Jump to content

Talk:Alan Turing/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 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:

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) 10:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 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:

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) 21:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 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:

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) 08:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Image of Woking Crematorium

Is this really a useful addition to this article? I think Turing's association with this place was somewhat fleeting, and was rather more by necessity then by design. I'm not sure it tells us very much about Turing the computer scientist, mathematician, logician, cryptanalyst, philosopher, and theoretical biologist. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2018

In the infobox, please change the link “University of Cambridge” to “King’s College, Cambridge”. 31.74.39.7 (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"Malicious"?

Cody Hackman -- what did you mean by "malicious link" about {{Turing 1950}}? in this edit? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 18:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

The template links a URL at loebner.net, which at least someone thinks may be compromised. See https://www.chatbots.org/ai_zone/viewthread/3302/ and scroll down to the Feb 16, 2018 comment. If it is, of course, we should remove it from the template, not just the template from the article. --Trovatore (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the URL from the template. --Trovatore (talk) 19:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, makes sense. Why not just replace the contents of the template with the correct link you put into here? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 20:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. The link I put here is a link to a discussion about the web domain. It does have an archive link in there somewhere, I think; that could potentially be fished out and used. --Trovatore (talk) 21:47, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Was suggesting that that template just needs to be exactly what you put into Alan Turing, no? --jpgordon𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇 22:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I still don't follow. I have not recently edited Alan Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 22:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Why has the entire discussion been deleted?

I'm abit puzzled by the question of how come the ENTIRE discussion on the Alan Turing Talk page (ie this page) prior to 22 December 2017 has been removed? - I do not believe this is standard practice for Wikipedia talk pages. - Can I have an explanation for this? RP Nielsen (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

See the archives, for example Talk:Alan_Turing/Archive_4. These have links at the top of this talk page. Archiving old discussions is standard practice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok I see.. It's just that I haven't seen this on other talk pages before, and the couple of talk pages I checked at random had comments dating years back. - But checking again now, on more talk pages, I did find some that have links to archives of older entries.
Tho I have to say the link to the archives at the top of the page isn't exactly very eye-catching.
Maybe it would be an idea to make it more visible that older entries exist. One of the talk pages I checked have the archives link as a graphic icon in the right side of the screen, visually distinct from the other text boxes in the page top, so that it's noticable. - 'Just a suggestion. — RP Nielsen (talk) 20:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
You could make a suggestion at Help talk:Archiving a talk page. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to edit this page

I would like to edit and contribute to this page, could some one with the ability to allow this help me to grant me editing access to this page please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hexiode (talk • contribs) 05:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Of course. You can edit whenever you can as long as its unprotected. You can use Google Books or Britannica as an example. User:WernerHFan —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

BBC Two series

I watched a programme called "Icons" on BBC Two last night, and Alan Turing was voted the greatest person of the twentieth century. This could be mentioned somewhere in the article. Vorbee (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Vorbee. Yes, I agree. I've added a sentence at the end of "Posthumous tributes". I'm not sure if there is really scope for adding the other contenders. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Suicide as cause of death in the info box

We now have a cause of death in the info box: "Suicide by cyanide poisoning." This is certainly what the inquest determined and seems to be an uncontested fact. But is it a fair summary of what is in the article? The lead section says this, with the BBC source, as this might be considered somewhat controversial: "An inquest determined his death as a suicide, but it has been noted that the known evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning."[1] Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:13, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to Suicide (disputed). There might be a better solution. --Trovatore (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I had a feeling the previous consensus was to just omit it. I'm sure it's been discussed before. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
The edit summary was simply "added suicide to cause of death." Would the editor who added care to give a rationale as well as a description? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Pease, Roland (26 June 2012). "Alan Turing: Inquest's suicide verdict 'not supportable'". BBC News. Retrieved 25 December 2013.

Ashes

This source says that his ashes were scattered in the gardens of the crematorium which seems perfectly normal. It seems quite an odd claim to me that they were scattered "near" the crematorium. The single current source (given only in the infobox) is a Guardian film review? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

AFAIR, there's a bizarre law where the one thing you can't do in a crematorium is to store or scatter ashes in it. Like the one thing you can't do in a wedding venue is to hold a wedding reception there. So any ashes have to go "outside" the crematorium, where that's a very subtle boundary and may be as simple as "the gardens adjoining", but it's still a recognised demarcation. Thus both are correct. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
I see. A source for that would be useful. I guess it depends on how you define "the crematorium". Stating "in the gardens of" seems equally correct and not open to interpretation. This is the wording used by Hodges (2012) on page 665, so I have adjusted the article accordingly. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

American English sources?

I little while ago I made an edit adding an extra source. The edit got reverted which I respect, but it confused me a little when the user that reverted wrote: "and this article uses British English, not American Englis". This confused me because I cited from a book wrote in American English. Are books written in American English not accepted as sources? -User:Year1888,10th April 2019, 12:37 (UTC)

@Year1888: I was the editor who reverted your change. To be clear, sources written in American English are fine to use. But your edit had two quite separate problems:
  • You changed the spelling of "recognised" to "recognized" in the sentence "The headmistress recognised his talent early on, as did many of his subsequent teachers.". That is the change from British English to American English that I objected to; it was nothing to do with the source.
  • The "source" you cited was not a source at all. It was simply this "The Innovators p. 40". That links to a Wikipedia disambiguation page, which is not a valid source. It looks like you are trying to cite a book (Walter Isaacson's book?). You need to use the {{cite book}} template and fill out the details of the book.
Railfan23 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

A change from "recognised" to "recognized" is not a change to American English. The forms in -ize are/were preferred by Oxford and The Times, while -ise is/was the choice of Cambridge and the Guardian. While -ise has become more commonplace in UK contexts in recent years, we are not yet at the stage where it is the only acceptable spelling in English. Sussexonian (talk) 19:39, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Alan Turing and David Clemens (from Frank Perry's David and Lisa, 1962)

Have you ever noticed the resemblance of Alan Turing and David Clemens (Keir Dullea) in Frank Perry's B-and-W movie David and Lisa? The thing that really surprised me (while watching David and Lisa for the first time in 2011, YouTube) was David's ingenious invention called the Radio-Controlled Clock. At that moment (in 2011) I had one of these radio-controlled clocks hanging on the wall! Alan Turing, of course, was not the inventor of a special kind of clocks (or?), anyway, I wonder if the life and work of Alan Turing could have been an (or perhaps THE) inspiration to create the rare and extremely intelligent personality of David Clemens (?). DannyJ.Caes (talk) 16:21, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Colourisation Image

What are people's thoughts in changing the original Black and White portrait of Turing from when he was 16 to this colouristation seen here for the lead infobox image?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I vote no. I think articles should reflect the history of the subject. Since black and white photography was the standard, then, and since the original photo was black and white, I think we should stick with black and white. Thank you, Attic Salt (talk) 22:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I definitely see your point, thanks for your input.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 13:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment that keeping the b&w photo would be best, for historical/material accuracy. Thanks for the suggestion though! Wingedserif (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I used to be totally against colourised images, but recent colourised images of WWI films showed me how they could add a surprising amount to their impact. However, in this case, adding colours that are a matter of speculation seems quite wrong. So I vote 'No' to colourisation of this image. --TedColes (talk) 07:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Legacy and summary style

I propose the creation of an article such as Legacy of Alan Turing, in accordance with summary style (WP:SUMMARY). A significant portion of this article is taken up by relatively unimportant aspects of his legacy that are making the page longer than necessary. If no one objects, I might do so in a week or so. Outriggr (talk) 11:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

May a photo of Christopher Morcom be added?

Although Christopher Morcom is one of those people who is only remembered by anyone in the general public due to his association with another, because he had such a profound influence on the life of Mr. Turing (which justifies, I suppose, his being mentioned in this article at all let alone having a subsection), might it not be appropriate to add a photograph of him in that subsection? Below is the link to one such photo available online taken in 1926 when Mr. Morcom had been a schoolboy. It is my understanding (from Wikipedia itself) that a photo enters the public domain after fifty years, so presumably this would not raise copyright concerns. The photo is from his school’s archives.

If others like this suggestion (just that, hardly grist for an edit war :) ), I shall have to leave it to another to actually place the photo as I lack the technical expertise. Anyway, as I said it’s just a suggestion and I thank any for considering it.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/91268329926182375/HistoryBuff14 (talk) 20:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

P.S. One can click on the photo to get a slightly enlarged version of it and see its source.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I know that in the US, any work published before January 1, 1925, anywhere in the world is in the public domain (Wikipedia's servers are in the US). Unfortunately, I do not know much about this copyright situation and there could be other things I am missing. WP:PD might be able to solve the question as to whether it is in the public domain or those at Wikimedia Commons. If you find it is in the public domain you can upload it here [1]. Regards  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
"For photographs taken before June 1, 1957, Crown copyright expires 50 years after the creation of the image. All such photographs are therefore in the public domain." From Wikipedia Public Domain: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Public_domain#:~:text=For%20photographs%20taken%20before%20June,years%20after%20the%20first%20publication.
As this is an U.K. photo, I don't see a copyright issue as it was taken much closer to 100 years ago than fifty. Still, if someone likes the idea, then I'm afraid he or she shall have to do the required work to add it to the article as I'm older and not at all tech savvy.
Thanks for your input and best!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Unfortunately we cannot upload that image to Wikimedia Commons because it was still copyrighted on January 1, 1996, making the image still copyrighted in the US. We will have to wait about a year and a half from now before we can upload that. FunnyMath (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually we have to wait 2.5 years before we can upload it to the Commons. The photo is dated 1927 at the latest. See [2]. FunnyMath (talk) 09:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand what the copyright laws of the U.S. have to do with a photo taken in the U. K., what 1996 has to do with anything, and perhaps most of all, why the photo of Mr. Turing is okay but not that of Mr. Morcom as the latter is somewhat older than the former and both are U. K. photos, Mr. Turing's being a passport photo: From a Google search:
"The UK Passport (the Passport) is subject to Crown copyright protection under section 163 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. This means that it may not lawfully be reproduced without the prior permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office."
May I assume either whomever posted Mr. Turing's passport photo in the article either got the written permission to do so from the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office or else, in accordance with U.K. copyright law, because it is over fifty years old it is therefore is in the public domain...exactly as the photo of Mr. Morcom is?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
P. S., If the photo is under copyright protection in the United States, I found the following online:
“Under current U.S. law, for any unpublished work created before 1 January 1978, the copyright lasts for the lifetime of the creator plus 70 years.”
https://www.legalgenealogist.com/2012/03/06/copyright-and-the-old-family-photo/#:~:text=Under%20current%20U.S.%20law%2C%20for,No.
Does this mean that it must be known who actually took the school photo of Mr. Morcom and his classmates and when he died before determining when it entered or enters the public domain? If so, that seems a nearly impossible hurdle to overcome if the photographer is unknown or obscure or the principal of the company he worked for, if applicable. (At another site, it is indicated that the person who takes a photo is considered the copyright owner.
"Copyright is a property right. Under the Federal Copyright Act of 1976, photographs are protected by copyright from the moment of creation. According to the U.S. Copyright Office, the owner of the 'work' is generally the photographer or, in certain situations, the employer of the photographer."HistoryBuff14 (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Lots of good questions. I will answer each of them.
Why do we consider US copyright for non-US works?
Wikimedia Commons' servers are located in the US, so the website must comply with US copyright law. A non-US work is allowed if and only if it is in the public domain in the US and the country of origin of the work. There existed an exception to this, which I will answer later.
Do we need to know the name of the photographer and his date of death?
No. UK copyright law specifically covers the case where the author is unknown. If the author of a photo is unknown, then one way the photo can enter the UK public domain is when it was made available to the public more than 70 years ago (before January 1, 1950). I will explain what "made available to the public" means later. US copyright law indicates that the photo enters the US public domain after more than 95 years since its initial publication, regardless of whether the author is known or not.
What does 1996 have to do with the copyright of the Morcom photo?
Due to the URAA, a US law, if a non-US work was still copyrighted in its country of origin on January 1, 1996, the work's US copyright was restored. The Morcom photo appears to be cropped from a larger photo of Morcom with his other classmates. Based upon this circumstantial evidence and the photo being dated 1927 at the latest, I assume that the larger photo (and by corollary, the Morcom photo) was made available to the public no later than 1927. When I say "made available to the public", I mean the photo was either:
1. displayed at an exhibition. There may have only been one copy of the photo and it was displayed on a wall at the school.
2. published. The photo may have been published such that Morcom and his classmates each got a copy of the photo.
There exists a non-zero probability that the work was not made available to the public by 1927 since we do not have direct evidence, but I believe that it is safe to assume the following:
P1. The photo was made available to the public by 1927.
It is also safe to assume that the photographer was anonymous. The photo was published on an official website of Sherborne School. Thus if the photographer was known, their name would have been provided. Since the name was not provided, the photographer is unknown by contraposition. Thus the following can be safely assumed:
P2. The photographer is anonymous.
Again, I am using circumstantial evidence, not direct evidence to justify P2. There is a non-zero probability that P2 is wrong.
Given P1 and P2, the photo would be certainly in the UK public domain after about 70 years since 1927. Thus its UK copyright would certainly expire on January 1, 1998. It would still have UK copyright on January 1, 1996 (even if we assume the photo was made available to the public in 1926, the lower bound). Therefore the US copyright on the photo was restored. The US copyright on the photo will certainly expire on January 1, 2023, when about 95 years has passed since its publication. Thus we have a photo that is in the public domain in the UK but has US copyright.
Is the Turing photo a passport photo?
There is no reliable source indicating that the photo was part of a passport. The description page of the photo lacks a source for stating that it was a passport photo. If we look at [3], we see a second Turing photo that is extremely similar to the original Turing photo in question. Since the second Turing photo was published on an official website of Sherborne School, it is safe to conclude that the photo was commissioned by the school. By corollary (since the second and original are so similar), the original photo must have also been commissioned by the school. The second photo was dated 1928 and by corollary, the original photo must be dated 1928 as well. Since the original photo was commissioned by the school and the name of the photographer is not provided, P1 (substituting 1928 for 1927) and P2 apply to the Turing photo as well. Since I disproved that the Turing photo is a passport photo, Crown Copyright is a non-issue.
Why keep the Turing photo but not the Morcom photo?
Until January 2012, some believed that the URAA violated the US Constitution and was thus invalid. Wikimedia Commons allowed users to upload files that would have been free of US copyright if the URAA did not exist. Due to Golan v. Holder, the constitutionality of the URAA was upheld, validating the law. Thus Commons no longer allows files that have restored US copyright from the URAA. However, such files that were uploaded prior to the case decision were kept. The Turing photo, given that P1 (substituting 1928 for 1927) and P2 hold, would have its UK copyright certainly expire on January 1, 1999. Thus the Turing photo had UK copyright on January 1, 1996 and its US copyright was restored. The US copyright for the Turing photo will expire on January 1, 2024, when over 95 years has passed since its initial publication. The photo was uploaded on November 2012, after the case was decided. Thus technically the Turing photo should not have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. However, Commons states that "[a] mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion." [4] Thus I am unsure whether the photo should be deleted or not. However, it is absolutely certain that the Morcom photo cannot be uploaded.
Feel free to ask more questions if you need to. FunnyMath (talk) 03:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@talkNo further questions. I must bow to your obvious expertise in the area of photographic copyright laws and perhaps copyright laws in general. I don’t know if this is your profession, i.e., you’re a copyright lawyer, or you just picked up this astonishing erudition on the subject due to your apparent interest in the subject (perhaps bred from your interest in Wikipedia). Whatever might be the case, it is impressive!
I certainly don’t want Mr. Turing’s photo taken down. I was just inquiring about it for the reasons indicated. By the way, I agree that his photo here looks more like a portrait than a passport photo, but that is what the description indicates so that is what I accepted.
Thanks again and, by way of suggestion, you might want to copy and paste this most informative answer on your user page for the benefit of others who might see it and as a spot to refer people like me you might encounter in the future with similar questions. The time you must have spent on this is most appreciated. Please know that and very best regards!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem. Glad to help you with this. I self-learned copyright law almost exclusively through Wikimedia Commons so I can upload files on there.
I want to update on the Turing photo. The photographer may not be anonymous. If we see [5] on page 4, the photographer is named "Chaffin of Sherborne". I am unable to find the death date of Chaffin, so I am unsure what to make of that. I think it is best if we contact the School Archivist via [6] to see if they know the photographer's name, death date, and publication date for the Turing photo and the Morcom photo. FunnyMath (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
http://www.yeovilhistory.info/chaffin-john.htm
This is a photography studio named after its founder. The photographer(s) who actually took the photos are probably not relevant. Rather, it was perhaps the owner of the studio at the time of the shots who owned the copyrights. This is, at least, what I gathered from what I posted above. This seems strange to me as one would think the copyright would belong to the party paying for it, in this case, the school. But from a personal experience I once had in Oregon, I rather think this is correct. I went to a photographer to make a copy of s school photograph for me and he said he wasn't supposed to do that as it wasn't his original.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
That link you provided states "It was around [1881] that John's cousin, William Mathew [sic] Chaffin (1831-1903), established a photographic studio in Sherborne, Dorset, and he was later joined by his son William (b1861) and grandsons John (d1916) and Arthur (b1894)."[1] The photography studio in Sherborne that William Matthew Chaffin founded is not a branch of the John Chaffin & Sons studio, but an entirely different studio called W.M. Chaffin & Sons according to [7] on page 47.[2] It is extremely likely that it was a photographer from W.M. Chaffin & Sons studio that took the Turing photo. The magazine article even says "Today, many fine examples of Chaffin photographs can be found in the collections held by Sherborne Museum and Sherborne School Archives...".[2] From the two sources we have about Chaffin, we have the following people who were part of W.M. Chaffin & Sons:
  • William Matthew Chaffin, founder (1831-1903)[1][2]
  • George William Chaffin, involved in printing (1859-1929)[2]
  • William Matthew Chaffin Jr, assistant photographer (1861-1937)[1][2]
  • Arthur Reginald "Reggie" Chaffin, (1893-1954)[1][2]
  • John, (?-1916)?[1]
Wililam Sr. had eight children and at least two worked as part of the studio.[2] They were William Jr. and George William.[2] William Sr. had a grandson named John (?-1916)? who also worked in the studio.[1] I am not sure if "(d1916)" is a typo or not and the author meant "(b1916)". William Jr. took his father's position following his death on June 23, 1903.[2] By 1935, William Jr. was succeeded by his son Arthur Reginald "Reggie" (1893-1954).[2]
Since William Sr. died before the Turing photo was taken in 1928, we can rule him out as a photographer. We can also probably rule out George William since he was involved in printing and there is no indication that he was involved as a photographer. That leaves the last three items on the bullet list above as potential candidates. Since the magazine source states "at least two" of William Sr.'s children worked in the studio, we have his other six children as candidates as well. I will contact the School Archivist later and see if they know the specific Chaffin who took the Turing photo as well as information on the Morcom photo. FunnyMath (talk) 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f http://www.yeovilhistory.info/chaffin-john.htm
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h i j https://issuu.com/glenncoombsshelleys/docs/web_june19
Thank you and good luck!HistoryBuff14 (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020

Where his court trial was. KindleFox1 (talk) 08:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC) ~KindleFox1

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2020 (2)

New 2021 note with him featured on it. KindleFox1 (talk) 09:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2021

Category:Fellows of King's College London

Alan Turing was a fellow of King's college. QuirijnKaya (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, he was. The article currently says this: "n 1935, at the age of 22, he was elected a Fellow of King's College on the strength of a dissertation in which he proved the central limit theorem." Martinevans123 (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
He also has the category already, which I think was the request. But Cambridge not London as above. Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2021

On the first line, make the word "mathematician" a hyperlink to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Mathematician. Ekztes (talk) 03:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done 54nd60x (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Saved 14 million lives? Shortened the war by 2 years?

How can this rubbish be allowed in the lede? The Allies would still have developed atomic weapons by 1945. 31.53.205.242 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why you start off a discussion by criticizing only a part of a sentence. "Rubbish"? Really? Might you have an axe to grind? To answer your question, the paragraph presents properly sourced—and qualified—information. What do you want to do about it, other than gripe? Please keep in mind, though, that changes to Wikipedia articles must reflect verifiable (see WP:V), notable (see WP:N) information presented from a neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), gleaned from a reliable source (see WP:RS). — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
It's just speculation by one writer, and it cannot be proved one way or another. It should be removed from the lede. I could claim Turing shortened the war by 50 years and saved 500 million lives, and it would be worth no more than his opinion. The fact is the United States would still have developed atomic weapons by 1945 using the Manhattan Project. Since nobody knew about the radiation fallout the Allies would have used atomic weapons in Germany if the war in Europe had lasted for longer. (31.53.205.155 (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
If it's in the lead section, it should also be somewhere in the main body. It can't be just in the lead, even with a source. It could be re-cast as a quote, clearly attributed to Jack Copeland, but I note that he is a philosopher not a historian. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
It should either be moved to the main body, or better yet deleted altogether as it's just baseless speculation by someone who isn't even a historian. (31.53.205.155 (talk) 18:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC))
How do you now that Copeland hasn't based his comment on historical research? It looks like he may have just taken the average number people killed per year, across the six years. But we don't know. The full statement, published by BBC News, is slightly more balanced:
"If U-boat Enigma had not been broken, and the war had continued for another two to three years, a further 14 to 21 million people might have been killed.
"Of course, even in a counterfactual scenario in which Turing was not able to break U-boat Enigma, the war might still have ended in 1945 because of some other occurrence, also contrary-to-fact, such as the dropping of a nuclear weapon on Berlin. Nevertheless, these colossal numbers of lives do convey a sense of the magnitude of Turing's contribution."
Martinevans123 (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
This topic is handled in more detail in the Ultra article both in its lede and then in its "Effect on the war" section. So in my view this article itself shouldn't delve into the speculation but rather refer to that article. Of course this article should still stress the major role that Turing played in Ultra. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
The source of this assertion is undoubtedly Professor Sir Harry Hinsley who edited the multi-volume official history British Intelligence in the Second World War. In Hinsley, Harry (1996) [1993], The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War the transcript of a lecture given on Tuesday 19 October 1993 at Cambridge University, he said "My own conclusion is that it shortened the war by not less that two years and probably by four years" although in Hinsley, F.H.; Stripp, Alan, eds. (1993) [1992], Codebreakers: The inside story of Bletchley Park, Oxford: Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-280132-6 he did say "Counter-factual history is a difficult excercise, not to say a dubious one". --TedColes (talk) 06:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley's speculation did not take into account the Manhattan Project. (31.49.209.27 (talk) 11:42, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
The lecture had this exchange:
Q. Is it not the case that the arrival of the atom bomb in 1945 would have bought a quicker solution?
A. This is a problem because strict, sensible, proper counter-factual history can't really take into account something like that. It is speculation. But of course if my scenario is right and the war was still struggling on and we had the bomb which presumably we would still have had, the problem of whether to drop it on Germany would have arisen. And in some respects the dropping of it on Germany would be more justified than the dropping of it on Japan because Japan was visibly on her knees when we dropped it on her, but in my scenario Germany would have been far from on her knees. So yes the prospects of it being dropped as the solution are quite high. I would mention it in a speculative scenario.
Martinevans123 (talk) 12:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Even without Enigma the Germans never had enough fuel to wage an effective U-Boat campaign, so the country would still have been militarily defeated by 1945. Since the claim that Turing shortened the war by two years cannot be proven it should be removed from the lede, and possibly from the article altogether. (86.131.7.7 (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
Comments by notable experts need not be "proven", or in any way "true", to appear in an article. They are just (attributed) comments. They may be opinions. They may be carefully analysed assessments. They may be lies. They are still just comments. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley's writings on the subject, and the conclusions he drew, have been widely criticised and even debunked in many cases. (86.131.7.7 (talk) 17:07, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
If you have good sources for the criticism/ debunking, there may be a case for adding a counter claim for balance. Or, if they are overwhelming, to delete the comments altogether, as you suggest. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
He was criticised by Marian Rejewski and Gordon Welchman, who took exception to inaccuracies in Hinsley's accounts of the history of Enigma decryption in the early volumes of his official history, including crucial errors in chronology. (86.131.7.7 (talk) 17:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
I see. Then I guess we'd need some primary sources from Marian Rejewski and Gordon Welchman, or maybe some secondary source(s) that mention them. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley overstated Turing's role, and his book is not a reliable source. (86.131.7.7 (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
You can raise that concern at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Disputed edit

OP blocked as a sock of HarveyCarter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The suggestion that Turing shortened the war by two years and saved 14 million lives is pure speculation by one man, and in any case ignores the fact that the Allies would still have developed atomic weapons by 1945. It should not be in the lede. (Westerhaley (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC))

It was the official war historian Prof Harry Hinsley who made this statement about the whole Bletchley Park military intelligence factory. --TedColes (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
And? It's just speculation and can't be proved one way or another. It's also overlooking the Manhattan Project. Since it is nowhere else in the article it certainly should not be in the lede. (Westerhaley (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
Your counter-argument is just speculation. Based off your own logic, your point should be ignored.
You removed a sourced statement from a reputable source, because you don't like it. The statement should be in the article, it does not necessarily have to be the lead. However, you removed it completely.
Section renamed, because it was disingenuous, to something more appropriate.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 18:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Turing's work has been massively overstated. Poland was far more important with Enigma. The fact is he did not shorten the war or save any lives. The Allies had all the advantages in numbers, resources, industrial capacity etc and they would still have developed atomic weapons long before the Axis. (Westerhaley (talk) 18:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
That looks like a lot of speculation from just one guy...Thetweaker2017 (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The Axis was never close to developing atomic weapons at any stage. (Westerhaley (talk) 18:29, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
It is an estimation attributed by subject expert, so not really "false infomation". Although it should be added somewhere in the main body since lead summarises the body.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
It definitely should not be in the lede as it is demonstrably false. Turing did not shorten the war by two years as the Americans would still have developed atomic weapons by the summer of 1945. (Westerhaley (talk) 18:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
"Demonstrably false" is inaccurate to say the least. He are attributing a subject expert. His expert estimation is true for his own estimation which we attribute. I.e. we are saying Professor Jack Copeland has estimated that this work shortened the war in Europe by more than two years and saved over 14 million lives. We are not saying: His work shortened the war in Europe by more than two years and saved over 14 million lives." [CITE Copeland]. There is a big difference between the two.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Other than the talkpage speculation, where is the evidence to back up the claim it is demonstrably false? Or is speculating about atomic weapons the evidence?Thetweaker2017 (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
The Allies would have used atomic weapons in Germany in 1945. (Westerhaley (talk) 19:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC))
How would they have done that? They only had two -- and they used them both on Japan. But the point is moot; as you yourself said, the Allies had all the advantages in numbers, resources, industrial capacity etc. -- no need to pile on with atomic bombs. And as others have pointed out, we are only reporting one expert's well-sourced opinion, not offering that opinion in WP's own voice. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 19:27, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
So no evidence Westerhaley, just speculation. However, Dr JoeE is spot on. I do believe wiki has all sorts of guidelines about this like this.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 19:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
We go by what reliable subject experts say.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
This topic is handled in more detail in the Ultra article both in its lede and then in its "Effect on the war" section. So in my view this article itself shouldn't delve into the speculation but rather should refer to that article. Of course this article should still stress the major role that Turing played in Ultra. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Atomic weapons would have been used over Germany instead of Japan. If Churchill had not wasted resources invading Italy, and if Patton's Third Army had been given the resources of Market Garden, the war in Europe would have ended in 1944. (Westerhaley (talk) 11:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC))
If, if, if, and if. Speculation abounds. No serious historian believes the war would have ended if either the British or the American narrow thrust option had been followed. There is a US post-war report that speculates that the Japanese didn't surrender due to the atomic bombings. Historians have also noted the multitude of reasons why they did surrender. Your responses are nothing but speculation upon speculation, with what end exactly? Your speculation doesn't undermine the source used; your speculation does not discredit the subject matter expert either.
If that subject matter expert believes that Turing impact was that broad, it should at least be mentioned in this article.Thetweaker2017 (talk) 12:04, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
In the article yes, but not in the lede where it is POV and out of place. (Westerhaley (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC))

Update, Bank of England

The Bank of England has unveiled the new £50 note featuring mathematician and computer science pioneer Alan Turing, who helped the Allies win World War II with his code-breaking prowess but died an outcast after facing government persecution over his homosexuality. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981242121/new-u-k-currency-honors-alan-turing-pioneering-computer-scientist-and-code-break

The banknote was issued on 23 June 2021, and the future tense reference to this in the intro paragraph should be updated: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57554102.

Mr Turing's image joins that of Winston Churchill on the five-pound note, novelist Jane Austen on the 10-pound note and artist JMW Turner on the 20-pound note. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-26/alan-turing-honoured-uk-50-pound-note/100032362 Peter K Burian (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Demande de modification semi-protégée le 28 mars 2021

 22:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Cause du décès : Suicide (contesté) par intoxication au cyanure

Why is this in French? Peter K Burian (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

 Already done — IVORK Talk 00:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on rewrting/reorganising the lead?

Per MOS:LEADLENGTH the lead should be about 4 paragraphs at most, currently we have 6. In addition, none of his Early life is covered in the lead. Thoughts?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I personally don't understand why two paragraphs are needed for the war effort. They could probably be shortened down to 1-2 sentences each in the same paragraph. But I think a summary of Turing's significance might need to be a bit longer than average because of his multifaceted impact on history between the war efforts themselves, to the field of cryptography and applied mathematics, impact on computer science and computing, and significance to gay rights and the associated legal history and the political impact to later come from those events, all four of which are totally orthogonal and each of which could be the bulk of a lead-in for an individual only involved in the given notable events. I would compare this to a degree of a polymath who had impact in many areas like da Vinci, who has a five paragraph lead-in. I am not sure his early life is really significant for a lead in as while it was impressive it had minimal direct historical impact, and should probably just be covered later. KitsuneLogic (talk) 02:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Was he prosecuted as the lead says ... or persecuted? I could provide hundreds of citations that confirm he was persecuted. Here are just a few:
after facing government persecution over his homosexuality. https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981242121/new-u-k-currency-honors-alan-turing-pioneering-computer-scientist-and-code-break National Public Radio, USA.
Jeremy Fleming, the director of GCHQ, said: “Turing was embraced for his brilliance and persecuted for being gay. The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/25/gchq-releases-most-difficult-puzzle-ever-in-honour-of-alan-turing
"Turing was embraced for his brilliance and persecuted for being gay, BBC https://www.bbc.com/news/business-56503741
The British computer scientist is known for cracking German codes during the war and was later persecuted for being gay. United Press International https://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2021/03/25/britain-bank-england-alan-turing-50/2381616683932/

Peter K Burian (talk) 12:28, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I mean, both.
Court files recording details of World War Two code-breaker Alan Turing's convictions for homosexual acts have gone on display for the first time. One of the documents, to be displayed at Chester Town Hall, shows the mathematician admitted "acts of gross indecency" at a trial in 1952. He then underwent chemical castration. Helen Pickin-Jones, chair of Chester Pride, said: "Just a few simple lines of text reveal the appalling treatment of one of our national heroes." https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-manchester-37443639 KitsuneLogic (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
I did rewrite the lead, still can probably improved tried to include a bit of early life and education and more of his legacy.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The lead is too long

This should all go into a later section. Do you agree 

  After the war, Turing worked at the National Physical Laboratory, where he designed the Automatic Computing Engine. The Automatic Computing Engine was one of the first designs for a stored-program computer. In 1948, Turing joined Max Newman's Computing Machine Laboratory, at the Victoria University of Manchester, where he helped develop the Manchester computers[15] and became interested in mathematical biology. He wrote a paper on the chemical basis of morphogenesis[1] and predicted oscillating chemical reactions such as the Belousov–Zhabotinsky reaction, first observed in the 1960s.

Peter K Burian (talk) 23:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that material needs to be in the lede. Attic Salt (talk) 20:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
+1 --Präziser (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

new 50-pound bank note

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/news/2019/july/50-pound-banknote-character-announcement

... is now 'on the market'. --Präziser (talk) 07:03, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2021

In the second paragraph, there is a sentence that states "shortly after during". This is incorrect. 2604:3D09:A57F:D560:B1E8:D8D:FD15:1730 (talk) 04:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:36, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Postnomial size

I find the default 85% size to be fine and propose that it be maintained as is. But as there is at least one editor in opposition who is apparently ready to edit-war over it, let's form a new consensus about this. Skyerise (talk) 14:45, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Boys

Why does the article not mention Turing liked young boys? (Hefrrre118 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC))

Maybe because there's no evidence? But I guess we could mention the Pet Shop Boys: [8]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
He was in his late thirties and was known for being sexually attracted to underage boys. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)) p.s. the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16, and so in 1952 19-year-old Arnold Murray, who was prosecuted alongside Turing, was far from being a "young boy" or below the legal age of consent.
He was in his late thirties, for about three years, after June 1939? Can you provide a reliable source for that claim? Known by whom exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Do you have any reliable sources to back up such a claim?  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 14:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
His paedophilia was discussed extensively in the biography I read. Turing preferred boys of 11 and 12. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC))
So which biography did you read? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I will look for it again. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC))
Chapter and page numbers would be useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Also nice to see your back editing again, Martin. :).  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 20:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Oooh, thanks so much. In that case, I'd better watch out, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

There are several grammatical errors "organisation" "optimise"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:c200:c690:d5c4:62f7:7ace:e74d (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's spelling, not grammar. And they're not errors. Those are two spelling variants commonly used in British English. Turing was British and the article is written in British English. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Jack Copeland's view on Enigma shortening the war by two years should mention that the Allies would still have developed atomic weapons in 1945 using the Manhattan Project. 86.151.111.67 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2021 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The war would still have ended in 1945 due to the Allies using atomic weapons. The claim by Copeland is misleading and demonstrably false. (86.151.111.67 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC))
World War II was actually two very distinct wars: the European Theater, against Germany, and the Pacific Theater, against Japan. Cracking Enigma helped to end the war in Europe but would have done nothing to end the war in the Pacific. And it is highly unlikely that the US would have dropped nuclear weapons in Europe: there was considerable racism involved in the US' choice of target.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Germany was closely allied with Japan from 1940 onwards. Atomic weapons would most certainly have been used in Germany in 1945. There was considerable anti-German racism. (Angustyre (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
I think we're straying a little away from Jack Copeland here, and especially from Turing? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The fact is that the Allies would have developed atomic weapons in 1945 regardless of Enigma, and if the war in Europe had not ended in May they would most certainly have used them in Germany. (Angustyre (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC))
I think you'll find that's not a "fact" at all, but rather a personal opinion or, at best, an informed guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree completely -- I would refer Angustyre and other speculators to counterfactual history. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 16:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
The Allies had firebombed Dresden, Cologne, Berlin etc and would not have thought twice about using atomic weapons if the war in Europe had lasted for a few more months. (Angustyre (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC))
Now you tell us about the thought processes of the Allies 60 years ago? Have you tried tarot, scrying or the ouija yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Copeland was quoting official war historian Professor Harry Hinsley --TedColes (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley evidently failed to take the Manhattan Project into account. (Angustyre (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC))

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

The 14 million figure should be removed from the lede as it was agreed on the talk page that it is POV, ignores the Soviet contribution, and ignores the Manhattan Project. Herm12 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Much as I tend to agree with you, I'm not sure that the discussion in the thread directly above this one has yet come to any clear conclusion about the consensus for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
The claim has been debunked. (Herm12 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC))
Did you know one of our earlier contributors, only 10 days ago, said "The talk page on Alan Turing now accepts I was correct all along, and that the ridiculous "14 million" figure should be removed from the lede as it ignored the Soviet contribution." And he was blocked. Do take care. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Change "committed suicide" to "died by suicide". 173.66.210.129 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Current consensus allowed either phrase. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Flowers

Flowers was far more important than Turing, who was often mistakenly attributed with Flowers' achievements. (Herm12 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC))

Do you have some WP:RS source(s) for that claim? Tommy Flowers is mentioned and linked in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I have multiple sources for this. It is yet another reason why the ridiculous and misleading "14 million lives" claim should be removed from the lede. (Herm12 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC))
I suspect this topic might be better covered at Tommy Flowers. But if you have multiple sources, you might wish to share the best of them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley

Since this is just an estimate by one person it should be removed from the lede as it's just speculation. (Angustyre (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC))

No objection. Also unsure about the preceding sentence which introduces it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, both are out of place in the lede. (Angustyre (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC))
I think the lede is meant to summarise the entire article, not cherry-pick items that are copied verbatim. I guess Harry Hinsley was "an expert", but "two years and saved over 14 million lives" was just his unverifiable opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Respectfully disagree. His opinion is verifiable in the sense we can verify it from him (an expert on the subject), but obviously since this is an expert estimation we will never "truly" know the answer. However, as far as I know most experts generally agree with the fact his efforts would have significantly reduced war and saved lives. If that is not the case then we should we remove it per undue weight. An alternative, could perhaps saying something like "experts estimate he significantly reduced length of the war and saved millions of lives" (without direct attribution to a specific expert, like Hinsley). Then subsquently having an efn detailing experts estimations and in the body as well.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 01:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't think this should be in the lead. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. Two years seems to be puffery, coming from someone who worked there. Is there any standard history of WW2 that says this? The implication is that the Red Army would have got to Berlin two years later if not for Turing, but I've never heard anything like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It is in the body of the article. Happy to scan for more expert opinions though.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
If anything it's an underestimate. It's one of his more remarkable achievements. It should be in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not "an achievement", it's an historical theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
A theory shared on the whole by those limited number of people who knew about his role at the time before it was made public. Skyerise (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes. And like most historical theories it's wholly unverifiable. I've no problem with Hinsley's estimate being mentioned in the text, with the accompanying qualification. But I think the lead section ought to stick to facts. It says more about Hinsley than it does about Turing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe you should start a proper RfC then... Skyerise (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, maybe Angustyre, who opened this discussion thread, would like to start a proper RfC then...? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The Red Army would have reinvaded Poland in 1944-45 without Enigma, and the Manhattan Project would have ended the war by the summer of 1945 regardless of Enigma. (Angustyre (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC))
Yes, maybe. It's all maybes. On either side. That's why we should steer clear of this territory, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Speculation does not belong in the lede. However, even without Enigma helping the western Allies, the Soviet Union would still have defeated Germany by 1945. (Angustyre (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC))
It's not speculation. It's a cited informed historical opinion. What you're doing above is speculation. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
It's not informed at all. How could the war have lasted for over two more years when the Allies had atomic weapons by the early summer of 1945? (Angustyre (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC))
Your personal view that the expert is wrong is completely irrelevant. Please stop arguing over "but they would have made atmoic weapons by then" it does not matter. Your personal view on this history is not a reliable source. We go by what the experts say. Give me reliable subject experts please, not your own personal view.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 22:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley was not an expert. How could the war have lasted for more than two more years when the Allies had atomic weapons in 1945? (Angustyre (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC))
And you're even less of an expert. Either start an RfC or get off the pot. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm more of an expert than he was because I know about the Manhattan Project. (Angustyre (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC))
And I'm more of an expert than Angustyre, because I know all about pots! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Angustyre: More knowledge doesn't make someone more expert. That's a ludicrous thing to say. Another thing you have no expertise at is Wikipedia. In an editing situation like this, where other editors disagree with you, the article stays as it is until you show that there is a consensus for the change. That almost never happens in long-winded free discussion like this. If you won't open an RfC, you may as well go edit something else, because the article won't be changing any time soon unless you show a clear consensus for your change. Skyerise (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. Did you even look at the date of the reference? It's from a lecture given in 1993. So spare me your facetious claim that the expert didn't know about the Manhattan Project. Any opinion after August 6, 1945 would have included that knowledge. Skyerise (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I used to have a little knowledge, but I gave it up in order to edit Wikipedia... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
You just gotta love Groucho! Skyerise (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, this is a classic case of an inexhaustible source of folly: I can't possibly be wrong, so everyone else must be. Angustyre, the consensus is clearly against you -- so unless you want to open an RfC, as suggested multiple times, please give it a rest. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 13:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Several editors in this section agree with me that it should not be in the lede. Aside from atomic weapons the Red Army would still have reached Germany by early 1945 without Enigma helping the western Allies. (Angustyre (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC))
You're hurting your own argument here. Nobody cares what your personal evaluation of Hinsley's estimate is, and you'll get a lot further if you stick with the original point: that it is speculation that doesn't belong in the lede. Personally, I like it in the lede; it gives a good quantitative sense of the impact of Turing's work which is otherwise lacking there. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good. Maybe also looks good, as a rapid take-away soundbite. Except that the "quantitative values" have been arrived at by a single historian's "qualitative judgement". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
True. And I've seen varying numbers, but they mostly seem to be extrapolation on Hinsley's speculations. Perhaps we might make it more concise in the lede? "It is speculated that Turing's work saved many millions of lives by shortening WWII" or something like that. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like Hinsley was the original culprit. In my view, changing to a statement like that would at least be a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I think before changing/removing it we need to scan further out on what more experts actually say, before we start changing it. If you give me some time I can do that, remember we have no deadlines here on Wiki.  Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 18:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
No objection. If you manage to decipher all the sources, who knows, you might save us two years of further discussion! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
I just began Clay Blair’s excellent book, Hitler’s U-Boat War, and what I've found so far is a detailed account of how the Allies were able to use Enigma intercepts to make adjustments to the courses of convoys to avoid U-Boat packs. Many trips were made without a single U-Boat contact owing to course or speed changes courtesy of Enigma intercepts. Hopefully I will be able to distill some of this into something useful for the article. DoctorJoeE Stalk/Talk 19:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's work out the language here; clearly the "atomic bomb" stuff does not belong. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Atomic bombs would have been used on Germany if the war had lasted for a few more months, and the Red Army was already in eastern Germany by 1945 regardless of Enigma. The Battle of the Atlantic did not require Enigma as Germany did not have a large surface fleet or enough fuel for its U-Boats. (Angustyre (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
So, Churchill had that all planned out and agreed with FDR? I don't see any mention in End of World War II in Europe or Operation Unthinkable? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
FDR had died in April 1945 and Operation Unthinkable was devised in May, after VE Day. (Angustyre (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
That's true. But I think FDR knew all about the Manhattan Project? Maybe I should have said Harry S. Truman (who was "uninformed about major initiatives relating to the war and the top-secret Manhattan Project")?? I know WP is not RS, but by all means show us the article(s) where the plan to A-bomb the bunker is discussed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Churchill was openly in favour of using atomic weapons in Germany, despite Eden's reservations. (Angustyre (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
This has nothing to do with Turing or this article. If you have a reliable source linking Turing, Hinsley's analysis, and the planned use of nuclear weapons, present it. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion and is not welcome either here or in the article. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 13:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
I would like it if someone could answer how the war in Europe could have lasted for more than two years after the Allies had developed atomic weapons? (Angustyre (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
You're not going to get that here, and I'll recommend you be blocked from this talk page if you continue with this tendentious approach. It's now just wasting our time. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Concur with Jpgordon, it has been explained already your own personal interpretation/view surrounding said estimation it not relevant and not how Wikipedia works. Either drop the stick or find experts... Spy-cicle💥  Talk? 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hitler could have eaten magical fairydust and built a command centre on the moon.... i.e. no-one will ever know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley is not an expert. His work is outdated and has been debunked. (Angustyre (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
The Harry Hinsley article says: "He was criticised by Marian Rejewski and Gordon Welchman, who took exception to inaccuracies in Hinsley's accounts of the history of Enigma decryption..." But there's nothing about "debunking". If you have good sources, maybe you should it to that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
His writings on Enigma were debunked as factually worthless and historically incorrect. His opinion should not be included in the lede of this article. (Angustyre (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
If what you say is accurate, then the Harry Hinsley article needs some serious re-writing. Sounds like we've found just the editor to tackle that job. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
He tried to credit Turing for Poland's achievements with Enigma. (Angustyre (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
Angustyre, you seem utterly bereft of any sources to support your many claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley credited Turing with Poland's achievements: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28167071 (Angustyre (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC))
Errm, it's shame that source doesn't actually mention Hinsley by name? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
The claim that Bletchley Park shortened the war by two years is really fringe. Standard accounts of the war do no say this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Quite. And the claim promoted here is not for Bletchley Park, but for Turing alone? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The reference is to Professor Sir Harry Hinsley's talk in 1993 (Hinsley, Harry (1996) [1993], The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War – Transcript of a lecture given on Tuesday 19 October 1993 at Cambridge University) under the title "The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War". In it he said:

Now the question remains how much did it shorten the war, leaving aside the contribution made to the campaigns in the Far East on which the necessary work hasn't been done yet. My own conclusion is that it shortened the war by not less that two years and probably by four years - that is the war in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and Europe.

Turing's work on the Bombe undoubtedly contributed greatly to the total Ultra process, but there were many other sources of information. My view is that it is funamentally important to stick to reliable citeable sources and that it would be reasonable to credit Turing with a major contribution to Ultra, and cite Hinsley's two year figure. --TedColes (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote and it's source. And the "14 million lives"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
The Allies had atomic weapons by 1945, and the Red Army would still have reached Poland in 1944. Claiming Turing shortened the war by four years is even more ludicrous than the two year figure. The 14 million lives should certainly not be mentioned as it cannot be proven one way or another, and is based on the estimate of one person whose work is outdated and debunked. (Angustyre (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC))
Just for you?
Angustyre, you seem to be determined to keep digging your own debunker here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hitler moved into his bunker in January 1945 because the war was almost over. I would like to know how it would have lasted for another four years? (Angustyre (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC))
What a clear case of WP:IDHT. You are now blocked from this talk page and this article. Enjoy yourself elsewhere. --jpgordon𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Hinsley's talk indicates he is principally talking about the British war effort [but not the Far East]. This is his response to the question about the atomic bomb:This is a problem because strict, sensible, proper counter-factual history can't really take into account something like that. It is speculation. But of course if my scenario is right and the war was still struggling on and we had the bomb which presumably we would still have had, the problem of whether to drop it on Germany would have arisen. And in some respects the dropping of it on Germany would be more justified than the dropping of it on Japan because Japan was visibly on her knees when we dropped it on her, but in my scenario Germany would have been far from on her knees. So yes the prospects of it being dropped as the solution are quite high. I would mention it in a speculative scenario. In other words, he hasn't really accounted for the atomic bomb in his scenario. He also comments on what would have happened in the war overall without Ultra: My own view is that given that the Soviets survived the German attack and the Americans came in as they did, the combined forces of Russia, America and the British would eventually have won the war. The long term relative strengths of Germany and those three counties were such that Germany was bound to loose in the end. But how lengthily and with what damage and destruction we should have succeeded I don't know. Based on this source, Hinsley has not predicted what would have happened in the wider war. He has not accounted for the atomic bomb being used against Germany; he has not calculated what the Soviet and American forces would have done. Use of his comment in this article is misleading and is not appropriate for a global encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Jack, that's the most enlightening contribution to this entire thread. For me it clinches the argument that the quote is inappropriate, certainly for the lead section, and possibly for the whole article. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
According to the BBC, the official history of GCHQ says that Bletchley Park's role in WW2 is overrated. It would be good to look at the book.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
By the way, the figure of 14 million lives saved comes from an article by Jack Copeland, which was previously used in this article. It doesn't have a global perspective on the war, completely ignoring the Soviet contribution (and it was Soviet troops who captured Berlin). Copeland says, At a conservative estimate, each year of the fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths. 10-14 million were being killed every year in the war, so why use a figure for "the fighting in Europe" (whatever that means)? Again, this is not a global perspective on the war. Copeland adds the caveat: Of course, even in a counterfactual scenario in which Turing was not able to break U-boat Enigma, the war might still have ended in 1945 because of some other occurrence, also contrary-to-fact, such as the dropping of a nuclear weapon on Berlin. Nevertheless, these colossal numbers of lives do convey a sense of the magnitude of Turing's contribution. This parallels the caveat given by Hinsley, who Copeland follows. Their calculations are only valid if Germany wasn't defeated by A-bombs or some other scenario. And as Hinsley says, the likelihood of the A-bomb being used on Germany if Germany hadn't surrendered in 1945 was "quite high". So, by their own accounts, the probability that Turing & Co didn't shorten the war by 2-4 years is "quite high".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Well done, Harry Hinsley. Come back Angustyre, all is forgiven? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
There being no other response to this, I have incorporated Hinsley's comment into the proceeding footnote and removed the figure of 14 million because Hinsley never said it. I think this is just an extension of the Churchill myth. A comment surrounded by caveats in 1993 has become considered an authoritative statement on Turing. I can't see any justification for the view that this is a consensus amongst historians. A more nuanced view is given at the Ultra page.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing information re declassification

The article is information on when and how Turing's work under the OSA were made public. Some too many decades ago, when we studied Turing, these details were unknown. When and by whom was it decided that this information could be declassified? Shouldn't that be in the article? Or if I missed it, let me know where it is... Skyerise (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Official Secrets Act

  • From the lead: Despite these accomplishments, he was never fully recognised in his home country during his lifetime because much of his work was covered by the Official Secrets Act.

This doesn't seem to reflect what's in the article and is a very incomplete explanation (of something that doesn't really need explaining).

  • Turing was never accused of espionage, but in common with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, he was prevented by the Official Secrets Act from discussing his war work. What is this sentence about??? No one said that he was accused of espionage, and as far as I can see, no one said he wanted to discuss his war work.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
I have removed both these sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
And now there's no mention of the Official Secrets Act at all? It's certainly discussed in his biographies and should be in the article somewhere! Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater! His postwar advocacy of the Automatic Computing Engine (ACE), and then his work at Manchester University would have been very different had he been free to talk about what he had leant during the war. --TedColes (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you know what "Turing was never accused of espionage, but in common with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, he was prevented by the Official Secrets Act from discussing his war work" was meant to convey? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@Martinevans123: I think something like the removed sentence should be restored. Perhaps we need to be more explicit about how the threat of the OSA was applied disproportionately to gays due to the threat of blackmail and how for someone like Turing, losing his security clearance effectively ended the viability of his career outside academia. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, maybe it should. But I'm still wondering what that sentence means. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
@TedColes: I agree, and my last edits added a note about that very thing which is why the ACE project stalled. Skyerise (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Those edits have added many references to the OSA, but it still doesn't support what's in the introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
At times like these, I wish Wikipedia had laugh-reacts. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The sentence is really nonsensical: he didn't get "full" recognition (whatever that means) by age 41. Who does? The OSA is just one issue, and it didn't stop him getting an OBE in 1946.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
The sentence is an adequate summary of what the source cited details over a number of paragraphs. Can you show me on the doll where Turing hurt you? Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a reason a young picture of Turning was selected? There seems to be plenty of free-use photos of him at an age he was best known for...

There are two others at Commons File:Alan Turing az 1930-as években.jpg and File:Тьюринг.jpg, which do not seem quite as good quality? But yes, an image of him at the age of 16 may not be the most appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2021

After the UK's exit from the EU, the ERASMUS scheme for students to travel freely across the EU was replaced by scheme named after Alan; The Turing scheme.

This scheme aims to offer students opportunities with countries in the EU and across the world.

This is testament to the respect he's been posthumously given across the UK and the world. 2.31.194.188 (talk) 22:40, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources? Are you suggesting some addition(s)? Thanks Martinevans123 (talk) 22:42, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing/Archive_4&oldid=1172721540"