Talk:Lists of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lists of Massachusetts Institute of Technology people redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Category[edit]

Should this list be replaced or paralleled by a category? 18.26.0.18 20:47, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I am also in favor of this, since then subcategories can be introduced. As of now I simply introduced MIT Mathematics Department list of people in hope someone else will make this (rather substantial) work. Mhym 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Simple comparison of two lists shows how much the general list is incomplete. Only making it a category would help. Mhym 18:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Institute Professor[edit]

There is a big difference between "Institute Professor" and a Professor. Many (most?) of the people listed under Institute Professor are not (such as Magnanti, Hauser, von Hippel?, and Wilczek)

A. von Hippel was an Institute Professor, as noted at http://www.eecs.mit.edu/AY98-99/announcements/4.html, so that portion is accurate. Note that his son, Eric von Hippel, while a noted full professor on his own merit, is not an Institute Professor. YoavShapira 14:49, 20 December 2005 (EST)

"Famous" alumni versus "Notable" alumni[edit]

Many of these people are not famous per se, but they are usually associated with famous institutions or actions. Average Joe on the street may have heard of "Bose speakers", but not realize that Bose is actually the name of somebody.

I would add that names linked in red are neither famous or notable.

Amen.

Carly Fiorina[edit]

Ok, I deleted her and somebody thought it was vandalism. So, perhaps I should do this the right way and discuss it first. Here's my thought: this list is supposed to be of people MIT would be proud to count as alumni. Right? Well, Fiorina is an embarassment to the majority of people who care about MIT. So, why is she on this list? I doubt Harvard lists the Unibomber on their list of notable alumni. Why should we have Carly? Birge 19:20, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody has responded in several days, I believe I have the rights under Wikipedia bylaws to take out Fiorina. In the immortal words of Venkman: this chick is toast. Birge 16:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm putting her back. This is not "supposed to be a list of people MIT would be proud to count as alumni," it's a list of "famous individuals associated with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology." She's famous and she's associated with MIT, so she should be on the list. And what do you mean by "count as alumni?" Whether or not one is an alumnus is determined simply by attendance; it is not an honor granted by the institution.

In any case, by exactly how did you make a neutral determination that MIT as an institution is not proud of her? Can you cite a source? If you have an official MIT source that says MIT is embarrassed by the association, it would be perfectly appropriate to include it in the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Harvard's list does include the Unabomber. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could cite the hundreds of articles pointing out what a miserable failure she was and how she single handedly destroyed HP. But you're correct in that my statement that most MIT folks would rather not have her associated with the school is pure conjecture based on the the preceding and nothing I can verify. But, your more compelling argument is that Harvard includes the Unabomber! I hereby cede the Fiorina issue to my collegues. Birge 15:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Mind you, I'm not a great big Carly Fiorina fan. I loved the old HP. You know, the HP that didn't need to say "invent" on their logo because, well, they actually invented things. But I'm not sure she single-handedly deserves all the blame, any more than the people who took over at Polaroid, Digital, Wang, etc. after the charismatic, intuitive leaders lost their magic touch, deserved all the blame. In any case, she is certainly famous and certainly an alumnus. Dpbsmith (talk) 02:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, she's definitely infamous, at least! I think she is more to blame than the usual CEO, because she was so instrumental in some of the big decisions that hurt HP, such as merging with Compaq and splitting off Agilent. (In my mind, the soul of HP was in what's now Agilent, not the consumer pap they sell as HP.) Contrast this to Polaroid, for example, which pretty much died because its core market died (replaced by digital imaging) not because of bad decisions. Birge 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Faculty versus "Researchers"[edit]

I would suggest that the list of researcher be split out from the list of faculty. Some of the famous names in the list are not MIT professors, such as Tim Berners-Lee, Ellen Swallow Richards, Frederick P. Salvucci, and Richard Stallman. 129.55.200.20 21:11, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to the suggestion, but please note there is a middle category of "lecturer" (and senior lecturer), which are not faculty but also not just researchers. Salvucci, for example, falls into this category, as seen at http://cee.mit.edu/index.pl?id=2259&isa=Category&op=show. YoavShapira 14:46, 20 December 2005 (EST)

Source citations?[edit]

I just noticed a prank entry, "Michael Beregovsky, Women's Studies." I think it's a prank, anyway, as the MIT online directory believes that Michael Beregovsky is a fourth-year math major.

Seems to me that entries for people that do not have Wikipedia articles should be required to be accompanied by a source citation, per verifiability policy, that at least shows that these people a) exist, and b) are actually on the MIT faculty. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out to be exquisitely easy to add links to the online MIT directory. We should require at least this level of verifiability. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Institute Professor list anomalies[edit]

Not trying to get trigger-happy here, but the following person does not seem to be listed in the MIT online directory at all:

Ascher Shapiro, mechanical engineering[1]

A spelling error?

- (Blush) No, here's why he's not in the directory: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/obit-shapiro.html. Sorry. How very embarrassing. This list consists mostly, but obviously not exclusively of living people.

The following have listings that do NOT identify them as "Institute Professor" or "Institute Professor Emeritus":

Arthur von Hippel, EECS[2] (listed as "Professor Emeritus")
Thomas Magnanti, EECS and management[3] (Listed as "Dean/Faculty")
Ascher Shapiro, mechanical engineering[4]^{[citation needed]}
John Waugh, chemistry[5] (listed as "Professor Emeritus")

I don't know how carefully the online list is maintained... the press release cited above[6] indicates that von Hippel has been an Institute Professor since 1998. I'm assuming that when an Institute Professor achieves emeritus status he is automatically an Institute Professor Emeritus, i.e. it's not even thinkable that he could have been downgraded from Institute Professor to Just-Plain-Old-Professor Emeritus. Dpbsmith (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beregovsky[edit]

I have removed this entry from the list of Institute Professors:

Michael Beregovsky, women's right activist

This is because the online directory listing, [7] indicates that he is not an Institute Professor nor even on the faculty at all, but is a 4th-year math major.

Please do not reinsert without including a verifiable source citation, per the verifiability policy, showing that Michael Beregovsky is in fact an Institute Professor. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional Characters[edit]

Can we please get rid of this section? They are not "people" (and the title of the article indicates we're talking about people) and it's kind of frivolous. Also, I've never heard of most of those, and yet I could add quite a few. So this section could become huge, and there's really no way to decide who and who isn't a "notable" fictional character. Birge 16:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better place may be MIT in popular culture, but I think it's worth keeping tabs on because it conveys something about MIT's reputation.

"Institute Professor" nominated for deletion[edit]

The article titled Institute Professor has been nominated for deletion by user:Kane5187, who says not all of the 10-or-12-or-so Institute Professors are notable. This while many MIT professors who are not Institute Professors have Wikipedia articles and are universally considered notable (and so do most of the Institute Professors). Please opine at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institute Professor. Your input is needed! Michael Hardy 00:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categories & Overlap[edit]

All the lists were long and impenetrable, so this revision is my stab at making everything more organized and understandable. However I have noticed considerable overlap between the "Notable Alumni", "Notable Professors", and "Institute Professors." Is there a hierarchy to be followed or should each group represent a complete set even with overlap?Madcoverboy 07:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]