# Talk:Ronald Graham

Hello. Was Ronald Graham listed on Votes for deletion before you deleted him? It's just that I didn't see him there... You are familiar with the deletion policy, aren't you? Just checking... -- Oliver P. 15:42 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Ronald Graham was not listed on Votes for deletion. The article was a mere link to a webpage that is "still under construction" and gives very little information about Graham. I am familiar with the deletion policy, and I deemed this article to fall under rule #6: "delete pages that simply will never become encyclopedia articles." Kingturtle 16:02 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If the page consisted only of a link, then I would consider it to be fair game for immediate deletion, under the "no useful content" rule. Guideline no. 6 doesn't apply, though. As the guideline clarifies, it is talking about "completely idiosyncratic non-topics". Ronald Graham is a valid topic - the man is a real mathematician, and Graham's number is named after him, for example - and so there will be an article on him one day. In fact, I might make a start on it right now. :) -- Oliver P. 17:25 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
To be honest, in reference to the website this article pointed to, it seemed like a joke. that page is so low-key that i thought it was JOKING when it said the Graham's number was named after *this* graham. well, you live, you learn :) Kingturtle 22:43 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If you want to open a new thread do that and go learn how to create a new page with the same name.
Do not delete important already there, just because you have something else to add!

Is there a more recent picture of him??  He looks very young for a 72 year old in those pictures.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.202.22 (talk) 02:06, 27 December 2007 (UTC) 

Now he looks very young for a 76-year-old :-) If you GIS him you can see that there are some newer pictures out there, but they're all covered by copyright. Perhaps that China Symposium could be persuaded to grant the rights to their photo? Your Lord and Master (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, the quality of the image looks way too high. Secondly, he's wearing a digital watch; they only came into prevalence in the mid-to-late 70's. Thirdly, the reference for that date is some document which seems to just guess at dates (the author also mistyped 1960's as 1060's, somehow). I'm removing the caption, but if anyone can find a more accurate date or year, feel free... -- Pingumeister(talk) 18:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Ronald Graham. 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://www.webcitation.org/5vFmrGx82?url=http://www.ams.org/notices/200304/comm-steele.pdf to http://www.ams.org/notices/200304/comm-steele.pdf
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

There are rumours going around that Ron Graham has died. The closest thing to a source I can find is this reddit post, though I'm not sure whether Template:Recent death can be applied because of this. -- GautamC (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't do rumours. Needs at least one WP:RS before anything can be included in the article. Lard Almighty (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I got an email about this from the Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia but it was sourced to Wikipedia so WP:CIRCULAR. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Noted, thank you. -- GautamC (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I received (perhaps the same) email from Combinatorial Mathematics Society of Australasia. It links to Wikipedia for a brief biography, not as a source for Ron's death.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.188.111 (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC) 
Announcement on Discrete Mathematics SIAG mailing list 
http://lists.siam.org/pipermail/siam-dm/2020-July/000172.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.34.166.100 (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC) 

Not sufficient to include on Wikipedia. As noted, some of these "announcements" are based on the initial unsourced addition to Wikipedia. Lard Almighty (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Apologies. The initial talk-page addition was made by me - the announcement was made by the Dean of the UCSD CSE dept. on behalf of Prof. Fan Chung, Prof. Graham's wife, and Prof. Butler via the UCSD CSE departmental mailinglist.
If there's a publicly viewable copy of that announcement, it would probably be sufficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Just saw an update to his page at MAA (Mathematical Association of America) - link here. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

@Kaisertalk: I saw that too, then went to their Twitter page and eventually concluded that it was CIRCULAR also, like the rest of what's out there that I could find (as of about 1830 UTC). Like someone else said on Twitter, we need to be patient and wait for someone like the San Diego UT (who didn't publish it in today's print paper). —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Agree, didn't mean to suggest anything otherwise. RIP if true. His book was course material in Grad school. Kaisertalk (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The person who made the Reddit thread claims to be a  close family friend. [1] However, social media posts generally aren't considered reliable sources. Ixfd64 (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Ronald Graham has sadly died yesterday on July 6th, 2020. He was 84 years old. The AMS has an article on him, proving the rumors are true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:AC59:2900:90DA:EB62:FAD1:2145 (talk) 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm inclined to find that AMS obit reliable. Comments? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
... and it's apparently protected now. David Eppstein? —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 22:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Unprotected. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Updated. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 23:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The AMS is definitely a reliable source in my opinion. Ixfd64 (talk) 00:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I struck the parenthetical comment from "Bell Labs and (as it became) AT&T Labs".
At the divestiture of Lucent Technologies, AT&T Bell Labs split into
Bell Labs in Lucent and AT&T Labs in AT&T. Whether the flag of Bell Labs
was passed with the name or with the owner is a matter of opinion. If you
think it's important to indicate a relationship , AT&T Labs could be identified
as "offshoot" or "descendant" of Bell Labs. Mdmi (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ronald Graham/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ovinus (talk · contribs) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
Images are relevant and well-selected.
Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

I'll take this one up. I had no clue Ronald Graham had passed away... that's really sad to hear. Thanks for working on his article. A cursory look through of the article found nothing wanting, so I'll move on to the full review. Ovinus (talk) 09:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Earwig copyvio detector found nothing. The only overarching issue I can see is a bit of overlinking and referencing people multiple times with their full name, which should be pretty easy to fix. It's well-written and seems mostly comprehensive. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 16:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)


### Lead
How about start off with American Mathematical Society (AMS) and then just AMS the second time?
I prefer to avoid making readers of long articles memorize all sorts of acronyms in order to understand the articles. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
That's fair. What about contracting University of California, x to UC x? That contraction is pretty unambiguous. To be sure, I'm also a Californian, so maybe that term isn't recognizable to someone out-of-state/country. Ovinus (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
On second thought, it isn't a big deal. It's used a handful of times in total.
I've made some small changes, so let me know if those are alright.
Copyedits mostly look innocuous enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool.


### Biography
the son of an oil field worker and later merchant marine Is this the father? Do we know anything about Graham's mother?
Yes and no. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty safe to assume that an oil field worker is male, but I'd prefer something like "His father was an oil field worker and later, a merchant marine."
That forced changing the pronoun in the next sentence into a repetition of Graham's name, but ok, whatever, if you think the gender of Graham's oil-worker parent is important to mention, we can do it that way. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, that's a good point. His parent isn't the focus here; feel free to revert.
I think I'll leave the "father" in, to make more clear that his move to Florida was with the other parent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
where he learned gymnastics but no mathematics. He didn't take math classes while he was there? I think "but no mathematics" can be removed here.
Yes, the source explicitly states that he didn't take math classes while he was there. I think that, given that he became famous as a mathematician, it is both interesting that he started his university-level education not studying mathematics, and important to mention because without it readers are likely to assume that the University of Chicago was the first place he started studying mathematics seriously (as, for most people, their first university would be). —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree now it should be included. The issue with "learned... no mathematics" is that it sounds like he learned nothing math-related at all. I'm guessing the source means he didn't study math academically. Could this be clarified?
Changed to "took no mathematics courses". —David Eppstein (talk) 20:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Could his former spouse Nancy Young be added to the infobox, along with dates of his marriages?
I would prefer not. See WP:DISINFOBOX. Infoboxes make the information within the infobox more prominent, and make information elsewhere in the article look secondary. Therefore, information should only go in the infobox if it is significant, central to the article, something worth mentioning in the lead of the article. His first marriage and children do not rise to that level. Just because an infobox allows some information to be mentioned is a bad reason for mentioning it there. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to link to WP:DISINFOBOX more! I would recommend the dates of his marriage be included though, as I think it's important that his collaborator was married to him for more than thirty years.
I added the date of the marriage with Fan to the infobox. They were collaborators for longer than that, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of his marriages, do you have any information on his three marriages before marrying Chung?
No. If I did, it would have been in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, and I don't think it's that pertinent either.
University Professor of Mathematical Sciences Is the "University" necessary here? (Is that the full title?)
Yes, "University" is part of the title. It's a special status, comparable to "Distinguished Professor". The article Academic ranks in the United States is undersourced but seems generally accurate on the topic. XOR'easter (talk) 17:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
This varies somewhat by university, but in the University of California system "University Professor" is an even higher level than "Distinguished Professor". See for instance [2] which gives criteria for this position. Among the criteria are holding the rank of Professor Above Scale; at UCSD (and most UC campuses including mine) that rank automatically gives its holder at least Distinguished Professor status. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Got it.


### Contributions
with Fan Chung can just say "Chung" and not wikilink it for the rest of the article
Ok, except that I left her name full and wikilinked (like the others) in the section giving full bibliographic details for the selected publications. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
As well as publishing under his own name, Graham has participated in the publications I think the first phrase here can be removed; it's pretty clear that Graham has published without a pseudonym
That was intended more as linking text than as a reminder that he'd unexpectedly used his own name in his own publications, but ok, it's gone. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:18, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
and the Erdős–Graham problem is closely related I'd make clear it's related to Egyptian fractions, so "which are closely related to the Erdos–Graham problem"
But that's backwards. It would be like saying that mathematics is closely related to combinatorics: sort of true, but a really weird way of stating it. Egyptian fractions are the general area within which both the dissertation and the Erdős–Graham problem are separate subtopics. The intent of that sentence was to say that the dissertation and the Erdős–Graham problem are related to each other, because they're both about Egyptian fractions. Copyedited to (I hope) make that clearer. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
I think it's actually more confusing now. Maybe instead of "which are closely related to", how about "which are the subject of". Also it should be "partition of the integers"
That doesn't convey the intended meaning, that both the dissertation and the Erdos-Graham problem are on different and unrelated subtopics of Egyptian fractions. "Which are the subject of" makes it sound like you are trying to say they are on the same topic. Typo in "integers" fixed. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Paul Erdős Can just be Erdos and non-linked for the rest of the article
Again, ok, except not in the selected publications section. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the publications section should def include their full name, thanks.
Graham offered a monetary prize To be clear, the prize was totally out of his own pocket?
That is the usual situation with these sorts of personal prizes, yes. We have no information to the contrary. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool
As well, The previous sentence describes Graham's work with Mills in juggling, right? So why is this "as well" if we have already considered one of his contributions to the field of juggling? Maybe "Graham himself made significant" ?
The previous sentence describes Graham as having made practical, not theoretical contributions to juggling: teaching someone to juggle, and inspiring a particular juggling pattern. The "as well" is intended to mean that he also contributed in a different way, to the theory as well as to the practice of juggling. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Okay, the "theoretical" makes that clear.
I made a couple small changes, so do check
I think this was covered by my previous note, where I looked at the diffs of your changes and didn't see anything especially problematic. The diffs were not broken down separately by section. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)


### Final comments
All together, a great article on a great man. Thank you for working on this; I found the article very interesting. I'll promote once you've responded to my remaining comments. Cheers, Ovinus (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

All my comments have been addressed. Promoting. Ovinus (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

According to [3] Prof. Graham has four wives. However, the article specifies only one wife. Should I change it? --- ProfPizza (talk) 21:42, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

"had", not "has".  But also only one of his wives (Fan Chung) is notable.  Per its documentation, the infobox entry "spouse(s)" is for links to articles about notable spouses.  So that strongly suggests the answer is "no".  (An earlier wife is mentioned in the body of the article.) --JBL (talk) 21:55, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Agree. The article is ok as is, clearly stating that he was married before Fan and listing only Fan (as the only notable spouse) in the infobox. I'm not convinced the "fourth wife" phrasing of the Guardian link is enough to say definitively that he was married four times, without more verifiable detail on to whom and when. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes; I haven't seen this specific factoid anywhere else (not that I've been looking hard for it or anything), so it also seems possible that it's an error by the Guardian. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay. Agreed! Thanks for replying. -- ProfPizza (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the Guardian is just in error here. Paul Hoffman had a lot of conversations with Graham for his book on Erdős, and it has some biographical material on Graham too. According to that book (p. 152), Nancy Young was his second wife, not his first as the Guardian has it. The book mentions only two wives before his marriage with Chung in 1983. XOR'easter (talk) 22:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

cite journal has various ways to cite an author. If you use the tag
author= Croot, Ernest S., III
then in source editing mode wikipedia foormatting rules will tell you there's a problem with the citation.
if you use
author= Croot, Ernest S.
wikipedia has no problem with the formatting, but that ignores that he's the third in direct line of Ernest S. Croots.
Somehow
author= Croot III, Ernest S.
doesn't seem right, because III isn't part of Ernie Croot's surname.
A way around the issue would be 
author= Ernest S. Croot III Turtlens (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Please stop garbling citations in order to make your error-checker happy. If the citation is right and your error-checker is complaining then it is your error-checker that is itself in error.
As for Croot: I see no error, but I separated out the name using last= first= rather than author=. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)