This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is his status as an African American physicist somehow important? He doesn't seem to have done any work regarding promoting diversity in science or any other similar cause. The article doesn't suggest that he was the first African American in any way (say in writing a thesis in supersymmetry, etc. So what makes his race important? Jussen 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is he called "legendary"? What are his contributions to physics? 217.236.172.100 ( talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
i know most wikipedians frown on things like this but why is there no mention that Professor Gates has discovered error correcting binary code embedded within string theory super symmetry equations strongly suggesting that we do, in fact, live in a simulation? I won't speculate beyond that but i think its worthy of mention, it could possibly be the biggest discovery in human history right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.240.136 ( talk) 17:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that string theory is so hard, so difficult, requiring so much math and physics, that S. James Gates should be noted because, despite these difficulties, he is a fairly clear expositor, with excellent diction, analogies, diagrams and videos (on the Teaching Co. course) doing a super job with an incredibly difficult subject. Which is (probably) why he was chosen to do the Teaching Company course on string theory. Just think somebody should add something to the lede paragraph about his teaching skills.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The salary and teaching information for Gates might be inconvenient, but they are both part of the public record, readily available, completely and accurately referenced, and are perfectly valid entries in his biography. I think it is well within the realm of public interest to know that he is just about the highest paid professor at UMCP 129.6.190.21 ( talk) 21:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kenton M is engaged in an edit war based on his personal opinions. He has not proved libel nor defamation, nor even asserted it. He just doesn't like it. 129.6.190.21 ( talk) 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
He's at it again. Now he says that being the nearly highest paid faculty on campus and barely teaching is not "noteworthy", and it typical for "eminent" professors. First of all, where is your data for that second assertion?? UMD professors are required to teach 2 courses a year - why is he given dispensation? And for the former, there are THOUSANDS of Wiki pages listing people's religion, age, height, weight, where they live, etc. How precisely are these facts "noteworthy" by your scale?? 71.178.166.126 ( talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
As noted on 129.6.190.21's talk page
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
Gates' salary is publicly available, and well sourced, but so are salaries of nearly all public school faculty. Gates is not the highest, nor is he rare in that he teaches little. There are no articles discussing Gates' salary as significant in any way. Nor are there any that suggest his teaching commitment is significant. Such conclusions are your own.
When you accuse my reversion of your edits to be based on opinion alone, the reverse is true. You personally feel his compensation package, which was agreed to by him and his employer, are unfair or excessive, and you personally feel he teaches too little. Unless you can cite a source that suggests either of these things, there is no reason to include his salary and teaching commitments in the Wikipedia article. You provide no rationale for why his salary is significant, nor do I see you editing the pages of other professors with high salaries to include said information. Kenton M (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that there are NO sources other than a simple database listing this information. The two of you are the ones injecting personal opinions. You find it noteworthy because you believe professors should not be paid highly for their accomplishments while teaching little. I am agnostic on the subject. However, as there is absolutely no discussion of this particular professor's salary outside of this Wikipedia page, due weight cannot be assigned to either point of view of his compensation. If you can find an independent verifiable source that addresses his salary as significant in any way, positive or negative, then I will not revert your edits. Kenton M ( talk) 02:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sylvester James Gates. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is his status as an African American physicist somehow important? He doesn't seem to have done any work regarding promoting diversity in science or any other similar cause. The article doesn't suggest that he was the first African American in any way (say in writing a thesis in supersymmetry, etc. So what makes his race important? Jussen 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is he called "legendary"? What are his contributions to physics? 217.236.172.100 ( talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
i know most wikipedians frown on things like this but why is there no mention that Professor Gates has discovered error correcting binary code embedded within string theory super symmetry equations strongly suggesting that we do, in fact, live in a simulation? I won't speculate beyond that but i think its worthy of mention, it could possibly be the biggest discovery in human history right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.151.240.136 ( talk) 17:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that string theory is so hard, so difficult, requiring so much math and physics, that S. James Gates should be noted because, despite these difficulties, he is a fairly clear expositor, with excellent diction, analogies, diagrams and videos (on the Teaching Co. course) doing a super job with an incredibly difficult subject. Which is (probably) why he was chosen to do the Teaching Company course on string theory. Just think somebody should add something to the lede paragraph about his teaching skills.-- Tomwsulcer ( talk) 22:45, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The salary and teaching information for Gates might be inconvenient, but they are both part of the public record, readily available, completely and accurately referenced, and are perfectly valid entries in his biography. I think it is well within the realm of public interest to know that he is just about the highest paid professor at UMCP 129.6.190.21 ( talk) 21:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Kenton M is engaged in an edit war based on his personal opinions. He has not proved libel nor defamation, nor even asserted it. He just doesn't like it. 129.6.190.21 ( talk) 21:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
He's at it again. Now he says that being the nearly highest paid faculty on campus and barely teaching is not "noteworthy", and it typical for "eminent" professors. First of all, where is your data for that second assertion?? UMD professors are required to teach 2 courses a year - why is he given dispensation? And for the former, there are THOUSANDS of Wiki pages listing people's religion, age, height, weight, where they live, etc. How precisely are these facts "noteworthy" by your scale?? 71.178.166.126 ( talk) 02:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
As noted on 129.6.190.21's talk page
See /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Due_and_undue_weight
Gates' salary is publicly available, and well sourced, but so are salaries of nearly all public school faculty. Gates is not the highest, nor is he rare in that he teaches little. There are no articles discussing Gates' salary as significant in any way. Nor are there any that suggest his teaching commitment is significant. Such conclusions are your own.
When you accuse my reversion of your edits to be based on opinion alone, the reverse is true. You personally feel his compensation package, which was agreed to by him and his employer, are unfair or excessive, and you personally feel he teaches too little. Unless you can cite a source that suggests either of these things, there is no reason to include his salary and teaching commitments in the Wikipedia article. You provide no rationale for why his salary is significant, nor do I see you editing the pages of other professors with high salaries to include said information. Kenton M (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Let me add that there are NO sources other than a simple database listing this information. The two of you are the ones injecting personal opinions. You find it noteworthy because you believe professors should not be paid highly for their accomplishments while teaching little. I am agnostic on the subject. However, as there is absolutely no discussion of this particular professor's salary outside of this Wikipedia page, due weight cannot be assigned to either point of view of his compensation. If you can find an independent verifiable source that addresses his salary as significant in any way, positive or negative, then I will not revert your edits. Kenton M ( talk) 02:14, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Sylvester James Gates. 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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)