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.
I doubt that's very relevant to the "Turing was murdered" thesis. The killer could have used cyanide. There's no real evidence for this idea as far as I know. --Trovatore (talk) 17:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I didn't say it wasn't. But it's a sufficiently common one that it wouldn't be surprising if it were what the OP had in mind. --Trovatore (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Well, I've not run into it. I take it that it's the same kind of theory as those surrounding Jack Parsons' death. Now, those theories I believe, but only because I received direct personal reports from someone who was involved in his scene at the time, missing details left out of reports, etc. Skyerise (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
It says he was convicted for sex with a 19-year-old man. What's the difference between a 19-year-old man and a 19-year-old boy? If a celebrated LGBT (add additional letters as you wish) hero has sex with a teenager half his age and easily young enough to be his son, it's a 19-year-old man. Otherwise, it's a 19-year-old boy in most cases on Wikipedia. If I'm wrong, please explain to us the difference between a 19-year-old man and a 19-year-old boy. Thank you. 75.110.102.64 (talk) 23:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2022
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Take out "but it has been noted that the known evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning." from the lead (toward the end, talking of his death). No reliable source has been quoted in the text; Jack Copeland is no expert on potassium cyanide, electroplating, the biological effects of cyanide, toxicology or forensics. WP:UNDUE.04:31, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change "Unknown to the committee, the theorem had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg.[1]" to "Unknown to Turing, the theorem had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg. Despite this, the committee considered the work worthy of consideration for the fellowhsip."
Sources: Prof by Dermot Turing page 69, Alan Turing: The Enigma p 113. (The source cited in the current article refers to a section in Hodges' book which is not relevant to the claim. MasterDexi (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
There was discussion to change a heading from "Conviction for indecency" to "Conviction for homosexuality". Don't want to edit-war, so continuing conversation about this from edits on 29 June 2022:
Quohx
> Change section title from "convicted of indecency" to "convicted of homosexuality" because that's more consistent with the section text (ex: "Homosexual acts were criminal offences in the United Kingdom at that time,[1] and both men were charged with "gross indecency" under Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885.").
Martinevans123
> I understand your argument, but when someone was charged with indecency, they were convicted of indecency; it was (and still is) not possible to prosecute someone for "homosexuality".
Response
I agree he was convicted OF indecency. And FOR "indecency" (the crime). Just not FOR his indecency. He was convicted OF indecency FOR (his admission of) homosexuality.
So the current title is "conviction FOR indecency". I don't like it because it implies that his homosexuality was indecent in the opinion of this article (ex: WP:NPOV).
How about we compromise on, say, "Indecency conviction for homosexuality"? Suggestions welcome. Quohx (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It was not illegal at the time, in England and Wales, to be homosexual. It was illegal to engage in certain sorts of homosexual behavior. Without in any way approving of those particular laws, we do still need to be accurate about what exactly they forbade. --Trovatore (talk) 06:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's not perfect. But no-one would want to change that word to "cooking toads in a cauldron", just to make it less offensive, would they? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Ah yes, agreed, there is also that. Many words have a different meaning in the legal context. But that's not necessarily a good argument for not using them. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
That the "indecency" he was convicted of was for engaging in homosexual acts is important and ought to be reflected in the title. Paul August☎14:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Changed the title to "homosexuality and indecency conviction". I think it's a fair title given that the section also discusses his relationship and sexuality as well as his conviction and castration.
About witchcraft analogy, I agree it's a good analogy. To go a step further, today you wouldn't say someone was convicted "for witchcraft", because that would imply you think witchcraft is real and they were actually doing it. You would say they were convicted "of witchcraft" because that was the name of the crime they were convicted for. At least in US vernacular English. Quohx (talk) 14:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
In the UK that's called a "post-mortem". That's probably the word that should be used in this article as we have {{Use British English|date=June 2020}} (although the suppoprting BBC report never mentions either word). I don't think it's possible to use that post-mortem report as a reference because of WP:PRIMARY. But it is interesting to see what underlies the comments made by Prof Jack Copeland. I assume that the report was not made public at Turing's inquest. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC) p.s. how do we know that image of the report is 100% genuine?
Alan
Born in Maida Vale, London, Turing was raised in southern England. He graduated at King's College, Cambridge, with a degree in mathematics. Whilst he was a fellow at Cambridge, he published a proof demonstrating that some purely mathematical yes–no questions can never be answered by computation and defined a Turing machine, and went on to prove that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable. In 1938, he obtained his PhD from the Department of Mathematics at Princeton University. During the Second World War, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking centre that produced Ultra intelligence. For a time he led Hut 8, the section that was responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. Here, he devised a number of techniques for speeding the breaking of German ciphers, including improvements to the pre-war Polish bomba method, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine. Turing played a crucial role in cracking intercepted coded messages that enabled the Allies to defeat the Axis powers in many crucial engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic.[11][12] 2A02:C7C:664D:A500:34F3:40B5:17A:C754 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
In commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Alan_Turing, it is established that the author of both photos is either William Matthew Chaffin Jr (1861-1937) or Arthur Reginald Chaffin (1893-1954). Copyright term for both the US and UK lasts for the life of the author + 70 years. So both photos became public domain on 1937 + 71 = 2008 or will become public domain on 1954 + 71 = 2025. Thus, the copyright for the two photos will certainly expire on 2025.
I apologize for not having contacted the archivist, as I promised before, in a timely manner. I should have done that a lot sooner and not put it off for such a long time. I have finally contacted the archivist and they provided an email with useful information about the copyright of the two photos. The email is posted with permission in the deletion request link above. FunnyMath (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
2023 Chia Seed Study
I've added information about study "Abstract: F46.00003 : Studying Turing patterns in vegetation." As this study is fairly recent, I have not been able to locate the official scientific journal. Feel free to ping me if my addition doesn't follow scientific journal guidelines & I'll be more than happy to remove, adding again once the official report is made accessible. Porcinipal (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
Not the point. Chemical castration, which was mentioned but not linked, is clearly the more relevant term and article, and well-referenced in relation to Turing. Sterilising him was not at all the aim. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
It's definitely not a "common sense conclusion" that the intent was to prevent homosexuals from reproducing, and I don't think it's true. My understanding was that the intention was to prevent them from engaging in homosexual behavior. Conceivably the fact that it also made it harder for them to father children was a secondary motive, but that would definitely need to be cited. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Why does it require that specific intent?
The page specifies that the rationalization is independent from the concept, there are a lot of rationalisations that were used.
If my government forcibly sterilize someone because a priest has said god judged them, that's still Compulsory sterilization, even if that specific rationalisation wasn't mentioned on the wikipedia page.
You specifically claimed that it was the intent. You said "[s]terilizing homosexuals was, is that not relevant?". You have not even shown that "chemical castration" results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have to proof the sky is blue.
Is there a case where chemical castration by coercive government force is not a subset of sterilization by coercive government force?
Castration (removal of the testicles) of course does cause sterilization, because there are no more sperm. That's obvious. "Chemical castration" is not castration, so it is not obvious that it results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Chemical castration does mention compulsory sterilization, it mentions criminals being able to select it to lower their assigned punishment. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I added a precisely relevant link, which was already referenced, to an article on exactly what was done to Turing, and where the article already mentions Turing. You had added an unreferenced OR link to an article that doesn't even mention the UK, never mind Turing. Enough! Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod Note related edit Special:Diff/1163828782. This appear to fail WP:V, with the first sentence completely unsupported, no mention of his choice between prison and chemical castration, and no label of "compulsory sterilisation" or even his impotence in the provided source. I've opt'd not to revert at this time, but this discussion is spilling across the other two articles as well. Also for disclosure, note this editor has broached this topic in the WP:Discord space and that is how I ended up here, so I won't take action here in view of any canvas concern (or the reverse as the case might be). -- ferret (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2023
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Change “Kjell intend to visit Turing in the UK (…)” to “ Kjell intended to visit Turing in the UK (…)”. This sentence is under personal life, Homosexuality and indecency conviction, paragraph four. Monumanrutan (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
A very questionable source for a significant claim
The "Career and research" section includes this:
"However, official war historian Harry Hinsley estimated that this work shortened the war in Europe by more than two years and saved over 14 million lives."
The source cited for this is a post on CIX, a precursor to the modern internet forums, that claims to be a transcript of a seminar from 1993 by Sir Harry Hinsley, who aside from being a historian also worked at Bletchley Park. The post appears to have been made in 1996 and cites no sources, it's not official and isn't published by either Hinsley or the university where he held the talk.
This all strikes me as some incredibly strange sourcing and I'm not sure this sentence should be included in the article at all. I believe this source fails WP:RS, which states that web forums are rarely regarded as reliable. In this case there is no way to confirm the authenticity of this post or trace the authors.
The claim itself is extremely questionable, and in the post Hinsley is quoted as later admitting that Germany would probably have been nuked in 1945. But that's not even really relevant since there's no way to verify that this post even is a real transcript. A random Web 1.0 forum post really doesn't feel like a source that holds up to Wikipedia standards.
Also the "saved over 14 million lives" part is not mentioned in the post at all.
Looking at the edit history, it seems the actual source from this claim was a newspaper article by Jack Copeland but it was changed on July 3rd 2021 with the reasoning of "Corrected attribution of reduction of war's length" but without actually changing the claims to match what the new source says. Erika1897 (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Poor use of quote
"He accepted the option of injections of what was then called stilboestrol (now known as diethylstilbestrol or DES), a synthetic oestrogen; this feminization of his body was continued for the course of one year. The treatment rendered Turing impotent and caused breast tissue to form, fulfilling in the literal sense Turing's prediction that "no doubt I shall emerge from it all a different man, but quite who I've not found out". Murray was given a conditional discharge."
I think the emboldened quote takes away from the article. It feels too casual and ironic, which I'm not a fan of. This excerpt from Turing's letter would work better if it was used at the beginning of the section discussing Turing's chemical castration, as it depicts his reaction. In that instance, it would be far more relevant. I would also accept this if Andrew Hodges, the author of one of the citations added to this quote, said something to this effect in his book on Turing (though I would still recommend phrasing it differently to show that this is Hodges' own analysis). This isn't the case however, as Hodges shows no signs of interpreting the quote this way. Instead saying:
"The allusion to the traditional syllogism about Socrates, who drank the hemlock, is an extraordinary piece of black humour. (It also stands as a superb example of how Turing himself fused the elements of his life.) The opening of the letter is perhaps equally remarkable in its absurdly off-hand description of six years of crucial wartime work, and in its inexplicable statement that the work had not involved any travelling."
In my opinion, the editor that wrote this part of the article underhandedly inserted their own analysis of the quote, intentionally or not. This is something that I think violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view and general guidelines on quotes.
I apologize if I seem pompous and headstrong, but this part of the article rubbed me the wrong way. I think this quote should probably be included somewhere in the article, as it provides keen insight on Turing's immediate thoughts on his chemical castration, but it should be incorporated better. Pac-Man PHD (talk) 08:38, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the offending language. I agree that we shouldn't express editorial opinions about prophetic fulfillment without a source that says just that. I trust that resolves the issue. Skyerise (talk) 11:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 February 2024
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
In the introduction, it is stated that "the evidence is also consistent with accidental poisoning", but there is no citation for that. The BBC article listed as the citation for that paragraph only mentions suicide. It should either be removed, or at least have a citation needed tag. Silversquirl (talk) 00:48, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Done The introduction is a summary of the rest of the article which, per MOS:LEADCITE, does not require inline citations unless the claim is likely to be challenged. Since this claim has now been challenged I added a citation from the death section which verifies it. Jamedeus (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 16 October 2024
This edit request to Alan Turing has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
"Turing's remains were cremated at Woking Crematorium just two days later on 12 June 1954 with just three people attending"; the citation for this wrongly cites this at page 529, when this is actually in the postscript of the book, at page 665. Furthermore, it would be useful to add that "His mother, brother, and Lyn Newman attended the ceremony.", as opposed to "three people". EHinchliff (talk) 12:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It says: "* Anonymous works * Photographs created before 30 June 1957: 70 years after creation if unpublished, 70 years after publication if published within 70 years of creation" So that would have been under copyright only until 22 June 1988, at the latest? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
There are other images, lower down the article, of the younger Turing, which also appear to be anonymous and not marked with any copyright statement. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Lead image proposal
Which of the following images should serve as the lead image for Turing's infobox?
In my view it should be "C". I think "A" is from too young an age and "B" looks strange (I think because his left eye is so dark almost as if it were empty). --Qcomp (talk) 15:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Agreed C. It is the familiar photo of A.T., and the suggested cropping is a slight improvement. I don't like the centre one, but would have no major objection to A. I also would have no difficulty with A&C as adding some aspects, but I don't feel strongly about it. JonRichfield (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
As Turing did not have his award rescinded following his conviction, why does "OBE" not appear in the first line after his name? Billsmith60 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
C with perhaps a lil bit of cropping to take some of the left and bottom off. It's the clearest image which more than adequately makes up for Turing having his face at a slight angle. TarnishedPathtalk10:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
You're saying that he looks "less honest" in image C? You have no views in his wonky eye that looks like it's made of glass? And what of the odd background colour? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not a perfect photo, but his eye doesn't stand out to me much. Maybe just imperfect lighting. The background color is sepia, which I kind of like. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Naturally this all comes down to subjective judgment, and I've stated mine. That said, I wonder if you've noticed the eye and now "can't unsee" it, whereas new readers might not find it particularly distracting. --Trovatore (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
Who knows, you'd have to do an experiment (with readers who'd never seen it before), I guess. I suppose some readers might just glance at it and never look closer again. Perhaps it could be "adjusted" digitally, but that would probably bring howls of indignation from the purists... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
C is the higher quality image and was taken in the 50s rather than the 30s. I have no strong feelings on using the uncropped version or the cropped version above. ⇌Synpath20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
C as I already said in the previous discussion (A too young, B with weird eye), cropped and uncropped are both fine with me no new arguments, I'm not sure if a RfC is a sort of vote or not; if not, sry for redundant posting--Qcomp (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
C without crop - I think the image looks better without crop than with portrait-wise. Definitely C over A or B though, as C is the most well known. --00:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Not done: The cited source (https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092) is indeed reliable per WP:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#BBC and verifies the text. ––FormalDude talk 01:56, 1 April 2022 (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) 16:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Not done, an edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made, not just a vague personal wish. See Wikipedia:Edit requests. --Belbury (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Already done -- Marking this as done per above — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 12:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
A
B (current)
C
_in_1936_at_Princeton_University_(cropped).jpg?lang=en)
.jpg?lang=en)
_(crop).jpg?lang=en)
