Talk:List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of Chicago/Archive 1

Archive 1

Number of laureates

The first list in the article contains 87 people, but counting the number on the official University source (in the references) yields 85. That means that a couple people are erroneously on the list or listed twice. Diligence in finding the mistake would be appreciated. — DroEsperanto (talk) 00:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated (eg. Yoichiro Nambu). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.49.79 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Nambu is already on the list, unless you're referring to the more detailed list, which is a work in progress. — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

'Standard list' and 'Detailed list'

'Standard list' and 'Detailed list' of the page should be merged. This page should follow List of Nobel laureates affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. Ber31 (talk) 05:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

T. S. Eliot

T. S. Eliot was affiliated with the Committee on Social Thought. Was it an official academic affiliation? His affiliation could have been honor/recognition. We need a reliable third party source. Ber31 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The official website of this Committee states, "Over the years, temporary and permanent members of the Committee have included ... T.S. Eliot,...". It does not seem like an honor/recognition, but more like a temporary appointment. Since there is a lack of sources online, I'd keep T.S.Eliot in the list for now and add a note of "citation needed". (A similar case would be "Daniel Tsui" in Columbia University, List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation) Minimumbias (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I doubt it. Right now, I am stuck because of Hans Bethe. I've searched his CV and biographies, and I haven't found his affiliation with the University of Chicago.[1][2]. He is included in the official count of the university. I'm discovering that the University of Chicago uses a very liberal method to count Nobel laureates. If T. S. Eliot's affiliation were official, he would have been included in the UChicago list. Ber31 (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I have heard that UChicago count is rather liberal, although I have not examined its criteria myself. But I trust your doubt. Secondly, however, personal analysis, speculation and doubt cannot be used as evidence in editing. Only sources can. For the case of T.S. Eliot, the current source we have is the UChicago's official website, which is regarded as ``reliable". Thirdly, there are several affiliations (not just one school) in the Wiki Nobel counting list that I have doubt, mainly because I could not find reliable online sources besides the schools' own counts, which are regarded as reliable. That's why we added notes and superscript "citation needed", but we could not remove those affiliations simply because we have speculations. One important reason for the lack of online sources is that 60 or 70 years ago (especially during the war times) many events and personal trips were not perfectly recorded in archives.Minimumbias (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to find a reliable third party source for Eliot's affiliation with UChicago. UChicago's official website isn't a third party source for this page. I have found some sources for Bethe. Ber31 (talk) 04:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

__________________________________________

I will remove T. S. Eliot from the list. He only gave four lectures at the university in 1950.[3] (Book: Memoirs of a Dissident Publisher, page: 56) His appointment was an award or honor. Ber31 (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Modified Counting Rules

There are two major points I disagree regarding the current counting rules, which are modified versions from those in page List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation.

1) Attendees: there is no source or whatever that sets "one academic term" as the minimal time threshold for "attendees". The natural meaning of attendee is simply a student who enrolled in a degree-program without obtaining the final degree. That's it.

2) Employment is not the only form for visiting position. For instance, a visiting laureate could teach or do research at UChicago on the basis of fellowship, either internal or external. Employment is just one form of affiliation.

Minimumbias (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

1) Attendees: Since there is no consensus on setting the minimum time threshold for attendees, let us say nothing. I will remove "for at least one day".

2) I don't disagree with that point. Ber31 (talk) 09:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Removing the explicit mentioning of time seems like a good way to avoid controversies. At least, readers won't disagree with the statement of "attendee" which contains no time description. I will also apply this modification to other pages. Minimumbias (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Bolding and link to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation

Boldface shouldn't be used for emphasis in the lead of the page. Read MOS:NOBOLD. I have removed the inappropriate bolding. I seen no reason why "97 Nobel laureates" should be linked to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. This page provides far more information about the Nobel laureates of the University of Chicago than List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. At the bottom of the page, there is Template:Nobel Prizes. The template has link to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. I will remove the link to List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation. Ber31 (talk) 09:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I will add a "See also" section, as in other pages. Minimumbias (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. That should settle the issue. Ber31 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Summary

The "summary" that has been included in this page is not appropriate. The page looks messy. Ber31 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why it is not appropriate. It contains much useful information which summarizes the affiliations of UChicago's Nobel laureates. It is directly relevant, and also supports second paragraph in the lead. And it's the same for all universities, not just Chicago. I have no comment for the "messy" statement since it is personal taste. Finally, the main page with all universities will have to accommodate future laureates so an archive is needed, otherwise the main page length/size will one day exceed the limit. Minimumbias (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

One more thing: I appreciate and respect your hard work on this page. But please understand that my workload is much larger and I have to work on dozens of pages instead of just one. So, some compromise has to be made. This is to best protect & reserve the accurate information of Nobel laureates for all universities and all future generations. Minimumbias (talk) 04:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, your points have some merit. It won't be possible for List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation to just grow and grow; at some point in time, it will be extremely big, and it will be very difficult to navigate through the page. Thus, your approach may work out satisfactorily. I have a problem with the layout. The "summary" should be below "Nobel laureates by category". Ber31 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I'll leave the details of this page to your discretion. Minimumbias (talk) 06:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Numbers and the layout of the page

The number of Nobel laureates of each category should be in "Summary"[4]. I have also changed the layout of the page. I moved "Summary" above "Nobel laureates by category"; "Summary" should be closer to the second paragraph of the lead rather than at the bottom of the page. Ber31 (talk) 09:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. --Minimumbias (talk) 20:24, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Donald Glaser

Donald Glaser was affiliated with the University of Michigan from 1949-59 as an instructor and professor. In the 50s, Glaser did went to the University of Chicago. At UChicago, he worked with hydrogen, and showed that hydrogen would also work in the bubble chamber.[5][6] He was doing a collaborative project at the university with its scientists. However, it could be possible that he held an academic appointment at UChicago. Ber31 (talk) 09:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Such figures with ambiguous affiliation appear in several universities and, to avoid controversy, are currently placed in the "Inclusion criteria" tables, until further confirmation can be found. Minimumbias (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Scientific Nobel Prizes

The lead of this page should differentiate between the scientific Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Prize in Economics with the other two Nobel Prizes, namely the Nobel Prize in Literature and the Nobel Peace Prize. The scientific Nobel Prizes and the Nobel Prize in Economics are mostly awarded to academics and researchers for transformative research or innovations. However, that's not the case with the other two prizes; they are also awarded for political reasons, and aren't as important as scientific Nobels. Ber31 (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

That's why I created the "SCI Total" (counts for natural sciences) at the beginning of the main page ("List of Nobel laureates by university affiliation"). Partly because the prizes in peace and literature were sometimes controversial, and partly because the Econ people loved to travel around and the number of Econ affiliates is inflating for many universities (e.g., more than half of the MIT Nobel laureates since 2000 are Econ laureates). Even though it is not possible to control and assign weights to different subjects, it now seems unreasonable to simply let the number of Econ laureates to wash out the number of other laureates. Minimumbias (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that "SCI Total" should also include the Econ Nobel. The Nobel Prize in Economics are awarded to academics, and the prize is the most important one in social sciences. Nobels in peace and literature are sometimes controversial, and most of the times, not that important. Ber31 (talk) 08:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, one of the intentions for setting "SCI Total" was to prevent the number of laureates in natural sciences being washed out by the number of econ laureates, given any university. An extreme case is University of Minnesota, which has 11 laureates since 2000 and 9 of them are Econ laureates. Econ people do travel a lot and teach at many universities throughout their careers. They are much more flexible than science people since there is no burden of labs, equipment, facilities, etc. And this is only 2019, things will become more controversial later on if natural sciences are not listed independently. On the other hand, Econ prize is not one of the original prizes, so reasonably its reading is listed in an independent column. Indeed, it is most important in social sciences, but academic survey also shows that it is not as prestigious as the natural sciences prizes in general [7]. Overall, there is no convincing reason to mix it with natural sciences. Minimumbias (talk) 17:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay. In terms of prestige, I will put the Econ Nobel slightly below the natural sciences Nobels and above the two other prizes. Thanks for setting "SCI Total". Ber31 (talk) 04:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

By the way, the main list on Nobel Prizes has been recognized by Forbes [8], which is a good sign. Minimumbias (talk) 04:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, that's a great news. Ber31 (talk) 07:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)