Talk:Turing Award: Difference between revisions

By /

Line 180: Line 180:

:Edit: It seems that it is standard to include the official citation for the award? See [[List of Nobel laureates in Literature]], [[List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates]] for example. These aren’t extended quotes from the ACM press releases (there were a couple of these, that I removed), they are the primary rationale given by ACM as the reason for the award. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 05:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

:Edit: It seems that it is standard to include the official citation for the award? See [[List of Nobel laureates in Literature]], [[List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates]] for example. These aren’t extended quotes from the ACM press releases (there were a couple of these, that I removed), they are the primary rationale given by ACM as the reason for the award. [[User:Caleb Stanford|Caleb Stanford]] ([[User talk:Caleb Stanford|talk]]) 05:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

::I think it’s ok to include sentence-fragment direct quotes of citations, like the one for Perlis, marked as direct quotes. These are usually packed with specific technical phrases, to the point where it would be extremely difficult to say what contributions they are being honored for as directly without at least close paraphrasing, and if we’re going to do that we’re better off quoting. Paraphrasing areas that we might not ourselves be expert in risks significant distortion. And I think these quotes are short enough not to be problematic from the copyright point of view.

::I’m less comfortable with longer multi-sentence paragraph-length quotes, like the one we currently give for Wilkes. I think we should seek a better solutino for those. And although the sentence we give for McCarthy is only a sentence, it is vague to the point of not being informative and looks more like filler because we needed a quote there than because we needed to be specific about what he was honored for. So what is the point of providing a direct quote in that case? —[[User:David Eppstein|David Eppstein]] ([[User talk:David Eppstein|talk]]) 06:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

== White space of table ==

== White space of table ==

Featured list Turing Award is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia’s Main Page as Today’s featured list on June 3, 2024.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
May 8, 2024 Featured list candidate Promoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia’s Main Page in the “In the news“ column on March 19, 2020.

Untitled

I’ve just added the fields that each recipient was working under. This information is paraphrased from the info on the ACM site at [1], and may contain errors in interpretation. I would appreciate it if someone a little more knowledgeable could check this through. HappyDog 13:02, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it is better to give the full citation instead of our summaried words on their contributions.

I find the citation italicizing to be very ugly. Could we make a note if something is not the literal original citation instead? 216.165.95.70 (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the entries in that column seem to have been replaced with the original citations. As I see it, this could probably be solved by using the full citations, and then put links in the technical terms, in case people don’t know what those are. But I agree, the italics have gotta go… I’ll do it myself in a moment, if its simple enough Were-Aardwolf (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What nationality is he counted under?

Similarly: Andrew Yao. I would suggest to remove this uncertain data (temporarily below). What do you think? kuszi 19:21, 6 June 2006 (UTC).[reply] 

==Nationality==
Most Turing Award recipients are Americans.  
The national distribution of Turing Award recipients from [[1966]] to [[2005]] was:
* United States: 35
* United Kingdom: 5
* Israel: 3
* Canada: 2
* Norway: 2
* Netherlands: 1
* Switzerland: 1
* Denmark: 1
and this is relevant because….what? User:Ejrrjs says What? 21:40, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

text is moved from article, possible it is irrelevant. Consult Andrew Yao and Raj Reddy (there is no China and India). kuszi 19:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks! User:Ejrrjs says What? 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it. If it is proper to list Nobel laureates by nationality, it is proper here. Perhaps the French and Russians feel slighted. Or perhaps the reason is the iron rule of Wikiganda — never show Israel in a positive light.68.5.64.178 11:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, I just spent an hour or so trying to politely explain to the above user what notability is and addressing what I perceived as their misconceptions about Wikipedia’s “liberal bias” without calling a spade a spade (I even went to the trouble of looking up policy guidelines like that one!), only to notice that it was posted 4 years ago. I feel so stupid! But at least this section of the discussion is better titled now, right? Were-Aardwolf (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don’t understand your talk. Why is Andrew Yao still with the flag of Taiwan ? Zandr4[Kupopo ?] 20:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the Award lectures are available online and are linked off the ACM site. It would be nice if somebody was inspired to put the links here. (Not all of them are available from the recipients’ articles either.) —Clconway 07:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave up reading the citations because they’re in italics. I think the columns provide enough distinction, and plain text would make the citations easier to read.
rof166.46.246.153 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just added an Israeli flag for Michael O. Rabin. Everyone else has one and though he was born in Germany/Poland, he is clearly Israeli.  Randall Bart   Talk  23:34, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manual of Style: Flags, Inappropriate use, Do not emphasize nationality without good reason, Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride.

Flags removed from list. Alsee (talk) 05:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The [wikitext for the] ref tag for footnote “[1]” says:<ref name=million>{{cite doi|10.1145/2685372|noedit}}</ref>.

Somehow or another — through the mysteries of the {{cite doi}} template, I guess — that somehow gets trans-mogrified into something that displays as:

Cacm Staff (2014). “ACM’s Turing Award prize raised to $1 million”. Communications of the ACM 57 (12): 20. doi:10.1145/2685372.

I had the idea to make some kind of edit to improve that, but I would need more information. I already spent a certain amount of time trying to “investigate” the mysteries of the {{cite doi}} template, but I came away with a feeling reminiscent of (the presumed emotions of Br’er Rabbit, in) the “Uncle Remus” story about the Tar Baby. Maybe eventually I will be able to (umm), add to my [tiny amount, currently, of] knowledge about those mysteries. But in the mean time, I just want to document what my reasons were:

  • The acronym “CACM” probably should be in all capital letters. I rarely see it (in the absence of some clumsy, misinformed malapropism) spelled with the initial letter in Upper case, and the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th letters in Lower case.
  • Wikipedia has an article about “CACM“. I was hoping to be able to (find a place to!) add a pair of double [square] brackets around the acronym “CACM” there, to add a wikilink to [the article about] “CACM“. So far, I cannot even find the place where the double brackets could [“possibly”] be added.

Any comments or advice would be welcome. Thanks! —Mike Schwartz (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to do this as a 2-step process:

  1. Remove the |noedit parameter from the cite doi template. This parameter only makes it more difficult for you to edit the citation, and serves no useful purpose.
  2. Go back to the article, and look at the citation after the previous change. You should now see a link labeled “edit” in small letters. Click on it. It will take you to the template with the actual citation data, which you can now edit.
By the way, you should not be linking to [[CACM]] — that goes to a disambiguation page. Use [[Communications of the ACM|CACM]] instead (or just [[Communications of the ACM]] if you don’t mind seeing it spelled out).
—David Eppstein (talk) 01:07, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why the statue image is the main infobox image. Why not use an image of the real award? —George Ho (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Turing Award. 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).

  • 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) 12:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s better to add countries for all recipients for two main reasons:

1. This information is mentioned on the official site of ACM A.M. Turing Awards.
2. The country of origin is mentioned in other prizes as well like Nobel Prize of Wolf Prize.
I believe it’s best to add the country mentioned on the official website and maybe add the country of birth (if it is different). Gaigutherz (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Rationale column in the Recipients table has cells that sometimes overflow into the next row. Viewing the website on the Android browser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:405F:3C00:1E9:D8E3:863E:FC59 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, any objection to adding a column to the recipients table to list the awardee’s affiliation at time of award? Inspired by Fields_Medal#Fields_medalists which was mentioned repeatedly at a couple of recent AfDs. I’d boldly do it, but I don’t typically edit in this topic and don’t want to stomp on anyone’s toes, or act against past consensus I”m unaware of. So if no objections, I’ll get to it in a few days. Ajpolino (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ajpolino No objection here, I like the Fields Medal list and that looks like a positive change! Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added a bunch of missing images to the article. For the record, we are still missing images for E. Allen Emerson, Alfred Aho, and Jeffrey Ullman and we could use higher-quality images for several of the others, particularly John Cocke and Manuel Blum. Caleb Stanford (talk) 02:25, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, your additions violated WP:NFCC, which does not allow fair-use images in this kind of context, and have been reverted by a bot that checks for such things. If the bot hadn’t reverted it, someone else (like me) would have instead. We need *free* images of those people. Images not available under a free license cannot be used. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I was not aware that free-use restrictions are not page-independent. Caleb Stanford (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These edits seem to be a recurring problem. ACM has high-quality images of all the laureates. Does anyone know how to find the license for them and whether a fair use justification can be made? I am not sure the right procedure, but I think it would be in ACM’s interest to improve the wiki page, and I’m happy to put some time in and/or send emails to the appropriate people at ACM. Suggestions? Caleb Stanford (talk) 18:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whether a fair use justification can be made: no. Fair use is allowable for images of dead people, on their biographical article. It is not allowable for galleries and lists, per WP:NFCC. Note that Wikipedia’s requirements for when images can be used under fair use are significantly stricter than the legal requirements, deliberately, as a way to encourage the creation of open content. Material from ACM can be assumed to be copyrighted under a non-open license unless explicitly stated otherwise, and in the case of the link you give, we don’t even have to assume: it says explicitly “Copyright 2019 Association for Computing Machinery. All rights reserved.” You can try to persuade ACM to release the images under a sufficiently open license but it’s a big bureaucracy; I doubt you’ll have much luck. Many of these people are still alive; track them down, get permission to photograph them, do so, and upload the images under a free license. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, thanks. I sent an email, not really expecting a reply but we’ll see. Caleb Stanford (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to distinguish “you have permission to use this image for this purpose” from “we are releasing this image to anyone under an open license”. Only the open license is acceptable for use on Wikipedia; permission that applies only to Wikipedia use is not good enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be happy with the picture of Kenneth E. Iverson in his article? It’s claimed to be CC 4.0, but I see that the issue came up during FL review. —Oneiros (talk) 15:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s missing author information, so the safe thing to do is withhold it. IntGrah (talk) 14:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one image is needed in the lead, but I’m torn between which of the images to keep. The award one is more appropriate for this list but it is lower quality than Turing’s photo. Thoughts? –MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! Maybe this image is good:
Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a photoshopped image. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 10:29, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Japanese Wikipedia here uses this version, also in many other Web pages like this. If you search that on google by this query, then you find this model is very common. In my opinion this is a good model for the original one, and is suitable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 10:51, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The web images do not have the “Equipo asimo” text. That is the part that looks photoshopped. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:25, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! This is a fault of Japanese Wikipedia. But we have no other choice because of low quality of File:Turing_Award,_on_display_at_Nokia_Bell_Labs,_NJ,_USA,_Aug_2025.jpg. I think leave it in previous way. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like the quotation in the rationale for Dijkstra’s award appears in either cited source. I am replacing it with a quote from the first source that was borrowed by the second. Mdmi (talk) 13:51, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you can remove the first part of the sentence and use the exact wording of the citation. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This articel got flagged on WP:Copypatrol because of the large amount of quotes; I’m just wondering, is it at all possible to summarize the non-free quotes taken from the Association for Computing Machinery website? (marked as “All Rights Reserved” for me). Looking through the longer quotes, it does seem like these could be rewritten without loosing anything, and while individual quotes may be okay, looking at them all together I’m afraid they look like they’re a bit much! GreenLipstickLesbian💌🦋 00:55, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The column is titled “Rationale” and not “Citation”. I guess we can put in just the actual concepts that they were awarded for without using the exact citation. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:13, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, this seems difficult. I was working on restoring these to the original citations, as 90% of them were the original quotations, and there didn’t seem to be a good reason for why some of them deviated from the original, while most of them did not (also, all of them were in quotation marks, despite the deviations.) I have a few questions:

  • If we include only a partial quote, does that help? A few of them are longer, and need only a partial quote or a summary.
  • Is the concern about the quantity of such quotes, or about the length of the longer ones in particular? I.e., if we remove the longer quotes, is the article OK to leave the shroter ones as is?
Barring a better solution I guess I would agree with MPGuy’s suggestion to summarize the main concepts. This will significantly decrease the quality of the page, though. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: It seems that it is standard to include the official citation for the award? See List of Nobel laureates in Literature, List of Nobel Peace Prize laureates for example. These aren’t extended quotes from the ACM press releases (there were a couple of these, that I removed), they are the primary rationale given by ACM as the reason for the award. Caleb Stanford (talk) 05:30, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it’s ok to include sentence-fragment direct quotes of citations, like the one for Perlis, marked as direct quotes. These are usually packed with specific technical phrases, to the point where it would be extremely difficult to say what contributions they are being honored for as directly without at least close paraphrasing, and if we’re going to do that we’re better off quoting. Paraphrasing areas that we might not ourselves be expert in risks significant distortion. And I think these quotes are short enough not to be problematic from the copyright point of view.
I’m less comfortable with longer multi-sentence paragraph-length quotes, like the one we currently give for Wilkes. I think we should seek a better solutino for those. And although the sentence we give for McCarthy is only a sentence, it is vague to the point of not being informative and looks more like filler because we needed a quote there than because we needed to be specific about what he was honored for. So what is the point of providing a direct quote in that case? —David Eppstein (talk) 06:07, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Caleb Stanford Hi, in this style there exists a huge column of white space under the image of Turing Award of 1983. Aside from that, this also causes the sentences of the table to be shown in multiple lines, which increases the vertical size of the table. Some style like this edit is a solution to the white space problem. Do you disagree? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Must Read

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top