Talk:Alan Turing/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Alan Turing. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Autism?
I see nothing in the article about Turing being autistic. An editor has just added a WikiProject Autism tag, and the article is already included in three autism related categories. I submit that unless something well sourced on this is added to the article, those categorisations and the project link are inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- WikiProject banners don't categorize an article; they're just a note that the article is of interest to the WikiProject. I suppose the WikiProjects are entitled to be interested in anything they like. In this case, it makes sense; given that there has been speculation, however possibly ill-founded, that Turing was somewhere on the autism spectrum, WPA members have an interest in making sure that anything that is said about it reflects the understanding in the field. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand the speculation. Speculation is a difficult area for Wikipedia. We cannot directly include it in articles. It just seems odd to have such speculation displayed around, if not in, an article on someone. I suspect our BLP rules would prohibit it for a living person unless it was very well sourced. And it's a bit of a teaser. If there is real, well publicised speculation, from appropriately qualified people, that Turing was autistic, it should probably go in the article, not just be hanging on the ends of this Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The main point is that it's up to WikiProject Autism to decide where they want their banners. They don't have to justify it. At least that's how I look at it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If their reason's a good one, I'd like to see it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Well, depends. If the reason is of the form "there are reliable source that show that people who know what they're talking about have proposed that Turing may have had an autism-spectrum condition", then sure, that should go in the article. If it's more along the lines of "it's reasonably forseeable that a discussion of autism-spectrum disorders may appear in the article, and if so, we want to be aware and make sure that any information is of high quality", well, I think that's still a pretty good reason, but it doesn't mean anything needs to go in the article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If their reason's a good one, I'd like to see it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The main point is that it's up to WikiProject Autism to decide where they want their banners. They don't have to justify it. At least that's how I look at it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand the speculation. Speculation is a difficult area for Wikipedia. We cannot directly include it in articles. It just seems odd to have such speculation displayed around, if not in, an article on someone. I suspect our BLP rules would prohibit it for a living person unless it was very well sourced. And it's a bit of a teaser. If there is real, well publicised speculation, from appropriately qualified people, that Turing was autistic, it should probably go in the article, not just be hanging on the ends of this Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- See Retrospective diagnoses of autism for the appropriate sources. Historical speculation is questionable as a reliable source, and in this case is the only source to use since Alan Turing lived before autism diagnosis was widespread, and for the most part, before it even existed. However, the criteria for adding a WikiProject banner are far more lax than for in-article information. Just because Turing is not categorized in Category:People with Asperger syndrome for example, does not mean he is of no interest to WikiProject Autism. The talk-page categories of GA-Class Autism articles, High-importance Autism articles, and WikiProject Autism articles are automatically generated by adding the WikiProject template. Muffinator (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. All seems a bit doggy to me. And obviously speculative. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree and think we shouldn't add anything in this regard to the article page unless a better source is found. Muffinator (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. All seems a bit doggy to me. And obviously speculative. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Autism project tag on Alan Turing when there is no evidence he was autistic
I removed the autism project tag and was reverted. So I have asked a question about this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to find out if the biographies of people can be put in the autism project when there's no evidence in his biography that he was autistic. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed it as well until there is consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan Turing is in no way the only historical (or living) figure whose neurotype is questioned, so please centralize this discussion at
Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#WikiProject_Autism_banners_on_biographical_articles- it has been suggested that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism would be a better place to centralize. Muffinator (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- ... looking forward to neurotype(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- ... neurotype(?) Me too! Let's have it. What is a neurotype? Parabolooidal (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ... looking forward to neurotype(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan Turing is in no way the only historical (or living) figure whose neurotype is questioned, so please centralize this discussion at
- I think people who want to remove the tag are completely misunderstanding what the tag is about. Inclusion of the tag does not in any way mean that Turing was autistic, so there doesn't need to be any evidence that he was.
- It means that WikiProject Autism wants to keep an eye on the article. That's all it means. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Inclusion of the tag, and interest in the wikiproject should be based upon concrete data, the majority of scientific/historic opinion/evidence, or sufficient controversy. It should not be based upon the opinions of two scholars who never met him, and having read the parts of the chapter that I can, in the book by Ioan James, the evidence seems very circumstantial. wrt. the tag and wikiproject:Autism, it is not for wikiprojects to dictate where their tags go, but for consensus of the community. There are multiple editors complaining about the inclusion, so consensus needs to be reach for inclusion based upon such speculative evidence. Martin451 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is extremely arrogant to try to dictate to a WikiProject where it should put its tags. The purpose of the tags is for bots to keep track of the articles on behalf of the WikiProject. It doesn't really concern anyone else.
- Now, there is some question in my mind whether the members of that WikiProject, in general, really want to keep track of articles like this one, but if they do, they should be allowed to. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- A wikiproject is a collaboration, and should work in consensus with the rest of the community. Is there support from the entire wikiproject, or just one editor from that project? Turing is claimed to have had Aspergers/Autism spectrum disorder based upon one very hearsay reference, and another locked behind a paywall (about children). This is not the way we should categorise and wikiproject wikipedia, especially when there is nothing suitable to put in the article. Martin451 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there's support in the project in general. I am not associated with that project.
- However, surely wikiprojects are entitled to choose what they're interested in, however they wish. "Consensus" on this page is irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- A wikiproject is a collaboration, and should work in consensus with the rest of the community. Is there support from the entire wikiproject, or just one editor from that project? Turing is claimed to have had Aspergers/Autism spectrum disorder based upon one very hearsay reference, and another locked behind a paywall (about children). This is not the way we should categorise and wikiproject wikipedia, especially when there is nothing suitable to put in the article. Martin451 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Inclusion of the tag, and interest in the wikiproject should be based upon concrete data, the majority of scientific/historic opinion/evidence, or sufficient controversy. It should not be based upon the opinions of two scholars who never met him, and having read the parts of the chapter that I can, in the book by Ioan James, the evidence seems very circumstantial. wrt. the tag and wikiproject:Autism, it is not for wikiprojects to dictate where their tags go, but for consensus of the community. There are multiple editors complaining about the inclusion, so consensus needs to be reach for inclusion based upon such speculative evidence. Martin451 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Consensus" on this page is irrelevant. That is a pretty big statement considering WP:CON is one of the core principles. One member of wikiproject Autism, plus yourself, against multiple people questioning this inclusion. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only official guideline about when not to tag with a WikiProject template is when the article is only tangentially related to the project. That principle is difficult to apply here: Alan Turing was either autistic or not autistic. If he was, he's certainly not tangential. To make a generalized resolution to this dispute, it would be necessary to amend the guideline. Muffinator (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considering there are no reliable sources to verify that he was autistic, I'd say it's a very speculative rewriting of history to diagnose him with this condition retrospectively and therefore doesn't even reach the threshold of being tangential. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Turing was either autistic or not autistic." No, like many mental disorders, Autism is a spectrum, from those really bad, to those with Aspergers and those who show no symptoms. Tagging this talk page like this borders on WP:OR given the references that back that up. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're right: Autism is a spectrum, a spectrum that every person in the world is either on or not on. I'd advise against trying to weasel your way out of the logical absolutes. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read the article on Aspergers? It "is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." That doesn't sound like a persons "who show no symptoms". If there are no symptoms, how is is a disorder? Parabolooidal (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would be OR if it were in article space, no doubt about it. So what? Look, I can't say this strongly enough, the tag per se does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Saying something, even in bold, doesn't make it "true", just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)That's true, but irrelevant. In bold or not, whether I say it or not, the tag still does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it does. It asserts that there is speculation about him having been autistic. I guess we disagree on this point :) --Malerooster (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It does not assert there is speculation about him having been autistic. It asserts that the members of WikiProject Autism would like to keep an eye on the article. That's all it asserts, and that says nothing whatsoever about Turing per se. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, are they "keeping an eye" on the article?? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surely that's up to them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Boom. Looks to me like this debate has been unambiguously won. I'm not even taking credit for agreeing; it's all Trovatore. Good job. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surely that's up to them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, are they "keeping an eye" on the article?? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It does not assert there is speculation about him having been autistic. It asserts that the members of WikiProject Autism would like to keep an eye on the article. That's all it asserts, and that says nothing whatsoever about Turing per se. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it does. It asserts that there is speculation about him having been autistic. I guess we disagree on this point :) --Malerooster (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)That's true, but irrelevant. In bold or not, whether I say it or not, the tag still does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the number of categories this article is already in - mind boggling. And the proposal is to add more? (The bolding makes mind boggling true.) Parabolooidal (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, there is no proposal to add the article to any categories. The tag adds the article talk page to some categories. They should be exclusively talk-page categories, not article categories. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Saying something, even in bold, doesn't make it "true", just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're right: Autism is a spectrum, a spectrum that every person in the world is either on or not on. I'd advise against trying to weasel your way out of the logical absolutes. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Turing was either autistic or not autistic." No, like many mental disorders, Autism is a spectrum, from those really bad, to those with Aspergers and those who show no symptoms. Tagging this talk page like this borders on WP:OR given the references that back that up. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considering there are no reliable sources to verify that he was autistic, I'd say it's a very speculative rewriting of history to diagnose him with this condition retrospectively and therefore doesn't even reach the threshold of being tangential. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only official guideline about when not to tag with a WikiProject template is when the article is only tangentially related to the project. That principle is difficult to apply here: Alan Turing was either autistic or not autistic. If he was, he's certainly not tangential. To make a generalized resolution to this dispute, it would be necessary to amend the guideline. Muffinator (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Just curious Trovatore, though I think I know the answer. Would you feel differently if this was a living individual? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- More care is always needed when talking about living persons. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not letting you off the hook that easy :) Would you be ok with having the banner on the talk page of a BLP who was only suspected of having autism. And don't say it "depends" the way I like to do :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about it in that case. The concern would be that readers unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags might draw unintended conclusions from them, and that that could be construed as defamation. This is not a concern, at least legally, in the case of someone no longer living. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ok, what about Prince Azim, a member of the royal family of Brunei born in 1982, who attended two autism-related events in Brunei and therefore is tagged with the "autism" banner? Parabolooidal (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC) What does Prince Azim have to do with Alan Turing? Try not to derail the discussion. Muffinator (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is more problematic. I have not come to a conclusion on that issue. However, the BLP issue does not affect the current question, because Turing is not an LP. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority of our readers will be unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags. To such readers, the existence of the autism tag is likely to tell them that Wikipedia says Turing was autistic. It's a very poor practice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The tags are not for our readers. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind also that readers (meaning non-editors) typically don't bother with talk pages at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the cloud of tags needs a heading saying "Readers - please ignore these. They don't mean anything.". This suggestion is not a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC) If it's not a joke, I encourage you to propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump. Muffinator (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that it is very typical of biographical articles to be relevant to many different WikiProjects. Take a look at Talk:Nikola Tesla: We have a tag for Belgrade, Serbia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Croatia, and New York City, on top of all of the work he's known for, because guess what, he lived in all of those places. "Too many WikiProjects" is not a valid argument. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- But WHY is it relevant? Don't tell me to ask the project. The answer should be here, where the tag is, where some curious readers might see it. They may actually be interested in the reason. It could be a good reason. Right now it's a mysterious, suggestive, tasty hint of something that somebody knows, or thinks, but that hasn't been properly fleshed out in the article. Actually, I am curious! HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Popular speculation most notably by Tony Attwood and Ioan James. If you think that's not a good enough reason, I suggest you take it up with the project members on the project page, or propose a change of policy, because the current policies suggest that consensus outside of the project is mostly irrelevant. Muffinator (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not even looking for consensus. Just some explanation here as to why the tag is here. Right now, with no mention of autism in the article, it sits there all alone like a shag on a rock. If it was the Blue Eyes Project, it would hardly matter, but autism is often seen as a major negative attribute. (Not saying that's right. Just that it's how it's seen by many.) For such a negative factor, an explanation is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- By negative factor, you mean that it is likely to result in discrimination. Not only is the template still not a statement of any kind, but WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply since Alan Turing is not a living person. Muffinator (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not even looking for consensus. Just some explanation here as to why the tag is here. Right now, with no mention of autism in the article, it sits there all alone like a shag on a rock. If it was the Blue Eyes Project, it would hardly matter, but autism is often seen as a major negative attribute. (Not saying that's right. Just that it's how it's seen by many.) For such a negative factor, an explanation is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Popular speculation most notably by Tony Attwood and Ioan James. If you think that's not a good enough reason, I suggest you take it up with the project members on the project page, or propose a change of policy, because the current policies suggest that consensus outside of the project is mostly irrelevant. Muffinator (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- But WHY is it relevant? Don't tell me to ask the project. The answer should be here, where the tag is, where some curious readers might see it. They may actually be interested in the reason. It could be a good reason. Right now it's a mysterious, suggestive, tasty hint of something that somebody knows, or thinks, but that hasn't been properly fleshed out in the article. Actually, I am curious! HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that it is very typical of biographical articles to be relevant to many different WikiProjects. Take a look at Talk:Nikola Tesla: We have a tag for Belgrade, Serbia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Croatia, and New York City, on top of all of the work he's known for, because guess what, he lived in all of those places. "Too many WikiProjects" is not a valid argument. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the cloud of tags needs a heading saying "Readers - please ignore these. They don't mean anything.". This suggestion is not a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC) If it's not a joke, I encourage you to propose it at Wikipedia:Village pump. Muffinator (talk) 03:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority of our readers will be unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags. To such readers, the existence of the autism tag is likely to tell them that Wikipedia says Turing was autistic. It's a very poor practice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is more problematic. I have not come to a conclusion on that issue. However, the BLP issue does not affect the current question, because Turing is not an LP. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ok, what about Prince Azim, a member of the royal family of Brunei born in 1982, who attended two autism-related events in Brunei and therefore is tagged with the "autism" banner? Parabolooidal (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC) What does Prince Azim have to do with Alan Turing? Try not to derail the discussion. Muffinator (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about it in that case. The concern would be that readers unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags might draw unintended conclusions from them, and that that could be construed as defamation. This is not a concern, at least legally, in the case of someone no longer living. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not letting you off the hook that easy :) Would you be ok with having the banner on the talk page of a BLP who was only suspected of having autism. And don't say it "depends" the way I like to do :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Muffinator, you suggest we take it up with the project members, on the project page. Well perhaps you should look at section 4.2 of WP:OWN. In this case the founder and main contributor of wikiproject autism seems to be yourself, so we would just be moving this conversation there. Placing a tag on a talkpage, with no explanation of why that tag is there seems very strange to me, and a bit of flaky speculation by a couple of scholars is not enough IMO. Martin451 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I posit that moving this discussion to the project talk page would make it easier for the other project participants to become aware of the dispute and offer their input. Section 4.2 of WP:OWN does mention WikiProjects, but if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice that it says "This page is about control over an article's text." It says nothing whatsoever about talk pages. Muffinator (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator - You are behaving like a classic bureaucratic, hiding everything behind rules that don't rationally apply here. Doing something stupid, just because the rules say you can, is not a very smart thing to do. You are ignoring a lot of very sensible comment here by hiding behind rules that clearly aren't in touch with the reality of situations like this. In effect, you are saying "We'll have Wikipedia do this really dumb thing because nobody thought of situations like this when they made the rules." How about you actually try to discuss the points made by others without saying the rules say we can do it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm not involved in this debate, I do have this page+talk on my watchlist. The latest edit summary caught my eye as it is abusive. Please avoid creating abusive edits and edit summaries as per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. To everyone involved, please consider allowing this conversation to cool off by stepping away from it for a day. Thanks and happy editing. —Waldhorn (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You just did get involved in the debate by excusing the bad behaviour of an editor on one side of it. I don't apologise for that edit and Edit summary. To me, they ARE dumb rules. (Is it rude to say so?) An editor here has avoided actually discussing the issues raised by others by saying "...but the rules allow it". It's non-productive and confrontational behaviour. Too much real incivility here is couched in broader, bad mannered behaviour without using stronger words. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you are explaining the behavior of editors in an inaccurate and biased way. I am not WP:Wikilawyering, but rather responding to other editors' reference to guidelines by saying "actually, those rules aren't applicable to this situation." We must discuss this dispute on its own merits, or propose an addition of new policy that this dispute would be in the scope of. Muffinator (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I could paraphrase your position here as "What has been done isn't against the rules. The opinions of editors here don't count for anything, so I won't discuss them." That's very poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The consensus opinion of the editors here—and at Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Isaac Newton, and perhaps more—seems to be that the project tags do not belong on this talk page. That, per our consensus policy, should have ended this discussion a while ago already . - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- To me, the tracking templates are more or less the equivalent of an individual editor's watchlist (albeit slightly enhanced with the "quality" and "importance" fields). I don't need to get consensus for what to put on my watchlist, and I don't think a Wikiproject should need consensus (except in-project) for what it puts on its. Perhaps the banners could be made less obtrusive, though. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a wise suggestion. Especially since I also made it myself earlier in the discussion, but my ego doesn't need the credit. Can we progress something in that direction? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- To me, the tracking templates are more or less the equivalent of an individual editor's watchlist (albeit slightly enhanced with the "quality" and "importance" fields). I don't need to get consensus for what to put on my watchlist, and I don't think a Wikiproject should need consensus (except in-project) for what it puts on its. Perhaps the banners could be made less obtrusive, though. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The consensus opinion of the editors here—and at Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Isaac Newton, and perhaps more—seems to be that the project tags do not belong on this talk page. That, per our consensus policy, should have ended this discussion a while ago already . - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I could paraphrase your position here as "What has been done isn't against the rules. The opinions of editors here don't count for anything, so I won't discuss them." That's very poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you are explaining the behavior of editors in an inaccurate and biased way. I am not WP:Wikilawyering, but rather responding to other editors' reference to guidelines by saying "actually, those rules aren't applicable to this situation." We must discuss this dispute on its own merits, or propose an addition of new policy that this dispute would be in the scope of. Muffinator (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- You just did get involved in the debate by excusing the bad behaviour of an editor on one side of it. I don't apologise for that edit and Edit summary. To me, they ARE dumb rules. (Is it rude to say so?) An editor here has avoided actually discussing the issues raised by others by saying "...but the rules allow it". It's non-productive and confrontational behaviour. Too much real incivility here is couched in broader, bad mannered behaviour without using stronger words. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm not involved in this debate, I do have this page+talk on my watchlist. The latest edit summary caught my eye as it is abusive. Please avoid creating abusive edits and edit summaries as per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. To everyone involved, please consider allowing this conversation to cool off by stepping away from it for a day. Thanks and happy editing. —Waldhorn (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator - You are behaving like a classic bureaucratic, hiding everything behind rules that don't rationally apply here. Doing something stupid, just because the rules say you can, is not a very smart thing to do. You are ignoring a lot of very sensible comment here by hiding behind rules that clearly aren't in touch with the reality of situations like this. In effect, you are saying "We'll have Wikipedia do this really dumb thing because nobody thought of situations like this when they made the rules." How about you actually try to discuss the points made by others without saying the rules say we can do it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting here that Muffinator has now been indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Autism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Is "burgle" formal written British English?
This isn't the most important issue ever, but might as well have it out. I reverted a recent new editor's BrE -> AmE changes, on WP:ENGVAR grounds, but I let the change from burgle to burglarize remain.
Is that correct? I know that burgle is more used in the UK than in the US, but it still strikes me as a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Really I always thought it was sort of a joke, a play on words.
| “ | When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling (not a-burgling) When the cutthroat isn't occupied in crime (-pied in crime) He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling (brook a gurgling) And the pealing of the little village chime |
” |
| — W. S. Gilbert | ||
On the other hand, burglarize is qualified as "chiefly North American" in Wiktionary. Is there burglarise instead? Or is there some more formal word, that doesn't have this jocular quality I hear in burgle? --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Australian here, but been reading and hearing UK English all my life. Burgle seems fine. Burgalise is horrible. Reminds me of the less nice word buggerise. (To reading and hearing above, I could add singing, having performed the above ditty on stage some 40 years ago. Maybe it still influences my judgement.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's probably influencing my judgment too, but in the opposite direction — I can't help hearing it as a G&S play on words. Wiktionary dates burgle to 1872, albeit without an attestation until 1892; Pirates of Penzance came out in 1879. So probably the word was not invented specifically for Pirates, assuming the 1872 date is reliable (not sure where it came from). But in any case they weren't far apart. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard the term burglerise(d) in the UK, but burgled is quite common. Martin451 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- So one thing is "common", and another is "sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia". Is there a more formal word, or can we rephrase? It still sounds jocular to me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Guardian uses it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Not exactly the gold standard, is it? --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- (My reaction is only partly specific to The Grauniad. Even if it were The Times, I'm not sure I'd be that impressed. It's still a newspaper. Journalism is about conveying information quickly; it's not a terribly formal register of language.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, the Oxford Dictionary, a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, but OED aims to be comprehensive rather than prescriptive, I think. "Not slang or lower class" isn't really the standard. Encyclopedic writing is one of the highest registers there is, second maybe only to diplomatic or society nonsense.
- If you found it used (not mentioned) in Brittanica, that would satisfy me, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- As a Brit I can tell you that the formal British word is burgle - burglarize is American and is never used in the UK. Google burgle and you will find a number of different dictionaries that give you the definition. The OED is considered the standard for British English in the same way that Websters is the standard for American English. We don't need anything more authoritative than that. Richerman (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- So I respect your report. However, as a general rule, note that certainly not every word in Webster's is the best choice in encyclopedic writing, and the same holds for OED. If there is really no hint of the humorous origin that hangs on burgle, then fine, I suppose. But if there is, then we should probably find other wording. (I'm not suggesting to use "burglarize", but rather to reword the sentence entirely.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You've now had British people and people familiar with British usage saying it's fine. To change the wording to suit your usage in a different language variant doesn't make sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- They're saying it's fine but they're citing irrelevancies like its occurrence in a dictionary. I would feel more comfortable that they understood the point if they didn't cite the dictionary, but instead asserted (ideally with citation, but I'd take their word for it even if not) that the word indeed has no further jocular sense to it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you haven't anyone who agrees with you. I think our consensus requirements would demand that you find at least one British person who does. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The word "burgle" is commonly used in British English, but particularly in a court-room setting. But this article doesn't even use this word. It uses "burgled", which is even more commonly used, and has next to no "jocular" association. In contrast. the word "burglarize" is never used in British English (unless it's in quoting US usage). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- I had no idea of the G&S connection. But nowadays burgled seems to be commonly used. Definitely not burglarise (never used in UK) but I wouldn't object to rewording of sentence - his house was broken into or something. I think there might be another problem with burgled - apparently before a 1968 law burglary was technically a night-time crime and I am not sure that the crime was carried out at night. Does anyone know what the person who did it was actually convicted of? Southdevonian (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- All the accounts I've read suggest that the police, Wills and Rimmer, gave up on "Harry", even though they had his fingerprints, as charging Turing with “Gross indecency contrary to Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885” looked more inviting. So I don't think the burglary was ever fully investigated, or brought to court. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- I had no idea of the G&S connection. But nowadays burgled seems to be commonly used. Definitely not burglarise (never used in UK) but I wouldn't object to rewording of sentence - his house was broken into or something. I think there might be another problem with burgled - apparently before a 1968 law burglary was technically a night-time crime and I am not sure that the crime was carried out at night. Does anyone know what the person who did it was actually convicted of? Southdevonian (talk) 11:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
- The word "burgle" is commonly used in British English, but particularly in a court-room setting. But this article doesn't even use this word. It uses "burgled", which is even more commonly used, and has next to no "jocular" association. In contrast. the word "burglarize" is never used in British English (unless it's in quoting US usage). Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Just to add my 2p worth the US word burglarize sounds rather comical to the British ear. This is perhaps ironic as our verb to burgle is actually a back derivation from burlgar. Brits would generally assume it was an unnecessary ending like saying transportation for transport (transportation in British means the historical punishment of sending criminals to Australia). No one in the UK would say burglarize rather than burgle unless they were deliberately trying to sound American. Billlion (talk) 09:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- or booglarize, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no reason to change a word because it sounds comical to American ears any more than we would change burglarize because it sound comical to British ears. It is the correct term and it is the one used by a number of sources see [1],[2], [3], [4]. Richerman (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- Intrigued to see Gerard O'Regan (2012) there say "at the criminal trial allegations of homosexuality were made against him", which I am sure is wrong. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:38, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- There is absolutely no reason to change a word because it sounds comical to American ears any more than we would change burglarize because it sound comical to British ears. It is the correct term and it is the one used by a number of sources see [1],[2], [3], [4]. Richerman (talk) 10:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- or booglarize, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- But you haven't anyone who agrees with you. I think our consensus requirements would demand that you find at least one British person who does. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- They're saying it's fine but they're citing irrelevancies like its occurrence in a dictionary. I would feel more comfortable that they understood the point if they didn't cite the dictionary, but instead asserted (ideally with citation, but I'd take their word for it even if not) that the word indeed has no further jocular sense to it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- You've now had British people and people familiar with British usage saying it's fine. To change the wording to suit your usage in a different language variant doesn't make sense to me. HiLo48 (talk) 20:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- So I respect your report. However, as a general rule, note that certainly not every word in Webster's is the best choice in encyclopedic writing, and the same holds for OED. If there is really no hint of the humorous origin that hangs on burgle, then fine, I suppose. But if there is, then we should probably find other wording. (I'm not suggesting to use "burglarize", but rather to reword the sentence entirely.) --Trovatore (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- As a Brit I can tell you that the formal British word is burgle - burglarize is American and is never used in the UK. Google burgle and you will find a number of different dictionaries that give you the definition. The OED is considered the standard for British English in the same way that Websters is the standard for American English. We don't need anything more authoritative than that. Richerman (talk) 18:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, the Oxford Dictionary, a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Guardian uses it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- So one thing is "common", and another is "sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia". Is there a more formal word, or can we rephrase? It still sounds jocular to me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard the term burglerise(d) in the UK, but burgled is quite common. Martin451 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's probably influencing my judgment too, but in the opposite direction — I can't help hearing it as a G&S play on words. Wiktionary dates burgle to 1872, albeit without an attestation until 1892; Pirates of Penzance came out in 1879. So probably the word was not invented specifically for Pirates, assuming the 1872 date is reliable (not sure where it came from). But in any case they weren't far apart. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
World-class athelete
According to this well-referenced site - http://www.turing.org.uk/scrapbook/run.html - Alan achieved very high standards in cross country and distance running and I think the inclusion of a section about this would increase the understanding of the man. He said running was very important for him to de-stress from his work and without the release and energy vigorous exercise gave him he may not have been such a successful computer scientist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.162.153 (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- I think this aspect is being overplayed. Although it hasn't historically received much attention, it isn't a major part of his notability either. He was not a world-class athlete – he was a national-class athlete. Had he achieved times of 2 hours 46 mins forty years earlier, he would have a world record, but by 1946 he was twenty minutes behind the best runners (not an insignificant period of time). See the patchily assembled 1952 rankings for instance, in which he would not feature with his personal best. If he was truly world-class, why did he fail to gain selection at even national level by several placings? He was a top class club runner and a national level marathon runner, yes, but saying anything more than that is stretching the truth a little. SFB 21:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- That's a fair comment SFB, but you really only addressed the title of the thread, not the rest of our OP's post. The source quotes him as saying "I have such a stressful job that the only way I can get it out of my mind is by running hard." Non-runners may not understand, but it's a common comment from runners. It can be a powerful stress relieving activity. And was apparently important to Turing. His interest in running is mentioned in the article, but it's hidden in the section called Cryptanalysis. Maybe this should be moved to its own section, or somewhere else? And maybe we can add the above quote as an explanation for his love of running. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
- Fully agree. An excellent suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk)
- That's a fair comment SFB, but you really only addressed the title of the thread, not the rest of our OP's post. The source quotes him as saying "I have such a stressful job that the only way I can get it out of my mind is by running hard." Non-runners may not understand, but it's a common comment from runners. It can be a powerful stress relieving activity. And was apparently important to Turing. His interest in running is mentioned in the article, but it's hidden in the section called Cryptanalysis. Maybe this should be moved to its own section, or somewhere else? And maybe we can add the above quote as an explanation for his love of running. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Turing as war hero
As we all know Turing is a lot of things and he is also being described by numerous publications as a "war hero" as he arguably saved millions of lives by breaking the Enigma code. I'm not confident to put it in the lead paragraph and I just want to know your stands regarding the matter first so here I am. Thoughts?AlanTuringFan (talk) 08:04, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
- It already says in the lead: "Winston Churchill said that Turing made the single biggest contribution to Allied victory in the war against Nazi Germany. Turing's pivotal role in cracking intercepted coded messages enabled the Allies to defeat the Nazis in several crucial battles." I don't think we need any more than that. Richerman (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Turing was aware of Church's work
I just corrected a sentence that stated that Turing was not aware of churches work. Turing states in his paper [1] that he is aware of Church's work. I quote the paragraph (the last one in the introduction) here:
"In a recent paper Alonzo Church has introduced an idea of "effective calculability", which is equivalent to my "computability", but is very differently defined. Church also reaches similar conclusions about the EntscheidungsproblemJ. The proof of equivalence between "computability" and "effective calculability" is outlined in an appendix to the present paper."
- You mean you are the same anon ip who removed a sentence and it's supporting cite, with no edit summary and no counter-supporting source, about five hours ago? So what does Hodges (1983) actually say on page 111 about Turing's knowledge of Alonzo Church's work at that time? (Would you care to create an account, or to at least sign your edits here?) Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
Inconsistent dates in lead (poor style)
″At the moment, ignoring the standard birth and death dates, there is a large inconsistency with the accuracy of dates used in the lead. Historical dates are given correct to the year (1948, 1952, 1954), yet modern dates are given correct to the day (10 September 2009, 24 December 2013). This is a good example of recentism: the exact dates arose from when editors added the information to the article as the news 'broke' [5] [6], whilst it would be unusual to do the same if we were writing the article in ten years' time. Waldhorn has reinstated the inconsistency twice [7] [8]. Instead of reverting, I would like to ask for a second opinion from others. I am struggling to see any benefit with the current layout. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
- In addition, Waldhorn deleted a useful link to The Queen [9]. What is the reasoning behind this? There are many queens and the current phrasing could be ambiguous, particularly to non-British readers. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
Update. I have not received any kind of reply from Waldhorn. I have been bold and made the changes because they clearly represent an improvement to the article: we should not have to wait for a reply that might never come. 131.111.185.66 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 22 December 2014
 | This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change "organisation" to "organization". This is located in the Cryptanalysis section, 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph: "From September 1938, Turing had been working part-time with the GC&CS, the British code breaking organisation." 24.29.53.92 (talk) 05:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Not done. Article is in British English (see WP:ENGVAR, especially WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN), and I don't see any indication that it's in the "Oxford" version (which uses the -ize endings). --Trovatore (talk) 06:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Picture deleted
I give notice I have deleted the picture, that appears in the section University work, of his statue in Sackville Gardens, Manchester, on the grounds that it is repeated in the section under Tributes, which describes the erection of the Turing memorial.Cloptonson (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section titled "Tributes by universities," I would like to add turingscraft.com, a website created by Brooklyn College Computer Science professors to help students solve C++ problems. Kaneone (talk) 08:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Not done: -per WP:SPAMLINK. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 12:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
What is the actual source for the Churchill on Turing 'single biggest contribution' statement?
What is the actual source for the statement in the lead "Winston Churchill said that Turing made the single biggest contribution to Allied victory in the war against Nazi Germany.[7]" The source given is this BBC News profile. And I see the same claim repeated in various places on the web and in recent books. But what is the actual, direct source to something Churchill said and when and where he said it? None of these places that repeat the statement give the actual details behind it.
I'm asking because it doesn't seem likely that Churchill would have said something like this. I don't see it anywhere in the Hodges biography. Churchill only met Turing once, during a summer 1941 visit to Bletchley Park (Hodges p. 205), and then there is the letter that autumn that Turing and three others wrote to Churchill asking for more administrative resources (Hodges pp. 219-221). Other than that, what contact did they ever have? Now, Churchill may well have thought Ultra made the single largest contribution to winning the war. But why would he had singled out Turing's role, as distinct from the many others working on it? Would he even have remembered who Turing was? And to whom would he have made such a remark? And when was it published? It certainly wasn't published by Churchill during his lifetime, since Ultra was still fully under wraps.
I will be happy to be proven wrong, but I have the feeling that this is one of those cases where one book or news piece makes a mistake somehow and then it just gets picked up and repeated over and over. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- As I suspected, there is no documentary source for this to be found. Andrew Hodges has now put a statement on his website where he updates parts of his Turing biography. See "Part 4: The Relay Race", entry for "Page 205 (page 258 in new edition)". His conclusion is "I do not know of any documentary source for this statement, and I have never seen any date or context claimed for when Churchill is supposed to have said or written it." And The Churchill Centre has now put an entry in the 'Leading Churchill Myths' section of their website where they list and discuss such things. See "Churchill Said that Turing Made the Single Biggest Contribution to Allied Victory". They have a searchable database of Churchill documents as well as many people with considerable Churchill knowledge and their conclusion also was that there is no documentary evidence that Churchill ever made this statement and that it seems unlikely that he did. Given this, I have changed the article to remove this statement from the lead, modified the other text near it a bit regarding Turing's importance during the war, and added an explanatory note about the claim in a footnote. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
misleading wording about letter to Churchill
The article currently says:
- The effect was electric. Churchill wrote a memo to General Ismay which read: "ACTION THIS DAY. Make sure they have all they want..."
This is misleading. The team did not receive a copy of this Churchill action, and only learned indirectly of the success of their letter to him.
If the article was not locked down and I had the power, I would take out "The effect was electric." And then insert about there wording like this:
The team only learned indirectly over time how successful this plea was: "All that we did notice was that almost from that day the rough ways began miraculously to be made smooth." (P. S. Milner-Barry, ‘‘‘Action This Day’’: The Letter from Bletchley Park Cryptanalysts to the Prime Minister, 21 October 1941’ quoted in www.maths.ed.ac.uk/~aar/turingletter.pdf) -71.174.175.150 (talk) 23:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
- I agree it was misleading and I've reworded this passage to be clearer and to include the Milner-Barry quote. I left in the 'electric effect' bit but explicitly quoted it to Andrew Hodges, since what was there was too close to his language to be a paraphrase. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Spies
The article says:
- At the time, there was acute public anxiety about homosexual entrapment of spies by Soviet agents, because of the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents.
This seems anachronistic. The "exposure" of Burgess and Maclean was not until 1956, after Turing died. Until their press conference in Moscow, they were officially "missing diplomats" and it was only speculative that they had defected to the USSR. Burgess was homosexual, but Maclean wasn't. I don't know whether Burgess's homosexuality was well-known at that time.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
imitation game
If you have read the original Turing article, the essence of the game is imitation, or includes it as a major component. I think the current description adds to the moras of misunderstanding of people who have read the title of the paper but not the paper itself. I'd edit, btu the page appears locked. whoever updates this page should read the original paper, and I would then suggest that they would see the need to include imitatation, which along with Turing, it think is an essential part of intelligence. 146.186.238.35 (talk) 21:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
relationship wiht Christopher Morcom
part of the article notes important friendship, figure caption notes lover. perhaps should be consistent, perhaps left ambiguous 146.186.238.35 (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section, "Portrayal in adaptations," please add information about an opera in development about Alan Turing's life. I suggest adding the following text:
In 2012, in honor of the Turing Centennial, American Lyric Theater commissioned an operatic exploration of the life and death of Alan Turing from composer Justine F. Chen and librettist David Simpatico.[1] Titled The Life and Death(s) of Alan Turing, the opera is a historical fantasia on the life of the brilliant scientist. The opera will receive a concert performance in October 2015 in NYC. In November 2014, the opera and several other artistic works inspired by Turing's life were featured on Studio 360. [2]
References
Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under the section "Hut 8 and Naval Enigma" there is a quote, but it is not marked as a quote in any way and is therefore difficult to read due to the sudden context change. This should be modified so that it is clear what text is quoted.
Done Thank you. Mlpearc (open channel) 08:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Middle Name is actually Matheson Not Mathison Jjpaula (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Another request (unrelated; I'm another editor): please internally link the first mention of "Churchill" to Winston Churchill. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Done. Full name at first instance and now linked. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks Martinevans123. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Not done: @Jjpaula: please provide reliable sources that support the changes you want to be made (see also, [10]). @82.136.210.153: Winston Churchill is already linked in Delilah sub-section of article. We usually do not link a term more than once in an article. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 21:03, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- Anupmehra, per WP:LINK and WP:COMMONSENSE we link the term's first occurrence in the article's text. The first occurrence is before the Delilah section. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
- In a long article there's often a reasonable case for linking more than once. I've now added full name and linked at first instance. The second is still there also. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Known For section to short
The 'known for' section should definitely give mention of his contribution to computational biology. TheGrandmother (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Belief in the afterlife removed?
I recall one of his religious views being of which after his best friend's death he became an atheist but simultaneously kept the belief that consciousness can survive after death - this snippet was also cited and linked to a credible source. So why was it removed?
Here's an old screencapture of the paragraph I'm pertaining to:
He became an atheist and adopted the conviction that all phenomena, including the workings of the human brain, must be materialistic,[21] but he still believed in the survival of the spirit after death.[22][/i]
Citation: The Inspiration of Life and Death, 1928–1932 Alan Turing Scrapbook
http://web.archive.org/web/20130424185723/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#cite_note-22
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
suggested edit - add the definition ("Completely Automated Program For Telling Computers and Humans Apart") when you mention "CAPTCHA"
Some people do not know what this acronym stands for so you should apell it out, parenthetically, here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.77.111.16 (talk) 23:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is a citation needed behind The Faculty of Informatics and Information Technologies Slovak University of Technology in Bratislava, Slovakia has a lecture room named "Turing Auditorium" line. Here below is a link from official university webpage confirming the name. http://is.stuba.sk/mistnosti/?zobrazit_mistnost=2472;areal=2;budova=172;klic=2472;mistnostpodrobne=1;lang=en 87.197.160.239 (talk) 12:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Added Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
"round-the-house" chess
"Turing ... with his friend David Champernowne ... invented "round-the-house" chess: after you move, run around the house, if you get back before your opponent's move you are entitled to a new move."
- http://www.math.cornell.edu/~numb3rs/spulido/Numb3rs_season5/Numb3rs_517.html ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 04:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
- https://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/journal/contents/content23-4.htm#DAVID%20CHAMPERNOWNE
"He was also a long-distance runner, and while working at Bletchley Park occasionally ran the 64Km to London when he was needed for high-level meetings."
- http://www.fcet.staffs.ac.uk/jdw1/sucfm/manchester.htm ~~ Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2015
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
106.39.113.200 (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. NiciVampireHeart 10:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
British vs English
Seems this was discussed a while ago: [11]? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:29, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- And that was not even the first time. His ancestors were Scottish and Irish. Why is this a recurring issue? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you check biographies of British people, wiki best practice is to describe the country from where they come, many famous Scottish, Welsh and Irish luminaries have English ancestors but if you were to try and label them 'British' or 'English' there would be an uproar. Nearly all BLP's of non-English people are listed by their country not their nationality, I am merely applying best practice in avoiding 'uniformity' (ie everyone must be British) In closing, it is wrong that on Wikipedia only the English are 'British', subsequently we need parity or the entire thing becomes a mockery as it seems that if you are not English you are either 'Scottish', 'Welsh', or 'Irish' but if you are English then you must be 'British' and that is just hypocrisy of the the worst order and biased as it seems that English luminaries have many fathers while the non English have only one. Twobellst@lk 16:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is this "best practice" written down as a policy somewhere? How large was your sample? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: see this [[12]] policy article please. Twobellst@lk 10:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, that's the policy. Which part of it specifically applies here and supports your argument? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, @Twobells: I don't understand the problem; you may have to spell it out for me. Turing's ancestors were Scottish and Irish, yet you want him labelled "English". And then above, you assert that "if you are not English you are either 'Scottish', 'Welsh', or 'Irish' but if you are English then you must be 'British'. I'm very confused. Turing, once again, was Scottish and Irish. If I understand your argument (and apparently I don't), you should be agreeing with the "British" label rather than opposed to it. What am I missing? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 20:57, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @DoctorJoeE:Since when has Wikipedia started to describe a BLP by their 'ancestors' nationality? If that was the case most 'American' or other Commonwealth luminaries would all be 'British'. No, there is nothing confusing about my response whatsoever, if I didn't follow Wiki's policy on AGF I'd have assumed you were being ingenuous. Essentially, Wiki BLP's are determined by the country they were born in, which in Turing's case is England, not their nationality. Wikipedia demands that editors do not force uniformity on BLP's, subsequently, I believe that Turning's BLP should follow all the other BLP's of people from the UK otherwise it could be suggested that editors were being hypocritical in that, everyone not English is Welsh, Scottish or Irish, yet everyone who is English are just 'British', being the 'only' British people on Wikipedia. In closing, even the revered BBC describes Turing as English. [1] so who are we to suggest otherwise? Twobellst@lk 10:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- (I have to admit that I read that must as an ironic one. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC) )
- Yes, of course it was ironic. Which still argues for describing him as "British", since he was Scottish/Irish, not English. Am I missing something? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 22:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Even Scottish people can be British when they're winning, can't they? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- While I find your response funny, no, you will find most non-English BLP's described by their constituent country of origin, NOT their nationality and I don't see why it is that only the English should be described as 'British' when if we were to take an historical approach the Scots and Welsh would be 'British' not the English who for the most part were Anglo-Saxon not from those hallowed isles. Twobellst@lk 10:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Again, what is your sample? Have you actually checked all non-English BLPs? I really don't think we trace nationality back to the Anglo-Saxons. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- While I find your response funny, no, you will find most non-English BLP's described by their constituent country of origin, NOT their nationality and I don't see why it is that only the English should be described as 'British' when if we were to take an historical approach the Scots and Welsh would be 'British' not the English who for the most part were Anglo-Saxon not from those hallowed isles. Twobellst@lk 10:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Martinevans123: see this [[12]] policy article please. Twobellst@lk 10:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
- Is this "best practice" written down as a policy somewhere? How large was your sample? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- If you check biographies of British people, wiki best practice is to describe the country from where they come, many famous Scottish, Welsh and Irish luminaries have English ancestors but if you were to try and label them 'British' or 'English' there would be an uproar. Nearly all BLP's of non-English people are listed by their country not their nationality, I am merely applying best practice in avoiding 'uniformity' (ie everyone must be British) In closing, it is wrong that on Wikipedia only the English are 'British', subsequently we need parity or the entire thing becomes a mockery as it seems that if you are not English you are either 'Scottish', 'Welsh', or 'Irish' but if you are English then you must be 'British' and that is just hypocrisy of the the worst order and biased as it seems that English luminaries have many fathers while the non English have only one. Twobellst@lk 16:16, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
References
Dying from an apple
How likely is it that a person would die from eating the seeds of only one apple? Is there even one single documented case of this on record in all of recorded history?Starhistory22 (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- It's nothing to do with the seeds - it was suspected that he deliberately ate an apple laced with cyanide but as it wasn't tested for cyanide we will never know. Richerman (talk) 17:25, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- He may even have been murdered by this means, although the source currently supporting this theory in the article is far from ideal. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:11, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- Far from ideal? The Daily Mail is the gold standard when it comes to research irrespective of the fact they're right-wing, that is why they've won so many awards, best to be careful and not to start assigning categories to citations, the BBC and the Grauniad who are left-wing mustn't be allowed to dominate UK citations otherwise we may stray into npov. Twobellst@lk 19:39, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
- Pardon me, but where in the article is this "murder theory"? I looked fairly carefully and couldn't find it -- nor did I expect to, since to the best of my knowledge, there isn't a viable one. There has always been speculation, of course, that he was murdered by the security services or enemy agents, but nobody has ever come up with any credible evidence, unless there is something very recent. The article accurately reflects the fact that a preponderance of current opinion favors accidental death (although officially it's still a suicide). So if I am missing a murder theory hidden in there someplace, could someone please point it out? DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 01:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- My reading of this entry was that someone was proposing we include the "murder theory". I had to laugh at the Daily Mail being cited as the "gold standard" for research. Its one of those statement that I honestly can't tell if the person was being sarcastic or not. But I agree with you there is no credible evidence to this theory, its one of those conspiracy theories that is speculation fueled by cherry picking and selectively interpreting facts from what I've read and unless someone can find more credible evidence than The Daily Mail it should definitely not be added. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- One more follow up. I took a look at The Daily Mail article that is used as a source for the Murder Theory: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2530751/Security-services-killed-code-breaker-Alan-Turing-gay-claims-campaigner-Peter-Tatchell.html I just took a quick look but my reading is that even in that article all they have is some gay human rights advocate (who clearly has an agenda) saying that it is possible that the security services may have murdered Turing because of the cold war and the homophobia prevalent at the time. Even that person though offers absolutely no actual evidence beyond saying that perhaps it happened. Even if we consider the Daily Mail a credible source (I don't think it is very credible but even the National Enquirer gets a few things right once in a while so I agree DM can't be completely ruled out just by reputation) but even if we grant the credibility of the article it offers nothing that I think can by any stretch of the imagination be considered evidence or even a very coherent argument. Its just speculation by someone who has a clear agenda. (For the record an agenda I very much support). One last thing, I think the way that article is currently used though is perfectly fine. It just documents what the gay rights advocate said about how a new investigation into what really went on with Turing's death is warranted, which I think is a reasonable statement and supported by the source. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- My reading of this entry was that someone was proposing we include the "murder theory". I had to laugh at the Daily Mail being cited as the "gold standard" for research. Its one of those statement that I honestly can't tell if the person was being sarcastic or not. But I agree with you there is no credible evidence to this theory, its one of those conspiracy theories that is speculation fueled by cherry picking and selectively interpreting facts from what I've read and unless someone can find more credible evidence than The Daily Mail it should definitely not be added. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks. The phrase, "the source currently supporting this theory in the article" suggested to me that the theory was already in the article somewhere. I'm well aware of Tatchell's call for a new investigation -- I may have been the one who added it -- but without a shred of probable cause, it's very unlikely to take place. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:41, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Removal of cited information
User:Equilibrium103 has removed cited information from the article with the edit summary "Citation behind paywall, cites no apparent primary sources, and contradicted by letters to Morcom's mother" I've reverted once asking them to take this to talk but have been re-reverted. I'll try again and hopefully this time they will discuss before reverting. Richerman (talk) 09:28, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Could we see a (non-paywall) link to whatever Morcom's mother had to say? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The claim seems dubious. I too would like to see an excerpt from the article. This link appears to be a copy of the article and makes no mention of what was in the text.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine, but we can't discount references because they're behind a paywall and to do so and then cite "letters to Morcom's mother" but not give references for them is ridiculous. Nor can we ask for non-paid-for references (Martin, you should know that!). Also, how does the editor know there are no primary sources used in an article they can't read? Richerman (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure that is the article quoted - although the citation given is a bit sparse - the title and page numbers don't match. I'm not saying that the information has to stay in, but if we're going to remove it we should do so for the right reasons. Richerman (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm reading the book Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges right now and if I'm understanding the debate here that book supports removing the information. The text that was removed implied that Christopher Morcom's death is what made Alan an atheist. On p. 138 it says that Alan became an atheist later in life, years after Morcom's death where as at the time of Morcom's death Alan still believed (or at least told Morcom's mother he believed) in the survival of some spirit after death. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- So it sounds as if that book could provide the ideal source, for whatever is left in the article regarding Turing's atheism? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- IMO, yes I would say so. I'm kind of busy, not doing a lot of Wikipedia editing lately but if no one else picks it up I can do that but I may not get to it for a few days. If someone else has more bandwidth though in the mean time please have at it. BTW, as a side note that book is awesome, the author for once has an outstanding grasp of the math/science issues as well as talking about Turing's life. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:26, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- So it sounds as if that book could provide the ideal source, for whatever is left in the article regarding Turing's atheism? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- I'm reading the book Alan Turing: The Enigma by Andrew Hodges right now and if I'm understanding the debate here that book supports removing the information. The text that was removed implied that Christopher Morcom's death is what made Alan an atheist. On p. 138 it says that Alan became an atheist later in life, years after Morcom's death where as at the time of Morcom's death Alan still believed (or at least told Morcom's mother he believed) in the survival of some spirit after death. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually I'm not sure that is the article quoted - although the citation given is a bit sparse - the title and page numbers don't match. I'm not saying that the information has to stay in, but if we're going to remove it we should do so for the right reasons. Richerman (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- That's fine, but we can't discount references because they're behind a paywall and to do so and then cite "letters to Morcom's mother" but not give references for them is ridiculous. Nor can we ask for non-paid-for references (Martin, you should know that!). Also, how does the editor know there are no primary sources used in an article they can't read? Richerman (talk) 14:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
- The claim seems dubious. I too would like to see an excerpt from the article. This link appears to be a copy of the article and makes no mention of what was in the text.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:42, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Turing
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Turing which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-grant-a-pardon-to-alan-turing
- Triggered by
\bchange\.org\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Turing
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Turing which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-grant-a-pardon-to-alan-turing
- Triggered by
\bchange\.org\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 00:17, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Philosopher?
The use of the term "philosopher" does not seem to be justified by the content of the article. He certainly never described himself as a philosopher: [13]. And note also this change at the turing.org website. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisted link
Why has the change.org source been blacklisted? Why has the bot added two identical templates? What needs to be done? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
- My guess would be that change.org was blacklisted because people were trying to use it as a source for controversial claims. That, I think, would be almost always inappropriate, given that the claims made in petitions are not (AFAIK) fact-checked by anybody except the person who posts the petition. So while the blacklist is a bit of a blunt instrument, the motivation would be understandable.
- In this case, it seems that whoever added the link wanted to use change.org, not to substantiate the content of any claim made in a petition, but simply the text of the petition itself. That's a primary source, which Wikipedia generally considers less desirable than secondary sources, but would probably be reasonable in this instance.
- However, given that (i) the text of the petition is not really essential to this article, and (ii) primary sources are less desirable, I don't think it makes a lot of sense to plead for a special exemption to the blacklist. I would just go ahead and remove the text of the petition, and limit ourselves to describing it in terms used by reliable secondary sources. --Trovatore (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- Oh, another point occurs to me as well. Another possible reason for the blacklist is that there may be a temptation to try to use Wikipedia to raise support for specific change.org petitions. Independently of the merits of any such petition, including the Turing one, that is obviously not part of our encyclopedic mission. --Trovatore (talk) 00:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Blacklisted Links Found on Alan Turing
Cyberbot II has detected links on Alan Turing which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
- http://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-grant-a-pardon-to-alan-turing
- Triggered by
\bchange\.org\bon the local blacklist
- Triggered by
If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Church's work?
Re [14]. Was Turing aware of Church's work or not? If so – which is claimed to be very easily shown, as he cites it himself, can we source that properly. Otherwise Hodges' book says he wasn't, and so far that's the only source here.Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
New source: biography by his nephew Dermot Turing
I heard on the radio this morning about a new biography of Turing, Prof: Alan Turing Decoded written by his nephew Dermot Turing. Dermot is the son of Alan's older brother. Dermot was talking about his uncle on this BBC Radio 4 programme:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06grwnc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.124.57 (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
Father of A.I.
In the article there is a quote from the book "Alan Turing: His work and Impact": Turing is widely considered to be the father of theoretical computer science and artificial intelligence.[5]
While I totally agree with the first part of the sentence, I find odd that someone can be the father of something that has not been invented to this day. For sure Turing was a pioneer, an important theorist of Artificial Intelligence by writing down some of the fundamentals for researching it and inspiring scientists around the world.
But "father" sounds a bit a overstatement. It can be misleading into believing that A.I. has already been accomplished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.50.121.64 (talk) 10:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that argument. When I, and I think other people who work in AI hear the term "father of AI" it doesn't imply that AI is some concrete thing that has been accomplished. In fact people who are in the field usually don't refer to "an AI" as a thing but rather the "field of AI" which can include all sorts of programs or objects one might consider artificially intelligent, for example on the software side: an agent, or expert system, a chess program, a common sense reasoner, or neural network. Of course you can quibble over whether any of these are truly "intelligent" the way we think humans are intelligent. Most people in the field and I think Turing felt the same way, don't think that is really such an interesting question either way. The interesting thing is solving harder problems that are typically thought of as being beyond what a computer can do not how we label it. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree it is an overstatement. Turing is known for the Turing machine, and the Turing test in AI - but turing machines are mostly conceived as symbol machines that take discrete steps, while most of current AI work seems to revolve around deep thinking and neural networks - which seems to be a different paradigm. It's better to under describe on labels and titles, and instead in detail describe actual accomplishments and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.158.130 (talk) 17:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Add link for Blue Plaque
The article uses "blue plaque" repeatedly but there's no link and it's not a common term. There is an article on blue plaque. Avocats (talk) 23:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Linking to Gain understanding
Shouldn't someone make the Term "Entscheidungsproblem" link to the wikipedia page for it? I understand that the term is somewhat archaic but also a large part of Turing's beginnings on the professional level. 71.1.111.157 (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- It is linked, following the words "Turing machines", in the paragraph where his 1936 paper is first mentioned. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Badly worded, easy change.
"In 1935, at the age of 22, he was elected a fellow of King's on the strength of a dissertation in which he proved the central limit theorem,[32] despite the fact that the committee had failed to identify that it had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg.[33]"
This should read "in which he proved the central limit theorem, [because] the committee had failed to identify that it had already been proven.." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.158.130 (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
- I disagree, "despite" is more appropriate. "Because" implies that Turing's work wasn't worth a fellowship since someone had already done it. That's wp:POV To my knowledge there is no documentation that the committee regretted awarding him the fellowship. Its common for discoveries like this to occur at roughly the same time and from what I understand Turing's proof was still a significant achievement, many people are awarded fellowships on much less. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 16:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- You've correctly identified a problem with the proposed "because" wording, but the "despite the fact" wording is nevertheless illogical. It suggests that, if the committee had been aware of the earlier proof, they would have been even more likely to give him the fellowship. Surely that isn't true.
- Maybe the best solution is to state the two facts without asserting a causal relationship between them. Something like
- In 1935, at the age of 22, he was elected a fellow of King's on the strength of a dissertation in which he proved the central limit theorem. Unbeknownst to the committee, the theorem had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg.
- I suppose you could criticize this wording as being overly suggestive, but at least it doesn't claim that the previous proof would have been a bar to the fellowship, and it avoids the logical error with the "despite" wording. --Trovatore (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have implemented the change I proposed above. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, didn't get a chance to reply back. Yes, I like your alternative, thanks for making the change. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 00:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
- I have implemented the change I proposed above. --Trovatore (talk) 21:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit Request
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Recognition and tributes" > "Tributes by universities and research institutions", please change: "The École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne has a road and a square named after Alan Turing (Chemin de Alan Turing and Place de Alan Turing)" to: "The École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne has a road and a square named after Alan Turing (Chemin Alan Turing and Place Alan Turing)"
(remove the 'de' after Chemin and Place)
Please also change the link at ref 157 to: "https://plan.epfl.ch/?map_x=532751&map_y=152334&map_zoom=11"
thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fredjunod (talk • contribs) 14:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
- Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
- Done. Thanks for having noticed. - DVdm (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Central Limit Theorem
Lindeberg's proof of the CLT was well-known by the time Turing rediscovered it. He was permitted to submit his original proof in spite of this; the arbiters of the King's fellowship certainly would have been well aware. This passage: "Unknown to the committee, the theorem had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg" is inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.122.101 (talk) 10:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Spies
The article currently says:
- At the time, there was acute public anxiety about homosexual entrapment of spies by Soviet agents,[112] because of the recent exposure of the first two members of the Cambridge Five, Guy Burgess and Donald Maclean, as KGB double agents.
At the time of Turing's trial (1952), Burgess and Maclean were known as the "missing diplomats". There was no official acknowledgement that they were spies until they reappeared in Moscow in 1956. Burgess was gay, but I don't think this was commonly known in the early 1950s. And there was no suggestion of entrapment. John Vassall was apparently blackmailed into spying, but he was caught in 1962. The text seems to be anachronistic and to be irrelevant to Turing.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:27, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- There, being no objections, I have removed this.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:25, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Second Law of Thermodynamics Applied to Living Systems
After my first inclusion was removed, I added this one, which sounds better--less like idle speculation. Marvin Marmalade (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2017
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the "Pattern formation and mathematical biology" section, in the first sentence, change "Jamuary" to January. Michaeleason (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
- Done.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:42, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Resting Place
Another editor had removed the resting place, I have reinstated it and added a citation based on The Guardian News Report, the location is also noted in many other reports I believe, citation used is https://www.theguardian.com/science/the-northerner/2014/oct/07/the-imitation-game-how-benedict-cumberbatch-brought-turing-to-life
--Pennine rambler (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
the code on the bench is wrong.
IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ
FOUND EROFC OMPUT ERSCI ENCE
The cast bronze bench carries in relief the text 'Alan Mathison Turing 1912–1954', and the motto 'Founder of Computer Science' as it could appear if encoded by an Enigma machine: 'IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ'
Is not possible as the u in computer is a u in the code and the article previously states
The bombe detected when a contradiction had occurred and ruled out that setting, moving on to the next. Most of the possible settings would cause contradictions and be discarded, leaving only a few to be investigated in detail. A contradiction would occur when an enciphered letter would be turned back into the same plaintext letter – this simply wasn't possible with the Enigma. steve bradshawStevebradshaw (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Alan Turing. 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:
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.001002006005/chooseLetter/T
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.lettersofnote.com/2012/06/yours-in-distress-alan.html
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.surrey.ac.uk/press/oct2004/281004a/
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/09/01/alan.turing.petition/index.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160104203150/http://oldshirburnian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TURING-Alan-Mathison.pdf to http://oldshirburnian.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/TURING-Alan-Mathison.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) 15:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alan Turing. 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/20130330233859/http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/admissions/ugrad/Computer_Science_and_Philosophy to http://www.cs.ox.ac.uk/admissions/ugrad/Computer_Science_and_Philosophy
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) 18:45, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2017
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Someone just changed all the British spellings and date formats to American ones. But this is a British subject. These changes should be reverted. 2600:1001:B02D:9EE8:4DD:9404:48F7:2A96 (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Done: [15]. Someone beat me to it :-) - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
- Sorry, took a while to do this because of intervening edit and one good edit that had to be addressed amongst the date and spelling changes. I think it's better now. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 14:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
“It didn’t take long before Samuel had a program that played a respectable game of checkers, capable of easily defeating novice players. It was first publicly demonstrated on television on February 24, 1956. Thomas Watson, President of IBM, arranged for the program to be exhibited to shareholders. He predicted that it would result in a fifteen-point rise in the price of IBM stock. It did.” [1]
(This gives an exact release date to the public on his program) 162.89.0.47 (talk) 22:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not at all. Indrian (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- They appear to want to attach a "release date" to a corporate research project on the day it happened to appear on television. That is patent nonsense. They are free to correct me if I am wrong. Indrian (talk) 00:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2017
| This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Addition under "Alternative death theories" I believe this is relevant:
Author Roger Bristow, who is a founder member of the Bletchley Park trust, and spent almost 30 years researching Turing's life and work [2], did in 2014, while researching for a new book; "Boffins, Bombs, Boats and Balloons", according to several online news media[2][3][4][5], unearth Turing's post mortem report, and found that although the report officially concluded that he died from cyanide poisoning, the final sentence that the pathologist who examined Turing’s body wrote in his report was “Death appears to to be due to violence”. Several media quote Bristow for saying: "If you look at his autopsy report it's quite clear that although there was cyanide in his body the doctor quite clearly states his death was caused by extreme violence." Several of Turing's co-workers at Bleachley, whome Bristow had talked to, said Turing had not appeared suicidal or depressed, and the neighbors even reported that he had seemed cheerful.
Bristow theorized that Turing might have been murdered by the FBI, for having gained information that could embarras or damage american top officials. Turing, he said, had prior to his death been working on a secret operation "Verona" which dealt with the deciphering of wartime radio signals for the identification of Russian agents sent as spies in the United States, of which several were able to penetrate prominent positions in the government including one who became a personal assistant to then US President Franklin Roosevelt. - To support his claim bristow pointed out the hasty "disposal" (Turing died on a Tuesday morning and his remains were buried by Wednesday afternoon) didn't leave enough time to conduct a through investigation.[4]
--RP Nielsen (talk) 21:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
- Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}template. I say this because not everyone will agree with the addition of either of these theories. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)- According to the link you provided, first step of "establishing consensus" might be for me to simply add the section, and see if anyone protest it... And as I've just passed the tenth edit mark I could in principle just do that. However, since you seem to (?) dispute, at least hypothetically; I'll defend my argument before adding anything to the article: I believe it is justified, as the sub-section (8.1 according to the contents box) is titled, and thus concern "Alternative death theories" - Anyone may believe or disbelieve Bristow's theory, or agree or disagree with it, as they will. But I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute that the theory as such exist - as a theory. - The addition I suggested does not take a stand on whether the theory is correct or not. It simply mention that the theory exist, and gained some media attention. - And as such I believe it is relevant and justified to mention it under the "Alternative death theories" section - what else would be the purpose of that section? --RP Nielsen (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Save it for some conspiracy subreddit and familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE. Indrian (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Very well. It is not of particular importance to me. I just felt like adding it since it wasn't mentioned. But if you absolutely do not want it mentioned in "your" article then I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's abit silly is all. --RP Nielsen (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- "My" article. Sure. The only silly thing going on here is lending credence to the idea the FBI goes around murdering mathematicians. Such a claim requires a little thing called evidence which this writer appears not to have provided. Indrian (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Very well. It is not of particular importance to me. I just felt like adding it since it wasn't mentioned. But if you absolutely do not want it mentioned in "your" article then I don't have a problem with that. I just think it's abit silly is all. --RP Nielsen (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- Save it for some conspiracy subreddit and familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE. Indrian (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
- According to the link you provided, first step of "establishing consensus" might be for me to simply add the section, and see if anyone protest it... And as I've just passed the tenth edit mark I could in principle just do that. However, since you seem to (?) dispute, at least hypothetically; I'll defend my argument before adding anything to the article: I believe it is justified, as the sub-section (8.1 according to the contents box) is titled, and thus concern "Alternative death theories" - Anyone may believe or disbelieve Bristow's theory, or agree or disagree with it, as they will. But I don't think anyone can reasonably dispute that the theory as such exist - as a theory. - The addition I suggested does not take a stand on whether the theory is correct or not. It simply mention that the theory exist, and gained some media attention. - And as such I believe it is relevant and justified to mention it under the "Alternative death theories" section - what else would be the purpose of that section? --RP Nielsen (talk) 01:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)