Talk:Weizmann Institute of Science

this is the disputed paragraph that the Wizmanners, wish you not see

It seems that all the changes, made by me and different users, which show much more neutral point of view of the institute have been reverted due to ad humanism. I believe that at least some should re-introduced. Especially those which have been made by different users.--Wizmann (talk) 19:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• You didn't understand the Leiden rankings. As the article states, it is "based on the proportion of a university's scientific papers published between 2012 and 2015 that made the 10% most cited in their field". This used to be the way it was sorted automatically but not anymore - to sort it that way press the PP(top 10%) column on https://www.leidenranking.com/ranking/2020. WIS is 8th on this contrary to your edits. It makes no sense to cite the P(top 10%)-ranking as it is inherently based on the size of the institute.
• Also you cited the Shangai change in a highly misleading way, writing that WIS "fell out of the top 100 between 2014-2019". Around 2014 it was 92, its peak, before it went down to 101-150 (unspecified) then returned to 93 last year. So, your edits are not neutral but clearly have an agenda to make it seem that the rankings are generally in decline, though it is not the case. A decline in the ranking of the CS dept. alone (a small fraction of an institute which is mostly focused on biological sciences) is hardly noteworthy, and I didn't see such a decline in the other departments. - 2A02:ED3:50A:C900:C30:F074:3CC3:70F5 (talk) 22:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

To forefend an edit war, I would like to open this up for discussion. Are there any reliable sources that agree with Josep a11's claim that this attack was in retaliation for the killing of nuclear scientists? I have found a few pages from propaganda websites that state this, but it does not seem based on any official statements that have been widely quoted in other news media, as has been the case for other places targeted (like the recent threats to bomb Channel 14's studios in retaliation for a similar strike).

The explanation does not actually make a whole lot of sense - first, the institute was hit quite far from the physics department according to news sources. Second, it was hit in the middle of night when there were no scientists present. Third, Israel is already an (undeclared) nuclear country, so it's highly doubtful that any nuclear scientists are needed for that purpose at this point.

Alternative explanations include: (1) they were targeted for their ties to the Defense Ministry, (2) they were not even targeted - the missiles were aimed for the Tel Nof air base (although this seems less likely when I think about it, as it is 10 km or so away), (3) it was simply a hit on a symbol of Israel's strength, for psychological warfare purposes. 37.142.39.223 (talk) 21:17, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, sorry, please do not revert changes removing sources citing precisely the topic under discussion. The source was there just before I edited the first time, I actually completed the paragraph from an existing source. That is the thing you did not: take the time to read the sources.

It is the third time that you revert the change in order to suit the way you want the paragraph to look like and you dismiss sources depending on your criteria.

If you revert again, you will be blocked due to edit warring. Josep a11 (talk) 14:47, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey, no problem. I've read the sources that are linked. None of these sources show (or claim to show) any kind of reliable evidence that the institute was specifically targeted, let alone targeted specifically as a retaliation for the assassination of nuclear scientists. Let's go over them one by one:

[12] - Makes no claim, and even states that the Israeli military has not suggested that WIS was specifically targeted.

[13] - Tries to hypothesize, without providing evidence. "These activities partly explain why the institute is considered a strategic target for Tehran, especially after recent Israeli strikes on military facilities and prominent Iranian scientists." So it's multifactorial and tentative, not a singular and definite cause as you wrote.

[14] - Makes no claim.

[15] - Also hypothesizes but does not provide evidence. Cites an Israeli analyst: "That connection, said analyst Yoel Guzansky, may have factored into its selection as a target. "The institute symbolises Israeli scientific progress," he said. "And Iran is sending a message: 'You target our scientists, we'll target yours.'"" This analyst again suggests a multifactorial (defense ties, symbolic value) and tentative motivation.

Again, I want to point out that in several other cases during this war there IS direct evidence of precisely this kind. For example, this direct statement from an Iranian top diplomat about the motive for the hospital strike, and this warning of a tit-for-tat attack on a news channel.

Perhaps we can compromise on a more multifactorial and tentative explanation - e.g. "Analysts of the conflict suggested the strike may have been due to X and Y..", instead of what you wrote ("The strike was in retaliation for the assassination of nuclear scientists"), which in my view is not supported by the sources as of this writing. What do you think? Best, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 16:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I know that 12 and 14 make no claim. No need to state the obvious here. But, on the 13 and 15 ones, you display confirmation bias by #1 - arbitrarily considering statements from the sources as insufficient, #2 - applying a short-term logic fallacy that a retaliation either happens immediately or it is not a retaliation, #3 - assuming that unless stated in a public statement it is not a response (words weight more than actions), how do you know that all armies must communicate in such a standard?

Regarding #2, this is absurd and not how armed conflicts work. Reminder that Iran took around 14 days to respond to the first aggressions on its soil on April 2024.

Besides the provided sources, there is another source from NY Times explaining also how the barrages of missiles were launched in response to the aggressions on the iranian nuclear facilities on the 13th. I took it from the main page, by the way (to relate to #1). Josep a11 (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for answering. You stated that the sources support it, so I am merely trying to dig in the sources to find where exactly there is a direct statement that the attack was in response to assassination of nuclear scientists. To respond to the individual points:

1. It's not arbitrary because I didn't just dig up any statement from the article. I read them fully and found the CLOSEST statement to the claim you made, and I argued that it still did not hold up.
2. I am not applying this logic. A retaliation can happen much later or not at all, and have never made a statement to this effect. I am simply stating that you can't know or find it "obvious" this was a retaliation for a particular action by Israel as this was never stated by either Iranian authorities directly or any intelligence thereof, in contrast to other cases I linked to for example.
3. I linked to several cases in which they did communicate such an intent direct - see above. It doesn't mean that if they did not communicate then they did -not- have this motivation in mind, but we are talking in the affirmative, so you need some kind of affirmative evidence. Both [12] and [14] are quite clear this particular motivation is speculative, but this is not clear in the text.

I also checked the NY Times text - which by the way is a news reel, so I don't think it's a good source to begin with. I have no doubt that the barrage of missiles -in general- was in response to assassinations of nuclear scientists among many other factors - assassinations of the military cadre, damage to nuclear facilities, air defense, etc. etc. But here you are making a qualitatively different claim - that this particular strike was in particular a response for the assassination.

Finally, I just want to add that it's not factually true that in the June 13 Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, Iranian nuclear scientists were assassinated. Israel separately attacked nuclear facilities AND elsewhere assassinated the scientists - it also did so several days later.

So all that said, I suggest the following compromise, let me know what you think:

"Several buildings in the institute were destroyed by an Iranian missile strike on 15 June 2025. This has been speculated to be a retaliatory attack for the 13 June Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, or the assassination of nuclear scientists." How about it? :) Best, 37.142.39.223 (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

OK, it's been a few weeks now, and I think this is a fair compromise which doesn't really revert your point at all, only makes it more accurate to your sources. So I'm going to go ahead and apply WP:BOLD. Michaelas10 (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I don't agree with changing that phrasing, actually. As I mentioned above, the IP user argument to 1) how retaliatory attacks happen 2) how they are communicated is not right. Besides, it is cited that it is a retaliatory attack. Even if it were not cited from a source, in the context of this escalation, it is NOT speculation that the attacks that ensue during the weekend are retaliatory attacks. We need to change the speculation phrasing, @Michaelas10

Besides, why do you remove the part that said "Israel has consistently targeted Iranian nuclear scientists for assassination" if there is a whole wikipedia page that explains it with evidence going as far back as 2007??

I am going to revert the change you made till we have an agreement. Josep a11 (talk) 13:49, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

The other part I don't understand regarding the aforementioned removal of the sentence is: why do you state in the description of this edit that the sentence was repeated? I don't see such info on the current version. Josep a11 (talk) 14:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi. None of the sources are explicitly stating that this attack was retaliatory. Hence, they speculate, or surmise, that this was the case. It is crucial to communicate to the reader that it is not an established fact (although it seems obvious to you - please see WP:NEUTRAL) and that various explanations have been proposed. Hence, 'it has been proposed' seems more appropriate than 'seems' (seems to who - to the writer of the article?).

The sentence is repeating the pertinent point in the paragraph about how the assassination of nuclear scientists is a possible motive for the attack. Hence, it is superfluous in this context. Any extra information conveyed by talking about Israel's history with Iran is not pertinent. For that matter - you could also add that "it has been Iran's policy to call for Israel's destruction", which would be a similarly non-pertinent statement. We are not going into geopolitical analysis here. Michaelas10 (talk) 02:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, it's fine, you can say "it has been proposed". I think it is more appropriate than has been speculated, so you can go ahead and change it.

Whatever. I don't agree here. The one you mention is too vague for the topic at hand. Here it is pertinent because it is related to the topic of the paragraph: it is about undermining nuclear capabilites/investigation: both the israeli attack as well as the iranian one. According to this, I would prefer to keep the information. Josep a11 (talk) 11:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Fair enough, done (also added 'by analysts' to avoid WP:AWT). For the other sentence, actually on on a second thought I tend to agree.. And the TRT source says so explicitly. To be clear it's another potential motivation rather than analysis, I moved the "history of targeting nuclear scientists" into the aforementioned reasons (keeping the link to the article), alongside the more recent attacks and the Elbit ties. Hope this is alright. Michaelas10 (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I just saw it now. I think it's fine, yeah. Thanks Josep a11 (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change: 5thLMNt (talk) 18:12, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Day Creature (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

I did. I entered this between where it said to:

change:

|students = 1,082

|doctoral = 700

|free_label = Postdoctoral fellows

|free = 380

to:

|students = 1,700 (2025) ^[1]

|doctoral = 750 (2025) ^[1]

|free_label = Postdoctoral fellows

|free = 450 (2025) ^[1] 5thLMNt (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

change students = 1,082 to students = 1,700 (2025) ^[1]

change doctoral = 700 to doctoral = 750 (2025) ^[1]

change free = 380 to free = 450 (2025) ^[1]

- 5thLMNt (talk) 15:26, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

 Done Nubzor [T][C] 01:06, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Feinberg Graduate School" to "Weizmann School of Science" MonkeyBrave (talk) 07:35, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Please specify where in the article this change should be made, and why. Day Creature (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Yossi Matias to list of Weizmann Institute alumni. He is head of research at Google, and faculty at Tel Aviv University. MonkeyBrave (talk) 07:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Day Creature (talk) 22:22, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Not the OP but

Kalany (talk) 03:35, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Doesn't address the initial decline reason. --pro-anti-air ––>(talk)<–– 04:41, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change all references to Feinberg Graduate School to Weizmann School of Science. The name was changed this past year, and is reflected on their website: https://www.weizmann.ac.il/wsos/. MonkeyBrave (talk) 08:24, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Question: Could you please provide a source for this? Slomo666 (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

https://www.weizmann.ac.il/wsos/about-weizmann-school-science-wsos MonkeyBrave (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your request. After checking the sources, I have come to the conclusion the only use of the term (in the infobox) is an incorrect use of the line "affiliation", and removed it. The other mention is purely a historical statement. If this does not answer your request, feel free to ping me or message me on my talk page. Happy editing, Slomo666 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change X to Y, where: - X is: In April 2004, the world's first biological computer was completed by Professor Ehud Shapiro - Y is: In April 2004, the world's first biological computer was completed by Professor Ehud Shapiro Dartme (talk) 07:53, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

 Done {{GearsDatapack|talk|contribs}} 10:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)