Talk:List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Summer policy

This is a highly useful list (also, the Turing and Fields lists)! It's really good to see such a high-standard Wikipedia list! =)

Although I don't have problems with the policies in this list, I do have a minor concern regarding the summer policy. I noticed that "Francois Jacob" and "Sydney Brenner" were not included in Caltech's list. I guess it's because they were summer researchers and current summer policy says to be included there should be some "significant end products". I'm not in the field of biochemistry or genetics so I'm not sure if Francois and Sydney had produced any "significant products" at Caltech. However, I do want to know how significant is "significant" enough to be included? Is there an example for such inclusion? Personally I think it's a good idea to have a clearer specification than "significant end products". StanLeeP (talk) 05:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the policies across the lists of Nobel, Fields, and Turing are almost identical. While most part of the lists are written by me (with the support from other editors), the policy regarding "summer academic positions" was originally proposed by another editor, Ber31, and obtained support from editor Elriana and me. (If you are interested in how we reached this consensus, you may look at some of the previous sections in this Talk page) The underlying idea is that "summer terms" are not part of official academic years, and most of the academic positions are informal to an extent. As long as I can remember, only one Nobel laureate has been included as summer affiliate: Murray Gell-Mann was a repeated summer researcher at UIUC and he obtained important result (Gell-Mann and Low theorem) there.

Hence, we imposed the policy such that summer positions are generally excluded unless there is "significant end products". But I do agree that there exists some sort of ambiguity. So if some editor proposes that we really should include some summer affiliates, a best thing we can do is discussing them case by case individually here in Talk page and see whether a consensus can be reached for inclusion. Minimumbias (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your remarkable contributions!

Still, I think it'd be better if more detailed specifications can be given. It doesn't have to encompass all kinds of situation. But I feel like more concrete examples such as publications may be helpful for readers to understand the policy better than just stating "significant end products". Let me list some common "end products" below and maybe we can discuss more?

1. At least one publication such as a research paper which is a direct result of the summer work.

2. No direct publication, but is part of Nobel-winning work.

3. No direct publication, and is not related to Nobel-winning work. StanLeeP (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have a point here. We should probably add some objective descriptions to the statement "significant end products". (See details below) That being said, I'd still recommend any future recommendations for summer affiliates being discussed (case by case) here in Talk page to reach consensus for inclusion.

1) For point 1, a publication as a direct result of summer work should indicate affiliation. However, I have to point out that it should only be a "research publication", because teaching materials are not "direct result" of summer work. For instance, Svante Arrhenius taught at UC Berkeley for 1904 summer school and wrote a book based on his lecture notes: [[1]]. He should not be included as an affiliate of Berkeley because the content of his book is not the direct result of summer teaching work (i.e., the content includes research results due to many researchers), and "writing the book" itself was a personal behavior instead of work related to the university.

2) For points 3, I believe it is an obvious "no inclusion" as affiliate. For point 2, I'd like to point out that as Wikipedia editors, we are not allowed to do original research and publish research results here in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:No original research. So we can't determine ourselves if some summer work was a part of the Nobel-winner work, unless the Nobel laureate specifically stated this fact somewhere and we can find it in some reliable online sources. In this case, an inclusion as affiliate is possible. Minimumbias (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Cool, I agree =) StanLeeP (talk) 02:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

_________________________________________________________

This is just to combine the results of discussions regarding the same topic occurring in different times. The above discussion reaffirms & amends the consensus established previously on policies regarding summer academic positions. The following appendix shows the previous version of consensus. Minimumbias (talk) 03:42, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

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)

List policies, etc

Minimumbias wishes to move discussion to another section because it has extended beyond the issue of splitting and shortening. I wish to move it too, but because the initial discussion has gone on too long, though I intended the discussion which I started to extend beyond merely the length of it as that was just something I was pointing out. Either way, I am happy to move discussion to this section. User:Onetwothreeip {talk) 07:16, 5 July 2018 (UTC) ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

I am posting the content below because I think it is directly related to the quality of this article. I wish to point out that I may not respond to any of the proposed changes or discussion topics by Onetwothreeip any further due to the following reasons, which have significantly hindered any further cooperation or interaction between editor Onetwothreeip and me. However, this non-response does not mean there is any kind of consensus which has been reached between Onetwothreeip and me.

1) Onetwothreeip has several times engaged in personal issues and even in personal attacks (libel) towards me. This editor has made several accusations against me without evidence. Here are some examples & my explanations.

- Calling me "hostile"

- Calling me "you have been impolite to others as well, more than to me, so this shouldn't be a surprise."

- Calling me "You have repeatedly questioned my personal motives and ability, and you're continuing to do it and you've done this with others, so I'm shocked you accuse me of that."

- Calling me "According to others you have annoyed people into dissuading them from contributing to this article."

- Calling me "You can check the archive for what you are quoting me as saying, and for your confrontations with others"

Accusing me of being very impolite to other editors and even annoyed them is a complete falsehood and a lack of knowledge of historical facts in this Talk Page. This is an apparent slander (personal attack) towards me that blackens my reputation. I believe editor Onetwothreeip drew this conclusion based on his/her observations of my interactions with editors Ber31 (in many sections above) and Uhooep (in section "Patrick Blackett" above). Ber31 and I had many discussions in the past and got along well, as one can see in the archive of my Talk page ([[2]]). However, due to a series of disagreement on noncontent-related issues such as the incident of investigating sock puppets User:Pdyusmep and User:PrincetonNeuroscientist of a notorious sock master User:RabidMelon, who were all blocked eventually, it is quite unfortunate that there has been some tension grown between Ber31 and me (I do not wish to elaborate on any historical details here). This personal stuff has nothing to do with any other editor and cannot be used as evidence against me personally. In addition, regarding my interaction with editor Uhooep, one can easily see that I originally saw some solid evidence of vandalism. But as everyone can check that it was a misunderstanding after all, which was resolved promptly. My interactions with many other editors in this Talk Page (and in other pages) went smoothly.

2) Onetwothreeip has been very arrogant and disrespectful towards me personally, and also very arrogant and disrespectful towards the hard work other editors and I have done to improve this article in the past few years.

- Calling me "It's apparent you don't approve of any changes, the structure of the article reflects your personal preferences of which you feel a sentimental guardianship. I have no interest in catering to your whims, I would much rather act constructively for the article separately"

- Calling me "You don't have any suggestions to make this article better so I really don't see why you persist on arguing."

- Distorting my suggestion that it'd better that editors can focus on their own fields of expertise as "accused me of not being in academics".

- Calling this article a "messy room" and "indeed very messy".

- Represented himself/herself as the "general public".

- Took comments from other editors with "warranted suspicion" while asking others to assume in good faith in himself/herself.

Minimumbias (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I would have preferred you to elaborate this on my talk page, especially from your protests to not go into personal issues on this talk page, but I will have to respond here. I think generally you are wishing to discredit me as an editor not by proving these things about me, but by giving the appearance that I am involved in some personal feud with you.

Initially I asked you to be less hostile, as I felt you were being hostile. If I were you, I would not have become more hostile as a result of that. You can disagree with that but this was not a personal attack at all, I know nothing about you personally. If I was called hostile and I felt I wasn't, I may have simply denied it and evaluated my language or tone. As a rule, I generally do not tolerate indirect remarks and passive aggressiveness.

I only brought up your issues with others because you went on to disagree that you were being hostile, and continued hostility. I haven't detailed what were your issues with others (on the talk page of this article) because I felt that would not contribute to the discussion or be relevant at all, even in my appeal for calm. If you continue to say this is untrue I can substantiate that, but it seems like you've even admitted it now but only in one case. Most of what I have said on this matter has been in response to what you have said about the matter, and not unjustified.

As for my criticisms of the article, I completely stand by them. It's messy, and I'm sorry if that hurts the article's feelings. I wouldn't be repeating it if the way I've said this wasn't a point of contention, so if I am to put it another way, the readability of the article can be significantly improved.

I have simply never referred to myself as the general public. That makes no sense.

Your suggestion that editors should "focus on their own fields of expertise" clearly meant that you are in academics but that I am not. You confirmed this when you said "I don't believe academia & academics is your field". I doubt you are involved in the academics of every category of Nobel Prize though.

I took certain comments in good faith despite my suspicions, which is what I was conveying, and I continue to do so. There's nothing I've said from your list that is wrong.

Finally, my assessment that you had problems with other editors started with your interaction with Uhooep where you accused them of vandalism and then delivered the epic line, "don't pretend you are innocent" after they protested and even after you confirmed for yourself they were right all along. After reading other talk entries, this became clear it was not an isolated incident. I really did not want to have to explain your interactions with other editors but you're saying I'm attacking you and committing libel so I have to explain that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:34, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Splitting/shortening

This page is currently the longest article on English Wikipedia and has exceeded the maximum suggested length by far, for a long time. What would be the best way(s) of splitting or shortening this article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps one per institution for - say - the top 20. FYI, the length of this article, at the time of writing, is 880,519 bytes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, most part of this page was written by me (page statistics:[3]), with the help of some other editors. There are at least two reasons why this page is long:

1) References. In principle, each affiliation of each Nobel laureate in this list requires at least one reliable supporting source. There are 892 individual winners, most of whom are/were affiliated with at least one university. This results in a lot of citations. To control the page length, I had removed the sources for universities with only 1-5 Nobel laureates and added explanations in the past.

2) Template problems. This page uses a lot of templates (e.g., "reflist", categories such as [PH], [CM], etc), and when they exceeded the limits [4] many features were not shown properly. I used the template expansion tool [5] to fix such problem, which was the only approach I could think of. It worked perfectly, but the price to pay was an increase of the page length from 608,685 bytes to 810,864 bytes (FYI, the edit [6] was made on March 4th, 2018).

The article in its current form provides arguably the most comprehensive, objective and reliable affiliational information of Nobel laureates online. If creating subpages for this main page is really necessary, the best idea is to move the details of lower-ranked universities in this list to other pages while keeping the details the top universities. One reason is that top-ranked universities usually do not tie with each other, which is really helpful for presentations. Minimumbias (talk) 00:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Why not moving the tables into articles of Nobel laureates for the respective university? This article could then effectively become a list of articles of these tables. Another possibility would be to have one article of Nobel laureates for graduates and one for staff. The lists of temporary academic staff, particular visiting staff of which there are 442 mentions of "visit" in this article, don't seem to be of much importance. The problems are only going to get worse not only as more information about the topic is discovered, but as content grows by the awarding of Nobel Prizes every year. The amount of institutions included is also a problem, and combined with including temporary employment this exacerbates the amount of references. It seems to be as if all possible information that can be included is included, like laureates being listed in temporary staff even if they are already listed as long term staff, and I assume laureates attending but have not received a degree from an institution are also included for that institution. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess this should not be a discussion of the criteria for counting Nobel laureates as affiliates of a university. The criteria and counting policies had been discussed extensively and established long time ago among several editors to reach maximal objectivity, realibility and comprehensiveness. These are clearly stated at the beginning of this article. In particular, "temporary staff" can be important in many cases such as postdoctoral researchers. In practice, it is also impossible to simply leave something out because we "think" they are not important, for it's original research which is prohibited in Wikipedia.

On the other hand, I do agree that there is something at technical level we can do to shorten the length of this article without reducing the information offered by this article in its present form. As I said, the best approach I could think of is moving some of the details of lower-ranked universities to another page. If nobody is against this idea, I will create another page with title like "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II" in near future. Minimumbias (talk) 05:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I would remind you also to be mindful of WP:No original research, the information here should reflect what is reported in reliable sources. You have said yourself that this article is the most comprehensive list of Nobel laureates on the internet and exceeds other sources on the matter. In addressing the length of an article, all elements are up for discussion, especially if the article is still being written in the style that was established years ago. I have always been in favour of including as much information as possible on Wikipedia, but not all information int he world should inhibit one article. Splitting the article arbitrarily is certainly an option but I'm not sure how that would be reflected in the titles of the articles like lists that are split A-K and L-Z.

Merging the information in the temporary staff column (which is already very tenuous information for listing people by their university affiliation) would appear to be an uncontroversial change which would not reduce the amount of information this article provides. Another uncontroversial change would be to take information out of tables and into a far simpler list format for the universities that have few Nobel laureates with subheadings as necessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:58, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure why you call "Merging the information in the temporary staff column" "uncontroversial" and temporary staff "very tenuous information". I have made it quite clear above that this is controversial. Academia without temporary staff simply doesn't function. And it is just because of WP:No original research that we can neither leave out the information of temporary staff or assign lighter weight to this category. In particular, merging columns of course reduces information, it obviously hides the academic paths of many Nobel laureates.

In addition, this article is not written in the style established years ago. Rather, an almost complete reconstruction of this article started in 2016 and was completed in early 2018. The current version is so much better than the version in the past. Finally, Wikipedia does not have a strict rule for the length of lists [7],

"These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose (found by counting the words, perhaps with the help of Shubinator's DYK tool or Prosesize) and not to wiki markup size (as found on history lists or other means). They apply somewhat less to disambiguation pages and naturally do not apply to redirects. They also apply less strongly to list articles, especially if splitting them would require breaking up a sortable table."

But, as I said, if it is really needed to split this list, a subpage may be created (quote: "Long stand-alone list articles are split into subsequent pages alphabetically, numerically, or subtopically.") Minimumbias (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to be hostile here, this is simply about improving this article. I have read WP:NOR at least several times by now and nowhere does it suggest that it is original research to not include something, but I feel as if you are pointing out this policy simply to frame me as being for removing information. As for the guidelines on article size, there is certainly no strict rule on length, but neither is there a strict rule for any Wikipedia editing policy. List articles are often permitted to exceed the 50,000 bytes guideline, but this article is the largest article on Wikipedia approaching 900,000 bytes, there is no article larger. I chose uncontroversial changes to suggest because they would indeed be uncontroversial, because these would be done as much as would be uncontroversial so please do not interpret them as controversial.

I have not at all said that temporary staff is tenuous information, I have said this is less relevant to a Nobel laureate's university affiliation than the institutions they have graduated and the institutions they have been permanently employed. A simple solution would be to merge the second and third columns since they both pertain to staff. If you believe we should not assign lighter weight to temporary staff, this course of action would make sense. This would of course be done in a non-reductionist way.

As for the universities that have few laureates, such as having only one, I am more than happy to begin adjusting the information from table format into a small entry list format. On a somewhat related note, is the purported ranking of universities by amount of affiliated laureates actually reflected in reliable sources?

In what way would you suggest this article be split? I would also be happy to hear other suggestions on how to decrease the size of this article without decreasing the information provided. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not being hostile. However, as I said above, I am not sure 1) why you think the changes you proposed are not controversial, and 2) why you insist cutting the current length of page when there is no strict policy on list length, no apparent benefit, and there is risk of losing information (after all, why does the length bother you so much?). Being controversial means it results in objections from other people, which is exactly the case happening right now - I disagree. In a word, the changes you proposed do not reflect what academia really is and how it functions. There is no way one can merge the second column and the third column. If you have read the lead of this article, you should have known that long-term academic staff include mainly professors with tenureship or on tenure-track. Temporary academic staff do not have such tenureship. They are different. The academia has three pillars: students, professors, and visitors. None of this pillar should merge with another. And how are temporary academic positions such as postdoctoral positions less relevant to a university when it comes to Nobel laureates' affiliations?

Indeed, Wikipedia gives every editor the right to edit a page. But it's a good idea to learn what other editors have done and the consensuses they have reached before you edit the page. Currently, I don't see any benefit to follow your proposed changes. Minimumbias (talk) 04:31, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Final action: please refer to the newly created list "List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II". Minimumbias (talk) 06:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I have read other discussions on this talk page and you have been impolite to others as well, more than to me, so this shouldn't be a surprise. The changes I propose, at this stage, would be done to the extent of them being not controversial. Accusing me of doing things for no benefit is pretty clearly not assuming good faith, especially by suggesting that the reason for shortening the article is to remove information. I've said a few times already that I don't want to remove information so I don't know why you suggest I want that.

Particularly for Nobel laureate affiliations, there is no established tripartite distinction by graduates, permanent and temporary staff. It could just as well be undergraduates, postgraduates, permanent staff, and temporary staff. I do not believe postdoctoral positions are less relevant, it is just apparent that visiting is less relevant to a person's university affiliation, and less relevant to the university. I have not made any suggestion on how to deal with that, nor with the other original research issues that are throughout the article.

Of course this article is "too long" but that is not the best way to describe it. Rather, the article would be improved if it was shorter, particularly being split and/or by being reformatted. There is no strict rule for this because there are no strict rules for anything. It is fundamental to Wikipedia that these issues can be resolved by contributors. To put it into perspective, this is now the sixth largest article on Wikipedia, and its content will increase perpetually by the awarding of more Nobel Prizes. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions: 1) focus on the content, not personal stuff - I need to remind you that you are the person who started the personal accusations by saying me of being hostile and impolite while I have not made a single accusation towards you directly; 2) focus on the fields in which you are an expert, so that Wikipedia articles can be more trustworthy and reliable overall (based on all your words here, I don't believe academia & academics is your field); 3) focus on logic and convincing evidence in discussion & argument. Finally, I have been well aware of the list of long articles WP:Long pages, but as I said I don't see an actual issue here if quality of the article is the more important aspect and there is no strict policy on page length especially for lists. I don't see why cutting the length of this article improves the quality of the page. Minimumbias (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't gone into "personal stuff", I was reminding you to be WP:Civil. You have repeatedly questioned my personal motives and ability, and you're continuing to do it and you've done this with others, so I'm shocked you accuse me of that. I'm certainly in academics but that shouldn't be relevant and that kind of exclusion goes directly against the spirit of Wikipedia, especially since we are not evaluating academic claims. According to others you have annoyed people into dissuading them from contributing to this article, but I do not care about that. I am primarily interested in fixing the quality of this article, the size is merely a symptom of that, especially being the sixth largest article. This is not one continuously sortable table so it is unusual to suggest that this article cannot be split, and even more unusual to suggest this article should have an even larger size than it currently does. What is your suggestion(s) for improving the quality and readability of this article then? The original research problems could be addressed, but not just that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:03, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1) "Accusation" is such a strong word. You are the person who is now constantly accusing me of doing this or doing that. But I have not said a single word "accusing" you. You are now engaged in Wikipedia:No personal attacks without evidence, such as the following

According to others you have annoyed people into dissuading them from contributing to this article, but I do not care about that.

I have never argued anything in this talk page without giving a reason and/or evidence. This is normal discussion and debate, but now you interpreted this as my deliberately annoying other editors. I reserve the rights to take further actions against your accusation.

2) Let me repeat it again. I don't see any problem with the quality of this article. Every affiliation is properly cited. The length of this article is not a "symptom" since Wikipedia has no strict rule for the length of articles especially for lists. Being the sixth largest article or whatever is not an issue, and you have not provided any solid evidence or argument why the length of this article decreases the quality of this page. And I had clearly objected your proposed changes with reasons. As for the new Nobel laureates in the future, I had already created the "List II" (shown above) to accommodate that, which has just been reviewed and accepted by other editors (I just received notifications). "List III", "List IV", etc can be similarly created in far future, if needed. After all, this echos the spirits of "Archives" in Wikipedia (each Talk page has Archives). Minimumbias (talk) 02:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Mate you literally accused me of not being in academics, making edits without reason, and other stuff I don't care about. I simply asked you to be less hostile as I felt you were being confrontational, and you took that as an attack and made your own. There are no strict rules for anything, so by the same logic there are no articles on Wikipedia with quality issues. Exemptions to the 50,000 guideline that you are alluding to are normally made for sortable tables, which this isn't. I have also received the notifications for the new article, that is a fairly routine process to check that new articles are not frivolous and doesn't reflect any position on the structure of the article. For what it's worth, I approve of the new article also. You can check the archive for what you are quoting me as saying, and for your confrontations with others. This is all irrelevant anyway, just leave it alone mate. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1) "Accusing" means saying a person is guilty or doing something wrong. This is such a strong saying. Thus, "Not being in academics" is not an accusation. "Making edits without reason" - I have never said that. On the contrary, "According to others you have annoyed people into dissuading them from contributing to this article" is accusation and personal attack, towards me.

2) Wikipedia having strict rules for the length of articles is a sufficient but unnecessary condition for a quality issue because of the length. In fact, this does not restrict to "length issue". Hence, your following statement is a mistake (again, people in academia rarely make such mistakes):

"There are no strict rules for anything, so by the same logic there are no articles on Wikipedia with quality issues."

Now, since Wikipedia does not have such strict rules for article lengths especially for lists, the logic is that you have to demonstrate why the length of a article is a quality issue by listing other valid argument. However, as of now you have not done that for this article. On the contrary, I have argued repeatedly that the best quality of this article requires such length since we need many templates and citations and so on. A new list had been created to accommodate future laureates, and being reviewed and accepted means such "extension list" is not an unreasonable approach. So the only concern you had has been solved. Minimumbias (talk) 03:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1. The nature of this page is such that there will always be some controversy.

2. Minimumbias and I have discussed many issues, and there are still many issues that doesn't have consensus. For instance, should we include award-based visiting professorship that requires employment level duties on this page? I think award-based vising professorships should be counted if and only if the visitor has published at least a paper under university's affiliation or done some significant work at the university. Minimumbias disagrees with me on this.

3. For a long-term academic staff at a university, who were also a temporary academic staff at the same university, the information should be in one column. Ber31 (talk) 05:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1) For 1 and 2, yes, controversy always exists. Full consensus on everything is impossible as long as a distribution of opinions exists in society (e.g., normal distribution). This is not just true among Wikipedia editors, but it is also true among universities (that's why they practice different criteria for counting Nobel laureates) and academia as a whole. Hence, what we have been doing for Wikipedia articles like this is trying to reach a point where controversy is the lowest possible, instead of imposing personal ideals of one or a group of editors. Ber31, I think I had made myself quite clear before that I did not disagree with your opinions personally, but I disagreed imposing some of your ideals which were very conservative (you admitted this point as well). Most importantly, the current counting criteria & policies are not my ideal either, but the ones that are least controversial. Imposing personal ideals is not an improvement of this article, since new editors may come in and disagree. For instance, regarding award-based visiting positions, many Nobel laureates classified some of those positions as "affiliation/employment" in their C.Vs (perhaps because they had completed some important work in the host universities), so as Wikipedia editors we can't use our own ideals to argue with Nobel laureates and deny such affiliations, for this would result in controversies and are original research. That's why in cases like this we leave it to the Nobel laureates themselves to decide.

2) Just one example. A long-term academic staff member at a university may have been a postdoc at the same university in the past. I don't see why it is an improvement of this article to delete such "postdoc information". Minimumbias (talk) 06:28, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

1. I don't think further discussion between you and me on those issues are possible. My views are quite conservative, and some editors may not agree with me. The current counting policies are least controversial, and that's efficacious.

2. I not suggesting that we should delete such information. It will be better if we merge such information. "Long-term academic staffs" can include those who were also postdocs or visitors. Ber31 (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

For point 2, I think you are suggesting that, given a university, we merge the small portion of "temporary academic staff" who later became long-term staff to the category of "long-term academic staff". This might (just might) reduce the length of this article by a small percent, but it will cause several issues. Just to name three:

1) To save space and make the overall presentation neat, a current policy is "if a person had multiple positions under one category, only the position with highest rank is considered." In this case, it is just weird to keep the names of "postdoc", "visitor", etc under "long-term academic staff". Format-wise, juxtapositions such as "professor & postdoc" "professor & visiting professor" may make the second column too wide and may be bad for presentation.

2) "Overlap" in the tables at the beginning of the article now contains information of people who fall in more than one category of a university. To an extent, this information reflects the level of "loyalty" or "retention rate" of people to a university. If we merge the small portion of "temporary academic staff" with "long-term academic staff", such information delivered through the "Overlap" column will become less significant (and distorted, to an extent).

3) In practice, re-examining every university requires a large amount of work compared to a possibly much smaller amount of benefit, unless you can demonstrate we are actually going to get a lot of benefits out of this change. Minimumbias (talk) 07:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

On this business of accusing User:Minimumbias, I say again that I originally asked them to be less hostile in their speaking. They challenged this, so I defended what I said. I would not have given reasons for that if they had not rejected this. Continuing to suggest that I am somehow uninvolved or not capable enough for academics is immature and completely unhelpful. There is no need for them to argue that any further.

There is absolutely no mistake in saying that there are no strict rules for anything on Wikipedia, except for plagiarism and other legal issues. The absence of strict rules is not an argument at all for any editorial decision or lack thereof. As I've said repeatedly, efforts to substantially change this article are for quality purposes. The templates and citations themselves do not cause the article to be so large, and this article's size is absolutely not inevitable.

A higher standard of judging temporary positions as being an affiliation is certainly called for, especially where the university does not count temporary staff as being Nobel laureates of their university. Deviating from what the universities themselves claim to be their affiliated Nobel laureates is essentially WP:original research, especially if the laureate has not published any work with the university like User:Ber31 points out. Clearly being in a position where we are listing both the university's count of laureates and a Wikipedia contributor's count of laureates is not ideal. Laureates listed both for permanent and temporary positions separately is also a redundant sprawl of information that restricts the brevity of the article. It would not be "weird" to have someone listed under permanent staff with a visiting position as long as their permanent position(s) is also listed, and the resulting third column could be "temporary-only". It still raises the big question of the necessity of splitting staff into two columns anyway. For articles as expansive as this, the best strategy is to be conservative in the information displayed, particularly in how it is displayed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Once and for all, be succinct: I strongly disagree there is a quality issue in this article, and as you have seen above that the current counting policy and criteria has already reached the least controversial point (i.e., your proposed changes will result in a much higher level of controversy). In particular, you have repeatedly failed to show why the length of this article is a quality issue and why change is needed, especially when a new list had been created to accommodate future laureates. I don't see why any of your proposed changes improves the quality of this article, and I am completely unconvinced of taking any further action to this article based on your proposals. All reasons have been given repeatedly in the discussions above. Hence, no consensus has established regarding your ideals and no further action is justified Wikipedia:Consensus. Minimumbias (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know how explicit to make this. You continue to claim that my issue is the length itself, and then continue to claim that I have failed to justify that. My issue is the quality as I repeatedly state, purposefully in contradiction of what you are saying about me. This would be like me saying you haven't adequately proven that the Moon is made of cheese. If I have not explained something, it must be assumed that I do not think it is important. What else could it be, that I have simply forgotten to argue it? If you really want me to address something specific that I would not otherwise, I strongly suggest you ask me a direction question with a question mark, especially if you really want to go on about length. It's apparent you don't approve of any changes, the structure of the article reflects your personal preferences of which you feel a sentimental guardianship. I have no interest in catering to your whims, I would much rather act constructively for the article separately. You simply have not been helpful in engaging with the proposed changes, and have barely even acknowledged them, instead insisting I justify some argument about length, in some attempt to avoid discussing the actual changes I intend to make. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Newcomer, I don't know how many times I have to remind you that the current policies and criteria are not my ideals, but are reflections of academia structure and have reached the lowest point of controversy. I do not see any quality issue, and your proposed changes will result in a much higher level of controversies as I have repeatedly explained above (if you want to deny this, that's fine). This current article is a result of long-time work of various editors, including dozens of discussions in this talk page. Now you want to come in just to impose your own unjustified ideals? I strongly disagree. On the other hand, if you want to see some examples of the established consensus on the current policies and structure, let me quote the latest sayings (these are actual words from other editors in this talk page):

1) "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)"

2) "My views are quite conservative, and some editors may not agree with me. The current counting policies are least controversial, and that's efficacious." Ber31 (talk) 06:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

3) 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... Elriana (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You have been really disrespectful towards me personally many times, and been disrespectful towards the years' of work and efforts many editors have contributed. Minimumbias (talk) 04:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I have not been disrespectful to you. I may have time to respond in greater detail later but quickly I want to say that I'm not against consensus, not for imposing my own ideals, and I am very disappointed you are now portraying me as that. I'm actually in agreement with User:Ber31's ideas expressed in this talk page section, and with Elriana's quote. I know you deny that this article is shaped primarily by you but that's what appears to be the case, especially in the last year or so, and I have read through the talk pages. This article is like a messy room, you are able to navigate it easily, but for the general public this is not easily read prose. It might be the least objectionable mess in comparison to the completely overreactive objections that are made to the smallest contributions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, surely you have been disrespectful, for many times. And words such as "The templates and citations themselves do not cause the article to be so large" is a blatant denial of the historical facts I have listed, especially when most templates and the comparison to university counts were established by other editors before my involvement in 2016.

Of course this article in its current form is shaped primarily by me, and I've never denied that. In fact, I've made this point quite clear in my first statement under this section of Talk Page. But as I've said repeatedly that this restructuring since 2016 (primarily by me) has received support from other editors, is a reflection of academia structure, is least controversial and is not my personal ideal. "Writing primarily by me" is not equal to "reflecting my ideals and preference". Why can't you understand this? For instance, Elriana's quotes explicitly support me and Ber31 has also said the current policies were "least controversial" and "efficacious" just now, so I don't understand if you agree with their sayings, why do you keep arguing with me? Why do you want to impose your own ideas? We are already in a least controversial situation, and now you want to bring it to a much more controversial situation just because you want to?

"This article is a messy room" - I suppose you are talking about this Talk Page instead of the article. But if you are talking about the article itself, it is quite unfortunate that you are the only person here who thinks the current article is "messy" and you can't make yourself represent the "general public". So if you wish to make this article "readable to the general public" by your own standards (or, more "readable to you"), that's against the consensus established here. Just to repeat one example: I have said many times it is unreasonable to completely merge the second and the third columns to mix "tenured/tenure-track professors" with "visitors". Again, I really don't think you work in academia. Minimumbias (talk) 04:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Finally, I have spent too much time and energy on this long but fruitless discussion. I may choose not to reply any further even if you continue replying and arguing below. One thing I really have to emphasize is that I had already created a new list to accommodate future laureates and cut the length of this article by around 1/4. This is your original intention of starting this discussion here (the section title is "Splitting/shortening"). So you should have stopped already. True, you may continue calling me "unhelpful in engaging with" your other proposed changes. But I don't see any reason why I have to be helpful when I strongly disagree with such proposed changes (e.g., merging the second and the third columns) which will bring more controversies and are against established consensuses. The last thing I wish to remind you is that, again, "no consensus has established regarding your ideals and no further action is justified Wikipedia:Consensus". I believe you are a person who respects Wikipedia's rules and I believe you won't wage any edit wars here, since nobody wants to engage in grueling edit warring. Minimumbias (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

This is tedious. I'm not imposing anything, I'm opening it up for discussion. You don't have any suggestions to make this article better so I really don't see why you persist on arguing. So far the consensus against change has just been from you, citing that the current article reflects the least objectionable consensus. This is no consensus against change, but I urge you to wait for time to elapse, as I will. Non-contribution disagreements I am happy to discuss on user talk pages. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

These are some really disturbing claims from Onetwothreeip. It is simply bizarre for editors to repeatedly call their own ideas "uncontroversial" especially when there are clear objections from others, and it is really disturbing to call the current table a "messy room" and "substantially change this article are for quality purposes". Before the intervention of Minimumbias, this table had long been plagued by vandalism, boosterism, inconsistent criteria and was poorly sourced. Not every academic is willing to spend much time and energy cleaning this up. Therefore I am really glad that an academic as experienced as Minimumbias would undertake the task to clean up this table, and the current format and criteria have improved significantly. I do not think any further substantial change is called for.

For temporary staff, saying that a visitor is an affiliate of a university "if and only if s/he made relevant publications" is not just conservative, it is a mistake in reality. I can guarantee you that most visitors to a university are not employed. They mostly come to a university to collaborate with certain people in research, not to be employed. True, sometimes when visitors make extended stays, they may be involved in teaching and get paid. But such employment-based cases only account for a small portion of the visits. In far more common situations, visitors come to a university either with a travel grant from NSF or similar, or with a stipend awarded by the host university through some visiting program. (From time to time, I also see some self-supported visitors or privately-funded visitors) To generalize, my point is that these visitors are all affiliated with the host university in a way or another. The nature of their work at the host universities does not hinge on the types of funds they receive during their stays. On the other hand, universities themselves have various perspectives when it comes to recognizing some of the visitors as affiliates when they received Nobel Prizes. Some universities such as Harvard, Berkeley and Caltech are particularly conservative and exclude all visitors, some universities such as Cambridge, MIT, and Chicago are more liberal and count most visitors, while others stand in a neutral zone. Hence, to integrate all of them into one list, I agree with Minimumbias's approach that we need to find a balance point and make the list "least controversial". 8.28.179.234 (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Plus, I forgot to mention the length. I do not think the current length of this article affects the readability at all, especially when a sub-list had been created (the name of the sub-list was slightly modified yesterday). And it is quite clear that for quality purposes, the reference list of this page is rather long and has over 1000 citations. This is some truly important work due to Minimumbias, reflecting the academic rigor. 8.28.179.234 (talk) 00:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

As the second newly created account on this talk page with the same views as another user, I take the comments from User talk:8.28.179.234 with the warranted suspicion. Nevertheless I am happy to address the claims made about me. When I said about uncontroversial edits, I said that it would be proposing things being implemented to the extent that they were uncontroversial. This article is indeed very messy and there is nothing disturbing by saying that. The comparison to a messy room was apt, in that it's much easier for the creator of it to navigate it and feel comfortable looking at it. As for who is counted for Nobel Prizes, reaching beyond what the universities themselves say are their Nobel laureates risks violating WP:Original research. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

This is highly disturbing. I do not understand what you meant by "second newly created account". Who is the other account? I am not new to this Talk page. I am not using my Wikipedia account as I am out of town and is vising summer school of another university. I do not wish to get involved in personal issues, either.

I am not really comfortable with the way you talk. Whether this article is messy or not does not depend on your judgement alone. I think the article looks fine. To me, there is a sense of arrogance and self-centerness when you used the words "indeed very messy", as if there are a lot others who are claiming the same thing. Regarding original research, I think the current list has reached a combination of minimal-level original research and maximal-level comprehensiveness and usefulness. It is impossible to just the Nobel laureates in university webpages since they have different criteria. Perhaps the Stanford webpage has the best description (below). "List" and "claim" are two concepts. Universities use different criteria to claim laureates, and this Wikipedia article is simply listing all the relevant ones by universities.

The business of "claiming" laureates can be controversial: Where and when was a winner's work done? Stanford, for example, lists but does not claim laureates who are not on the faculty, even if they have a significant Stanford connection.8.28.179.234 (talk) 01:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a reason to change the way I'm talking. It is not impossible to only list the laureates that are claimed by the universities, whether or not it is desirable. They may very well have different criteria to each other, and reconciling that by including what the universities do not include (or other sources) is getting into original research. It is not original research to keep the lists as the universities make them. I don't know why anybody would be disturbed by me saying that the article is messy and I am not aware of the article's ability to feel emotions. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:35, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

1) @IP:8.28.179.234, thanks for weighing in. I’m guessing editor Onetwothreeip was suggesting you were somehow related to editor StanLeeP because you both expressed support and similar agreement with me, and by looking at editing history I just realized StanLeeP joined Wikipedia recently (last month). StanLeeP discussed summer policies with me below. Anyway. Unlike Onetwothreeip, I’d take your comments equally as those of others.

2) This is really not a proper place to continue such discussion. The original intention of this discussion was that this article is too long. But as everyone knows that I’d created a second list to cut the length of this article and to accommodate future laureates. In addition, I have clearly and repeatedly given reasons why other approaches suggested by “OnetwothreeIP” do not work. So, there is in fact no length problem anymore. The current discussion of issues such as counting policies, structures, and original research do not belong here. I'll create another section below this weekend when I have more time, and I’ll demonstrate in detail, again, why the current list does not involve original research, and why the current structure and counting policies are valid and there is no need for change.

3) @IP:8.28.179.234. If “OnetwothreeIP” does not see a reason to change his/her way of talking, which is sometimes “uncivil” in others' views, then I don't see a reason why he/she could demand others to be “civil” towards him/her. He/she has accused me many times and has been very disrespectful (not civil) towards me without being self-aware of it. He/she seems to have a tendency of accusing other editors for various reasons such as not being civil (see his/her talk page). For instance, he/she had called me “hostile” and “impolite”, the current structure a “messy room”, and “I have no interest in catering to your whims” & “the structure of the article reflects your personal preferences of which you feel a sentimental guardianship”. I'd grown tired of such accusations. And, when I had observed that academics & academia may not be his/her expertise, I gave suggestions to him/her, which were clearly ignored and probably hurt his/her ego, calling me “immature”. I never make edits to fields which I’m not familiar with, but it seems that “OnetwothreeIP” doesn’t think so. Minimumbias (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

That is not true, I take all comments equally.

Any change to the article can be discussed on the talk page.

This is a very long article, even after some of the article has been spun off into its own.

If I have said you were hostile or impolite at any time, that is because I felt you were. Saying that I am uninvolved in academics, which you have now mentioned again, is clearly a transparent example of that, now adding to that by suggesting my "ego" is hurt. Describing the article in a negative way is not uncivil, disrespectful or hostile, and neither are my observations of the article which you have repeated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You literally just said, "I take the comments from User talk:8.28.179.234 with the warranted suspicion". Anyway. No further comment will be made from me on any of your or my way of talking. Leave it to other editors. All other issues relevant to the articles will be discussed during the weekend, in a new section (to be created) of this Talk Page below. Minimumbias (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I do take them with suspicion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand your logic. Minimumbias (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand yours. I'm taking them equally regardless of anything else. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:24, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you seem to be the only one who doesn't understand mine. Minimumbias (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Excuse me, but why am I tagged? And in what way am I related to that IP? I've never joined the discussion under these threads. I only discussed summer policies with Minimimbias in other threads for they affected Caltech's number, and that's it. Yes I'm new to Wikipedia and am still learning many new features. But what's the problem with that? Is it related to the deleted thread in my own talk page? There seems to be several Thank-you notes in Minimumbias' Talk page since Minimimbias created many useful lists. So I thought it's normal to thank another editor. StanLeeP (talk) 00:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the trouble. I believe you are not involved in any of the issues here given that you have never expressed your views over these issues. And there's no problem with being new to Wikipedia, and no problem deleting messages on your own Talk Page (you do have the right to do that). However, editor Onetwothreeip suggested that you may be related to the IP address above, possibly implying Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Onetwothreeip wishes others to assume good faith in him/her, but now he/she takes comments from others with "warranted suspicion". He/she also has accused me several times. Anyway, I'm tired of elaborating any further. Minimumbias (talk) 02:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's comforting to know. I didn't know one can play that trick in Wiki. That being said, I've read some of the discussion above more carefully, and I think Wiki should probably introduce the emoji system as in Mac or Android - that could really reduce some tension and avoid conflicts :P StanLeeP (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@Minimumbias: Can you tell me what I have accused you? Feel free to respond to that on my talk page rather than here, and I would prefer that also. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I have listed the accusations so many times above. I won't repeat. I've really become tired of such pointless discussion regarding your or my ways of talking. Just let go. All other relevant topics regarding the article itself will be discussed this weekend, hopefully. Minimumbias (talk) 06:37, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I could kind of understand the concern of Onetwothreeip. But I can reassure everyone that there is no sock puppetry or whatever involved. As I said a few days ago that I did not want to log in to get involved in any personal issues here, for this has obviously grown into an endless flow of discussion that is not pertinent to the content of the article. Notice that I never claim that I agree with everything in this list (I will explain more in the newly created section below), but, to me, this article is at least not messy, and it’s a bit surprising to learn that someone has trouble navigating through it. 8.28.179.16 (talk) 03:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Moving discussion

I'd like to move on from previous discussions and appeal to others on their concerns regarding the article, if they wish. I disagree with much of the previous section which was made to appear neutral but I would rather not go into that again if it doesn't serve any purpose. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Final suggestion: go write another article ("your own") instead of persistently carping about the well-established work of others if most things in this article do not reach your own ideal or standard. In the previous section, I've explained almost everything relevant to this article clearly and logically with numerous examples and evidence, including all the consensuses and collaborative work among several editors. If you disagree, go write another ("your own") article. Minimumbias (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

What is this "your own" mean? Of course I disagree with much of those conclusions, I already said so again. Writing a new section in over 40 edits does not make what you say authoritative. I don't see a need to go over it again with you, at least for now, so it looks unusual that you are telling me to do something instead of going into further disagreement, when I stated I don't wish to. No doubt this won't be your last of many "final" comments. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Guys, it's time to stop bickering. 8.28.179.16 (talk) 03:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

General Guidelines to the Article (List) and FAQs

Preface: Reason for this Section

Reasons for creating this section in Talk Page are two-fold. First of all, as the main contributor of this article (see page revision statistics [8]), I’d like to give a general introduction to the list itself, especially on how the list reaches its current form after all these years. All the relevant consensuses we have reached are naturally embedded into this introduction. Secondly, I’d like to answers some FAQs in one setting, once and for all, in the hope that any future editors who have questions and/or disagreement would be guided here first before they start a new section of discussion in this Talk Page.

1. Purpose of this Article (List)

The purpose of this list is self-evident through the title “List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation”. We wish to make a comprehensive list of university affiliations of individual Nobel Prize winners. One thing to note is that some (not all!) universities around the world do have their own lists of Nobel laureates whom they think “belong to” their campus communities (some would even consider their affiliated high schools/laboratory schools and extensions). However, different universities adopt different criteria for claiming Nobel laureates, and that not all affiliated Nobel Prize winners at a university are claimed by the university. Hence, it really depends on the attitude of a university. Take Harvard University for an example. There are only 49 Nobel laureates who are listed in Harvard’s website. But clearly, Harvard is merely listing some of its affiliated laureates, for there are already 75 Harvard alumni who have won the prizes, not to mention faculty members and visitors. For other examples, UC Berkeley and Caltech almost never claim visitors as affiliated Nobel laureates, but University of Cambridge, University Chicago and Columbia University would count many, if not all, visitors. Another tricky point is that several universities including Harvard also list people who have never received Nobel prizes themselves but, for example, had worked for a Nobel-winning agency for some time.

All in all, this Wikipedia article is creating a platform to list all affiliated laureates for each and every university worldwide following the same set of criteria, regardless of whether the laureates are officially claimed by the universities themselves. I repeat, we are not simply listing the laureates claimed by the universities, for otherwise this page would be called “List of Nobel laureates claimed by universities” which is impossible to make since many universities do not have their own lists.

2. Counting Policy

The question now is how to “define” “affiliation”? Yes, Wikipedia does not allow original research (Wikipedia:No original research), which means as Wikipedia editors we are not allowed to use our personal understandings, thoughts or values to define/interpret “affiliation”. Hence, we should simply go by the most natural meaning of “affiliation”. However, no Wikipedia rule prevents us from setting criteria for what types of affiliation are to be discussed in this article. And thus we choose “academic affiliation”, a subset of “affiliation”. This is by no means an original research, but simply an determination of the subjects we are writing about as editors.

Now comes a more detailed discussion of academic affiliation. Again, we should only go by the most natural meaning of “academic affiliation” and never interpret it personally, but we can still choose to write about a smaller subset of “academic affiliation” if we wish to, without violating “no original research” rule. This is where the adoption of “least controversial criteria” comes about. It is a fact that different universities have different attitude when claiming laureates, so do Wikipedia editors. There is a natural distribution of opinions among Wikipedia editors, ranging from very conservative to very liberal. Therefore, the most reasonable approach is to find the least controversial one so that most people are not unhappy. In fact, this approach is required by Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Neutral point of view), and also reflects the democratic spirits of Wikipedia community. Not a single editor, including myself, should impose his or her own ideals or criteria when determining the inclusion criteria for academic affiliation (i.e., choosing a small subset of academic affiliation to write about in this article).

So, what is our least controversial criteria after all? The direct answer is that they have been clearly written at the beginning of the article and have been imposed throughout the article. Yes, what you are seeing in this article is already the least controversial or least biased criteria deemed by several contributing editors. It is not too liberal nor too conservative, and it is not the personal ideal of any editor who has been involved in writing this article. Nevertheless, it is not abnormal for a new editor who comes here to express certain level of disagreement with the criteria, but after all this disagreement is at personal level and does not represent the general opinions. To really challenge the criteria, there should be a group of reliable editors who express the same disagreement with convincing argument and evidence to show that the current criteria is not “least controversial”. Again, this process is required by Wikipedia policy (Wikipedia:Consensus, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view).

3. Article Structure

An important thing I wish to emphasize here is the structure of this article. There are three main types of academic affiliations, which is the natural fabric of academia: Alumni (graduates & attendees), Long-term Academic Staff (tenured), Temporary Academic Staff (not tenured). I repeat, this is not the personal preference of any editor, but the structure of academia, which is more or less a commonsense among people in academia. Thus, although there are many choices of structure of presentation for this article, the aforementioned tripartite structure is the most natural choice (otherwise there is also risk of violating the "no original research" policy). If one wants evidence, here are some university websites that directly adopt such structure of presentation.

1) People, Math Department, Harvard University: [9], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Graduate Students, Faculty (long-term), Visitors and postdocs (short-term).

2) Directory, Physics Department, Princeton University: [10], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Graduate Students, Faculty (long-term), Researchers (short-term).

3) Directory, Physics Department, University of Chicago: [11], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Graduate Students, Faculty (long-term), Postdoc (short-term).

4) People, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford: [12], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Students, Faculty (long-term), Research (short-term).

5) People, Chemistry Department, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: [13], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Graduate Students, Faculty (long-term), Postdocs (short-term) & Visiting (short-term).

6) People, Bioengineering Department, UC Berkeley: [14], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Alumni, Faculty (long-term), Lecturer (short-term).

7) People, Physics Department, Stanford University: [15], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Physics Students, Faculty (long-term), Visiting Professors and Scholars (short-term) & Academic Staff (Lecturers, short-term) & Research Staff (Postdocs, short-term).

8) People, Department of Pure Math and Mathematical Statistics, University of Cambridge: [16], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Research Students, Academic Staff (long-term), Research Staff (short-term) & Visitors (short-term).

9) People, Department of Mathematics, California Institute of Technology: [17], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Graduate Students, Faculty (long-term), Postdocs (short-term) & Visitors (short-term).

10) People, Department of Economics, University of Toronto: [18], in which academic affiliates are categorized into: Grad Students, Faculty (long-term), Instructors (short-term).

4. FAQs

1) Eligibility: As many other Wikipedia articles, this list of Nobel laureates possesses certain level of technicality. Hence, it'd be the best for readers if this article is written and edited by people who have rich knowledge and experience in academics. In fact, most if not all editors who have contributed non-trivially to this article are people from academia. There have also been some random editors who made minor modifications here and there. But ultimately, people who made constructive, reasonable and lasting contributions are those who are familiar with academics.

2) Comprehensiveness & Verifiability: Each individual Nobel laureate (892 as of 2017) has been carefully examined, meaning that I (with some help of editor Ber31) have gone through all major online biographical sources for each of these laureates. That really took me a long time to complete. In addition, every affiliation in this article is supported by at least one reliable online source, and no original research is involved.

3) Numerical Data: All numerical data in this list are not original research (Wikipedia:No original research). The logic is simple. Original research especially synthesis is when one takes information from a variety of sources and combine them into a statement which contains extra information; for instance, A + B < C, such that some conclusions in C are not supported by sources A and B. This is synthesis (original research). While editing is when one combines a variety of sources and combine them into a statement which does not contain extra information: A + B = C. Let me emphasize that such non-synthetic combination is always taking place everywhere in the universe of editing, for otherwise there is no difference between pure copying (plagiarism & violation of copyright) and editing. Now, in this Nobel counting list, all numerical data are the result of non-synthetic combination of a number of reliable sources – they are not logical conclusions, but the numerical commonsense of counting the number of affiliates inside the table of each university, and it will largely devalue this list if we simply list the laureates by universities without presenting the total numbers to readers. In fact, such presentation of numerical commonsense can be found in many places in Wikipedia. For example, many biographical articles in Wikipedia contain a template such as Template:Age as of date or Template:Start date and age for calculating and displaying the age of a person or the time span between two events. These are numerical commonsense but not logical conclusions (original researches). For another example, any math textbook could write (1+1) = 2, but there may not be one that include (213 + 34 = 247) or (145 + 452 = 597), which are just two simple examples of infinitely many possible combinations, but Wikipedia editors could write the latter into Wikipedia because it is commonsense and is not logical conclusion (original research).

4) Length: Indeed, this article is long compared to many others, but that’s mainly because of the large number of online sources it cited and the large number of Wikipedia templates it used (technical), which affects trivially the readability of the main part of the article. One thing many people would do to navigate through the page is using "Ctrl + F" to search for certain Nobel laureate and his/her affiliations (i.e., his/her academic path). This is best done when the most universities stay in one page. Nevertheless, a sub-list has been created (containing 1 – 10 laureates) to accommodate future laureates. More sub-lists of similar nature may be created in far future if serious length issue appears. Minimumbias (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

5) Summer Policy: Summer terms are not part of official academic years, and most of the academic positions are informal to an extent. Currently, the consensus is that summer positions are generally excluded unless there is significant end products such as research publications and components of Nobel-winning work. Up to 2017, only one Nobel laureate has been included as summer affiliate: Murray Gell-Mann was a repeated summer researcher at UIUC and he obtained important result (Gell-Mann and Low theorem) there. It is advised that any future recommendations for summer affiliates being discussed (case by case) here in Talk page to reach consensus for inclusion/exclusion. The same rule applies to extension schools of universities.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

5. Discussion Area

If any editor has any content-relevant concern and wishes to discuss, please comment below.

§ Topic 1: "Short-term" vs. "Temporary". §

I have always thought that “Temporary academic staff” should be really called “Short-term academic staff”, in alignment with “Long-term academic staff”. Particularly, many postdocs and lecturers would linger around campus for two or three years. It is not really proper to call them "temporary". I do not know how others think but my feeling is that “Temporary” also conveys a sense of “less important” and should be avoided. On the other hand, "short-term" seems to be a more neutral word. I am more comfortable with “Short-term”. 8.28.179.16 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

In fact, more than 2 years ago when I started to restructure this list (as well as the lists of Fields Medalists and Turing Award winners), I originally used both “Temporary Academic Staff” and “Short-term Academic Staff”. But for consistency, I gradually changed all “short-term” to “temporary”. Personally, I do not have a preference, and no one before you has ever expressed preference. Given the nontrivial workload, I suggest we change to “short-term” only if others also think it is better than "temporary", with valid reasons. Minimumbias (talk) 02:12, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Fine, we can wait for others to weigh in. Another minor point I wish to point out as supplement to your introduction is that several universities would list in their own websites certain people who have never received Nobel prizes themselves but, for example, had worked for a Nobel-winning agency for some time. This is highly undesirable in many ways. 8.28.179.27 (talk) 21:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out. I'll update the intro accordingly. Minimumbias (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me here, @User:Minimumbias. Off the top of my head, it’s really hard to tell and I think “temporary staff” and “short-term staff” are interchangeable terms. But maybe I’m a little bit biased. I remember when I was at Caltech, the school strongly encouraged faculty members to invite visitors to campus because Caltech is so small and it depends on a steady stream of visiting scholars to maintain its academic vigor. Several people I worked with in the past were really just there for a stint, but there were also some others who spent several years as postdocs there. So, yeah, it’s really hard for me to tell the difference between “temporary” and “short-term”. But if I really have to choose one, I’d vote for “short-term” because as the IP above says it sounds a bit more neutral =) StanLeeP (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I’m not sure if it is totally relevant, but as far as I know there're reasons why Caltech’s reluctant to admit any Nobel-winning visitor as a part of Caltech’s Nobel community. The rationale is that there are just too many such visitors, and inclusion of them has the potential of creating a bad image for Caltech in academia as an arrogant and bloated narcissist! So Caltech chose to stay humble and only includes alumni and its own faculty members. On the other hand, as a much larger campus MIT had a more liberal way of counting visiting Nobel laureates . I used the word “had” because the Office of Provost had decided earlier this year to abandon such practice of keeping a detailed record of laureates. I’m not quite sure why though. StanLeeP (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I invited you. You are the second editor that I have ever sent out an invitation actively to join in a particular discussion on this Talk Page (the first one was editor Ber31). I believe your opinion is important since you are obviously a respectful editor with adequate knowledge and experience in academics.

1) For point 1, OK, it looks like the consensus is leaning towards "short-term academic staff" rather than "temporary". But, still, let's wait for some time in case that some other editors may want to express their preferences.

2) For point 2, that’s interesting to know. Indeed, I remember removing the dead link to MIT’s University Count several months ago. And I think it actually affirms the value of this Wikipedia list since universities may someday delete their own lists. Minimumbias (talk) 00:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you should also consider mentioning the summer policy we've discussed in your introduction or FAQS? ;) StanLeeP (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Good point. I'll update the intro accordingly. Minimumbias (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Great. Pretty cool intro, btw StanLeeP (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

From 11-35 laureates

I continue slipt this to 11-35 laureates.Nhatminh01 (talk) 05:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, the page for Nobel laureates 1-10 was created to cut the length while keeping the other universities with more laureates in one page. If there had been no length concern, this page would not have been cut, for better readability, completeness, and consistency of information flow. 35 laureates corresponds to rank 21st, the relocation of which will create considerable inconsistency in reading and information flow. Hence, there's no immediate need for further splitting. I think 11-35 laureates should stay in this page for completeness, for now. I will redirect the page you just created back here. Minimumbias (talk) 06:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous section "[19], 4) Length". One thing many people would do to navigate through the page is using "Ctrl + F" to search for certain Nobel laureate and his/her affiliations (i.e., his/her academic path). This is best done when the most universities stay in one page. Your view, @User:StanLeeP? Minimumbias (talk) 07:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We should condense the information on the second article by taking them out of tables, like where a university has only one laureate affiliated but still takes three columns, this is not appropriate for a table. After that, the articles should be roughly equal in size, which would involved moving entries from this article to the other. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for inviting me, @Minimumbias. To all: I really don’t have time to review what has been discussed regarding the length. But, as an IEEE reviewer ([20]), I can say that this article (and also the Fields Medal & Turing award lists) could easily pass the peer-review process. I’ve seen papers of hundreds of pages and papers with only a few pages, and they are all good papers. As long as the content is interesting and presentation looks fine, length comes secondary. Splitting a paper or an article into several pieces is fragmentation, which is rarely desired according my experience. But if there is a rule for maximal length or there is a discussion on several topics of equal importance, one may present the paper/article in series. Happy weekends =)StanLeeP (talk) 18:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Let me make it straight to the point so that you can have a better understanding of what is going on.

1) There is no strict Wikipedia rule of article length, especially for lists. Hence, length would become an issue if and only if it negatively impacts article readability or similar.

2) As I have said repeatedly that this article is long mainly because of the large number of online sources and templates involved, which I think has trivial influence on the readability (the IP address above expressed a similar view). In fact, as an experiment, I recently deleted some redundant sources, and as one can easily see that the length was cut by thousands of bytes which brought the list down from the sixth to the eighth longest Wikipedia article (Special:LongPages). However, I doubt any reader would notice any difference, and the readability stays identical. Hence, currently there appears no length issue in this article.

3) The subpage was created as an extension or an appendix of this main article (as I stated clearly at the beginning of that subpage), but not as part II of an article series since we are not starting a new topic and it is best to keep most universities in one page for better page navigation (e.g., "Ctrl + F"). In a word, the sub-list is not the main structure. And I have said, in far future further appendices may be created in order to accommodate future laureates when length of the main article has climbed to a very large value that influenced readability or similar. Hence, we are not (and I agree that we probably should not) adopting what you called "fragmentation".

4) I am more flexible when it comes to the format of the appendices, but with the premise that we should keep most universities in this main page and keep the "main article - appendices" structure. However, as I said repeatedly, I don't see any immediate need to change anything since there appears no length issue or whatever currently. Discussion regarding modifications is possible in the future when issues appear. Minimumbias (talk) 20:44, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I have issues with the back-end developers of Wiki. There should be a compression program so that the reference section can be compressed. It shouldn't be counted as a part of the page length, or at least shouldn't take up that much space. Should introduce independent database! StanLeeP (talk) 22:11, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in this field, but in Wikipedia there is a template (e.g., reflist Template:Reflist) for citations which can save some extra space (hence, if we split the article, more spaces will be needed). However, as Wikipedia Wikipedia:Template_limits explains that if the templates are "called" too many times, the templates will not be shown properly. That's why I used the template expansion tool Special:ExpandTemplates to fix such problem, which was the only approach I could think of. It worked well, but the price to pay was an increase of the page length from 608,685 bytes to 810,864 bytes (done in early March, 2018). Minimumbias (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Due to identical topic, the following discussion regarding content of the article has been moved to [[21]]. Please refer to discussion there. But it has been kept here because it involves personal discussion of two editors, StanLeeP and OnetwothreeIP. When I made the move, I had clearly stated everything in the edit summary. Minimumbias (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Please do not refer to discussion where it has been "moved" by User:Minimumbias, they are not an admin or anything like that and there is no reason to redirect people wishing to make further discussions about the article into older sections that nobody else will read. Editors are best advised to create a new section if they wish to do so, which is generated at the bottom of the talk page, where discussion can continue in a linear fashion. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:05, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd encourage people to refer to the previous section as noted by Minimumbias in this discussion because I deleted the content of this section involving personal issues between OnetwothreeIP and me.StanLeeP (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you show me which of my comments you have deleted? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring on this talk page

Extended content

@User:Minimumbias, you have made at least four attempts at moving around talk page sections which I have undone and which I dispute. If you don't want to restore the page and discuss what changes you would like to make, I will take this to the administration. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Onetwothreeip, go ahead and take it to administration if you want. If you continue this, I will report to administration before you do. You had repeatedly undone my edits without providing explanations. I have made my points that similar topics can be combined according to Wikipedia policies. I have already restored your sections with my comments to avoid edit war. Notice that it was not me who made the latest edit to remove content. Minimumbias (talk) 01:47, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Minimumbias, it's not regarding the last edit that StanLeeP has done. It is fine enough to make bold edits thinking that something would be better somewhere else, and that is entirely within Wikipedia policies, but these moves have been contested and undone, continuing to make them is edit warring. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Onetwothreeip, let me repeat: combining sections with similar topic and modifying headings (especially duplicate discussions) is within Wikipedia policies, since I did not edit the content or order of any discussion. There is no policy stating I need to obtain permission from anyone. On the other hand, you have undone my edits several times and are also involving in this editing war by not listing your argument following Wikipedia policies. If you continue this, I would report you before you do. Currently, I restored your sections not because I am afraid of your reporting me, but because I don't wish to spend time talking to you or getting involved in any pointless incident with an editor like you (who personally attacked me as explained in a previous section). Instead, I prefer to spend time doing other constructive edits. Minimumbias (talk) 01:55, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Minimumbias, you actually have added words into what other people have written, with the headings. I've taken it to administration as soon as you said "go ahead and take it", since to me that indicated you agree it should be dealt by a third party. An edit war and involvement by administrators is the last thing I would want. Essentially it has been contested that these sections are duplicates, and the old section that I started quite a while ago now is very long. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Onetwothreeip, sure, I will wait for the result. Again, combining sections with similar topics and modifying headings (especially duplicate discussions) does not violate Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines), as long as I preserved the content and order of all discussions. If there is any Wikipedia policy I am not aware of, I am happy to learn and follow it. The current page contains duplicated discussions, due to your repeated protests and my intention not to involve in edit war. I have explained everything clearly in all my edit summaries. On the contrary, when you undid my merges and restored those discussions, you actually left out or misplaced my discussion with User:StanLeeP. You basically altered the content, as protested by User:StanLeeP. Minimumbias (talk) 02:06, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I don't want to get involved in any personal issues here. I will just state what I saw. So I was invited by Minimumbias to join a discussion under "splitting 11-35" (I can't remember the name exactly). So I had some smooth discussion with Minimumbias this afternoon (for me). I saw that Minimumbias combined this section with previous section under "Splitting/shortening" and moved all the discussion with entirety. I thought it was reasonable because they are literally the same topic. After I got back from dinner, I saw OnetwothreeIP undone Minimumbias's combination and restored the section "splitting 11-35", but without including my replies and discussion with Minimumbias. So I felt offended and left a message with OnetwothreeIP. I restored my discussion with Minimumbias myself. I thought my discussion with OnetwothreeIP was not related to the content of this article, so I deleted it. I'm sorry to see this edit war going on. Hope it resolves smoothly. StanLeeP (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC) You haven't done anything wrong here User:StanLeeP. I definitely didn't remove any of your comments, but if anything got mixed up I was more than happy to fix it as soon as you would have brought it up with me, like if a comment of yours ended up in a section you didn't intend it to be, whether it was from my edit or not. The section of "splitting/shortening" got off-track and definitely ended up running its course for as long as it could go and it was appropriate that the discussion moved on fresh from that section. Minimumbias for some reason included a "section" to discuss issues after they made a large posting, but I didn't feel that needed to be moved since they probably wanted to start the discussion over instead of continuing with a previous one. I hope this clears it up, it's not something I want to dwell that much on. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Minimumbias I did no such alteration of StanLeeP's comments, I did not remove them nor did I move them. I did move back comments around them, but you had moved them there initially. That is clear from the edit difference summary that I linked previously. Even still, I was happy for them to let me know if they would like to move something back, I would do that for them. The main issue with your edits comes down to being a bold edit that has been contested. When I made a new section, it was to move on from the lengthy "splitting/shortening" section which had well and truly run its course, which we both agreed. Frankly it appears you would rather move the discussion away where it simply isn't seen, but that's not the point. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:31, 22 July 2018 (UTC) @User:Onetwothreeip, with this evidence [[22]], I don't know why you would deny leaving out my words with StanLeeP. When you restored the section, you did not include the following discussion between StanLeeP and I, which immediately followed your message on "09:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)". Thanks for inviting me, @Minimumbias. To all: I really don’t have time to review what has been discussed regarding the length. But, as an IEEE reviewer .... In addition, I have repeatedly explained my reasons for combining sections. I had consulted the Wikipedia guidelines for Talk Page, which encourages combining sections and posts with similar topics. It is also common to see editors combine sections with similar topics in Talk Page. I had even shown you the Wikipedia policies I'd read, and I emphasized that throughout the whole process I have not altered the content or order of any discussion. On the other hand, you repeatedly said I need permission from other editors without providing me any valid policies. And you have undone my edits repeatedly without providing further reasons. Therefore I felt justified to undone your edits. But, as I said in edit summaries, in order to avoid getting in edit wars (before you reported to administration), I had restored all sections that I combined with words "duplicate sections", which is allowed by Wikipedia policies. Now I'd wait for other editors to weigh in this case. Minimumbias (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2018 (UTC) That was the revision history I linked to you before. It shows that nothing was removed from the page, just moved. If there was anything missing after that, it must have been from one of your numerous edits where you were moving around the sections. I don't believe I've said you've needed permission. You have altered the content, the headlines, but that is not the main concern. I have given you reasons why I did not want my comments to be moved, and in fact I purposefully started a new section. The meaning of my comments is certainly changed by its context, although I appreciate this was not your intention. This is not a complicated matter, your edits have been contested and undone, so it goes back to what it was before. This is the normal procedure, many undiscussed edits are made on Wikipedia and yours was reverted because someone disagreed with them. That's happened to me, and what I do when that happens is we go to the talk page and come to some agreement, otherwise the initial revision stands. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I have never seen any editor who could so blatantly deny history and made rootless accusations. I moved the entire section "From 11-35 laureates" under "Splitting/shortening", without altering a slightest bit. During my entire combination process, I never edited content. What's the point of denying this fact? I have done nothing after my combinations, as the Talk Page history and User:StanLeeP can verify. But then you came in, restoring the sections, leaving my original discussion with StanLeeP in "Splitting/shortening" without adding them back to the newly restored "From 11-35 laureates". As for "I don't believe I've said you've needed permission", just read the history of this Talk Page especially the edit summaries. This is what you said "You do not have the permission of the editor ...." In addition, when you initially undid my edits, you provided with no valid reasons whatsoever, but I provided you with valid reasons and Wikipedia policy details when I undid your edits. Then I tried to avoid edit war, but you reported to administration. It is quite clear whose fault it is. I'll just wait for administration instead of further arguing with you here. Minimumbias (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2018 (UTC) The main problem is certainly not that you have edited content, but you have done that by editing other people's headings. That is not the main issue however. The edit history, including the comparison of revisions, shows that I have not removed anything from anyone except for my own comments. This talk page also shows that I inquired when StanLeeP brought up the issue and I was eager to deal with it, whomever's fault it was, whether or not this was real. I also said that if something else should have also been moved back, I would be happy to move it back if that was pointed out, no matter what the cause for this was. Suggesting that I would purposefully do something like this is not at all assuming good faith. You certainly did not have the permission of the editors in question but you've taken me saying that to mean that the permission of other users is necessary in order to make bold edits, which is certainly jumping to conclusions. You did not try to avoid an edit war, you said I should report to administration, with "go ahead and take it to administration". I clearly said I wanted to discuss before it got to that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I testify that Minimumbias this afternoon only moved discussions in its entirety without altering the content, and that the missing part was due to OnetwothreeIP's possibly careless mistake. I testify that these are what I have seen on this Talk Page today and I made no personal favor towards either party. Good night. StanLeeP (talk) 04:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC) I took plenty of care, I immediately responded to your complaint. Can someone tell me what you think I removed? Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC) ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I prefer using evidence. What I did was merging some sections with similar topics (and modifying headings of 2 duplicate sections, upon the protest of Onetwothreeip regarding the merge) without altering at all the content or order of discussions - in fact, I am one of the few main participants in each of these sections. These are all actions allowed and sometimes encouraged by Wikipedia policies (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). However, editor Onetwothreeip's central point is that I had "no permission sought to change others' talk page entries, changing/deleting headlines (undoing)"/"You do not have the permission of the editor who made the heading". Here's the complete timeline, as one can easily verify by looking at the edit history of this Talkpage. 1) From 21:03 - 21:08, 21 July 2018‎, I made two merges of sections with similar topics, stating clearly what I was doing and why in edit summaries (such as "Combined 2 sections of similar topics" and "Combined 2 sections of similar topics"). I had consulted Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines before doing so, and I did not alter the content & order of discussion at all. 2) From 21:14 - 22:28, 21 July 2018‎, I continued my discussion with User:StanLeeP in the merged sections. I also mentioned "The discussion has moved here." in my edit summary, and StanLeeP thought my action was "reasonable" (see above). 3) From 22:47 July 21, 2018 - 00:44, 22 July 2018‎, editor Onetwothreip came to this Talkpage and almost completely undid my merges in 1), stating in edit summary that "no permission sought to change others' talk page entries, changing/deleting headlines (undoing)." In this process of restoring sections, Onetwothreeip left out or misplaced my discussion with StanLeeP in 2) and before. StanLeeP felt "offended" and had to manually restored our conversations himself/herself. 4) From 01:15 - 01:25, 22 July 2018‎, I realized the chaos in Talkpage and re-initiated the merges, referring to + quoting + explaining carefully in my edit summaries the Wikipedia policies that I had read (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines). Again, I did not alter the content & order of discussion at all. However, during this process, Onetwothreeip undid my merges twice at 01:22 and at 01:23 without providing any reason in edit summaries. Given this, I then undid Onetwothreeip's edits, but only to see that editor Onetwothreeip undid my edit again at 01:29, without providing any reason in edit summaries, again. I then further undid Onetwothreeip's edit, stating "Unexplained edit" in my edit summary. 5) At 01:32, Onetwothreeip undid my edit again, saying that "You do not have the permission of the editor who made the heading". At the same time (01:32), I started to manually restore the sections "in order avoid edit war" as I stated clearly in my edit summary twice, and I told Onetwothreeip again that I did not need permission according to Wikipedia policies. I also amended the duplicate sections with "A Duplicate Discussion", which is also within Wikipedia policies. The Wikipedia policies I'd consulted in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines include: Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons, etc. To avoid disputes, it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. It can also sometimes be appropriate to merge entire sections under one heading (often preserving the later one as a subheading) if their discussions are redundant. Avoid posting the same thread in multiple talk pages: This fragments discussion of the idea. Instead, start the discussion in one location, and, if needed, advertise that in other locations using a link. If you find a fragmented discussion, it may be desirable to move all posts to one location, and link to it. Make sure you state clearly in edit summaries and on talk pages what you have done and why. The basic rule—with some specific exceptions outlined below—is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission. Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Minimumbias (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC) My undoing your merges also was entirely within guidelines. The discussions obviously weren't merged, they were shifted away to stop discussion by putting them into a very long previous discussion which had already ended. I haven't suggested you have broken a rule by making your changes, but I contested them and moved it back. What you have broken a rule with is the constant reverting. The headings you changed did not make them more descriptive of the issues, did not make them more neutral, made them less accessible, and were factually correct in saying they were duplicate. The merging alone was simply odd, it's usually for when multiple people have made sections with only their own comment in them, not for ones with dozens of entries simply because you don't like what's being discussed. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2018 (UTC) _____________________________________________________________________ I'd like to countercharge editor Onetwothreeip for starting and engaging in edit war by violating the 3R Rule. This is why much earlier I stated that I'd report this editor here before he/she did. But it turns out he/she was faster in his/her action. Here is the complete reverting timeline: 1) First revert by Onetwothreeip at 22:41 and 22:47 on 21 July 2018‎. No explanation given in edit summary. During this process, Onetwothreeip left out or misplaced my conversation with editor StanLeeP. 2) At 01:15 21 July 2018‎, I started to manually clean the chaos (this is not a revert, because editors StanLeeP and Onetwothreeip had made numerous edits before I did), explaining reasons and Wikipedia policies in all edit summaries. Second revert by Onetwothreeip at 01:22 and 01:23 on 22 July 2018. No explanation given in edit summary. 3) At 01:27, 22 July 2018‎, I reverted for the first time Onetwothreeip's unexplained reverts in 2). At 01:29, 22 July 2018, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the third time. No explanation given in edit summary. 4) At 01:32, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the second time Onetwothreeip's unexplained revert in 3), stating "Unexplained edit" in my edit summary. However, at 01:32, 22 July 2018‎, Onetwothreeip reverted my edit for the fourth time, violating the 3R rule. 5) At 01:33, 22 July 2018, I reverted for the third time Onetwothreeip's revert and made efforts to avoid edit war (e.g, in my further edit summaries I stated clearly "I'd like to make changes to avoid further edit war"). Minimumbias (talk) 02:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Split

As of this revision 410813 bytes. I'd like this and List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation II to be revamped to a geographical sorting (this is just preliminary:

• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (North America)
• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (South America)
• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (Europe)
• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (Asia)
• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (Australia)
• List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation (Africa)

FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 20:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. As the main editor of this page, I strongly oppose to any further spiting of this article. This is a global ranking, not regional. The length is not a problem. (At least, we do not have to split the global list into regional lists just to reduce length) Minimumbias (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Being the main editor affords no talk page participant with any extra privileges or votes. The suggestion by FoxyGrampa75 is a good idea. However, we can also have a worldwide top ten list to compare the universities around the world with the most laureates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I figured it's you again. Based on my observation of your editing histories and how quickly you respond here, I have reasons to suspect that you two accounts are somehow related. It is clear that being paranoid about article length all over Wikipedia is one of your defining characteristics, which often disrupt the quality of articles. Again, I am the main editor of this page, and you have repeatedly shown disrespect towards other people's work all over Wikipedia. Listing Nobel laureates according to different continents or universities in different continents is another topic. Go build your own regional lists if you will, and I won't object. But this list is a global list. They can be independent. Minimumbias (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I just have this article on my watchlist, like most articles or talk pages that I've edited. I don't think you can accuse someone of disrespect when you're making remarks that are clearly disrespectful, and accusing me of paranoia when you're coming up with some theory that I'm related to any other editor that you don't like. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:05, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

1) Every editor has the right to suspect, especially when my speculation is based on my observation, and you did the same thing to me last year. 2) It is a fact that you have been involving in splitting many Wikipedia articles and facing objections from many editors. 3) You were disrespectful towards me and my work last year and just now. 4) I never said "I don't like the other editor". 5) This list was created and established as a global list. Comprehensiveness is one of the defining features of this list. Just like the global rankings of universities. On the other hand, there could be regional lists, just like the regional rankings of universities. They can co-exist, and this list shouldn't be split into regional lists. Minimumbias (talk) 23:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Long-term academic staff and Short-term academic staff

How do we distinguish short and long-term academic staff? It would be better to make a column of visiting professors and merge the columns for academic staff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GS-216.1993 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I suggest you read the introduction of this article. There are very detailed explanations on long-term and short-term academic staff. They cannot merge. Visiting professors are short-term academic staff. Again please read the introduction first. Minimumbias (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Degree abbreviations for University of Oxford

There were a lot of "B.A", "B.S" for the Oxford entries. In the UK, the abbreviations would have been "BA" and "BSc", whilst in the US, "B.A." and "B.S.".

Oxford University does not have Bachelor of Science or Bachelor of Laws degrees. The Doctor of Philosophy degree is abbreviated as "DPhil" rather than "PhD".

Can we agree on the BA, MA situation? All BA graduates are eligible for a conversion to an MA degree, but they technically then lose their BA. The MA degree isn't real and the BA is the one they actually studied for. So how are we going to present it? "BA, MA", "BA", or "MA"? This question concerns only those who did obtain the conversion, of course. Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 15:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate your input, and I agree we should respect Oxford's own way of naming the degrees. Since you are more familiar with these degrees, I'd recommend that you write a short note and add to the "Notes" section of Oxford just to let readers better understand the situation. Minimumbias (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above, but more because it indicates the way the person concerned gives their degree after their name. There used to be a B Sc degree but it was a postgraduate degree. The batchelor degrees are correct in the article as:-

• Bachelor of Divinity (BD)
• Bachelor of Medicine & Bachelor of Surgery (BM, BCh)
• Bachelor of Civil Law (BCL)
• Bachelor of Letters (BLitt) (no longer awarded)
• Bachelor of Science (BSc) (no longer awarded)
• Bachelor of Music (BMus)
• Bachelor of Philosophy (BPhil) (now only awarded in Philosophy) --Bduke (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Do you have a source showing the BSc as a postgraduate degree? When did it stop being awarded? (Also to add that the BCL is a postgraduate degree equivalent to its Master of Jurisprudence degree - one for civil law studies, one for common law. It's not related to the LLB which was what was originally stated in the article for one of the laureates.)

It is also important to know whether it's a postgraduate degree because there's the added confusing bit that Oxford does award still the BA (and conversion to the MA) ever if someone is doing for example a Master of Mathematics (integrated undergraduate master). Said person would have MA MMath instead of just the MMath (and not an MSc).

If they have studied at both Oxford and Cambridge (and Trinity College Dublin, but I'm not aware of any such case) as an undergraduate (ie with a BA that could be converted to an MA), then get "incorporated" into their second university and also get either a BA (that could be converted into an MA) or an MA right away (if they already had the converted MA).

There are several laureates who attended both universities as an undergraduate, so are we going to count the MA (which they clearly didn't work or even pay for) from their second university too?

Academics at Oxford of a certain grade of above (I believe lecturership or above, but I'm not 100% certain), also get an MA so they could vote in the congregation. (It was the case for Cambridge too in the past, but I'm not sure about this.) I'm assuming we won't put them down as former students? Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

I just checked the Faculty of Theology page, there's no Bachelor of Divinity degree at any level. There's a Bachelor of Theology degree: https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/introducing-our-courses?wssl=1#theology

There's likewise no Bachelor of Music degree at any level. The music department only offers MPhil and MSt. https://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/graduate/courses/courses-a-z-listing?wssl=1

There's an BM BCh (http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses-listing/medicine), and in that case, further research needs to be done on each person to see if they did it as an undergraduate or a postgraduate. If they were an undergrad, then they get BA-MA and the BM BCh.Prof. HL Chow FRAS (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not have any sources. I was at Oxford from 1957 to 1963. At that time every undergraduate, whether doing science of arts, studied for a BA degree, which as said above was converted to a MA, at 7 years from matriculation so they could vote in Congregation (I may have the name wrong) and for the Professor of Poetry. The degrees I listed above were all postgraduate degrees. I think the situation is now more complex as the university has moved a little to be like other UK universities. --Bduke (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Found a source. This lists the undergraduate courses and the degree obtained- http://www.ox.ac.uk/admissions/undergraduate/courses/undergraduate-course-search --Bduke (talk) 22:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

links

Some articles might link to the appropriate section of this article. As the section names have their rank, the names, and so the section name lines, will change if the order changes. There is a link: List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#Stanford_University which I believe links to a section that doesn't exist. Should we make anchor points to link to for each university? Gah4 (talk) 08:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The correct link is List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_university_affiliation#Stanford_University_(7th). I think you missed the "_(7th)". No extra anchor point is needed. Minimumbias (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It wasn't me that missed it, as I didn't make that link. (I did copy it, though.) I don't know when it was made. If the ranks change, the numbers will change, which is inconvenient for links. Gah4 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I see. In this case, I guess extra anchors may be helpful. Just go ahead and add the anchors then. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 21:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

That was the second one that I looked for links, so I don't (yet) know how many there are. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 21:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It took a while to figure out how to search for strings with # in them. insource:/List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation\#/ was needed to find those references to sections within the page. But probably best to anchor them all. Gah4 (talk) 02:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

It put in the Anchor after each section header, which makes it part of the section. However, clicking on the link leaves the section header scrolled off the top. Should I move them before the section header? Gah4 (talk) 06:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the efforts. And yes, I think placing the anchors before the section headers is a good idea. Minimumbias (talk) 07:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, fixed. Gah4 (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And in case anyone wants it:

# read a wikitext file, find sections with ( ) in them,
# generate an {{Anchor|...}} template without the () in them.
/^== .*\(.*\)/ {
   print $0 > "/dev/stderr"
   save=$0
   sub("^== ","{{Anchor|");
   sub(" ==","}}")
   sub("\\(.*\\)","")
   sub("  *}}","}}")
   print
   print save
   print $0 > "/dev/stderr"
   next
   }
{ print }

Gah4 (talk) 08:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Affiliation is far, far, far too broad?

Affiliation should only count:
1. for the years preceding the work rewarded by the prize. Someone who discovers a particle in 19xx and moves to another university in 20xx should not count.
2. for affiliation linked to the prize. Someone who studied business and won the peace prize should not count. Exception literature as far as students are concerned. Burraron (talk) 11:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

1) For your first point, please note that this list is a list of the academic affiliations of Nobel laureates, not the academic affiliations of Nobel laureates before they won the Nobel Prizes.

2) A person who "studied business and and won the peace prize should not count" is your personal opinion and can not be used as a reason to deny the laureate's academic affiliations.

3) In general, Wikipedia has specific policies such as no original research WP:NOR and neutrality of content WP:NPOV. Please note that Wikipedia is not a research journal so we do not publish results based on subjective criteria. An academic affiliation is an academic affiliation, regardless of other factors and subjective interpretation. Minimumbias (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Max Planck Society

Given two wins of the Max Planck Society (MPS) this year (2020), I was wondering whether it makes sense to include these kinds of institutions into this list as well. I was surprised to find that the MPS is not listed here, given the comparatively high number of recipients since its founding (even more wins when its predecessor, the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft is factored in). It might also create a distortion of perception, as the recipients might be listed as professors for some universities, giving the impression they performed most of their research at the given institution, even though this might have only been a honorary professorship (German: Honorarprofessur - see, for instance, Prof Genzel for the University of Munich). It does not necessarily need to be listed in the main ranking, however it could maybe be mentioned separately on the page, where the peculiar nature of this association of research institutes is explained?

Addendum: Maybe the name of this article should be reconsidered? If the Max Planck Society is included, the the name would be misleading resp. not true. Even now, not all institutions listed fit the description. For instance, while the College de France is part of University of PSL (but only as of 2010!), it is a institution dedicated to research which does not confer any academic degrees (except professorships) - it is questionable whether this kind of institution would fit the definition of “university“. On the other hand, the Rockefeller University, while primarily concerned with research, at least confers PhDs and, in rarer cases, MScs (which, incidentally, the MPS does as well). I thus propose to change the name of this article to “List of Nobel laureates by institutional affiliation" or “List of Nobel laureates by academic affiliation", which would account for already existing discrepancies between content and (current) title and would allow the addition of institutions to the list with significant number of laureates and impact.

As always, I am open for suggestions, concerns, questions and look forward to a stimulating debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A03F:4EE6:B200:30D4:9ADC:7BA8:32C2 (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi,

1) There is no need for any debate or re-naming here. This Wikipedia article is specifically designed to list the official academic affiliations of Nobel laureates with universities worldwide. There is also an article listing the affiliations with secondary schools [[23]]. As stated clearly at the beginning of this article that research organizations are not considered in this list of universities, unless they are directly affiliated with or operated by certain universities. Prestigious organizations such as the Max Planck Society and the Institute for Advanced Studies surely are affiliated with many Nobel laureates and Fields Medal winners. If you believe it is necessary to make a list of Nobel laureates with Max Planck Society, you may do so in a separate page, which would be independent of this article. An example is "List of Fields medalists affiliated with the Institute for Advanced Study". Comparing research organizations with universities is not the purpose of this article. Please note that Wikipedia is not a highly unified research portal or publisher in a way that all information must be in one page. Generally, as long as something passes the notability test (Wikipedia:Notability), there could be an article about it.

2) For your other concern about the definition of "university", please note that Rockefeller University is a university by nature, and it awards degrees. As for the issue with College de France and other French universities, we generally accept them as universities, but I agree that there is some potential issue here because of the special academic system in France. I will have a more detailed look at this issue after the last 2020 prize is awarded next Monday. But if you have any suggestions on the French institutions, please feel free to comment below. Minimumbias (talk) 03:39, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

This page shouldn't be renamed. We shouldn't have independent research institutes in this page. If a research institute is part of a university, the affiliates of the research institute are included. Since University of Paris no longer exist, it has to be removed from this page, and it should be replaced with new French universities (for instance, PSL University). College de France became part of PSL University in 2010, thus its laureates can be included in the PSL University count. I don't have much idea about French or German academic systems. The page should differentiate professorships in different countries. Ber31 (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Brian Kobilka

Brian Kobilka went to University of Minnesota Duluth.[24] Since he didn't went to the Twin Cities campus, he should be removed from the main count of University of Minnesota. Ber31 (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

It's tricky. The time he attended the university was 1973, and the history of the university [25] says "It wouldn't be until 1975-1976 that the others would be allowed to develop comprehensive curriculum and expand as full universities. During these initial years the University of Minnesota Duluth was considered directly a part of the University of Minnesota, not an independent institution.". So probably just keep him on the list. --Minimumbias (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

Wow. Thank you, Minimumbias, for the information. He should definitely stay on the main count of University of Minnesota. Ber31 (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I should probably also mention it in the notes of "University of Minnesota". --Minimumbias (talk) 19:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Add column to table for official university counts

I suggest adding University's own count as a way to quickly compare this. These counts are included in each university's subsection, but it is quite tedious to see if the official university counts compare to Wikipedia-assigned counts. Since it is considered warranted to include these official counts, I contend it is equally worthwhile to have a way to review these numbers in a tabulated fashion as well. If there are no objections, I can initiate this work; I also welcome others to do so. Granticus31 (talk) 05:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, there are some serious issues with this. First of all, not all universities keep their official university counts. Secondly, only a few university counts are up to date. Thirdly, a major change about the counting of University of Paris is scheduled to be carried out soon, which has been completed for the Fields Medal page. This is due to the recent restructure of French universities. --Minimumbias (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Should not Mexico be in "North America"?

Regions are now split into "North America" and "Latin America" which is not a geographical split. It should be South America and North America and Mexico should move to North America.

Mexico is counted in both North American and Latin America. But the United States dominates North America, so for fair comparison we list "Latin America" instead of "South America" - otherwise Mexico would never have a voice. --Minimumbias (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Buying Nobel prizes

I think only alumni should count. Richer universities can 'buy' Nobel prize winners to bump up their ranking. Someone wins a Nobel prize and is then paid to lecture at X university. Where's the virtue in that as far as X is concerned? The list is only interesting when it is about the formation of prize-winners, not their subsequent homes. (It might be interesting to know which universities support prize-winning research where the university's support is an important part of the research, but that is too subtle for this list.) Stikko (talk) 10:51, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, this list is about the general affiliation of Nobel Laureates, not about their alma maters. Instead, the list you are interested in is which universities "produced" most Nobel Laureates. These are two types of lists, for different purposes. Arguing that one list has more value that you are interested in does not mean the other list has less value. It is too subjective, and is not in line with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. And, not all Nobel laureates can be "bought", which is not respectful language. Many rich universities in certain countries are funded by the government and are actually "super rich", but few Nobel laureates and top-level researchers wish to go there because of various other factors. --Minimumbias (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

First I thought this was about buying the medal, but anyway... I suspect if you look at the schools, many came from richer schools, which can afford the kinds of research that are needed. I think there was a quote from Feynman after he won his, something like he won't be able to get any more research done. Many don't come until much later. I suspect also that many Nobel prize winners don't choose where to work by the salary, but by working conditions. (For experimentalists, those do cost a lot of money. Not so much for theorists that more often win.) As far as I know, just giving one lecture doesn't get one on the list. Gah4 (talk) 19:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly right. Working conditions mean a lot, which sometimes correlate with funding resources. And just giving one or a series of lectures generally do not count as affiliation. Minimumbias (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

At least in physics, they are often given to theorists, who don't need expensive labs. However, a group of people with similar interests, allowing for productive discussions, does help. That might be easier in a big school, or rich school, but it is not so easy to know. I suspect it isn't all that easy to "buy" one. Gah4 (talk) 23:42, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Facilities, funding, colleagues, working & natural environment, personal attachment, families, languages... There are just too many factors there. And money is just one aspect. Minimumbias (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Princeton University

As per Nobelprize.org, Wolfgang Pauli was affiliated with Princeton University in 1945.[26] That is not true. As per No Time to be Brief: A Scientific Biography of Wolfgang Pauli, Pauli was affiliated with "Institute for Advanced Study". See Chapter 9: The War Years in the United States.[27] Pauli should be removed from the main count.

Clive Granger was a fellow at Princeton University from 1959–60.[28][29] Granger should be included in the main count.

Willard F. Libby was a fellow at Princeton University in the fall of 1941. The fellowship was interrupted on 8th December, 1941, but he was a researcher at Princeton University for few months.[30] Libby should be included in the main count. Ber31 (talk) 15:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The affiliations of Libby seems tricky. Pauli might have been lecturing in Princeton at the same time, that's why the Nobel website says that (in particular, the website says "He was elected to the Chair of Theoretical Physics at Princeton in 1940"). But yes, I believe Granger should be counted. But my energy right now is mainly on that deletion page. Let us fight over that case first. Minimumbias (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, Minimumbias. Ber31 (talk) 01:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

2021 Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa's Harvard affiliation is not in the Wikipedia page

2021 Peace Nobel Laureate Maria Ressa should also be listed as affiliated with Harvard University because she was a Fellow of the Harvard Kennedy School.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/10/harvard-shorenstein-fellow-maria-ressa-wins-nobel/

2603:8090:2201:EBEF:8051:B09A:E2E3:E645 (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

• Per the inclusion rules laid out by this page: 3) for award-based visiting positions, this list includes the positions as affiliations only if the laureates were required to assume employment-level duty (teaching or research) or the laureates specifically classified the visiting positions as "appointment" or similar in reliable sources such as their curriculum vitae. Aside from my disagreement with this criteria, the Shorenstein Fellowship expects research and engagement with students from fellows as well as full-time residence at the institution. The paper produced would almost certainly include a Harvard by-line or a declaration of Harvard's support. The Hauser Leaders Program expects Hauser Leaders to engage in "teaching skill-building and leadership development workshops, engaging key external stakeholders, and advising students and alumni". This is obviously an affiliation as there is the expectation of teaching and student support, research and on-campus residence. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

1) Almost every fellowship program has its statement of purpose in its introduction page. But none of the words in the description of "Hauser Leaders Program" mention employment-level duties. To give you an example, Harvard's Morris Loeb Lectureship has two different forms [32]. The short-term form is a 2-week visiting for public talks and lectures, which is a quite common form of "visiting lecturership/fellowship" among academia, but without employment-level duty and is not counted as academic affiliation. But the long-term form explicitly requires employment-level duty such as teaching (which involves salary), and is counted as academic affiliation. 2) It's good that you pointed out another fellowship (Shorenstein Fellowship) of Maria Ressa, which I did not notice (my mistake). This fellowship requires academic research, and can thus be used to argue her affiliation with Harvard. We can add her in now, or later when the paper comes out. 3) For your other concerns which have no direct relation with the case of Maria Ressa, you can open another topic here in Talk Page, or I'll answer them in the deletion page. --Minimumbias (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2021 (UTC)