Talk:Ada Lovelace/2015/April

Lovelace's looks
One of the findings of bias in Wikipedia articles about women is that they often contain references to women's looks and relationships with men (see "It's a Man's Wikipedia?" http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.06307). In this article, the Adult Life section begins with spurious descriptions of dancing and looks:

I wonder how any of this information is relevant to her biography. For example, there's no prominent description of Einstein's wild hair (mentioned only because of his appearance in popular culture, at the very bottom of the article) or the fact that he didn't wear socks on his article. There's no mention of Charles Babbage's looks in his article.

Lovelace is not known for her role in society or her looks in any way, thereby making this section irrelevant. I recommend cutting this section entirely to reduce the gender bias of this important article. Skatedad (talk) 04:49, 2 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia articles include only material based on reliable sources (RS). Editors' opinions are not acceptable (unless they are thus sourced). If you study the Lovelace article and the biographies about her you will see that Ada's place in the high society of her day, and in particular her gambling, were very relevant to her life. In contrast Babbage took virtually no part in society. If you can find a RS about Einstein's hair and socks, you are welcome to add it to that article. I note that his hairstyle is already mentioned there. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:52, 2 April 2015 (UTC).


 * Thanks for the reply. I think I did not explain my point well. I don't debate that her life at court is worth mentioning, however common that was at the time. My point is that she, unlike her father, is not known for her looks in one way or another. To include these specific details (and from an older biography focused not on Lovelace, but on her half-sister) seems unnecessary and inherently sexist. Her two main claims to notability, as I read them, are her role in the history of programming and her status as Lord Byron's daughter. Given that these details do nothing to inform us about either, they seem superfluous. Moreover, given the history of gender bias in articles about women, removing a focus on her looks seems, to me, like it would reduce this bias while improving the focus of this article. Skatedad (talk) 23:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comment. I liked your recent edit to the article, which gives perspective to the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC).
 * I would suggest deleting everything in that paragraph after "She danced often and was able to charm many people." The rest of the paragraph is cruft, IMO. That would also create a better segue into the next paragraph. Kaldari (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The material would be best left in, it is well sourced and relevant. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC).
 * I partially agree with Kaldari (obviously). Although the information is well-sourced, it's mostly not relevant, which is the point I've been making repeatedly. The points about social life like being presented to Court and the fact that she was biased against former friends of Lord Byron's all seem fine and interesting, but explicit descriptions of her physical appearance are entirely irrelevant and inherently sexist in this article. Skatedad (talk) 04:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's hope there is input from other editors too. Incidentally, in the talk page above there is much debate about how Ada Lovelace should be referred to in the article, and it has been pointed out (by me at least) that calling her "Lovelace" implies that the work was done by her husband, which is totally false and even insulting. You might like to comment on the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:10, 3 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Let's focus on one thing at a time. Kaldari (talk) 17:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The theme of this thread is the sexist attitudes that appear only too regularly in this article and its talk. This not a matter to be swept under the carpet. Sexism has seeped into the subconscious of people in many parts of the English-speaking world to the extent that they may not even be aware that they themselves are sexist (there is no suggestion of bad faith here). The willingness of several editors (and there are more than one) to refer to Ada Lovelace in the article by her husband's name is an example of this. Ada is now known universally as "Ada Lovelace". This is too clumsy to use everywhere in the article so the choice seems to be either "Ada" or "Lovelace". The first is her own name, the second is her husband's. As I have explained several times before on this page, to use the latter is insulting to her memory, as well as being a technically incorrect use of English styles of titles. Of course, her biographers, who wrote the secondary sources on which Wikipedia relies, use "Ada". Your suggestion that the Hobhouse quote is "cruft" is spurious. Elsewhere in the paragraph Ada is described as "dainty" and "able to charm". There is no reason why allegedly unfavourable material should be excised while allegedly favourable material remains. On the basis of what policy do you propose removing the quote? The way of scholarship is to leave it all in and let the reader decide. Wikipedia is not censored. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:22, 4 April 2015 (UTC).
 * Both Ada Lovelace and her husband had Lovelace as part of their title and Lovelace is effectively treated as her last name in most sources. We would never refer to William King-Noel, 1st Earl of Lovelace as "William" or Lord Byron as "George". That would be considered demeaning. Regarding the material to delete, I didn't suggest only removing the Hobhouse quote. I suggested removing the entire later half of the paragraph including the part about her being "dainty". What people thought of her appearance isn't relevant to the article. The only reason that material is in the article is because we are socialized to believe that the most important characteristic of a woman is her appearance and that is what she should be judged on. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should concentrate on the most notable events in Lovelace's life (which does not include her appraisal by John Hobhouse). Kaldari (talk) 17:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No mention of her opium addiction?
This seems like a significant omission. The fact that she was addicted to opium is well-known. 86.156.79.81 (talk) 16:50, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can find a source then put it in. But it would be nothing remarkable, many people were addicted to opium in those days as it was the only commonly available painkiller, and she was in pain at the end of her life. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC).

'Ada', not 'Lovelace'
I've standardised references to her as 'Ada', not 'Lovelace'. It was horribly inconsistent, and I think the first name is more familiar, even though perhaps surname is more standard. Hope this is OK with everyone. Earthlyreason (talk) 04:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact I think it should revert to 'Lovelace'. It is my impression that it is standard to refer to professionals and prominent figures by their surnames. Using the familiar address is not only inconsistent with this standard, it also (to me, and potentially to others) has the potential to reduce the standing or perceived authority of the contribution that the subject has made within his/her field. First names imply a personal relation rather than one of professional respect. As Lovelace is a woman in a field with few women, this is particularly problematic. It looks especially awkward in phrases like 'Ada and Babbage' in which he is recorded by the normal, surname-standard, whereas she remains in the intimate personal form. Therefore I have edited it to consistently read 'Lovelace' rather than 'Ada'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.176.53 (talk) 11:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with this comment of 86.157.176.53. For some unknown reason I messed up my own edit. Xxanthippe (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC).


 * At least it's consistent. I'm Ok to keep it as 'Lovelace' for the reasons given. It just sounds a bit blunt; perhaps I'm paternalistic (see first comment above.) Earthlyreason (talk) 17:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia practice to use the last name when possible.--Gloriamarie (talk) 22:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. I just commented above that I found use of Lovelace hard to follow and had to reread. Were women of the era referred to by last name only without being disrespectful? Perhaps it doesn't matter if it reads clearly.

Deke 64.45.228.207 (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Using "Lovelace" to refer to Ada Augusta Byron-King is like referring to Sarah Margaret Ferguson as "York", or to Marguerite Gardiner as "Blessington". It is mainly weird. 88.235.61.242 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that Lovelace is what she went by then and now. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:20, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, peers use the territorial designation of their title as their signature and are referred to by the territorial designation of their title rather than by their names. Surtsicna (talk) 22:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Surtsicna is correct. It was not uncommon for nobility to be referred to simply by their territorial designation, so calling her "Lovelace" is not that strange. Babbage himself referred to her as "Lady Lovelace". Additionally, she is now almost exclusively referred to as "Ada Lovelace" (with "Lovelace" being used as a surname would be) so we need to treat that as her effective name, per WP:UCN. Additionally, referring to her by her first name is strongly discouraged by WP:LASTNAME. Kaldari (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ada Lovelace was not a Peer. She was the wife of a Peer. In the usage of her day her husband would have been referred to informally as 'Lovelace' she as 'Lady Lovelace'. Maybe the best compromise for this article would be 'Ada Lovelace'. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC).
 * All the biographies I've consulted (Ada, the Enchantress of Numbers; Ada, Countess of Lovelace; Byron's Daughter) consistently refer to her as "Ada", so I'm in favor of changing everything to "Ada" as well. I suggest that we add a small section about naming conventions, though, so that we don't have this discussion re-opened if we ever reach consensus. Also, WP:LASTNAME specifically mentions the names of nobility and implies that we should use titles only after they were gained in the person's biographical timeline. In other words, we should call her "Ada" before marriage, or "Ada, Countess of Lovelace" and "the Countess" only after marriage, but not "Lovelace" even though that sounds better to American ears because of the corruption of her name over time. Therefore "Ada" matches the practices of her scholarly biographers and the historical practices of the time while allowing us a consistent way to refer to her throughout the article. Skatedad (talk) 23:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

That would not be a compromise, it would be a mistake. Her name was Ada Augusta Byron King, the Countess Lovelace. the usage "Ada Lovelace" betrays American ignorance of English titles. She would have been known as "Lady Lovelace", just as her father was known as "Lord Byron" even after he changed his surname to Noel-Byron. The peerage always takes precedence over the surname. Thus the lady in question would have been addressed as "Lady Lovelace" or perhaps "Countess Lovelace", but NEVER as "Lady Ada", "Lovelace" (only the peer holding the title -- her husband -- would have been so addressed), or "Ada Lovelace". Wikipedia's "policy" should give way to the usage correct to the time and place being referenced. Munchkyn (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Conceptual Leap - Ada Lovelace, Godmother of the DAW?
In her quote under "Conceptual Leap" she states:


 * "[The Analytical Engine] might act upon other things besides number, were objects found whose mutual fundamental relations could be expressed by those of the abstract science of operations, and which should be also susceptible of adaptations to the action of the operating notation and mechanism of the engine...
 * Supposing, for instance, that the fundamental relations of pitched sounds in the science of harmony and of musical composition were susceptible of such expression and adaptations, the engine might compose elaborate and scientific pieces of music of any degree of complexity or extent."

This sounds very close to what modern DAWs (Digital Audio Workstations) are capable of doing today. Would it presumptuous to credit her as the Godmother (or Great-Grandmother) of the modern DAW?

Lee Shapiro - 12/9/12


 * indent using wiki markup instead of spaces, throwing the width of my browser window off.--KTo288 (talk) 10:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)