Talk:Massachusetts Institute of Technology

GA Reassessment

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found

Result: Citation issues remain with no work performed or pledged; delist. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This article has two orange "more citations needed" banners from 2021 and an "update needed" banner at the top of "Faculty and staff". Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Contribution of the MIT to the creation of the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets

Hello to all.

I wrote in the page some information about the contribution of the Institute to the creation of the Open Coalition on Compliance Carbon Markets. Researchers from the institute together with researchers from Harward issued a flagship report about the possibility of creating a global cap and trade system which was adopted at COP 30 2 month later.

It is rare that a report is leading to a creation of international coalition in 2 months, so it even received an article about in the official site of the Institute.

However, it was reverted by strange reasons.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology&diff=next&oldid=1336912595

Do you agree with me it should be restored? Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

'Harward' = 'Harvard'? MaynardClark (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Disagree. The program may have merits or impact, but that doesn't relate to @EEng's removal of the text. This article informs readers about the general history, organization, and broad programs of MIT, but it is not a directory of specific research programs. I think this view is consistent with general guidelines from the editors who work most on university articles.

Practically, it is difficult to know when current research programs will merit long-term inclusion, which is a reason not to profile recent programs at length. Certain sections of this article have been cluttered with promotional content about new programs and have to be further pruned. You'll see that this article was recently reviewed and demoted from "Good Article" standing for related reasons.

My recommendation: Once you establish notability in independent sources, you could highlight the notable contribution on the Open Coalition page you link. Articles published by the MIT about MIT projects won't do so, but external coverage could. Nickknack00 (talk) 17:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree on all points. ElKevbo (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Can we agree that you're agreeing with the points disagreeing with the person seeking agreement that the material should be restored? EEng 12:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree that the article should not enlist all the research and studies made by the Institute, however here there is notability in my opinion, because in this case a study led to a creation of an international coalition exactly 2 months after it was published. The importance of the coalition and the direct contribution of the institute to its creation were mentioned by several sources during several months.

I agree that it is better to use external sources in this context, for it will not become a promotion. Here is an external source from Governance&Accountability institute. It directly says that the coalition is important and will affect the USA. Than it says:

"An important element of the initiative is that leading U.S. universities are involved as think tanks and navigators. Among the advisors to the coalition and shapers of the concept: Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), through their joint Global Climate Policy Program (GCPP), which aims to “drive innovation in global climate policy around the world.” The business schools of the two universities will participate in various ways, as will the Salata Institute for Climate and Sustainability at Harvard through financial support."

So, not only the institute helped shape it, it is expected to participate in the coalition functionment.

Do you agree it worth mentioning on the page of the institute?

--Alexander Sauda/אלכסנדר סעודה (talk) 14:31, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is just one of a million things that have gone on, and are now going on, at MIT, including things that are "important and will affect the USA". The article cannot include such stuff just because it exists. EEng 22:26, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

@אלכסנדר סעודה that's great for the program! The new source you link seems like a press release, so it wouldn't be a good way to establish notability.

Just to be clear, it's not the the program isn't important; it's about whether we can establish impact on MIT itself. That's hard to know three months after something starts. If we were to develop more content on climate science, adding Mario Molina's work on the Montreal Protocol to "Research programs" could be a good place to start, although that's another section needs overhaul. Nickknack00 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Proposal: remove alumni lists from lead

Proposal: Remove this sentence from the lead:

In addition, 58 National Medal of Science recipients, 29 National Medals of Technology and Innovation recipients, 50 MacArthur Fellows, 83 Marshall Scholars, 41 astronauts, 16 chief scientists of the US Air Force, and 8 foreign heads of state have been affiliated with MIT.

Rationale: These lists populated a lot of university pages in the 2010s, but they are difficult to maintain and rely on university self-sourcing in the lead. "Affiliates" are a diffuse group to track, and selecting highlights among professions is arbitrary. (I concede that astronaut alums are super cool.) I suggest keeping the Nobel lists, Turing, and Fields, which are actively maintained lists, and have most valance for academic reputation.

A rewrite that could be more maintainable and verifiable:

As of October 2024, 105 Nobel laureates, 26 Turing Award winners, and 8 Fields Medalists have been affiliated with MIT as alumni, faculty members, or researchers. Many alumni have served as top American and foreign government officials. The institute has an entrepreneurial culture and its faculty and alumni have founded many notable companies.

All of this is established in body text. We could maintain the specific counts in the body sections if they independently establish MIT's importance. But I think the article would benefit more from removing, because they require costly maintenance. Nickknack00 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC) Nickknack00 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Absent discussion, I have made this change. Sourcing still needs improvement. Nickknack00 (talk) 17:33, 16 February 2026 (UTC)