Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive 1

Differentiating between "Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship" and "Arthur D. Little Visiting Memorial Lectureship"
There is a difference between "Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship" and "Arthur D. Little Visiting Memorial Lectureship". "Arthur D. Little Visiting Memorial Lectureship" is an award-based visiting professorship, and thus, should be excluded. However, Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship carries employment level duties, and thus, should be included. In A Time to Remember: The Autobiography of a Chemist, an autobiography of Alexander R. Todd, Todd mentioned that he was Arthur D. Little Visiting Professor at MIT for the Fall term of 1954. The courses delivered by Todd were taken for credit by undergraduate and graduate students. Ber31 (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, Todd's affiliation can be added as an official visitor in 1954. But in general the nature of "Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship" is still a question, is it something like Caltech's Fairchild or Cambridge's Fellowship which also provide an extended stay but no requirement of duties? Why does imply they are the same thing, since the source also mentions Todd? What sources say "Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship" requires employment-level duty? Was it Todd's personal willingness to give a course, given the following statement from the previous source:


 * Outstanding speakers worldwide were invited to spend two weeks in the department to interact with faculty and students, thus promoting scientific collaborations and graduate student exchanges. Minimumbias (talk) 05:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As for Cambridge's Fellowships (Cambridge, UK), I don't have much idea. The pages on British universities should be handled by people who know about them; I find their system very confusing. :)


 * One this is for sure. Todd didn't stayed at MIT for only two weeks. His autobiography mentioned that he was there for the Fall term of 1954 (page 128). The writer of this article may have failed to fully grasps the nature of Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship. When a professor says that he was at MIT for a full semester, that should seal the deal. Ber31 (talk) 06:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added Todd. It seems to me that the two positions are the same thing, but visitor can choose the length of stay and what to do. It is like Harvard's Morris Loeb Short-term/Long-term Lectureship and Caltech's Fairchild. Todd stayed a semester, Derek Barton stayed for 5 weeks, but I can't find any more source for Ernst Otto Fischer. So as of now evidence suggests that Todd taught a course due to personal willingness and the vising professorship does not require inherent employment-level duties. Minimumbias (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Also, I don't have enough time for now, but maybe you can have a closer look at the MIT Radiation Lab? There are many laureates who were affiliated with this lab during World War II and most of these people are included for now. It seems to me there are some controversial cases such as Willis Lamb and some military cases. Maybe you can provide more details for these people to end controversy? I will not update MIT total number of laureates in the main page for now. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji
In his C.V., Claude Cohen-Tannoudji has mixed award-based visiting professorship with visiting professorship that requires employment level duties (teaching or research). When he was at MIT in 1992, he said the following:

"Before starting, I would like to tell you I'm honored and happy to be here again in MIT, because I was here in '76. I spent some sabbatical stay in MIT and Harvard, and it's, for me, a very great pleasure to be here for a few days."

At Harvard, he was a Morris Loeb Short-term lecturer, thus he shouldn't be included in Harvard's count. His visiting professorship at MIT in 1976 required employment level duty. He should be included. Ber31 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) In 1992 Claude Cohen-Tannoudji was in MIT for special seminar, and his words of "sabbatical stay" does not mean in any way that he held formal academic affiliation with MIT or his visiting professorship "required employment level duty". Examples in other universities include Morris Loeb Short-term lectureship of Harvard, Overseas Fellowship of Cambridge, Fairchild Fellowship of Caltech, etc. Most importantly, he classified the 1976 stay under "special lecture", which according to the inclusion criteria does not imply any inclusion. Please do not add him as official academic affiliate until further confirmation can be found.


 * 2) For the numbers, I set them there for convenient detailed readings. For instance, they can tell editors and readers directly how many laureates are there since 2000. In the future, it would be extremely convenient to read the number of total laureates within a specific period of time (e.g., 2000 - 2050). Personally, I do not want to re-count/verify how many laureates since 2000 are there for each university each year again and again and again. (Please note that the summary does not provide such convenient reading, because there are 3 columns of affiliations and there are overlaps of affiliations. One has to do some math in this way.)


 * 3) In addition, I am not quite sure why you deleted the official count information from universities. You removed 92 for UChicago and now 90 for MIT. Why? This is useful information and will give readers a more objective and balanced picture. Minimumbias (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Claude Cohen-Tannoudji is also included in the MIT official list. It is extremely likely that his visiting professorship at MIT in 1976 required employment level duty. Anyway, thank you so much for creating this page. :)
 * 2) A smart reader can gain such information from "Summary". We are talking about MIT Nobel laureates; counting is an outrageously simple task.
 * 3) The official count of UChicago wasn't exhaustive, and they didn't mention several laureates such as Kip Thorne in their official count (as of 18th October, 2019). The official count of MIT is 95. The lead section of the page should give emphasis to this page. The official counts of universities should be in "External links". Ber31 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) I thought the MIT's official, detailed list had been deleted by MIT itself long time ago. The only thing I could find online right now is a partial list [], but I don't see "Claude Cohen-Tannoudji". Where did you see the official list including "Claude Cohen-Tannoudji"? But I'll update 95 to the main page as official count. Thanks for this source.


 * 2) I understand your point. But my point is that to keep the accuracy of the information for every university, and it'd be extremely convenient and time-saving for me to have those numbers in universities' main pages so that I can read off the statistics immediately every year. Again, my workload is much larger, and I need ways to save time and work.


 * 3) I know. But the intention of keeping the official readings (as in the main page of all universities) next to Wikipedia's readings is to be objective and informative. We should respect the universities' own criteria and ideology. Anyway, this is a minor issue compared to 1) and 2). Minimumbias (talk) 04:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Claude Cohen-Tannoudji was always included in the MIT official list and I've always watched the list.
 * 2) I will be looking after this page. A lot of work has to be done for this page. The "Summary" can have more information.
 * 3) The official count of the universities are maintained by people like you and me. They should be respected and we can keep such information in "External link". Ber31 (talk) 05:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * 1) Then, as several figures in other universities, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji should be kept under the "Inclusion criteria" table until further confirmation can be found.


 * 2) & 3) Again, the things I care about most are: objectivity & neutrality, comprehensiveness, and saving my time & workload. I really don't have time to take care of every detail of every page, so I'll leave the details of this page and UChicago to you. But I do hope that your further modifications can help me save time and work when I need to compile statistics for the whole system in the future. Thanks. Minimumbias (talk) 05:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Okay, I appreciate your hard work on several similar pages. I tend to work on fewer pages. As for Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, further information is needed. Ber31 (talk) 06:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Willis E. Lamb doesn't make the cut
Willis E. Lamb was at Columbia Radiation Laboratory from 1943-1945. He should be removed. Ber31 (talk) 09:06, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Max Born
Indeed, Max Born gave two sets of (public) lectures at MIT from November 14, 1925 to January 22 1926, and the content of the lecture was published in "Problems of Atomic Dynamics". But the published content was not the research results that were produced by Max Born alone and were not produced at MIT. On the other hand, the published research result of 1926 you mentioned says Max Born was professor at Gottingen and was visiting MIT as a "Foreign Lecturer". But I don't see where it says the results were produced by Born at MIT. In fact, points out that the collaboration between Born and Norbert Wiener began possibly in 1924 when Wiener was visiting Gottingen, and there was a "Exchange Program" set up later for the collaboration. It also says "[j]ust before Born arrived in Cambridge, Wiener had written a comprehensive account of the operational calculus, in particular, ..." Then I don't have access to the portion of the book that follows this sentence. Overall, the MIT affiliation of Born and his actual work at MIT is too ambiguous, especially given that whether his own work at MIT was significant is not determined. Hence, Max Born cannot be included, at least for now, until further confirmation can be found. I'd agree to add Max Born if you can provide further sources.

Two other previous examples of exclusion I can think of right now are Hendrik Lorentz at Columbia as "Earnest Kempton Adams (EKA) Lecturer" with lecture content published and Svante Arrhenius at Berkeley as summer lecturer with lecture content published. The content of both lectures held similar historic importance as that of Born's lecture at MIT. However, neither of them was included because the content was not produced at Columbia and Berkeley, respectively. The policy has been very strict/conservative and consistent for such visitors (summer, award-based, public lecturers, etc) - this is the consensus, to combat inflation. Minimumbias (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * OK, I have found a very good source supporting Max Born's collaboration with Wiener at MIT and the historic importance of their work. He will be included. Minimumbias (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The two lectures that Born delivered at MIT were not public lectures. One of them was on the structure of the atom and another one was on the lattice theory of rigid bodies. In 1925-26, Born was one of the first physicists to deliver lectures on matrix mechanics (developed by Heisenberg in Germany) in North America. Thus, those MIT lectures do have historical importance. Ber31 (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

MIT Radiation Laboratory
At MIT Radiation Laboratory, those who were researchers should be included. Even if they participated only in military projects, if they were involved in research, they should be included. Ber31 (talk) 06:17, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * We are talking about academic affiliations, aren't we? In Harvard and Stanford's counting, I have excluded one person like this, respectively. The entire team at Los Alamos Lab of Berkeley was excluded as well. Minimumbias (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that you moved Felix Bloch to "Inclusion criteria" table (Harvard Nobel count). I knew for a long time that Bloch's work on the radar project at Harvard was for the military. And he was on Harvard Nobel count for a long period. Okay, if a researcher only worked in the military projects, he should be excluded. Ber31 (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

William Alfred Fowler should be included
William Alfred Fowler was a visiting professor at MIT in March-June 1966. He delivered lectures on "Nuclear astrophysics and geophysics". They were not public lectures. In this source, Fowler stated that his lecture schedule at MIT and Harvard ends on May 26. When someone is a visiting professor or professor at MIT, it is possible for him to organize lectures across the River Charles at Harvard. Many people have done that. His visiting professorship was at MIT (not at Harvard). He should be included in the main count. Ber31 (talk) 05:45, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Proof that lectures "Nuclear astrophysics and geophysics" are not public but a course? Now you are simply stating the words back to me from the sources I found and offered. And, I have searched online extensively yet I couldn't find any source saying it is a course. What's more, I have tried but I can't find any source stating the visit of William Alfred Fowler as employment level. This is not even a full academic term at MIT. Please provide more sources. Minimumbias (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Regardless of whoever found the source, you have to examine what the source is pointing out. You have to look at how rigorous the course was to determine whether it was a public lecture or lectures for undergraduate/graduate students. This source (the source that you found, please look at page 55) points out that Fowler was appointed visiting professor at MIT. Ber31 (talk) 06:07, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Seriously? Why would I attach the sources to the article if I had not examined carefully what the sources say? Again, I found the sources and I had examined carefully. Please stop telling me to examine the sources I found (and gave you) . The current sources do not support affiliation, especially given that the "Visiting Professor appointment" includes the ambiguous "Arthur D. Little Visiting Professorship". Minimumbias (talk) 06:09, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * All I can say is you are disregarding the source. Ber31 (talk) 06:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * All I can say is you are showing bias towards MIT repeatedly. This level of bias is something I wouldn't have expected from you in the past. I have done everything I could to protect neutrality and consistency. I am not personally against MIT or whatever, otherwise I wouldn't have added Ken Arrow to this list. Minimumbias (talk) 06:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I trying to be as neutral as possible. I am not bias towards or against MIT. I am only stating what the sources say. William Alfred Fowler can be kept under the "Inclusion criteria" table until further confirmation can be found. Ber31 (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I've placed many people in the "inclusion table" for many universities. In fact, one of my original intentions of setting up such tables is to minimize controversy while at the same time finding a place for potential affiliates instead of removing them completely from the pages. You are welcome to add him back after you find further sources. I have tried my best, but as of now I still have not found more useful sources. Minimumbias (talk) 06:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I couldn't find a source that would confirm that "Nuclear astrophysics and geophysics" was a university course. In the spring of 1966, Fowler wasn't teaching for the entire semester. He doesn't make the cut. Ber31 (talk) 14:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Claude Cohen-Tannoudji makes the cut
In his CV, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji mixed award-based visiting professorship with visiting professorship that requires employment level duties. Hence, further confirmation was needed. I've found a source which conforms that Claude Cohen-Tannoudji was a visiting prof. at MIT. Here is the source: (p. 334)

Visiting Professors included Hans Bethe, Claude Cohen-Tannoudji, Jeffrey Goldstone, Satio Hayakawa, Klaus Hepp, Werner Kanzig, Harry Morrison, and Judit Nemeth; while Daniel Murnick and Claudio Rebbi were Visiting Associate Professors.

He makes the cut. Ber31 (talk) 05:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * OK. Get ready for the 2020 awards. --Minimumbias (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Edwin McMillan
On Oct. 19, 2019, Minimumbias removed Edwin McMillan from the MIT Nobel count. His logic was that McMilan's work was classified by the National Academy of Science (NAS) as "military work" repeatedly in his biography. The biographical memoir for NAS was written by J. David Jackson and WKH Panofsky. It was the opinion of two people. It would be a fallacy to have dependency on only one source; further examination is needed. Here is what McMilan said in an interview about his work at MIT Rad Lab:

''Now, you ask me what did I do there. At the beginning, I wasn’t working in any large group I remember, I was trying to be an inventor. I was trying to invent vacuum tubes for generating high frequency oscillations. They had the magnetron there, of course, but there were a number of people trying to think of better ways to do that. I tried to be an inventor, but I didn’t invent anything terribly useful. I also worked on a TR switch (that means transmit-receive switch), which allows one to use the same antenna for both transmitting at high power and then receiving at very low power, so there has to be some kind of a switch so that the high transmitted power doesn’t go into the very sensitive detector and burn it out. And since the time intervals involved are very short, one cannot use any mechanical kind of switch. It had to be electronic. The TR switches used then depended on sparks.''

''They were designed in such a way that when you are transmitting, a spark would jump across a gap which would then remove the voltage from the detector. They were designed so that the spark was not soaking up so much power that it was using up all the transmitted power. I tried to devise a TR box I called it — depending on a resonant cavity coupling between two loops, both in the same resonant cavity, where the response in the cavity could be altered by an electron stream inside the cavity. I spent some time working on this, but it never got developed into anything. In connection with that, I recall I spent some time at the Raytheon Company, which was near Boston, and that I got to know the head of their development department, a guy named Percy Spencer, who was really a very remarkable man. I got to know him very well.''

McMilan was working on several research projects at MIT Rad Lab, and they can't all be classified as "military only". Further, the information provided by NAS is secondary in front of the McMillan's interview. McMillan should be added back to the MIT Nobel count. Ber31 (talk) 07:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The interview of McMilan doesn't say that his work was not "military only". It is you who are interpreting that "they can't all be classified as 'military only' ". It's your personal opinion. The publication of National Academy of Science (NAS) is a reliable source, and it says the work "military only". That's enough in Wikipedia. Calling this "opinion" and "secondary" to the interview (which does not say it's non-military) is once again your personal opinion. Spending much time here just to boost the number of a single university is really secondary to making real changes to the world right now. Minimumbias (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to boost any university. I try to be as neutral as possible. I removed Cram from the main count because he was a postdoc during the summer session. Ok, I agree with your arguments concerning McMillan. Ber31 (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Jack Steinberger
Here is what Steinberger said in his Nobel bio:

''On 7 December 1941, Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. I joined the Army and was sent to the MIT radiation laboratory after a few months of introduction to electromagnetic wave theory in a special course, given for Army personnel at the University of Chicago. My only previous contact with physics had been the sophomore introductory course at Armour. The radiation laboratory was engaged in the development of radar bomb sights; I was assigned to the antenna group. Among the outstanding physicists in the laboratory were Ed Purcell and Julian Schwinger. The two years there offered me the opportunity to take some basic courses in physics.''

Steinberger did took course in physics probably as a non-degree student and was also involved in research. Is it OK to classify all his work at MIT as "military only"? I don't think so. Ber31 (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Once again, in Wikipedia, please refrain from using your personal opinions to argue when it comes to the affiliates of MIT, which you are connected with. Minimumbias (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I wasn't trying to add Steinberger back to the main count. The page should state that Steinberger took some courses in physics at MIT as a non-degree student. Ber31 (talk) 23:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Max Born may have to be removed from the main count
Last year I added Max Born to the main count. Although Minimumbias initially objected to the inclusion of Born, later he re-added him back to the main count. Yesterday, I found something:

'' In December, 1925 Max Born visits CIT, presenting a series of seminars on the Heisenberg, Born-Jordan, and Born-Heisenberg-Jordan papers. Pauling attends all of Born’s lectures and takes careful notes.''

Born was a lecturer at MIT from 14 November 1925 to 22 January 1926, and delivered two lectures. A year ago, I thought Born spent all of that period at MIT. That is not the case; Born visited CalTech in December 1925. Those two lectures were not university-level courses. He delivered two public lectures at MIT. As per this source, collaboration between Born and Wiener began possibly in 1924. This is what Minimumbias concluded a year ago (before re-adding Born to the main count):

Overall, the MIT affiliation of Born and his actual work at MIT is too ambiguous, especially given that whether his own work at MIT was significant is not determined.

Born may not qualify in the main count. Minimumbias, what do you think? Ber31 (talk) 01:49, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Asides from the ambiguity of his work at MIT and the fact that he visited Caltech in December, he seemed to only have spent the winter break in the US. This now seems to me like a holiday visit (pretty much like the summer visiting positions). So I believe we have enough convincing argument now to not place him in the main list. By the way, I appreciate your serious work recently. Minimumbias (talk) 02:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will remove him from the main count. Ber31 (talk) 02:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Redirect to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation
Everybody please stop revert warring. It is true that WP:ATD-R states that if a redirect is disputed by reversion, then an attempt at obtaining consensus must be reached, either at WP:AFD or at the article talk page, so here. Pinging involved editors. Polyamorph (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * There was plenty of agreement, until one editor who had never edited the article or was involved in the discussion threw in a revert., we await your arguments. Drmies (talk) 22:20, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's self-evident that this and all the other "List of Nobel laureates affiliated with X" articles should undergo a WP:Blank and redirect to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation; there is no sense in keeping subpages of a defunct version of that article as stand-alone articles. I suppose the WP:Featured lists among them (1 2 3 4) will have to be formally delisted first, however. TompaDompa (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect as a redundant list. Can and  confirm their agreement so this can be resolved without needless beaurocracy. Polyamorph (talk)
 * I'm really sorry guys, I'm fairly new here and I mainly do anti-vandalism, I didn't realise there was prior consenesus, I just saw a massive deletion come up on recent changes marked as likely bad faith. It's a good learning opportunity for me and I'm sorry I got in the way, my support is behind the consensus decision.  Again, my appolgoies. DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * didn't mean to step on anyone's toes, and I certainly didn't mean to start an edit war, I was just confused about the correct process for deleting and redirecting articles. I didn't want to be malicious or disruptive, I was just a bit stupid DirkJandeGeer (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * That's OK, DirkJandeGeer, it happens--I appreciate your response. Drmies (talk) 14:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)