Talk:Sylvester James Gates

African American
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)


 * I took the african american part out. He is not notable for being black but for his work on physics therefore this information is not very relevant to the article. --Antonio.sierra 10:16, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Why couldn't he just be a scientist without his race becoming a burden? Scientists of other races don't have to carry their race as additional burden. Merlin1935 (talk) 07:55, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * His race has been FAR from a burden to him.129.6.190.21 (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Having theories way more wacky than John Wheeler is a burden though. 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:1C12:8C14:CDE3:EA07 (talk) 10:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Legendary?
Why is he called "legendary"? What are his contributions to physics? 217.236.172.100 (talk) 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone who teaches science and conducts scientific research contributes to human progress. Maybe the use of the word "legendary" requires more support here, but Professor James has established his credentials as a renowned Physicist. Merlin1935 (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Legendary is absurd. Einstein, Fermi, Heisenberg - these scientists are legendary.  Gates will be forgotten outside his sub-specialty shortly after his passing.129.6.190.21 (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Evidence of binary code embedded in equations of super symmetry?
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)
 * Good sources listed here. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Teaching Company course
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)


 * Not everything the Teaching Company does is excellent though.
 * String Theory started out as a fringe movement, it turned into a fad, and it's quietly receding into the Aether, er Aether Theory. 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:1C12:8C14:CDE3:EA07 (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Salary and teaching load
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 UMCP129.6.190.21 (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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)


 * Well then, have fun periodically and obsessively checking this page, because I have the patience of an oyster. It is noteworthy that he is paid by the taxpayers of the state of Maryland three-eighths of a million dollars a year and is not expected to perform the primary function of a professor - teaching.  Meanwhile, he can do commercials for tax preparation software companies, profiting further off of said position.  There does not need to be any discussion about facts about a person's biography for them to be included.  What is the justification for pointing out the height of an actor, for example?  Is it controversial?  Are people discussing it?    You're full of crap, but then your major doesn't lend itself to rigor.71.178.166.126 (talk) 02:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * My graduate PhD program is actually neuroscience, but thank you for reminding me, via personal attack, that my Wikipedia user page is out of date, as it has my master's degree program, and not my current PhD program. I am not going to provide a rebuttal, but you are free to try and publish an unrigorous paper in the reputable biological anthropology journal of your choice, and see how it is received.  Your assertion that the primary function of a professor is teaching may correlate with lay expectations, but does not correlate with the fact that professors, who conduct research, are paid more than instructors and lecturers at the same institution, who do not.  You may peruse salary databases, which you apparently have a fetish for, to corroborate this fact.  While I am not particularly interested in your silly and irrelevant examples, the height of an actor is relevant; could Shaq, who has acted, play Tyrion Lannister?  The salary of a professor tells no significant information about the professor other than his rank and academic stature, which are adequately and better explained by said professor's research accomplishments.  Eminent professors are paid highly.  There is no evidence, as I have said and will continue to say if you make these politically motivated edits, that Gates' salary is worth discussion, as you have provided no evidence of due weight.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenton M (talk • contribs) 04:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * You need only provide a reason why, based on Wikipedia's guidelines, your edit shouldn't be reverted. Caring about your personal tax outlays is not a reason.  Perhaps some more arithmetic since you have a mind so fond of rigor?  Gate's CV is 111 pages (http://www.umdphysics.umd.edu/images/CV/gates_cv.pdf).  So he is paid $3,056.35 per CV page per year only.  New assistant professors may make $80,000 a year with only 10 page CVs, netting $8,000 per CV page per year.  Why is Gates so criminally underpaid?Kenton M (talk) 05:32, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Being only a grad student and not a faculty (and not a taxpayer), you seem to lack both knowledge and experience. It is UMD policy to have professors teach 2 classes per semester.  He teaches one every other year.  At 3X the salary of the average science and engineering professor.  He is one of the top 3 highest paid professors at UMD, in fact.   For the record, I have a CV that is 82 pages long - my graduate advisor has well over 150 pages - your simple math is both irrelevant and an idiotic metric.  As a taxpayer, I find his compensation and teaching load unusual and noteworthy.71.178.166.126 (talk) 00:51, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Again, your reasoning is beyond flawed, as I pay taxes. Both from my graduate stipend, and from external employment.  And again, "As a taxpayer, I find his compensation and teaching load unusual and noteworthy" is not grounds for inclusion in the article.  There is no inclusion criteria on Wikipedia for how you, as an individual, "find things."  Notice I have argued only based on Wikipedia policies.  Due weight cannot be assigned based on your opinion.  Moreover, you did not write UMD policy, nor were you present for negotiations between Gates and UMD, and you are therefore totally unqualified to decide whether or not Gates' contract is in blatant violation; if you think it is, email the university, rather than using Wikipedia as a political platform.  Stop using simple metrics to decide whether or not something is sufficient for inclusion in this article.  My simple calculations were an extremely obvious criticism of your even simpler calculation, which reduces to "$300,000 is a big number."  Nor is your gloating about your accomplishments any more relevant.  Gates is not among the highest paid professors in the United States.  If he were, I would again have no protest.Kenton M (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Your circular logic and incorrect extrapolations reflect the characteristics of your chosen field of study. Still waiting for an editor to weigh in . . .71.178.166.126 (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Now you think neuroscience is also unrigorous? Although you have been totally undiplomatic and have not demonstrated your competence on Wikipedia policies at all, now is the time to talk.  The page is protected for a week.  I have painstakingly articulated why a direct interpretation of the requirement for due weight necessitates that his salary not be included when the information comes from a mere database, and no context can be established without original research, which is also disallowed in Wikipedia articles.  If you understand the purpose of Wikipedia, you understand that edit warring is not productive, and not helpful for end users.  That is why I requested page protection.  It would not behoove Wikipedia to continue reverting between the two versions.  I am very willing to entertain compromises, because I do want this article, as infrequently as it is likely visited, to be stable, accurate, and representative of the most important information about the individual.  I am not interested in what you think of anthropology, neuroscience, or your personal tax outlays.  I acknowledge it's pure dumb luck that it was protected after I reverted your edit, and that I'm aware in a week you can simply revert to your preferred version.  As that benefits no one, I would like to hear an argument as to why you believe due weight can be assigned to these facts without conducting your own original research, i.e., comparing his teaching load with UMD's policies when you do not know the specifics of his contract and what other of their statutes may apply.  The rest of the article makes it clear that, despite the length of your adviser's CV, Gates has a storied career with many high and specific honors.  I am not completely against including that he is highly paid and teaches infrequently, but there MUST be a compelling reason to do so other than your personal political beliefs.  If his name even appeared in an article like this, there would at least be SOME precedent to include the information http://www.thebestschools.org/blog/2013/11/25/10-highest-paid-college-professors-u-s/.  If you continue to assert that your justification is purely that you "pay taxes" and personally believe $300k is too handsome for a public employee, then there will likely be a reason to protect the article again.  There ARE examples of university presidents etc. being cited as highly paid, but that is because there are articles discussing their salaries.  As I have said, and will say again, there is no evidence of controversy except on this Wikipedia page; if you can demonstrate otherwise, then the salary can be included and reworded.  Note that the version you have been reverting to does not even mention why his salary and teaching load are noteworthy, it simply lists numbers.  I await a rationale for what you believe is a reasonable compromise.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenton M (talk • contribs) 09:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061004161201/http://news.concordia.ca/faculties/007534.shtml to http://news.concordia.ca/faculties/007534.shtml

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)