstronger (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think the default sort order should be having the laureates in alphabetical order, rather than the universities. One reason is that it would be easier (we would avoid the whole "is it University of X or X University?" issue altogether, as well as other similar ones—the Nobel Prize website calls it the "A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute" whereas our article is called Ioffe Institute, for instance), and another is that this is at least ostensibly primarily about the laureates rather than the universities. TompaDompa (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: I'm not sure if I fully understand this reasoning. Yes, sorting university names can be confusing, but it is not exactly a problem we haven't solved before - List of colleges and universities in Illinois, for example, seems to sort "University of x" by "x". As for your other point: yes, it is about the laureates, but it is also about the universities. It is about both. Making a giant table of every laureate with their university affiliation in a column - especially if we don't sort by that column - is one of the worse ways to represent this information. These "list of x by attribute" articles conventionally organize the list items by the value of the attribute. See, for example, List of presidents of the United States by education and List of compositions by Frédéric Chopin by genre. Imagine how much less helpful these lists would be if they put everything in a giant list and chose some generic ordering criteria (like alphabetic order) instead of trying to present the crosstab in a meaningful way. Mysterymanblue 11:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) I think the default sort order should be having the laureates in alphabetical order, rather than the universities. One reason is that it would be easier (we would avoid the whole "is it University of X or X University?" issue altogether, as well as other similar ones—the Nobel Prize website calls it the "A.F. Ioffe Physico-Technical Institute" whereas our article is called Ioffe Institute, for instance), and another is that this is at least ostensibly primarily about the laureates rather than the universities. TompaDompa (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- At the very least, we should 1) remove the ranks, 2) put the schools in alphabetical order, and 3) remove the total counts. We should probably also 4) replace the concept of affiliation with something that is more narrowly defined and justified by reliable sources. One way to do all of these things is to match the Nobel website [1] as suggested above. TompaDompa's sortable table idea (with a default ordering of laureate last name) with affiliations based on the Nobel website seems like a good way to do that. The idea of turning it into just a list of lists would make it perfectly redundant with this category [2] Danstronger (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The suggestions I can recall seeing are either turning this into a WP:list of lists/WP:set index article (i.e. turning this into a navigational page for finding the articles List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, and so on), or adopting the method used by the official Nobel Prize website. I think the latter option is the better, and I suspect most people would agree, so I figured I'd just be WP:BOLD and do it. Was some other option discussed that I missed or have forgotten about? TompaDompa (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Hobit: Let's see if we can reach a consensus here; this topic has suffered enough dispute resolution. Two main arguments were advanced in the deletion discussion: one, that the existing definition of affiliation was original research, and one, that the concept of Nobel laureates by university affiliation warranted a Keep because reliable sources cover this encyclopedic cross-categorization. This combination of arguments (and the final no-consensus result of that dispute) strongly suggests replacing the definition of affiliation with one supported by a reliable source. The most natural such source is the Nobel website itself. While they may be "crazy" to use "affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement", that's no crazier than counting all the affiliations the laureate ever had, regardless of timing. But it doesn't matter too much how crazy it is; unless a reliable source tries to evaluate the tricky question of where the laureate did their Nobel winning work, the most reliably sourced definition of affiliation we have is the Nobel website itself, and we should use that. Danstronger (talk) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think discussing here is fine. But I think we need a larger group. Again, I'd push for an RfC. But for the moment, let's move forward. You are proposing to use a WP:PRIMARY source as the basis for this article? That seems to directly contradict the "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Your proposal is exactly contradicted by WP:NOR (which PRIMARY is a part of). So I'd say you are replacing one debatable instance of OR with what I think is black-and-white instance of OR. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well people seem to agree that there should be a list. If there is one, then it should still comply with as much of our policies as possible, ideally all of them. WP:NOR is not a prohibition against using a primary source, it is a prohibition against interpreting them. The first three criteria say:
- primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them.[d]
- Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.
- A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge.
- As far as I see, the nobelprize.org list has been reputably published (obvious); it is not being interpreted here unlike the previously existing version (because here the sources are not being used to come to a novel conclusion not explicitly stated in it); and the statements of facts can be verified by anybody with access to it (since they are directly included in it). On the opposite, the version you reverted to is explicitly being used to come to novel conclusions not explicitly stated in the sources (Ber's arguments on other pages that this is a "dictionary definition" speaks exactly as to how this is indeed SYNTH: if source X says that A has done B; and the dictionary says the definition of C is something similar to B, combining these sources to say A is C is the quintessential textbook example of SYNTH, by coming to a conclusion not stated in either). As for not basing an article entirely on primary sources, I'm at a bit of a loss: if there is no way to do this but to base it on primary sources (whether it be one which explicitly states it, which at least seems a much lesser evil, or not), then it is OR which cannot be fixed and must be sent back to AfD. Although I'll note that the nobelprize.org list has the advantage of both being independent from the laureates and from the universities, so whether it is a primary source is a bit of an interesting question. In any case, if we must have one, I'd still prefer the debatable instance of OR (basing it on the nobelprize.org list, which states the explicit conclusion) than the black and white one (the one based on interpretation of sources which do not explicitly state the conclusion). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there can be any doubt that nobelprize.org is *the* primary source for this topic. And I don't think there is any doubt that folks are proposing to build the article around that primary source. And the quote from WP:NOR I have above seems exactly on point for that case. Local consensus can, of course, override such a thing. But I'd still say if we are debating between two apparent violations of WP:NOR we should have an RfC and see what people think. Rules are great, but how to interpret and apply those rules to a given situation needs discussion. And given how many people were involved in the AfD and DRV, I think it wise to be sure to get everyone's input before proceeding. And maybe someone will find a way forward that we all agree doesn't violate WP:NOR. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I still don't see how the existing version is better in that regard: being based on dozens of primary sources which do not state the explicit conclusion seems far worse than being based on the official one which does. If both variants are OR, and nobody can come up with something that isn't, then this is an argument for sending it back to AfD rather than trying to find a version which, with enough fine-detail-rules-lawyering, isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I could go into all the reasons I think it is better, but you've seen them already. What I'd suggest is starting a neutrally-worded RfC. Your stance and my stance are pretty fixed, it's time to see what everyone else thinks. But I don't see how the proposed scheme isn't a huge violation of WP:PRIMARY. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- A violation of PRIMARY which is at least directly based on an authoritative source is better than a violation of PRIMARY and SYNTH based on non-authoritative sources. Starting an RfC on this would be adding more nonsense after, and on top of all the previous shenanigans, of the recent DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's not hard to propose what you want to do and let a discussion happen. What you are proposing is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY. And so while local consensus may well agree that such a violation is better than where we are, it is not at all clear that it will. While I'm not wild about the format of this article, I do think what it's trying to do is A) a better definition of "affiliation" and B) not based solely on a primary source. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well you're obviously the one in the minority here (amongst the editors who have decided to edit recently, after the DRV); per both this and the previous section; and you haven't provided a cogent argument why the version you reverted to is better (beyond simply saying that you think so) - after all, what you are proposing is a clear violation. if not of both PRIMARY and SYNTH, at least of the latter (which by itself is a worse thing than merely being unduly based on primary sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and you are the one wanting to radically change the status quo to something that is a clear violation of policy. And I have made my arguments. A) your plan is an even larger violation of NOR. B) the definition of "affiliation" isn't "place they were when they won". You have provided no basis for the definition other than maybe a primary source C) utterly trashing the whole thing without a finished product ready to go isn't reasonable--it leaves us without a meaningful article on this topic while we wait. It could easily be done in draft and then merged once consensus is found for it. D) What we have now is the status quo and you need to find consensus for a radical rewrite of such a large, long-lasting, and highly-discussed article. I'm going to be traveling this weekend, so I'm out for now. Please try to provide a real proposal and let discussion go for a week or so. We can notify the AfD and DRV folks fairly easily to be sure we get opinions from those that care. I'd prefer an RfC and the longer discussion associated with it, but let's see if a week settles it. And it's not hard to link to the work that was already done on the change and propose *that* as an improvement. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- There is no status quo, the article was closed as there being no consensus for it to exist. I also don't see why you have a strong opinion on this since you almost never edit article space. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, and you are the one wanting to radically change the status quo to something that is a clear violation of policy. And I have made my arguments. A) your plan is an even larger violation of NOR. B) the definition of "affiliation" isn't "place they were when they won". You have provided no basis for the definition other than maybe a primary source C) utterly trashing the whole thing without a finished product ready to go isn't reasonable--it leaves us without a meaningful article on this topic while we wait. It could easily be done in draft and then merged once consensus is found for it. D) What we have now is the status quo and you need to find consensus for a radical rewrite of such a large, long-lasting, and highly-discussed article. I'm going to be traveling this weekend, so I'm out for now. Please try to provide a real proposal and let discussion go for a week or so. We can notify the AfD and DRV folks fairly easily to be sure we get opinions from those that care. I'd prefer an RfC and the longer discussion associated with it, but let's see if a week settles it. And it's not hard to link to the work that was already done on the change and propose *that* as an improvement. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well you're obviously the one in the minority here (amongst the editors who have decided to edit recently, after the DRV); per both this and the previous section; and you haven't provided a cogent argument why the version you reverted to is better (beyond simply saying that you think so) - after all, what you are proposing is a clear violation. if not of both PRIMARY and SYNTH, at least of the latter (which by itself is a worse thing than merely being unduly based on primary sources). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- It's not hard to propose what you want to do and let a discussion happen. What you are proposing is a clear violation of WP:PRIMARY. And so while local consensus may well agree that such a violation is better than where we are, it is not at all clear that it will. While I'm not wild about the format of this article, I do think what it's trying to do is A) a better definition of "affiliation" and B) not based solely on a primary source. Hobit (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- A violation of PRIMARY which is at least directly based on an authoritative source is better than a violation of PRIMARY and SYNTH based on non-authoritative sources. Starting an RfC on this would be adding more nonsense after, and on top of all the previous shenanigans, of the recent DRV. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:01, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I could go into all the reasons I think it is better, but you've seen them already. What I'd suggest is starting a neutrally-worded RfC. Your stance and my stance are pretty fixed, it's time to see what everyone else thinks. But I don't see how the proposed scheme isn't a huge violation of WP:PRIMARY. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I still don't see how the existing version is better in that regard: being based on dozens of primary sources which do not state the explicit conclusion seems far worse than being based on the official one which does. If both variants are OR, and nobody can come up with something that isn't, then this is an argument for sending it back to AfD rather than trying to find a version which, with enough fine-detail-rules-lawyering, isn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think there can be any doubt that nobelprize.org is *the* primary source for this topic. And I don't think there is any doubt that folks are proposing to build the article around that primary source. And the quote from WP:NOR I have above seems exactly on point for that case. Local consensus can, of course, override such a thing. But I'd still say if we are debating between two apparent violations of WP:NOR we should have an RfC and see what people think. Rules are great, but how to interpret and apply those rules to a given situation needs discussion. And given how many people were involved in the AfD and DRV, I think it wise to be sure to get everyone's input before proceeding. And maybe someone will find a way forward that we all agree doesn't violate WP:NOR. Hobit (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- That's an interesting point that that the Nobel website is a primary source, but there are a couple of problems with that argument. One is that "Do not base an entire article on primary sources" should certainly not be construed to mean that primary sources plus original research is better than just primary sources. The second is that, while the Nobel website is a primary source for who won which award, they seem like a secondary source for establishing who is affiliated with which university (and a uniquely authoritative one for the purposes of this list). It seems to me that between this section and the one above it, there is at least a rough consensus to move forward with TompaDompa's sortable table. Danstronger (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree: this is actually a secondary (if not tertiary) source because it summarizes content from other sources. But even if it was primary, we can use it on this page per WP:PRIMARY. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- WP:PRIMARY should not be a concern about the list from nobelprize.org "3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts." I support TompaDompa's efforts. --Enos733 (talk) 06:45, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- I agree: this is actually a secondary (if not tertiary) source because it summarizes content from other sources. But even if it was primary, we can use it on this page per WP:PRIMARY. My very best wishes (talk) 00:58, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Well people seem to agree that there should be a list. If there is one, then it should still comply with as much of our policies as possible, ideally all of them. WP:NOR is not a prohibition against using a primary source, it is a prohibition against interpreting them. The first three criteria say:
- I think discussing here is fine. But I think we need a larger group. Again, I'd push for an RfC. But for the moment, let's move forward. You are proposing to use a WP:PRIMARY source as the basis for this article? That seems to directly contradict the "Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." Your proposal is exactly contradicted by WP:NOR (which PRIMARY is a part of). So I'd say you are replacing one debatable instance of OR with what I think is black-and-white instance of OR. Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
- The new list is in need of some serious work. Having one long table with every Nobel Laureate is bulky and unfriendly to mobile viewers. Default sorting by the name of Nobel Laureates confusingly groups multiple entries for the same person together. Is there a legitimate reason why we can't sort by university affiliation or, even better, section this list off by university (given that it is a list of Nobel Laureates by university affiliation)? Additionally, as Wikiman5676 points out below, some of these list items appear to be factually incorrect.
- IMO, we should not be displaying the article in its current state. The original article should be restored with the total counts and rankings removed to address the most concerning WP:OR issues, while any new changes are prepared outside of the article namespace. Mysterymanblue 04:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The factually incorrect content would be present in both versions (since one was based on the other)... The best way forward might just be to take the table Tompa had begun and complete it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: No it wouldn't be. Aung San Suu Kyi is not listed in the original article as affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. The new version contains a huge amount of factually incorrect information and should immediately be reverted. Mysterymanblue 04:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Thank you for doing the revert! My edit here was meant to do the same thing, but I took too long so it looks like I was just adding a useless anchor. Mysterymanblue 05:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: Another reason why this page should probably have been TNTed: it's so large, its a pain to edit... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: Thank you for doing the revert! My edit here was meant to do the same thing, but I took too long so it looks like I was just adding a useless anchor. Mysterymanblue 05:27, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @RandomCanadian: No it wouldn't be. Aung San Suu Kyi is not listed in the original article as affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. The new version contains a huge amount of factually incorrect information and should immediately be reverted. Mysterymanblue 04:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- One possibility is separate tables for each type of affiliation. In the AfD, one suggestion was separate articles, which is also possible. Or table columns by affiliation. Gah4 (talk) 09:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Gah4: I am not opposed, in principle, to separating by affiliation. This is reasonable if the article is unmanageably large. But I do think there is a certain value to having all the affiliations in one place if possible. "Table columns by affiliation" seems to be what the original (current) article used: one table for each university, with table columns separated by affiliation. Mysterymanblue 11:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- The factually incorrect content would be present in both versions (since one was based on the other)... The best way forward might just be to take the table Tompa had begun and complete it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:51, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I copied TompaDompa's under construction version of the table to Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/temp, made it sortable, and added a few more names (affiliations that start with "Basel"). I suggest that we build that version of the table there before copying it onto the main article. Danstronger (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Danstronger: I agree, and I don't know why TompaDompa is putting this unfinished table in mainspace. Mysterymanblue 18:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Because the alternative is keeping the horrible WP:OR mess in mainspace. Having a version that is under construction is definitely preferable to that. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: Once the rankings and total counts are removed, the WP:OR concern is no longer as pressing - and, in fact, there is some question as to whether using https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/lists/affiliations.php as the only source is really an improvement. There are also several ideas for how the list should go forward in term of formatting, but you are going ahead with one version that possibly has many shortcomings. Please do this on the subpage. There is no pressing need to remove the original page, which is complete and contains true information. Mysterymanblue 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Once the rankings and total counts are removed, the criteria are still made up by editors and constitute WP:OR, the content is still novel, the modus operandi is still hunting down CVs and applying the aforementioned editor-created criteria to decide whether someone should count as affiliated with a particular university or not, and we're still hosting contentious material about WP:BLP subjects with poor sourcing. How on Earth can that be preferable?I'm sure you noticed that when you restored that version, you got an edit filter warning about
citing a blog or free web host
; I haven't looked through the more than 800 sources to figure out which one, but since you restored it you should really make sure that that's not a source used for a WP:BLP subject.I'll also note that since Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/temp is a talk page, it can't be edited visually which makes editing tables much more of a hassle. TompaDompa (talk) 19:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)- @TompaDompa: You are free to make a subpage in another namespace that can be edited visually. Mysterymanblue 19:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @TompaDompa: And as to the central point of your contention: yes, many of the sources are primary, as they were published directly by the laureates. But, per WP:BLPSELFPUB, we may use such sources if the information is not overly self-serving, is not controversial, etc. Obviously it would be better to have secondary sources, but the BLP policy does not mandate that we immediate delete every affiliation based on a resume. Mysterymanblue 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: Based on your comment here (especially your assessment of what
the central point of [my] contention
is) and other comments you have made previously, I suspect that we might not have a common understanding of what the problems at hand are. So: what is it you think needs fixing with the article in its current state, and what would the ideal solution be in your opinion? TompaDompa (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2021 (UTC)- @TompaDompa: This question is very important, and I promise I will answer it in time, but I am very busy right now. Apologies. Mysterymanblue 21:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Mysterymanblue: Based on your comment here (especially your assessment of what
- Once the rankings and total counts are removed, the criteria are still made up by editors and constitute WP:OR, the content is still novel, the modus operandi is still hunting down CVs and applying the aforementioned editor-created criteria to decide whether someone should count as affiliated with a particular university or not, and we're still hosting contentious material about WP:BLP subjects with poor sourcing. How on Earth can that be preferable?I'm sure you noticed that when you restored that version, you got an edit filter warning about
- @TompaDompa: Once the rankings and total counts are removed, the WP:OR concern is no longer as pressing - and, in fact, there is some question as to whether using https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/facts/lists/affiliations.php as the only source is really an improvement. There are also several ideas for how the list should go forward in term of formatting, but you are going ahead with one version that possibly has many shortcomings. Please do this on the subpage. There is no pressing need to remove the original page, which is complete and contains true information. Mysterymanblue 18:43, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
- Because the alternative is keeping the horrible WP:OR mess in mainspace. Having a version that is under construction is definitely preferable to that. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Why was it necessary to remove the counts in the list? Isnt routine calculations like counting the total numbers okay under WP:OR?
- @Wikiman5676: Fair question, but the supporters of deleting the page felt that the methodology for determining which affiliations "count" was original research. And that suggests that total counts, school ranks, and ordering the schools by "total count" all constitute WP:SYNTH. I think given the (eventual) no-consensus close of that discussion, we should seek a version of the page that removes any unsourced sense of affiliation, to the extent possible. One way to do this is to match the Nobel website, like the version being constructed at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/temp. Danstronger (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- If ranking implies that one school is better than another, then that would be WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Personally, I don't think anyone should use Nobel prizes to measure school quality, but some might. But I asked a few times in the AfD discussion, and no-one replied. Gah4 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think that question misses the forest for the trees. It's no secret that universities consider "their" number of Nobel laureates a measure of their prestige, which is a point I made in the AfD and in a sense an answer in the affirmative to your question. However, Wikipedia presenting a scoreboard for that informal contest is a problem that is downstream from the much more important problem of Wikipedia inventing the rules for scoring that contest in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- I understand the reasoning but seems like a silly reason. So long as we are not "ranking" the schools by thier nobel prize count, i dont see whats wrong with including the count. I certainly agree we should not "rank" schools by count. But, someone could simply count the number of nobel prizes affiliated with the school anyhow. So adding the count just seems like a routine calculation of information that is already there. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Again, focusing on explicit counts (and ranks) is missing the forest for the trees. The entire list is an WP:OR mess. That problem propagates to the counts (and ranks). Adding the count would perhaps be
a routine calculation of information that is already there
, but the information that is already there is an WP:OR mess. We need to get rid of the WP:OR mess before it's even meaningful to consider whether we should include counts or not. TompaDompa (talk) 02:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)- Okay, thats reasonable. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- To quote again from WP:OR: This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. Now, personally, I believe that the ranking isn't reaching or implying a conclusion, but some might believe it is. Which schools a laureate attended or worked at should be easily attributable, and not WP:OR. Deciding which sources are reliable is a normal part of working on an article, and not WP:OR. Gah4 (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thats reasonable. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- Again, focusing on explicit counts (and ranks) is missing the forest for the trees. The entire list is an WP:OR mess. That problem propagates to the counts (and ranks). Adding the count would perhaps be
- I understand the reasoning but seems like a silly reason. So long as we are not "ranking" the schools by thier nobel prize count, i dont see whats wrong with including the count. I certainly agree we should not "rank" schools by count. But, someone could simply count the number of nobel prizes affiliated with the school anyhow. So adding the count just seems like a routine calculation of information that is already there. Wikiman5676 (talk) 02:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
- I think that question misses the forest for the trees. It's no secret that universities consider "their" number of Nobel laureates a measure of their prestige, which is a point I made in the AfD and in a sense an answer in the affirmative to your question. However, Wikipedia presenting a scoreboard for that informal contest is a problem that is downstream from the much more important problem of Wikipedia inventing the rules for scoring that contest in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 23:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- If ranking implies that one school is better than another, then that would be WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. Personally, I don't think anyone should use Nobel prizes to measure school quality, but some might. But I asked a few times in the AfD discussion, and no-one replied. Gah4 (talk) 23:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Short-term academic staff
Is there a single university that claims the "short-term academic staff" as their Nobel Prize winners? The Nobel Prize web site doesn't. As far as I can tell, the press doesn't count "short-term academic staff" as Nobel Prize winners for particular universities. I don't see a justification for keeping those. I think all the "short-term academic staff" columns should be stripped from the page's tables. OCNative (talk) 08:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- @OCNative: There is (arguably) a rough consensus in the two sections above us, #WP:OR and #Let's_figure_out_where_to_go_from_here, that this page should use the sense of affiliation used by [3]. A table based on this idea is being constructed at List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/temp, with the idea that the page will use that version once it's ready. Danstronger (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
- Someone could do the most important part of a prize winning experiment in a short time, as a short-term appointment. In that case, it should probably belong here. It is hard, though, especially for theoretical work, to say where it was actually done. (That is, the thoughts could have been done anywhere.) Gah4 (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Subpages should be redirected here
I propose that all the "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" articles undergo a WP:Blank and redirect to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation; there is no sense in keeping subpages of the defunct, pre-AfD version of this article as stand-alone articles. I suppose the WP:Featured lists among them (1 2 3 4) will have to be formally delisted first, however. I have started a WP:FLRC for one of them, see Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive2. TompaDompa (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- In November of the last year, TompaDompa started to blank and redirect "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" without any consensus. See [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25]. Blanking and redirecting pages without consensus is a textbook example of disruptive editing. Several editors protested, see [26][27][28][29]. At least four editors, namely User:Surge elec, User:Sdkb, User:DirkJandeGeer, and User:Shawn Tsao, opposed TompaDompa's action.
- I strongly oppose TompaDompa's proposal to blank and redirect "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation". List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty isn't a "sub-page" of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, just like List of Princeton University people (government) or List of Princeton University people (United States Congress, Supreme Court, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention). List of Nobel laureates affiliated with California Institute of Technology is a sub-page of List of California Institute of Technology people, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Cambridge is a sub-page of List of University of Cambridge people, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Harvard University is a sub-page of List of Harvard University people, and so on. Ber31 (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ber31 Hello, I reverted that deletion out of error when I was fairly new and doing some anti-vandalism. [30] I don't oppose @TompaDompa's decision, although I can see how my revert makes it look like I do, it was just a silly mistake I made whilst I was looking through RecentChanges. Many thanks for pinging me, and I hope you have a good day.
- DirkJandeGeer (щи) 18:35, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- @Ber31: That's a one-sided account of the events if I ever saw one. You conspicuously leave out that Surge elec's objection was a lack of discussion, Drmies reverting with the edit summary
there was extensive discussion on this, that reverter did not participate in
, the entire discussion at Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive 1#Redirect to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation where DirkJandeGeer pointed out (as above) that they reverted in error (though in good faith) and Polyamorph expressed support for redirecting, and OCNative restoring one of the other redirects with the edit summaryThis page is filled with WP:OR/WP:NPOV violations and needs to be a redirect to the main article, just like the gazillion other "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" articles-turned-redirects. See Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.
.As for the lists in question, they are/were very obviously subpages of the defunct version of (key words you omitted) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation that we have now replaced with a properly sourced one, though it may indeed be the case that the other lists such as List of Harvard University people also need to be cleaned up. TompaDompa (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:TompaDompa: You posted this[31] on Nov. 13, 2021. You started to blank and redirect "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" without any consensus on Nov. 8th, 2021. That is a textbook example of disruptive editing. The discussion (Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive 1#Redirect to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation) that started on 12th Nov., 2021 wasn't exhaustive; it was only a half-hearted discussion, and no strong arguments were made by anyone. One or two editor(s) supporting your proposal, with weak arguments, doesn't mean anything. The fact is you were also involved in edit warrning. On Nov. 8th, 2021, you blanked and redirected pages such as List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Cambridge, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with California Institute of Technology, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with University College London, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Cornell University, List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago, and List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Copenhagen to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation without any consensus; on Nov. 12th, 2021, User:Surge elec restored those pages, and on the very day, you reverted Surge elec's action with the misleading edit summary The discussion can be found at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. This is a subpage to a defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation, hence it does not make sense to keep this as a stand-alone article., see [32][33][34][35][36][37][38]. Contrary to what you wrote on the edit summary, on Nov. 12th, 2021, there was no discussion at "Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" (this page) involving this issue (proposal to blank and redirect "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation"). At first, you should have arrived at a proper consensus to blank and redirect pages, and only after that you should have proceeded with your action. You did the opposite: at first, you blanked and redirected "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation" without any consensus, and after that you started seeking consensus to justify your action. That is not how this website works. Those pages will have to be restored.
- Your claim that they are/were very obviously subpages of the defunct version of (key words you omitted) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is wrong and misleading. Look at List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty. It isn't a "sub-page" of "the defunct version of" List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. "The defunct version of" List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation only listed laureates associated with Princeton since 2000. "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" shows all the laureates associated with Princeton. After the renaming of the page, there is no problem with inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" are straightforward: alumni and faculty. Alumni is a definable set. Faculty is also a definable set. Problem solved. You didn't read what I wrote above properly. Read it again: "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, just like List of Princeton University people (government) or List of Princeton University people (United States Congress, Supreme Court, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention). Ber31 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's only
a textbook example of disruptive editing
if you completely discount the preceding discussion that can now be found at Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 4#Let's figure out where to go from here about what to do with this page (which you curiously fail to mention) and the principle of WP:Being bold. Methinks it's pretty obvious that the approach taken here would also be applied to the subpages. It is also to my eye pretty clear that undoing a revert that requested discussion by pointing out where the discussion was being held isn't WP:Edit warring. If you really think this was disruptive however, the venue to bring that up is WP:ANI.Why do you think it is that the defunct version only listed laureates since 2000? Could it be that it was because the full list was found on a subpage? Well, yes—the defunct version even saidThe following table only shows laureates since 2000. For complete list, please refer to the main article of Princeton's Nobel laureates (link above).
Now, you picked a revision after university counts and the "Summary of results" table were removed, but when they were included pre-2000 laureates (for e.g. Princeton) were indeed counted despite not being listed on the main List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation page. Where did those figures come from? Could it be that they came from a subpage that included the full list? List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty uses the same criteria (though you did remove the copy-and-paste summary of those criteria back in December) and layout as the defunct version of the main List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation page. Why does it match that instead of List of Princeton University people if it is a subpage of the latter rather than the former as you claim? Could it be that it is, and was, really a subpage of the defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation? The answer is obviously yes.List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty remains a subpage of the defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation—renaming "Long-term academic staff" and "Short-term academic staff" to respectively "Professors of various ranks" and "Researchers or visitors" does not change that. Alumni and faculty being definable sets is a complete red herring—so is "first initial R" and "born in the 1910s", but if the sources don't list them that way, you're producing novel content. The fundamental issue with that list, namely that the set of criteria used to construct it is WP:Original research, remains. Notably, Princeton has an official list that uses a different set of criteria (Faculty, student and staff recipients listed here performed their award-winning work at Princeton, were employed by or studying at Princeton when they received their award, or are currently working at the University.
), and that list has a different set of entries. TompaDompa (talk) 12:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- It's only
- Your claim that they are/were very obviously subpages of the defunct version of (key words you omitted) List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation is wrong and misleading. Look at List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty. It isn't a "sub-page" of "the defunct version of" List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. "The defunct version of" List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation only listed laureates associated with Princeton since 2000. "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" shows all the laureates associated with Princeton. After the renaming of the page, there is no problem with inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria for "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" are straightforward: alumni and faculty. Alumni is a definable set. Faculty is also a definable set. Problem solved. You didn't read what I wrote above properly. Read it again: "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty" is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people, just like List of Princeton University people (government) or List of Princeton University people (United States Congress, Supreme Court, Continental Congress and Constitutional Convention). Ber31 (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@TompaDompa: The AfD discussion may not have gone the way you hoped, but you need to respect the result; not doing so is disruptive. Continuing to try to litigate the issue hoping it'll go a different way is a violation of WP:STICK. It's time to drop this and edit somewhere else, lest you find yourself at ANI. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)- I think you'll find that I did indeed respect the result, carried on discussion here for a time while the details about what to do after the AfD were hammered out, and then edited elsewhere (apart from two maintenance edits in December) until yesterday when this section was unarchived and responded to. TompaDompa (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- The outcome at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive2 hasn't gone your way either. There is no consensus to blank and redirect "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" pages to "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Those 22 pages will have to be restored.
- In that discussion (Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 4#Let's figure out where to go from here), no-one talked about the so-called sub-pages of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. My claim that List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty is a sub-page of List of Princeton University people is a fact. Look at the inclusion criteria of both pages. They are the same. Without "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty", all the Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty will have to be added to "List of Princeton University people". "List of Princeton University people" is already very long; adding all the Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton as alumni or faculty will only make the page longer and difficult to navigate. When I initially worked on List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago, it was very different from the defunct version of List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. I worked on that page because adding all the Nobel laureates affiliated with UChicago as alumni or faculty to List of University of Chicago alumni and List of University of Chicago faculty would have made those two pages too long and difficult to navigate.
- How is alumni and faculty being definable sets is a complete red herring? This is something that I disagree with you. See pages such as List of Harvard University people, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni, List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology faculty, or List of Missouri University of Science and Technology alumni. See how alumni or faculty are defined in those pages. Alumni include graduates and attendees. Faculty include professors of various ranks, researchers, and visitors. The fact is alumni and faculty are definable sets, and this fact is as obvious as 2+2=4.
- Your claim that the set of criteria used to construct List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University as alumni or faculty is WP:Original research doesn't hold water. That page uses the same inclusion criteria as List of University of California, Berkeley alumni and List of University of California, Berkeley faculty. I think the time has come to move on. Ber31 (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive2 was closed as keep more-or-less because of a lack of participation, per the closing comment. Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania/archive1 resulted in delisting, on the other hand. The rest of your argument is basically that WP:Other stuff exists, not considering whether the other stuff should exist. And surely you understand that the group "alumni who are also Nobel laureates and faculty who are also Nobel laureates" is different—i.e. uses a different set of inclusion criteria—from either "alumni" or "faculty"? If the sources don't consider the specific group "alumni who are also Nobel laureates and faculty who are also Nobel laureates", you're producing novel content. At any rate, I think that the two of us have reached an impasse. TompaDompa (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- This discussion is growing tiresome. Ber31's Wikipedia edits are predominantly in these Nobel laureate lists that have been widely deemed to have numerous WP:OR/WP:NPOV violations. To quote the administrator who closed Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Princeton University/archive2: "Ber31: to be honest, the reason this has stayed open so long is because of your habit of posting long, long messages that aren't in response to anything and that just restate your position in more words and preemptively declare victory. It's exhausting to read, so I've been avoiding this nomination. In the future, please tone it down." Nearly all of these pages were WP:Blank and redirected last year, and no one complained until Ber31 did so a couple days ago. TompaDompa's actions are sound and I support the effort to blank and redirect the pages here. OCNative (talk) 15:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:OCNative: Please don't politicize User:PresN's quote. I respect PresN's suggestion to tone down a bit. I am only responding when I have to. I don't believe in getting into disputes, and I have not been involved in any kind of edit wars so far. PresN also had this to say: Besides that, in the end this nomination hasn't really moved from where it began: some editors think that the inclusion criteria, both on this list and on the set of all similar lists, is fundamentally flawed. Others, especially one other, do not. No one has raised any issues with the structure/content/formatting of this particular list beyond that. As a result, all we have is a content dispute that has failed to gain traction over the last few months. And while I personally greatly dislike any inclusion criteria for these lists that aren't "people who did the research for which they got a Nobel Prize at this institution, this does not seem to be the consensus that has arisen in any of the discussions so far. As such, since there's no real consensus either way and FLC/FLRC isn't really the place for content disputes in the first place... closing this as kept.
- Apart from me, there were other editors who protested against the blanking and redirecting of those pages, for instance User:Shawn Tsao[39]. User:Sdkb made this revert[40], with an edit summary Per WP:ATD-R (policy), this should go through AfD.
- TompaDompa and OCNative supported blanking and redirecting those 22 pages. Others, such as Shawn Tsao, Surge elec and myself were in opposition. I don't see consensus to bank and redirect those 22 pages. My suggestion would be to restore those pages, and after that, if any editor is not satisfied with the outcome, those pages can go through AfD. Ber31 (talk) 14:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- How about List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Columbia University as alumni or faculty which is a featured article with its own metrics to claim the number? Is it fair to other unversities? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoyalRover (talk • contribs) 12:13, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Misleading title
The title of this page is misleading. The title is "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation". University affiliation should include alumni, postdocs, professors of various ranks, etc. The list only include Nobel laureates were affiliated with universities, research institutions or companies at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement. National Institutes of Health (Harvey J. Alter works there) and Bell Labs (Arthur Ashkin worked there) are not universities. They are research institutes. Editors such as User:7802mark, User:Ancheta Wis, and User:Zereshk opposed including research labs in this list in the past discussions, see Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/Archive_1#Industrial_Institutions? and Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation/Archive_1#Bell_Labs?. The name of the page should be "List of universities, research institutions or companies Nobel laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement". Ber31 (talk) 09:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- List of universities, research institutions or companies Nobel laureates were affiliated with at the time of the Nobel Prize announcement is a ridiculously lengthy title that would in all likelihood get shot down immediately at WP:RM. List of Nobel laureates by research affiliation might work however. I don't think the past discussions from 2006 and 2007 hold much weight here. TompaDompa (talk) 15:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
- Let us see what other editors have to say. By the way, if an editor had made strong arguments in 2006 or 2007, those arguments will still count. Good arguments are good arguments. They are rust-proof, and the value of those arguments will not depreciate over time. Ber31 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Wikipedia has changed quite a bit since 2007. So has this page. But yes, let's hear what other editors think. TompaDompa (talk) 14:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- Let us see what other editors have to say. By the way, if an editor had made strong arguments in 2006 or 2007, those arguments will still count. Good arguments are good arguments. They are rust-proof, and the value of those arguments will not depreciate over time. Ber31 (talk) 12:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- To call the title here misleading would be to accuse the Nobel Foundation itself of being misleading on their page of Nobel Prize laureates and research affiliations. OCNative (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
- The title of that page at nobelprize.org is Nobel Prize laureates and research affiliations. The title of this page is List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. There is a fundamental difference between university affiliations and research affiliations. Besides, currently this page excludes Nobel laureates in literature and peace. Ber31 (talk) 14:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
- Couldn't "academic affiliation" work? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
- It seems reasonable that all affiliations should be included. At face value, a lot of useful information was lost unnecessarily during the consolidation. Also agreed that research institutes should not be included given the title. BUjjsp (talk) 05:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
I disagree
I see no reason to link the prize winner's current workplace with the Prize. (Unless, of course, the prize-winning work was done there.) As the article about Nobel Prizes states, the *modern* Nobel is awarded after the work has been "accepted", which can be (and OFTEN is) decades after the work was done. In reading a fair number of Nobel bios, it seems to me that the following would be good categories to include on any "List by affiliation": University/College/Institution where terminal degree (PhD, MD, etc.) was received. Place(s) where work was done. Place(s) where post-doc work was done. Place which, subjectively (according to Nobelist), first inspired him/her to pursue his/her award winning work. (Latter could be any person, place, or even book (etc.)). And thesis advisor. At the very least, the list should indicate whether the work which justified the award was done at the listed University. (and there needs to be clarity about whether the work was *done* there, or whether the Nobelist simply was employed at/attending that institution while simultaneously working elsewhere.174.131.48.89 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
- How to list Nobel laureates by research institution has been discussed at extreme length, and this is the outcome of that discussion. The problem is that there is no generally-accepted way of doing so—different sources do it differently. Pretty much all those sources are non-comprehensive, typically only listing the Nobel laureates for a single institution. Because of Wikipedia's policy on WP:No original research, we have to adopt a method used by the sources rather than coming up with one ourselves (like you, I think it would make much more sense to list the institution the relevant work was done at, but we unfortunately don't have the sources we would need to do that) and we have to avoid engaging in WP:Original research when applying that method (which is to say that there must be no subjective judgment calls). The current method is the only one thus far proposed that has allowed us to create a comprehensive list while abiding by the WP:No original research policy. TompaDompa (talk) 18:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Literature winners?
Are there no university affiliations for any of the literature winners? -signed Nobel Questioner, 08:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC) 2600:1700:3F7E:9010:380E:945:4E9:CBD4 (talk) 08:39, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The official Nobel website does not list them as such, no. TompaDompa (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Distinction Required: London University - Imperial College - University College - King’s College
There are multiple entries that have been erroneously assigned to University *College* London.
Note that this is not the same as the University *of* London (also known as London University), which is an umbrella body that encompasses 17 different institutions (of which University College is just one).
Several entries have been mistakenly attributed to UCL when they belong to different constituent colleges of the University of London. I've tried to correct this, especially distinguishing between UCL and King's College London, based on the criteria of this article. However, these corrections were reverted.
If we strictly follow the Nobel Prize source, several UCL entries and one Imperial College entry in this article’s table should be labeled as 'London University'. However, this term is not consistently used in the source itself. It groups some laureates from Imperial College, King's College London, and UCL under 'London University', while also having a separate section for other laureates attributed directly to UCL.
Using 'London University' might cause confusion, given that constituent colleges are more recognisable and now award degrees independently (Imperial College even left the University of London in 2007). To avoid ambiguity, I recommend referring to additional reliable sources to correctly assign Nobel laureates to their respective colleges within the University of London.
Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 01:20, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- See below for distinction:
- University of London (referred to on Nobel Prize website as London University)
- University College London
- King’s College London Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- We go by what the cited source says. That doesn't mean we have to use the exact same phrasing as the source does, but we cannot introduce distinctions that the source does not use (because that would be WP:Original research). On the other hand, we can disregard distinctions the source uses if Wikipedia covers those different institutions at the same article. The source does it as follows:
- Dennis Gabor, Abdus Salam, Derek Barton, and Geoffrey Wilkinson are listed under "Imperial College, London, United Kingdom"
- Owen Willans Richardson, George Paget Thomson, Arthur Harden, Archibald Hill, Alexander Fleming, and Maurice Wilkins are listed under "London University, London, United Kingdom"
- James Black (pharmacologist) is listed under "London University, King's College Hospital Medical School, London, United Kingdom"
- William Henry Bragg, William Ramsay, Peter Medawar, Andrew Huxley, Bernard Katz, and John O'Keefe (neuroscientist) are listed under "University College, London, United Kingdom"
- I would suggest listing these as Imperial College London, University of London, GKT School of Medical Education (where King's College Hospital Medical School redirects), and University College London, respectively. I have implemented this. I also removed the note at the bottom about the terminology. TompaDompa (talk) 12:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I broadly agree with this. Though I note GKT Medical School is the medical school of King’s College London and was only formed in 1998. GKT is not a university in itself.
- It seems anachronistic to refer to GKT given the prize was awarded in 1988. For consistency, I would suggest listing this either under ‘University of London’ or as ‘King's College Hospital Medical School’. Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 14:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- That checks out. Changed GKT School of Medical Education to King's College Hospital Medical School. TompaDompa (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- I should also note that allocating the University of London’s Nobel prizes to its respective constituent colleges wouldn’t be classified as WP:Original research in all instances:
- By referring to the biographies of certain Nobel Prize winners mentioned in this article’s primary source, one can sometimes identify their affiliation with a University of London college, as in the case of Maurice Wilkins (citation below). There are also strong citations on other Wikipedia articles that can corroborate this:
- Maurice Wilkins – Biographical. NobelPrize.org. Nobel Prize Outreach AB 2023. Sat. 21 Oct 2023. [[<https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/1962/wilkins/biographical/>]]
- It is inconsistent and potentially misleading to use college-specific affiliations for some laureates while resorting to the broader ‘University of London’ affiliation for others.
- Anaximenes of Miletus (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- We go by what the cited source says. That doesn't mean we have to use the exact same phrasing as the source does, but we cannot introduce distinctions that the source does not use (because that would be WP:Original research). On the other hand, we can disregard distinctions the source uses if Wikipedia covers those different institutions at the same article. The source does it as follows:
Subtotals
There's related discussion ongoing at: Talk:List_of_Nobel_laureates#By_institution?. fgnievinski (talk) 02:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
List of Nobel laureates by university they graduated from
A second table would be also useful. Another possibility is to add a column to the original table, showing where they graduated from, for the purpose of assessing educational strength of institutions. While the existing column of "affiliation" can show the strength of research at each institution. The original table shows the universities the researcher was "affiliated with" at the time of winning. That can be useful to attract researchers to wealthy research institutions. Basically, comparing which university has more billions of dollars for research, not education. But it is not useful to compare the strength of the education at each university. For that we would need to know where (which university) each laureate has learned his/her skills, where they got started in their learning. This is important when comparing educational credentials of regular graduates. For example, one job applicant graduated from a university that raised no laureates, another candidate graduated at a place that raised 20. People could say "I received the same education as these 10 Nobel laureates". This has practical implications for the job market. Ivy league power houses might not like this though, but it can help people who are sidelined for not having graduated from expensive ivy league universities. 35.141.31.136 (talk) 04:49, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- That's not how the sources do it. TompaDompa (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)