Talk:Institute for Advanced Study

Founder?

The article says:

"It was founded in 1930 by Abraham Flexner."

"The Institute was founded in 1930 by Louis Bamberger and Caroline Bamberger Fuld with the proceeds from their department store in Newark, New Jersey."

I guess you could view it this way, but it sounds like the article just can't make up its mind how to decide who founded it. Maybe knock the "o" out of the second instance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.217.138.255 (talk) 19:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Faculty

I've wikified all the faculty names as given on the IAS site, linking to our existing articles. Many don't yet exist, and several that do have rather pitiful stubs. I could use some help creating at least reasonable stub articles for all these deserving scientists.... I'm not a science specialist.

Many of the existing articles don't mention a stint at the IAS, either, so please add at least a sentence and a back link to this article if you tackle any of these. Thanks! -- Catherine 00:47, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

IAS and Princeton U

According to Who Got Einstein's Office (see page 26), the IAS actually was housed at Princeton University (in Fine Hall, Princeton's math building) for 6 years (from the opening in 1933, until Fuld Hall opened in 1939), which wass a big part of the reason people often thought it was part of Princeton (and of course, once created, the impression just kept going). Noel (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Both the name and the mathematics department were moved to a new building in 1970. Hence the present wording. Septentrionalis 17:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Hamming quote?

There's a quote on the institution in the entry that I frankly don't understand. What exactly does that mean? "Ruined" as in "disproved"? -Dan 06:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that Hamming meant that he didn't believe the concept of the Institute actually worked -- that scientists don't always produce the best results when left free to set their own goals, with no deadlines and no pressure. I think he meant "ruined" as in prevented scientists from fully pursuing their potential. — Catherine\^talk 17:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this quote true

"The institute was founded, explicitly, to house Jewish emigrees (including Einstein) whom Princeton University refused to hire because of its institutional antisemitism" I dont think this is true so I deleted it, if it is true put it back with a link.--Stevenscollege 19:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

this is true. you can verify this in any einstein biography. --evolve17, 7 august 2006

Naming confusion

I think the biggest reason that people think that the Institute is tied to Princeton University is the name. As noted, there are other research institutes with similar sounding names, so that when people mention it, they tend to refer to it as, "The Institute for Advanced Study, at Princeton." They are of course talking about the physical location in Princeton, New Jersey, but the automatic mental connection is to Princeton University.

The name doesn't have "Princeton" in it. Also, in my experience, people do not refer to it at "The Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton". People just usually say IAS or perhaps "Institute for Advanced Study". No qualification required. --C S (talk) 05:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Annoying

"One might discern a certain ideology behind such an unusual collection of disciplines" Well, one might. But two might discern two different ideologies, and we have no idea if the author is thinking of a third, or what. Articles shouldn't hint, they should spell out. 68.142.57.9 03:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed copyright infringement

The second paragraph in the intro was word-for-word the same as the second paragraph on this page, so I deleted it. Foxjwill (talk) 03:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Give the exact names of the Demi-Gods

If you click on the Demigod link in John Von Neumann's article, it links here where it only says a few names then adds "et al." This is an encyclopedia. Give the whole list. 68.123.158.127 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The Purpose

What is the purpose of this institute in the first place? The article doesn't say. I mean why gather a bunch of scientists together if there is no program to have them collaborate? They might as well just give grants and let scientists continue their work where they are. Angry bee (talk) 00:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comments

These have been moved here from a subpage as part of a cleanup process. See Wikipedia:Discontinuation of comments subpages.

Lead too long, unencyclopedic. Needs some rewriting. Geometry guy 00:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section may violate NPOV

The Criticism section is very long and is not balanced by corresponding arguments that favor the institute. There are three negative paragraphs in this section. I removed the paragraph by Richard Hamming but someone immediately put it back. I would propose a new section titled Purpose of the Institute which would include both favorable and unfavorable statements. I would keep the Richard Feynman paragraph. However I would also include comments by notable scholars that praise the institute and approve of its philosophy. Abraham Flexner wrote,

While practical benefits often result from pure academic research at the most fundamental level, such benefits are not guaranteed and cannot be predicted; nor need they be seen as the ultimate goal. Ventures into unknown territory inevitably involve an element of risk, and scientists and scholars are rarely motivated by the thought of an end product. Rather, they are moved by a creative curiosity that is the hallmark of academic inquiry.

The Institute for Advanced Study is one of the few institutions in the world where the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake is the ultimate raison d’être. Speculative research, the kind that is fundamental to the advancement of human understanding of the world of nature and of humanity, is not a product that can be made to order. Rather, like artistic creativity, it benefits from a special environment. This was the belief to which Abraham Flexner, the founding Director of the Institute, held passionately, and which continues to inspire the Institute today.

Considering the number of Nobel prizes garnered, fundamental discoveries made, and major theories originated by people before, during, and after they worked at the institute, it is misleading to focus on the presumed negative effects of Flexner's philosophy. There are many more quotes by eminent scientists that praise the institute and its successes. These can be documented and I intend to include some of them.--Foobarnix (talk) 03:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I endorse improving this article by including more about the Institute's successes. I'm not sure that putting it in the words of eminent scientists (rather than just referencing the facts) is necessary. On the other hand, I think that the criticism section is also necessary for balance in the article. ServiceAT (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Richard Hamming quote

In the Criticism section the Hamming quote contains this sentence:

The Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, in my opinion, has ruined more good scientists than any institution has created, judged by what they did before they came and judged by what they did after.

This citation for this quote is Hamming's own book. In other words, Hamming is expressing his own very negative opinion of the institute, an opinion unsupported by any other references. What are the names of the scientist who were ruined by the IAS? Hamming does not say. This violates NPOV and that is why I believe this quote should be removed. --Foobarnix (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect, Foobarnix, I don't think your understanding of NPOV is correct. It is the article itself that must be NPOV, not notable individual views correctly attributed and referenced. In reporting controversy, which this is, it is entirely legitimate (in fact, necessary) to air all sides. Hamming is a super-famous mathematician, and the fact that he said, in print, in his own book, something like this about IAS is highly notable. See WP:BALANCE. ServiceAT (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

This quote by Hemming makes a serious allegation about the IAS that is not supported by any evidence. The scientists that the IAS has ruined are not named. The quote is pernicious and is not supported by any documentation other than the fact that Hemming said it was his "opinion". Are opinions to be included in an encyclopedia? Hemming is not a historian of science. He was never a part of the Institute. What are his qualifications for passing judgement on the IAS? As for "balance", there is no rule in WP that requires every statement to have a balancing statement. Should an article on Hitler, say, have a balancing section called, "good things about Hitler"? The idea that this Criticism section is needed for "balance" is absurd. I can produce thousands of quotes talking about the good science that the IAS has fostered and produced. Can anyone find even five quotes talking about how the IAS has failed? NPOV is compromised by this quote. It should be removed.

ServieAT says this paragraph is legitimate because it is "reporting controversy". What controversy? There is no controversy about the IAS. What if there were an outlier who said, "Smallpox is good for people". The fact that someone had such an unusual opinion does not automatically makes smallpox controversial. Hemming is an outlier. Put the quote in the article about him where it might be relevant.--Foobarnix (talk) 15:53, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The quote seems on-topic to me. Just phrase it in such a way that makes it unambiguously clear that this is Hamming's personal opinion and counter-balance it with some positive opinions by equally notable scientists. That's what WP:NPOV is all about. —Ruud 20:49, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I found this quote [1] in a talk given at the IAS about the Monster group:

In 1981, a few days before his talk, Dyson received in the mail the final installment of a long paper by Griess confirming the monster’s existence. Griess, while a Member at the Institute (1979–80, 1981, 1994), had constructed the monster as a group of rotations in 196,883-dimensional space (and in the process producing the Griess algebra expressly for that purpose).

I could find lots more examples of productive work by people while at the institute.--Toploftical (talk) 20:14, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Words to watch

I've tagged are several words to watch in this article that may introduce bias, and strike a less than formal tone. e.g. "One could argue...", "unrivaled mathematical prestige" and "It was a hard act to follow..." The first is a weasel word, and gives the appearance of an editorial point of view (Is anyone actually arguing that? If one could argue A, couldn't one argue a contradictory point B?), the second appears like puffery that promotes without imparting real information, and the third is an imprecise cliche. "Flexner, ever the education reformer," also reads like someone's unattributed point of view or unessential puffery that can likely be omitted or rephrased to be more straightforward. Per WP:NPOV, a neutral encyclopedia article should not unduly promote nor denigrate its subject, nor adopt the tone of any sources (whether affiliated or not), and should clearly attribute opinions (or better yet, eschew all but the most noteworthy) so they are not introduced as fact. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stevo Todorcevic

An IP editor (who I believe to be past edit-warrior and Todorčević fanboy Vujkovica brdo, not-logged-in) has been edit warring to include Stevo Todorčević in the paragraph about how IAS has housed "many of the best minds of their generation". I believe that this paragraph should be restricted to people who are actually famous, outside mathematics and physics, for their contributlons, such as many of the llstees lncludlng Elnsteln and von Neumann. Todorčević is a good mathematician, certainly notable enough to have an article, but I think well below that level. If we included him then neutrality would force us to include hundreds or thousands of IAS scholars, because they're all good at what they do. So I think the IP's additions should be removed, but I'm already at two reverts and don't want to make it three. Can we have some other opinions, please? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:06, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Past edit-warrior? Fanboy? A miserable way to start a serious discussion.--94.68.84.112 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Should I have omitted his plagiarism? My apologies for doing so. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Your first lie starts with "who I believe". If you attributed a plagiarism to Todorcevic, it's your second lie. If to somebody else, then I do not know what you are talking about. "If we included him then neutrality would force us to include hundreds or thousands of IAS scholars, ..." Yet another misery of yours, an exposed inferiority complex.--94.68.84.112 (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Huh? I believe (IP editor)=(Vujkovica brdo). I also believe (though I did not already say it) that they are not the same person as Todorčević — in part because this sort of behavior would be quite out-of-character for most professional mathematicians. It is Vujkovica brdo who plagiarized, by copying text from award citations into the article about Todorčević [2]. Which all has little to do with who to include at IAS, except that maybe it will serve as context for the dispute. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

You are free to believe whatever you want. This is not a place to fight Vujkovica brdo. About the plagiarism, the award citation link http://www.fields.utoronto.ca/press/11-12/111214Todorcevic.html was in the article before and after the incriminated edit. Be careful when throwing accusations. Yes, I agree, your rant has nothing to do with who to include at IAS. --94.68.84.112 (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Institute for Advanced Study. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305202831/http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/Jubilee/History_of_institutes.pdf to http://www.cas.uio.no/Publications/Jubilee/History_of_institutes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:31, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Intro implies that Oppenheimer was an immigrant to the US

The introductory paragraph is written in a fashion that seems to imply that J. Robert Oppenheimer, like the other figures mentioned in the same sentence, was an immigrant to the US. As far as I know, he was actually born in New York City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.250.130.63 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on History additions

I’d like to discuss the History section and my last two edits which extended the history of the IAS’s acceptance of women and people of color. The edits have been reverted by @Magnolia677, and my read on the reasoning is that they are seen as just name-dropping and thus do not provide any improvement to this article. I believe the edits fill in gaps in the history section and cover key topics for the IAS, so I would like to discuss their addition.

The existing history section already discusses the topics addressed in my edits and sets them up as important to the article, but it does not discuss them beyond the 1930s, so I was attempting to fill in missing information for later decades. Half of the current “Early Years” subsection discusses how non-discrimination on the basis of sex, race, and creed shaped the policies and early offers of the IAS, but was not successfully implemented in the case of William S. Claytor. This is an interesting start to the history, but coverage ends in 1939, so there's a lot missing. As a reader I was left wondering when or if a Black visitor ever could come to the IAS, and when/if other people of color could join the IAS, if the case worked differently for professors, visitors, or women, etc, and how these themes developed over the second half of the 20th century or even the 21st. These questions are relevant to the histories of many comparable research institutions, so for instance, the Princeton University History section discusses the dates and names of when women first entered the university at various roles, and the frequency of Black and Jewish students over time due to periods of discrimination. But because the IAS is rather unique in its early focus on non-discrimination, which the article discusses, I think it is especially relevant to discuss the history in more detail here, rather than leaving it out entirely. Multiple sources discuss these events, so I'm not sure what policy or reasoning goes behind leaving them out of this article.

In terms of the name-dropping critique, to be transparent I’m not sure what policy this might relate to so I may not understand the full depth of the critique here. My perspective is that the value of these edits are actually mostly about their dates and the frequencies of participation. The names make them more useful and interesting to readers, but if the names were all removed, the edits would still make this article better, because they draw out the themes of the early history section from the 1930s until the present. In my opinion, the names make the article more encyclopedic, because they are linked and allow readers to quickly learn more about the stories behind these events if interested. I have seen other research institute’s history sections do similarly here, even when the subject does not have their own wikipedia article, and the existing IAS article does the same in its existing discussion of William S. Claytor. Regardless, I disagree with the suggestion that one of my edits should be moved to a different article listing IAS faculty: the point of my edit was to show how the IAS’s original mission was implemented over time in terms of the faculty who make up the senior positions at the institution, rather than calling out the careers of individual professors.


It looks like there was further disagreement over my use of the term “scholars of color” and “woman of color” in reference to early Chinese postdocs at the university: I used this because it is a term in use in the US today and one of the sources used “woman of color” to refer to one of the visiting scholars. If another term is more appropriate I’m happy to change it, but I’m curious as to the reasoning against it here. I thought the related sentences were important pieces of the IAS’s history because they help explain how the IAS had treated visitors at the intersection of different backgrounds highlighted in its early policies. In any case, I disagree that these critiques are grounds for the removal of my edits, and I would like to discuss ways to integrate this information into this article. Hobbitina (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

TLDR. There is literally a separate article for notable people, so no need to shoehorn their names in here. That's why we have separate articles. Perhaps you could shorten your edit to a sentence or two. Also, if your sources think Chinese people are black, you need to find better sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:35, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I apologize for the long post but I wrote it in response to this misunderstanding--my edits do not have the goal of shoehorning in names, but adding a further timeline of events discussed only in the 1930s currently. More than a couple sentences are needed to cover the many changes of the following decades. This is the heart of why I disagree with you.

I also believe you are operating on a different definition of the word "people of color" than is commonly used today. It does not mean someone is Black, it just means someone is not "white". The term is used today in the US as a way to refer to many different groups who have been viewed as non-white, not just Black people. Hobbitina (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

@Magnolia677 I haven't heard anything from you on this thread since my last response, so I'm just checking in to see if you still have objections to my last two edits. If I don't hear anything in three days, I'll assume you're okay with the edits and put them back in, so please respond here if that's not the case. Hobbitina (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

You have referred to a Wikipedia article to support your definition of "people of color", which is not appropriate. Please try to trim your edit to essential details, avoid unnecessary name dropping, and stop calling non-whites "people of color". Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:44, 6 September 2025 (UTC)

I will trim the edits and and use a different descriptor to achieve compromise. For the future, Merriam-Webster's definitions of "person of color" define it this way: "a person whose skin pigmentation is other than and especially darker than what is considered characteristic of people typically defined as white" and "a person who is of a race...other than white or who is of mixed race". I linked a wikipedia article because it has further references to explain in more detail. Hobbitina (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2025 (UTC)