Talk:Alan Turing/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Cause of death is dubious

According to the Connecticut poison control operator, it is safe to eat 30 apple seeds. 137.99.143.13 (talk) 16:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

The Connecticut poison control operator wasn't involved in the official inquest. Who said anything about seeds? Here's a relevant source. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

His favorite film was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs: the apple was dipped in cyanide from his home chemistry lab. Only one bite was taken from it. He didn't eat any apple seeds. Perhaps you should read a biography or two? Skyerise (talk) 17:05, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Except that the police never tested the apple for cyanide... Martinevans123 (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

They didn't need to. The effects of cyanide poisoning are quite distinct. Skyerise (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

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 don't see any "Turing was murdered" thesis mentioned in the article. Guess it's a fringe theory. Skyerise (talk) 17:36, 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)

PhD post-nominal

I see no advice at Template:Post-nominals, but do we typically include PhDs? Even the astrophysicist Brian May doesn't have one in his infobox. And I thought it was PhD, Ph.D., or DPhil, not PHD, anyway. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the convention is to include one or two of the most prestigious. Bertrand Russel is said to have remarked that only OM and FRS gave him pride. And yes, Princetone call it Ph.D. --TedColes (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

19-year-old man or boy?

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

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)

 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 April 2022

more simple 81.105.26.223 (talk) 16:34, 7 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2022

Change "Unknown to the committee, the theorem had already been proven, in 1922, by Jarl Waldemar Lindeberg." 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)

 Done. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

References

His role at Bletchley Park is overstated

Turing was often mistakenly credited with the achievements of Tommy Flowers and Polish codebreakers. His nephew stated that his role during World War II was considerably overstated: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10095261/Alan-Turing-NOT-driven-suicide-conviction-homosexual-acts-insists-nephew.html (86.132.175.139 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2022 (UTC))

Daily Mail is not a reliable source. Really. The story has factual errors. Skyerise (talk) 21:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

And not a single one of the others could have built the Bombe. Nothing but whinging! Skyerise (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Poland created the Bombe. (31.53.205.242 (talk) 18:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC))

Is Tommy Flowers even mentioned in this article? That seems a strange omission — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.15.241.173 (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

If you read the article you might find out? That seems a strange omission. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Conviction for "indecency" or "homosexuality"?

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)

If Turing had been a woman, living in 1612, and had been convicted of witchcraft, would you also want to change that in a section heading? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think that analogy is apt. Paul August ☎ 14:07, 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)

The problem, as I see it, is that, unlike "wichcraft", "indecency" here has two different meanings. Paul August ☎ 17:13, 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)

Autopsy Report

Here's a link to Turing's autopsy report: http://www.polarimagazine.com/features/killing-alan-turing/attachment/alan-turing-post-mortem-report/ 88.106.15.126 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 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:

• Alan Turing Aged 16.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Update on "May a photo of Christopher Morcom be added?"

I have an update on the copyright statuses of the Turing photo and the Morcom photo mentioned here: Talk:Alan_Turing/Archive_4#May_a_photo_of_Christopher_Morcom_be_added?

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)

Compulsory sterilisation

@Johnbod, why is a law that mandates jail time or chemical castration for being a homosexual not an example of compulsory sterilization? A choice made under duress is not a choice made voluntarily, it is coercion. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:53, 6 July 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)

Sterilizing homosexuals was, is that not relevant? Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

compulsory sterilization does not even has a section on the UK. Nor, btw, does Chemical castration seem to link to compulsory sterilization. I believe what happened to Turing did not technically make him sterile (or not permanently so). Your addition was unreferenced. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I'll make that section rn to win this argument.

Yes, because chemical castration can be done voluntarily, i'll add a section there to.

Doesn't matter, also uncited and also unlikely, it was intended to make him sterile.

I don't need a reference as it's a common sense factual conclussion from the premises and something freely available in other sources Synth is not obvious inference. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:37, 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.

The essential properties are a government program to by force or coercion sterilize people. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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?

Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_obvious_II Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you do in fact have to prove that chemical castration results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

According to wikipedia.

Castration causes sterilization (preventing the castrated person or animal from reproducing).

However, chemical castration can be reversed if treatment is stopped.

However, this is irrelevant for it to have happened. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

Bart Terpstra, your argument seems to be entirely specious. Do you have one single source that says Turing underwent "compulsory sterilization"? WP:BLUESKY is wholly irrelevant. 86.187.232.88 (talk) 21:13, 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

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)

 Done —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 23:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2023

i really want to add more stuff about alan turings life and his fields like physics Arhaann (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2023 (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)

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)