Talk:Yitang Zhang

Strange
Just at the time time Yitang Zhang becomes famous, his PhD advisor creates a document to express his regrets (eg, "Sometimes I regreted not ﬁxing him a job", "He never came back to me requesting recommendation letters"). Is his PhD advisor's self-serving damage control worthy of inclusion in this article on Zhang? Angry bee (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * No it isn't ... but I personally hope Moh is ashamed of himself.TheMathemagician (talk) 15:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)


 * To be fair you are a bit hard on Moh for no good reason. 1) Have you read Zhang PhD thesis? 2) You realize that somebody with a wrong thesis (and wrong in the sense of non-salvageable and not fixable) and no publication had a) a high chance of not receiving his PhD to begin with and b) zero chance at the post-doc job market . Given these I don't understand the references to "Moh's damage control". In fact it seems to me that Moh shoots himself in the foot, by saying "I regret not fixing him a job". Just to be clear this sentence is something of a paradox: it's hard to regret something that was impossible to do. It's really quite impossible to fix any kind of decent job for somebody who graduates with a wrong thesis and no publications. Of course Moh probably couldn't say that to the media, lest they crucify him, so he had to cook-up this completely inaccurate sentence that makes it look like he is doing damage-control. This is perhaps his main failing.


 * Oh come on. In reply to above. (1) No I haven't read Zhang's PhD thesis. (2) Zhang already had an Masters degree when he started his PhD research, he then spent 6 years on a PhD. If he had a wrong thesis, then what was his supervisor doing? Zhang can only do research on topics under his supervisor. (2)(a)But he was awarded a PhD, therefore he successfully defended his PhD thesis. (2)(b) Whether one finds work as a post-doc is very much down to luck, and the person's outlook. I have come across lots of "shitty" post-docs, who spent if not a whole working life, then at least half a working life drifting from one post-doc position to another because they are a pair of hands with no brains but are seen to have xxx years of postdoc experience on their CV/resume, when the reality is some 2nd year PhD student is superior to them in knowledge. Zhang had already spent 6 years as a post-masters postgrad, maybe he's had enough of the politics and life-style. (3) Let me ask the above contributor whether he has ever completed a PhD? If he has then he must know that it is the supervisor who write up the research proposals and look for funding and supervise the student. It is clear that Zhang (the student) had found mistake(s) in Moh's (the supervisor's) work, so it appears the student was supervising his supervisor. It is also clear from the names that Zhang is from mainland China, and Moh is from Taiwan. Does a taiwan man (who is a salaried professor) want to be outshone by a mainlander grad student in the academic atmosphere of 20+ years ago? Of course the taiwan man felt threatened professionally and fear for his reputation. So 20+ years later just look at whose mathematical work is correct and outstanding. I will say math-wise, Zhang is the better man. 109.155.164.110 (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Career
I have not been able to find out when Dr. Zhang joined the faculty at the University of New Hampshire. That seems like a basic fact that needs to be included. LineChaser (talk) 14:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I suspect that there would have been no announcement. Most departments appoint adjuncts on an as-needed basis, often at the last minute. Going through archive.org, it appears Dr. Zhang first showed up on the department webpage in the fall of 2002, but that's not something reliable enough to put into the article. Personally, I would wait until somebody interviews him for the information or he puts a CV online. Ray  Talk 16:57, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * In the documentary Counting from Infinity Edward Hinson (UNH) states that he was hired in late 1999 and his first class was in the Spring semester of 2000.TheMathemagician (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A User from Purdue Removed Some Content
A user with an ip 98.222.194.101 possibly from Purdue undid many lines including Professor Moh's recall. I've recover the well-sourced, reliable content from this vandalism. SummerRat (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

The Facts
Please stick to the truth. Some users are using this page for personal attack, which violates the rules of Wikipedia as a free and accurate encyclopedia. Do not damage the encyclopedia's reputation for your own grudges. Let nobody stray from the facts and the truth. Integrity2013 (talk) 03:32, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Biased Entries
An IP 207.38.164.93 (Astoria, New York) edited the article and changed it to contain a biased line. The line goes as follows: "since his proof was based on a lemma by Zhang's thesis advisor, Professor Tzuong-Tsieng Moh which was later found to be incorrect." This line is an accusation and is not fact-based. Please don't make the same mistake twice. Integrity2013 (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Zhang Yitang → Yitang Zhang – Google search results for "Yitang Zhang"=~52,000. Search results for "Zhang Yitang"=~6,500. The former ordering clearly predominates. More importantly, this is the ordering used in Bounded gaps between primes, which is the work he's actually known for. We should match that name ordering. 168.12.253.66 (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment as a professor, he seems to be known by "Tom", whereas with research he uses "Yitang" -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 01:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Support. He is published and referenced as Yitang Zhang and is notable for work in the U.S. where this is the normal name ordering.  —  AjaxSmack   03:44, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

BLP1E
Does this article possibly have a BLP1E issue? FrankDev (talk) 14:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Cole Prize
Can anyone suggest how to cite the Cole Prize award? The prize booklet ( p. 7). says:


 * Citation Yitang Zhang, and Daniel Goldston, János Pintz, and Cem Y. Yıldırım The 2014 Frank Nelson Cole Prize in Number Theory is awarded to Yitang Zhang for his work on bounded gaps between primes, and to Daniel Goldston, János Pintz, and Cem Y. Yıldırım for their work on small gaps between primes. This work appeared in two papers: Yitang Zhang, “Bounded gaps between primes,” Ann. of Math. (2) (to appear); and Daniel Goldston, János Pintz, and Cem Y.  Yıldırım, “Primes in tuples. I.”  Ann. of Math. (2) 170 (2009), no. 2, 819–862.

suggesting there was one prize shared between 4 people. But there were two separate press releases, one for Zhang and one for GPY, suggesting two separate prizes. Either way, saying just "Z. won the 2014 Cole Prize" doesn't seem accurate.

50.0.121.102 (talk) 04:33, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Zhang's response says "I am humbled and honored to have been selected as the corecipient of the Frank

Nelson Cole Prize in Number Theory", corroborating one award. Ljosil, do you have some info saying otherwise?  I'm going to mention GPY as co-recipients based on the above.  Re-revert if you really have to (or find some better phrasing) but I'd appreciate knowing what's going on.  50.0.121.102 (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The citation sounds to me to be saying that there are two separate results being recognized. AMS prizes have been divided between two or more, even unrelated, results in the past, and I think they were not described as shared then. But the difference in wording is minor, so I'll leave it alone. LJosil (talk) 04:22, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that's why I originally wrote "co-awarded" rather than "shared". Co-awarded isn't a standard English word as far as I can tell, but it seemed to make the distinction a little bit more finely, so I went with it. The press releases said Zhang's and GPY's results were separate but related, which looks straightforward and accurate to me. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I decided to change the wording because the way it s phrased in a list of awards seems to put some odd emphasis on "shared". I think it better to say that it is a prize he got, with details reserved for elsewhere. It seems reasonable that everybody who gets a prize, shared or not, can be said to be "awarded" it. LJosil (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

professor
His promotion seems to have come through (redacted) though the math dept faculty page still says lecturer. The Cole Prize citation mentions the promotion. Update the article, or wait? 50.0.121.102 (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added the info to the article. I self-redacted a link above that confirms the promotion, but you can find it in the talkpage history.  It looks like I'll also have to straighten out the citations and I'll try to do it today. 50.0.121.102 (talk) 21:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The New Yorker
The latest issue of The New Yorker (2/2/15) has an article on Zhang. Choor monster (talk) 19:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, this is an excellent feature article and has been used. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
Frontier2015 made a number of edits to the article. One of them mentions the quote about Yitang Zhang's advisor not finding him jobs was translated incorrectly, but I don't see any source or reason to believe that. I reverted that change. I also reverted some of the wording about Yiteng being unknown to the mathematical community, because that is a highly relevant part of his biography, and mentioned in several of the sources. 71.255.245.25 (talk) 01:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Frontier2015 made these changes again without any discussion. I reverted them, and I will continue to do so. The quote is directly from the article. Unless the article publishes a revision, we should include the statement that the advisor did not help Yitang write letters of recommendation. Also, Yitang Zhang being unknown to the mathematical community is well sourced from several of the articles on him. I've gone ahead and added a source. Yitang being unknown is extremely relevant to his fame and is the primary subject of several of these articles. 71.255.245.25 (talk) 07:05, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I should also note it's suspect that this page had been vandalized in the past by an IP Address from Purdue, removing well-sourced information about Yitang's personal disagreements and lack of support from his advisor. This was followed by similar edits from users Integrity2013, BlueFire2014, and now Frontier2015. If this is in fact the same user with personal ties to the advisor, you should review WP:PLAINANDSIMPLECOI. Thanks. 71.255.245.25 (talk) 07:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I have added this page to my Watchlist and will also monitor its progress, in addition to copyediting the content. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes
This is a small response in reply to the previous guy. it's likely to be a fanatic of one of the sides. I have followed the media since Zhang's reputation took flight. there are some worshippers on Zhang's side of the isle who aren't really nice at all. I'm putting this out there because it's probably one of his fans trying to cause problems.

After reading edits, it seemed there was some weird wording that wasn't important with his reputation. Some hyperbolic things that seem more praising than relevant to his life. check the edits again if you want, but i think these previous guys have had reason to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heysoulsist3r4636XD (talk • contribs) 01:51, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add this to my watch list and look at future changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yorkenshire1987 (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Both these accounts were obviously just created and are the same person (neither correctly signed their messages, and the diction suggests they are not native English speakers. Also Heysoulsist3r4636XD inserted his comment directly in the middle of the other's comment). Please stop vandalizing this page. The statement in question is well-sourced. Unless you find another reliable source contradicting it, stop removing it.  Iggy402 (talk) 01:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I reverted some changes the vandal made to this talk page. He attempted to change the words of the previous commentator who called out Frontier2015, to make him less credible. You do realize everyone can see the changes you make right? This page is under serious attack by this vandal (presumably from Purdue). If you are Yitang's advisor, shame on you.  Iggy402 (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for monitoring this Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for monitoring as well. Also, I restored some text by user Integrity2013. The vandal removed a previous post. Again, likely the same person trying to cover his tracks. Iggy402 (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr. Moh's damage control has come back in the form of Cr1cken119, another newly created account that seems to be sloppily inspired by the (real) user C1cada, another editor on this page. I left the changes and made the wording more neutral, but I'll refer back to a comment made in May 2013: "Is his PhD advisor's self-serving damage control worthy of inclusion in this article on Zhang?" 76.76.216.62 (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Carrer
Hey guys. I'm not an old face of whatever vandalism/drama happened before. As a math undergrad, our professor brought up the recent discovery. I took a peek into the Wikipedia page and all of the history surrounding it and I thought I'd help out. I'd appreciate it if you, Soulparadox, and others wouldn't toss grains of prejudice on my name. Also, it seems you've removed a sourced statement. That seems counter to what Wikipedia does, which is source it's words. Remove a few words, sure, that can be justified. Removing a reliable source? You can't possibly justify that to a practical level.

I highly doubt an old man like Professor Moh would deal with a Wikipedia page. Professors know where the immediately credible info is, and Wikipedia's name doesn't carry that connotation.

You, Soulparadox, claim that these two are not native English speakers due to their diction. I read it over. I don't see anything that tells me they're not native speakers. Maybe some rough English but minimal at that. It's really presumptuous of you to say and think that. Honestly, very troll-like. You also claim that my name is mimicking a user named C1cada. My name is based off of Cr1ken, a YouTube publisher. Please stop with the fake Sherlock-like "deductions". Don't claim to be The Guy. You're far from it.

Addendum 1: I read more edits and talks. You guys really think these guys are Moh? There's a higher chance it's some trying to 1) have fun by making trouble 2) smear his name, which would make Yitang's party more likely. I don't get why you guys are doing this. Some of these accounts had decent edits, like removing statements that were obviously biased/scurrilous. Chew on that one, then you guys tell me how it tastes.

Cr1cken119 (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Firstly, thanks for helping out and I apologize for the false accusation. It was getting frustrating dealing with this vandal, who is clearly not above making new accounts and trying to manipulate other people's words. So I jumped to conclusions.
 * Secondly, I stand by the statement that those users are the same. The evidence is strong regardless of the diction. For example one user posted his comment in the middle of the other, and attempted to remove statements from a different account. Neither knew how to sign, and both were newly created accounts. And the diction does indicate both accounts are not a native speaker, for example "important with his reputation" is intuitively wrong to a native speaker, it should be "important to his reputation"
 * Thirdly, I'm not claiming it is the advisor, I simply raised the possibility that it was or someone related, simply based off the evidence that an IP Address from Purdue started off making these edits. Even if it's not, it's still clearly one vandal who had tried to use puppets, cover up his own statements, and change other people's comments, clearly in violation of wikipedia's integrity.
 * Fourth, what sourced statement was removed? If you're talking about Moh's rebuttal, that was initially removed because the statement about the advisor from Zhang was removed, and so it no longer made sense in context. Now that Zhang's full quote it in the article, you re-inserted Moh's statement, and nobody has removed it since. It seems everything is fine. All the other edits that were fine were also left in, and I agree some of the wording was biased before. There is no good reason to cut off half of Zhang's quote and create a misleading statement, though. (The other accounts also removed several sourced statements that painted Dr Moh in a negative light, by the way. I didn't restore them because they weren't particularly relevant or encyclopedic, and I don't think this statement is either.) Iggy402 (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * In any case, I'll end the conversation here, since we're no longer discussing the article.  I'm satisfied the quote was restored and that there is a heightened awareness for potentially malicious edits.Iggy402 (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we are not done. We are normally not allowed to use "self-published sources" for information about third parties.  In this case, Moh's statement is both self-serving, and says something about Zhang, and we need an independent source.  Choor monster (talk) 15:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is Zhang? (earlier comment, moved down here)

 * Comment The following was stuck up above somewhere, not noticeable. I've taken the liberty of moving it here, in correct Talk page temporal sequence. Choor monster (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

The article erroneously says Zhang works at Santa Barbara. Zhang still works at University of New Hampshire. He is my supervisor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.175.214.177 (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Where is Zhang?
According to the UNH math/stat faculty listing, Zhang is currently a professor at UNH. According to the UNH course listings, Zhang is teaching introductory calculus this semester, Fall 2015, at UNH.

According to the UCSB math department faculty listing, Zhang is presently not affiliated with UCSB. According to UCSB course listings, Zhang is not teaching any math courses for Fall 2015, graduate or undergraduate.

Yes, Zhang is listed at UCSB new science faculty. According to The Daily Nexus, UCSB's student paper, Zhang was invited and accepted a position at UCSB, and is joining the faculty this fall. Nevertheless, as the above links show, the UCSB math department seems to be unaware that he has joined their faculty, and the UNH math department seems to think he is still present, and that he is actually teaching this semester. Choor monster (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if one could say that UCSB math department is "unaware" that Zhang has joined their department. It often takes some time before new faculty get their pages on departmental links. It is clear that UCSB Sciences college is "aware" that Zhang is the new faculty. However, since UNH has not removed Zhang from their websites, it is possible that Zhang has joint appointments at both UNH and UCSB. Therefore, I suggest not to remove UCSB affiliation from his bio. Vizziee (talk) 06:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)vizziee


 * It does not take three months to get listed by the department. The only thing clear about UCSB Sciences is that first they were told he was going to join the faculty, and that second no one told has since told them otherwise.  That's the sort of confusion that can take months to clear up, as keeping track of secondary and tertiary followups to announcements that don't pan out is on nobody's job list.
 * In summary, your suggestion is going to be ignored. Choor monster (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you are personally aware of what Zhang told or did not tell UCSB, as rather than citing any reliable news reference, you are only giving your own opinion. Agreed that Zhang doesn't show up on UCSB math dept yet. But the news that his appointment at UCSB was announced should be a part of his bio. It is from two news sources that you yourself mentioned. Vizziee (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am personally aware of what's in the various links I gave, and I gave my opinion as to how to understand them. What of it?  If you wish to include something, you must provide the justification.  You must provide convincing evidence that the UCSB math department is remarkably slow about listing their star faculty hire.  See WP:BURDEN.  Meanwhile, mere offers and agreements regarding academic positions are normally not listed in WP.  Also, only the student newspaper is possibly an RS.  The UCSB Sciences page is a second-hand press release. Choor monster (talk) 13:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed that someone else - presumably in knowledge of Zhang's UCSB position - re-edited and inserted UCSB back in Zhang's positions. I also noticed the UCSB directory lists Yitang as an employee. See here: http://www.identity.ucsb.edu/people_finder/ Vizziee (talk) 12:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Professor at _______
Guys where was Zhang appointed at for his professorship? Don'tcha think this is kind of important?

Whoever finds it just put it into the opening paragraph. Kudos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YouKnowWhatSucks?BadGrammar! (talk • contribs) 16:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

he's profiled in the book 'The Prime Number Conspiracy', chapter 27
another reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.208.85 (talk) 14:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)