Talk:Alan Turing/Archive 2

Introductory Paragraphs
Since Alan Turing held an earned PhD from Princeton University, as is explicitly detailed in the later section "University and work on computability," and since it is customary to note that degree after the holder's name, I think it should be added to the first sentence. I would do it myself, except that I don't know whether it should precede or follow the notations of his British honors. Dick Kimball (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Timothy Ferris book quote
Is there any stronger evidence for Snow White having been Turing's "favorite fairy tale"?

Did the cited author -- Timothy Ferris -- know Turing or have a source who did?

The language of his book's one Turing reference doesn't seem to imply as much.

Mention in book

--Bcjordan (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * David Leavitt's book also mentions it several times, describing the big impact the movie had on Turing. Diego (talk) 20:22, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyone have a copy of David Leavitt's book (I haven't been able to find a searchable preview) to pull a relevant passage or page number from so someone can attach a robust citation or qualify/remove this claim? Leavitt (born 1961) was not a contemporary of Turing's -- Leavitt's writing may explicate the claim's origins, I just can't find it elsewhere online (save for statements citing Wikipedia as source). --Bcjordan (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of the book, and the claim appears to be perfectly true. I'll add a citation. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Malleus! *YOU* are why Wikipedia is academically compatible :) --Bcjordan (talk) 02:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Addition to "In Culture"
The following has been added to "In Culture"

"Turing appears as a character in the 1999 novel Cryptonomicon by American writer Neal Stephenson. The bestselling book is a fictional account of codebreaking during World War II along with related plot developments. The text includes references to Turing's homosexuality."

It reads OK to me. It shows that Turing has become a significant character in modern times. It links to another Wikipedia article. Can't see a problem with it. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Its Fine. It shows even though he was a homosexual he was a great mathematician. 10:54, 22 January 2010 (CMS) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.153.118.208 (talk)

Automate archiving?
Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅--Oneiros (talk) 22:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Flagged "In Culture" section as trivia
I've just flagged the "In Culture" as trivia, needing attention, for two reasons. Firstly, sections are heavily deprecated with the current policy to incorporate information where appropriate rather than just drop in random facts. Secondly, while the sentence linking Turing with the Apple logo has been refuted, I would have thought the better approach would be to delete the wrong urban rumour. After all, this is an article about Turing, not Apple. However, I'm new to this article so am not WP:BOLD enough just to zap it without canvassing opinion here first. Etrigan (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's difficult. I agree with your general idea that In culture sections are just trivia magnets, and I have removed many of them myself. My view is that significant "trivia", which I think the Apple logo rumour is, can easily be incorporated into the body of the article. If it can't be, then by definition it's insignificant and ought to be deleted. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:21, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. The specific reason I didn't just delete or reword was that the rumour is persistent and significant enough that it's got into primary sources, and therefore it's useful to have it refuted here and on the Apple page. However, the other one, I think, can just go. It's not about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Etrigan (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

✅ Etrigan (talk) 11:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn spelling wars
Editors on the (o)estrogen war need to go review all of WP:ENGVAR, WP:TIES and WP:RETAIN and after so doing, leave the british spelling alone please! Etrigan (talk) 18:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No one is trying to remove the British spelling. Well, one person did days ago, but that's over.  The issue is that Malleus is stubbornly insisting on retaining the pipe, oestrogen, whereas the direct link to the redirect oestrogen is better.  It is better because pipes break the link between the syntax seen on the screen and the article pointed to, and are a last resort.  They are acceptable in some circumstances (such as when the linked phrase would go to a disambiguation page), but this is not one of them. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So the relevant thing to review is actually WP:NOTBROKEN. --Trovatore (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having read that, I'm convinced that it should be oestrogen. What's your logic here, Malleus? Etrigan (talk) 15:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Having partly created this discussion by turning estrogen into a pipe with oestrogen to correct the spelling, I now agree that for that reason and the reasons above there is no point in having estrogen there at all. If Americans can't cope, that's their problem. It's an article about a British person, for heavens sake, and they invented the language. HiLo48 (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's please stay off the Yank/Brit thing, which is irrelevant to the current discussion and can only inflame sentiment. I don't think Malleus wanted to pipe to estrogen on the basis that it's the American spelling; I think he thinks pipes are better than redirects.
 * Here's how I see it: Pipes are closely analogous to "goto" statements in structured programming languages.  They make the code less robust, less maintainable, and its structure harder to follow.  There are circumstances that call for them, if you really know what you're doing and why, but they are never the first tool you reach for.
 * Now this particular type of pipe is probably the most harmless of the unnecessary pipes. It doesn't mislead anyone.  Oestrogen and estrogen will never be separate articles, so robustness doesn't really come into play.  There's an abstract complaint that the results of typing what you see on the page into the "Go" box, are not the same as the results of clicking on the link, but the only difference is the redirect notice itself, which I'm willing to concede is negligible.
 * But even though it's harmless in itself, it's unnecessary, and my concern is that a widespread profusion of pipes tends to lead editors to use more pipes. And pipes in general are not harmless.  They are a last resort.
 * Therefore we should use the simple link to the redirect oestrogen, and not the pipe. --Trovatore (talk) 20:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * What is the logic of linking to a redirect page – in this instance, not generally – instead of linking directly to the page the link redirects to? That it's "unnecessary" is not a reason not to link directly to the correct page. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The broader reason is that pipes in general are bad, whereas redirects are not. Therefore when a pipe is unnecessary, that is in fact a reason not to use it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTBROKEN pretty much sums it up. There's no reason to pathologically avoid redirects, and it complicates the markup without any benefit. --Cyber cobra (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply don't agree, so I'll just leave this article to your tender mercies and unwatch it now. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So continuing to make a contribution on this article was predicated on getting your own way? Weird. Etrigan (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your threat below was quite unnecessary, and that's what persuaded me to withdraw from this article, not any desire to get my own way. I don't agree with the miniscule "consensus" on pipes vs redirects but neither do I think it's worth any further argument or threats of sanctions, on this issue or on any other so far as this article is concerned. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good to see you've not followed through and unwatched after all. I've had the same threat made on me in the past, which persuaded me of its effectiveness in these situations. Etrigan (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not a threat and I have unwatched the article. Do with it as you will. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Can the Edit warring go on hold while the above is discussed?
Jeez, people. Take a break. We're talking about something, lay off the article until the talk settles. Get over yourselves! It doesn't acutally matter which way the article is. Etrigan (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because if it carries on for another 24h I will raise action on people breaching WP:3RR. It's time to Grow Up and Start Acting Like Adults here. Etrigan (talk) 23:23, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Exaggerations?
Some parts of this article lack substantiation and may misrepresent Turing's contributions.

For example, the section titled "University and work on computability" contains the statement "Turing machines are to this day the central object of study in theory of computation." While Turing machines are certainly studied, I am not sure they are "the central object of study." The decision problem was solved separately by Chuch, Goedel, and Turing, who respectively proposed the lambda calculus, recursive functions, and Turing machines. The Zentralbatt MATH online database is the single most comprehensive index of mathematical work so it can be used to assess the claim. The all-time count of papers about these three subjects (lamda calculus, recursive functions, and Turing machines) are 3498, 3204, and 1591, respectively. Thus it would seem Chuch's lambda calculus is a more "central" object of study.

I am not saying that Turing's contributions are exaggerated, rather that some care is needed to explain them lest unsubstantiated claims are made that only serve to lesson Turing's reputation. Jfgrcar (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. It's an unfounded statement needing a citation or a reword. Anyone care to do it? I'm happy to do so, but I'm often a bit brutal, simply removing uncited statements. Etrigan (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Goedel is not attributed for recursive functions, is Kleene.

RG Kightley comments: there is no mention here of Turing constructing the Collosus Computer with Tommy Flowers. Built using radio transistor valves it was the precursor of modern computers. The USA was given one of the computers in order to aid the war effort. Many U.S.A. patents assumed ownership of the British technology. It has been necessary to minimise the contribution of Turing as a result. If Mr. Turing were alive today ,no doubt he would be being sued by Oracle and Microsoft for breach of patent, as these companies have assumed ownership of Operating Systems in order to control the world market. 86.9.13.234 (talk) 12:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Bombe photo
The caption for the photo says that the Bombe replica is "Complete and working".

Although this is true today, in the photo it is still under construction, with only two reels installed. --Mwongozi (talk) 12:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories not working
Turing does not appear in the page for Category "Computer pioneers", though this article is tagged with that category. Is there something wrong with the format of that section or some bug in wikipedia? --Ericjs (talk) 22:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Athlete
Could someone clarify why the category Athletes who committed suicide is relevant? The article makes no mention of Turing being recognized as an athlete apart from his cycling. Not everyone who enjoys going for a run is a professional athlete. Fæ (talk) 10:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the latest reference to the Guardian article, this makes him an amateur club runner which I guess is marginal as a rationale for this category but I'll not object further. Fæ (talk) 11:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are too kind. Just because something is true, does not make it encyclopedic. I have removed the new category as unhelpful. A quick look at the talk page of the category's creator shows that others have questioned the appropriateness of some other categories, and this one is no different. Johnuniq (talk) 11:10, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably, I tend to steer away from spending too long discussing cats. Whatever the end result it can only minimally improve article quality. Fæ (talk) 11:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "Not encyclopedic" is not really a valid argument to delete content (whether in AfDs or as article content), since everyone is entitled to their opinion of what constitutes "encyclopedic". What makes this category less relevant to the article than Category:Inventors who committed suicide? Besides, Athletes who committed suicide is in a class of categories that survived an AfD discussion with Keep.Diego Moya (talk) 11:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * People are not free to make up categories and put them on pages of important people without some kind of justification (they are welcome to do it of course, but when reverted a policy-based justification is needed). Johnuniq (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The relevant policy is of course Categories,_lists,_and_navigation_templates. The category is relevant according to the policy (the subject has received media coverage, the Turing article describes both his athletic performance and his suicide, and the article is included both in Category:British long-distance runners and Category:Suicides by poison). So inclusion in the category is supported by policy, and no policy-related reason for deletion has been given. Diego Moya (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that I see nothing in the article that might meet WP:NTRACK, consequently my earlier comment about being marginal. One might equally argue the case for Turing being included in Category:British poets or Category:Castrated people. Fæ (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From what I understood from the original question was not whether the category itself should exist, but whether it was applicable to put on this article. The point being is that whether this sentence in the article is sufficient to categorise him as "an athelete": "While working at Bletchley, Turing, a talented long-distance runner, occasionally ran the 40 miles (64 km) to London when he was needed for high-level meetings, and he was capable of world-class Marathon standards." Personally, I don't think this qualifies him as "an athlete" as it merely indicates that he was good at running. Therefore, I would advocate removing both the category "athletes who committed suicide" but ALSO the category "British long-distance runners". Witty Lama 16:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Full agree with Witty synopsis and suggestion. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, my understanding of the word athlete is someone who competes in a sporting event, usually physical. It doesn't apply to those who do physical activity without competing, even if they are very very good at it.  That's not in any way a negative judgment on non-competitors, just my understanding of the meaning of the word.
 * (There is also a potential ENGVAR issue lurking around, although it doesn't attach for a couple of reasons &mdash; this article is naturally in British English, and apparently our British friends restrict the term athletics to what would be called "track and field" on this side of the pond. Not that that really matters, given that (a) running is track and field and (b) we're apparently not going to call him an athlete anyway, but it's a linguistic difference that editors need to keep in mind, taking care to explain any usages that may not be understood in one dialect or the other.) --Trovatore (talk) 19:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

link broken - UK govt removed page with Brown's apology
Footnote #76 points to a UK govt website that apparently once carried a copy of Gordon Brown's apology for its treatment of Alan Turing. http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571 The link no longer works, removed, I presume, by the present government, which is run by conservatives who may approve of the way Turing was treated. Rather than deleting the link, I suggest that it be left as is, with a comment added about the apparent suppression of the apology by the present government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rexpage (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Got a reliable source referring to said suppression? Looks to me like number10.gov.uk is all about the current PM, not his predecessors; except in the historical section, the site has little to say about previous governments. I'll fix the link, certainly. --jpgordon:==( o ) 16:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The link currently being used for the Prime Minister's apology does not actually contain the text of the apology. It is just an article -about- the apology. Would not this link be a better fit? It contains the full text of Gordon Brown's letter. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/gordon-brown/6170112/Gordon-Brown-Im-proud-to-say-sorry-to-a-real-war-hero.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.111.198.79 (talk) 06:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The apology is at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20091003064609/http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20571 It didn't take very long to find. Mr Stephen (talk) 06:56, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

in memory of....uuuh...no
http://www.i-programmer.info/news/82-heritage/3735-widespread-celebrations-but-no-pardon-for-turing.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.69.247.2 (talk) 23:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Turing was unaware of Church's proof?
I just read this statement from the article: "While Turing's proof was published subsequent to Alonzo Church's equivalent proof in respect to his lambda calculus, he was unaware of Church's work at the time." But the paper in question, On Computable Numbers, With an Application to the Entscheidungsproblem, specifically refers to Church's work: In a recent paper Alonzo Church† has introduced an idea of "effective calculability", which is equivalent to my "computability", but is very differently defined. Church also reaches similar conclusions about the Entscheidungsproblem††. It seems as though Turing was aware of Church's proof. Am I misreading the Wikipedia article? I have put a dubious tag on there, because I'm not 100% sure that this is the proof he was talking about. &mdash;MattGiuca (talk) 06:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * † Alonzo Church, "An unsolvable problem of elementary number theory", American J. of Math., 58 (1936), 345-363.
 * †† Alonzo Church, "A note on the Entscheidungsproblem", J. of Symbolic Logic, 1 (1936), 40-41.


 * Andrew Hodges, Turing's biographer makes it clear that, in his words "A new idea had found its way into two minds simultaneously and independently." However, in writing up his work, Turing properly cited Church's work that he had subsequently learnt about. I am going to add "that he developed it" to the end of the sentence in question.--TedColes (talk) 07:37, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Interesting article
Check out this -- something about Turing's hypothesis about patterns such as tiger stripes being proved.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I posted about three similar articles here Talk:Morphogenesis EdwardLane (talk) 17:57, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Turing Institute, Glasgow
Is this still in existence? --TedColes (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Suitability for the lead
I have reverted a good faith edit to the lead. An anonymous editor at 204.86.64.67 moved the following sentence from the first paragraph of the lead to the section on Childhood and youth. "He showed many of the characteristics that are indicative of Asperger syndrome.[5]" Given that Asperger did not describe his syndrome until 1944 and the paper at reference [5] was published in 2003, the lead seems to me to be a much more appropriate place. What do others think?

The same editor removed completely the following. "He was stockily built, had a high-pitched voice, and was talkative, witty, and somewhat donnish.[4]" This was taken from a recent newspaper article by the novelist Alan Garner. Again, what do others think?

--TedColes (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure "donnish" has any clearly defined meaning. From (very brief) linked article, University don, we have this description: "A don is a fellow or tutor of a college or university, especially traditional collegiate universities such as Oxford and Cambridge in England." So what exactly does the adjective "donnish" mean, given this? --AgonRex (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * "Donnish" is the word that was used by the novelist Alan Garner in his newspaper description of "My hero Alan Turing". I think it is quite well understood in Britain. I hesitate to define it, but perhaps it relates to the tendency of some university academic staff to be more absorbed by thoughts of their intellectual interests than about the practicalities of daily life. --TedColes (talk) 07:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Trivialist removed the reference to the fact that Turing, in the view of of two psychiatrists published in a peer-revied journal, showed clear evidence of some of the main diagnostic features of Asberger's syndrome. I have restored this information as it seems to me to reveal an important aspect of his character. --TedColes (talk) 11:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It probably belongs in the article, but I'm not sure it should be in the lead, as it's a "diagnosis" being done many years after his death. Trivialist (talk) 15:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the article would be better without these 2 sentences.Southdevonian (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I am going to change the quote from the Guardian article and move it to a later section as it has nothing to do with youth - the writer met Turing in the 1950s. I suppose you could say it was noteworthy that a writer had chosen Turing as "my hero" although I don't think the brief article reveals much about him. As for the psychiatric article - has any here read it? What does it actually say?Southdevonian (talk) 19:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think this sentence about Aspergers needs some qualification before it goes back in, saying what these characteristics are for example (they don't seem immediately evident from his biography): "He showed many of the characteristics that are indicative of Asperger syndrome".Southdevonian (talk) 20:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

It examines the following criteria: I find this quite clear and very useful in helping to understand some of Turing's unusual behaviour.--TedColes (talk) 08:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the Asperger's syndrome article. It is a scholarly article which says, in the last sentence of the introduction:"He was regarded as being socially aloof and eccentric by colleagues and friends. He was interested in mathematics, chemistry and logic from an early age, to the exclusion of other activities. This paper attempts to establish whether he fulfilled the criteria for Asperger's syndrome."
 * Imposition of routines and interests on himself and others
 * Non-verbal communication problems
 * Limited use of gesture
 * Clumsy/Gauche body language
 * Limited facial expression
 * Inappropriate expression
 * Peculiar, stiff gaze
 * Motor clumsiness: poor performance on neuro-developmental examination
 * Speech and language problems
 * An all absorbing narrow interest which includes
 * Exclusion of other activities
 * Repetitive adherence
 * More rote than meaning
 * Severe impairment in reciprocal social interaction
 * Inability to interact with peers
 * Lack of desire to interact with peers
 * Lack of appreciation of social cues
 * The first sentence of the conclusions says:"This paper has set out to explore the evidence for Asperger's syndrome in Alan Turing. According to his biography and contemporary accounts of him, he certainly met Gilberg's criteria, ICD-10 criteria and DSM-IV criteria for Asperger's syndrome."


 * I have read the article now and didn't find it very convincing (what is wrong with eating an apple at bedtime? Or not offering your guest more wine after dinner?). The authors did point out that in a different era some behaviours that are seen as odd today may actually have been advantageous. After all, Turing doesn't seem to have had major difficulties in life before his criminal conviction and ensuing psychiatric treatment. He seems to have had a successful career and been popular. But should there be a mention in the article that one or two people (Ioan Mackenzie James is another) have argued that Turing showed signs that might in another era be considered suggestive of Asperger's syndrome? Any more input from anyone?Southdevonian (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The article does not suggest that Turing's behaviour with regard to wine or a daily apple was "wrong". After all, the phrase "An apple a day keeps the doctor away" was in common use in Britain at that time. Indeed, the two psychiatrist authors are non-judgemental, except in their conclusion, which should not be construed as a criticism. There is ample evidence that Turing behaved in unusual, even eccentric ways, and I think that readers deserve to be told that "He showed many of the characteristics that are indicative of Asperger syndrome" (or some such neutral phrase) as it helps to understand the man. I am not a psychiatrist, but I do find the article convincing. --TedColes (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I have put in a mention of Ioan James' book as being more accessible than the article in the Irish Journal of Medicine.Southdevonian (talk) 11:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Anthony Cave Brown quote
At the beginning of the Conviction for indecency section there is a quote (one of the longest in the article) from a book by Anthony Cave Brown, which is about someone else but has a couple of pages about Turing. The quote refers to Turing as an "agressive homosexual" and says he was suspected of molesting schoolboys in Luton Library. In the book Cave Brown does not give any source for these statements, although the book does have references. The Guardian obituary for Cave Brown does not speak highly of his accuracy, and I can't see anything else in the article to support either of these statements. Turing was convicted of something that is no longer criminal (sex with consenting adult) but in this quote he is being suspected of something that is still very much criminal (if the boys were underage or unwilling) so I wondered if it really belongs here. Does anyone know of any other source that would support or contradict what Cave Brown says? Cave Brown goes on to say that this was why Turing was transferred to Hanslope Park - has anyone got another explanation for his transfer?Southdevonian (talk) 17:57, 2 June 2012 (UTC)


 * To my reading, Turing's change to working mainly at Hanslope was at his own volition, following his work at Bell Labs in 1942/43 which aroused his interest in secure speech scrambling. The idea that he was "rusticated" to Hanslope to make it less likely that he would visit Luton seems highly unlikely, given that the jopurney, at 28 miles, was only ten miles longer than that from Bletchley. --TedColes (talk) 07:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

So the explanation for the move to Hanslope seems unlikely. I have removed the quote as it appears to be (in the original book) malicious gossip without a source. Anyway it is not so well-written that it deserves to go in as a long quote.Southdevonian (talk) 11:23, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It's unlikely he was a pedophile given that he was exclusively homosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.125.116 (talk) 20:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Pardon and signatures
"The petition has over 34,000 signatures, but the request was declined by Lord McNally" This is a bit misleading: it has ~34 000 signatures NOW but when Lord McNally declined it, it had 21 000] as stated in previous revisions.--Kyng (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Epitaph
Does this require a little more explanation than just a link to the image of one of the postcards in Turing archive? Chosen when? and by whom? and to what end? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Wibblywobblybibblybobbly (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2012 (UTC) RE: Turing's supposed 'Epitaph'. Do any authorities state that this is indeed Turing's epitaph, or is it only in the Wikipedia entry because the person who put it there feels that it would be appropriate as one? Turing sent this poem in a letter; there is no indication in the Turing Digital Archive that it was used, or intended to be used, as an epitaph. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that Turing was cremated, and as there does not appear to be a grave, there can be no epitaph in the strict sense of the word. The memorial plaque in Sackville Park does not feature the poem.


 * I have deleted the epitaph section (as he doesn't appear to actually have one) and put the lines in a text boxSouthdevonian (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that the untitled text box is an improvement. I had no problem with their being no physical grave-stone on which this might have been inscribed. But one still asks - why here? What has it got to do with his death exactly? Even without any title it suggests this may have been some kind of an intentional self-penned epitaph. That particular postcard was post-marked 10 March 1954, about three months before he died. I think it's fascinating that Turing wrote poems - but why did he send these poetic fragments, on separate postcards, to Gandy? I thought there had been some earlier discussion on this, but I can't find it. Thanks. (Incidentally, his own life has directly inspired at least one poem - see Heathcote Williams' 2011 Forbidden Fruit ). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Centenary 23 June 2012
As I've just heard on the news that it's the centenary of Turing's birth tomorrow I've made a proposal | here that he be included in "on this day" for the 23rd, although it may be too late. Richerman ''  (talk) 14:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also nominated it for "in the news" here where there will now be a discussion about whether to include it or not which you may wish to contribute to. Richerman ''   (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Memoirs?
I have removed this sentence because no-one provided a source "In his memoirs Turing wrote that he was disappointed about the reception of this 1936 paper, which also introduced the notion of definable numbers, and that only two people had reacted – these being Heinrich Scholz and Richard Bevan Braithwaite." Did Turing even write his memoirs? I have a feeling not.Southdevonian (talk) 22:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Posthumous recognition
Turing Lecture 2008 at Bletchley Park

Bletchley Park is holding the annual Turing Lecture 2008 on Thursday, 10th July. Dr Andrew Hodges, tutor in Mathematics and Fellow of Wadham College, University of Oxford, will discuss some of the unresolved issues that have come to the forefront, as historians of science strive to understand the development of Turing’s thought.

Also, on June 22, 2012, on what would have been his 100th birthday he was honored on Google's famous "Google Doodle". — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRB9586 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Conviction for indecency
In the above section it says "After Murray helped an accomplice to break into his house, Turing reported the crime to the police" Whose house did the accomplice break into - Murray's or Turing's? Richerman ''   (talk) 23:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the grammar and context suggest that it was Turing's own house. Why else would Turing report it? It seems Murray was casing the joint? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Birthday
Wasn't his birthday on the 22nd June 1912? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.210.187.95 (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, the 23rd. --Dandellius (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Personal characteristics
User:Lewallen has deleted some substantial, verifiable information about Turing's personal characteristics, saying "(I removed the description of Turing's physical attributes ("stockily built") style ("talkative and witty") and potential Aspergers from the first paragraph. Similar entries on other people do not include such information in the opening)". It seems to me that these details help readers to understand better an important and somewhat puzzling person, so I am going to restore this information pending a consensus here that it should be removed. --TedColes (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see no problem in keeping that information as informative and sourced, but I agree with Lewallen that the lead is not the best place for them. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article, thus placing that information there creates an impression that the article will expand on those topics; but for example the article never mentions the Asperger again. I think it could be placed with the biographical info at the Childhood and youth section. Diego (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There is derogatory and very offensive comment at the top of the article about his homosexuality which seems to have escaped being edited out by wiki editors. The man deserves respect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.67.71.19 (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Garner, who regularly went running with Turing, describes him, in his Guardian article: "He was stocky, barrel-chested, with a high-pitched, donnish voice and the aerodynamics of a brick." This might be usefully worked in as a complete quote. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There are already two references to Alan Garner's article. It is only a short article by someone who seems to have had only a fairly superficial acquaintance with him. And we have photos so we can decide for ourselves. I find Garner's description ever so slightly unkind. By the way, Julius Turing's dates are fine without a reference (since no-one is disputing them).Southdevonian (talk) 11:19, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. I am surprised, though, that superficial running mates got round to discussing Snow White's apple. We have a single studio head and shoulders photo from 1951. I guess we'll never know if Garner's slight unkindness was accurate or not. I found his description of Turing's voice quite enlightening. (Not sure what those ogg sound files are at Commons, but apparently not of Turing.) By the way, I just thought that link (and this ) might be useful for anyone interested in Turing's ancestry, not just for Julius' dates. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Code used for the Google Doodle letters at the Centenary
Hi, I just think it's informative to complement about the doodle with the binary code used for the letters on the doodle, known as Baudot code: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code. An International telegraphy alphabet. Currently I have no rights to do that.
 * ✅. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

David Leavitt's statement about Alan Turing taking "an especially keen pleasure" reenacting the scene from Snow White
The article says:


 * "Hodges and David Leavitt have suggested that Turing was re-enacting a scene from the 1937 film Snow White, his favourite fairy tale, both noting that (in Leavitt's words) he took "an especially keen pleasure in the scene where the Wicked Queen immerses her apple in the poisonous brew.""

David Leavitt is an american novelist born in 1961, who obviously never knew Turing personally. What are the evidences that Alan Turing took "an especially keen pleasure" reenacting the scene from Snow White? This affirmation looks ridiculous, gratuitous and a stereotype about homosexual men. In the article about Leavitt it is said that "Leavitt, who is openly gay,[2] has frequently explored gay issues in his work.[1]". My guess is that he is projecting his own thoughts onto Alan Turing. How serious and reliable is Leavitt's biography of Turing?--89.226.117.72 (talk) 10:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What was Hodges' connection, if any, with Turing? Or was he just agreeing with Leavitt's speculation? Is there any evidence that Turing ever actually watched that film (or even had the story read to him as a child)? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good question. Andrew Hodges was born in 1949 (Turing died in 1954), and is himself described as a "pioneer of the gay liberation movement" in his article. Do these two authors have sources and direct testimonies from Turing's relatives, or did they accentuate (if not invent) stereotypical "gay" personality traits.--89.226.117.72 (talk) 10:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, this seems a highly questionable interpetation by Leavitt which is given wp:undue weight and should be removed. Does anyone object to me removing it? Richerman ''   (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, maybe I should have googled "Turing Snow White" first - see: http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/11/alan-turing-my-hero-alan-garner Richerman ''   (talk) 20:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had missed that too. That seems pretty clear, doesn't it. Surely Garner, as direct personal witness, more deserves mention in this passage than do the two later therorists? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added his views now. Richerman ''   (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Questionable Suicide Ruling
Just came across an article arguing that today, a coroner would not have had sufficient evidence to rule Turing's death a suicide. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 Can this be added to the article? 68.115.35.110 (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, a worthwhile addition to the article, in my view Damson88 (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. --John (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, very much so. Gosh, anyone might think that Turing was "in the news" for some reason. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to make a few tweaks to highlight Copeland's alternative explanation, though I'm afraid the sentence is now rather top heavy and may require further copy editing. I also feel (pace WP:RECENT) that it makes good sense to place Copeland's thoughts at the end of the section. On a more pedantic note, maybe there's a bit too much weight given to the BBC article in the incipit (In an article to mark the 100th anniversary of Turing's birth, the BBC aired the views of...): the article itself says, "At a conference in Oxford on Saturday, Turing expert Prof Jack Copeland will question the evidence that was presented at the 1954 inquest." —MistyMorn (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Srictly speaking, from that article, yes it's hard to tell what is substance and what is editorial comment. Without the text of Copeland's paper, we can't say why he chose to deliver it today, although even then I think it almost impossible that Copeland would not have informaly introduced it to his audience without mentioning today's date. My guess is that it was indeed very carefully timed as a mark of respect and celebration. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (Currently six of his categories are for suicide. No real room for doubts there). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you will find the reason for why he chose to deliver it at a time when it was likely to get maximum exposure, is in the following sentence to be found at : "Professor Copeland, who has written a new biography of the academic to be published shortly, said..." Richerman ''   (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What was the event which took place in Oxford on Saturday night? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Professor Copeland views have been given a little too much prominence. The suicide verdict has always been questioned. I have removed Copeland's title of Director of the Turing Archive for the History of Computing http://www.alanturing.net/index.htm as this is a website he himself set up so being director of it doesn't really mean anything. As Turing didn't leave a suicide note there will as far as I can see always be uncertainty. Southdevonian (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have a better source for all the reasons why suicide looks doubtful, by all means add instead. Presumably Leavitt (and Hodges?) covered more than just the Snow White theory? Legally it was suicide, but six separate Categories seem to support a "fact" that may not be a fact. I don't see a real problem with Copeland's title, apart from bulk. (He has a good selection of photos at that site). Martinevans123 (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

He was murdered. The court ruling pronounced that he committed suicide but in all actuality it's not logical. The lethal dose of potassium or sodium cyanide is 200 to 300 mg and of hydrocyanic acid is 50 mg. Effects begin within seconds of inhalation and within 30 min of ingestion. General weakness, confusion, bizarre behavior, excessive sleepiness, coma, shortness of breath, headache, dizziness, and seizures can all present with cyanide poisoning. Typically, an acute ingestion will have a dramatic, rapid onset, immediately affecting the heart and causing sudden collapse. It can also immediately affect the brain and cause a seizure or coma.

Apple seeds to contain traces amounts of cyanide but not enough for a lethal dose even with constant exposure. A theory is that his apple was injected with the lethal amount of cyanide. As Alan ingested the apple he began to feel the initial effects of poison. In this case, he would have set the apple down and within 30 minutes or less he would be pronounced deceased.

The murderer of Alan Turing would have these key features as follows: 1) Possessed knowledge of Alan's habit of eating apples before rest. 2) Access to Alan's room. 3) Access to Alan's apples 4) Knowledge and access to cyanide and syringes {Most likely found within Alan's Laboratory and chemical cache.} 5) Knowledge of Alan's schedule both daily and nightly events.

Some may consider Alan Turing's housekeeper as a possible suspect but who's to say that the murderer didn't already plan in advance. The housekeeper was likely to find Alan's body within a 24 to 48 hour period of death due to Alan's absence from his duties. This would add another key feature, the schedule of the housekeeper.

An alternate theory would be inhalation of cyanide. In order for that to happen, one would have to have prior knowledge of the tiny room and access to the device that Alan used to dissolve gold. If so that apparatus contained a gaseous form potassium cyanide, as the housekeeper walked in she would immediately feel the effects. Alan Turing would know the safety precautions of his equipment and not be a procrastinator with gold.

A question arises, "Would you kill yourself when you know how to melt, dissolve, and reform your own gold?" User-Fylnn (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This suicide is indeed questionable. User-Fylnn (talk) 05:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by User-Fylnn (talk • contribs) 05:55, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

See also "Did Alan Turing really commit suicide?" at http://www.osnews.com/story/26114/Did_Alan_Turing_really_commit_suicide_ --Nevarine 07:57, 26 giu 2012 (CEST) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.77.164.234 (talk)

Tribute by University of Turin, Italy
In the section about Tributes by Universities, I think should be introduced also the following:
 * The Computer Science department of the Università degli Studi di Torino has a computer lab named after Turing.

Frasmog (talk) 14:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thank you, Frasmog. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense in an article about Alan Turing
Hello, I am writing to you about a concern a Wikipedia article about Alan Turing that mentions the name, Asperger's Syndrome, which is the name of a neurological disorder.

I have an interest in Asperger Syndrome (also called Asperger's Syndrome) and I have privately and deeply researched the syndrome some symptoms of Asperger Syndrome include narrow focus and narrow performance and deficits in imitations of others movements and emotions as well as gestures. Alan Turing did not have those deficits so therefore Alan Turing did not have Asperger's Syndrome for a good diagnosis.

The Wikipedia article about Alan Turing says that he showed many of the characteristics that are indicative of Asperger Syndrome which I see is false and misleading and it should not be on any website especially a major website such as Wikipedia. The article is about Alan Turing and not Asperger syndrome and the name Asperger's Syndrome should not be in that article.

For the above reasons, could you get rid of the sentence in the Wikipedia article that says Alan Turing showed many of the characteristics that are indicative of Asperger's Syndrome? Thank you.(121.45.231.207 (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2012 (UTC))

From Daniel Maynard
 * Email address not needed, and best not used on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note Daniel. You might find it easier to comment, discuss and even change the article if you create a Wikipedia account for yourself (although you don't have to, of course). Meanwhile, I wonder have you read the discussion earlier on this page headed "Suitability for the lead"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The sentence you were thinking of Daniel was removed some time ago. The only mention of Asperger's syndrome in the article now is: "In 2006 British writer and mathematician Ioan James chose Turing as one of twenty people to feature in his book about famous historical figures who may have had some of the traits of Asperger's syndrome." Southdevonian (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Unliked apostrophe removed, and article now linked (although "Asperger's" is an alternative spelling, apparently?) Martinevans123 (talk) 16:08, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarized by The New York Times?
Does anyone else see a remarkable bit of similarity in this ''[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/23/opinion/alan-turings-legacy.html? New York Times]'' editorial to the lead of this article? (Our article last week, for comparison). NW ( Talk ) 03:40, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't take cryptanalysis to decide they are about the same person. But no, to me it looks quite different. Which bit did you have in mind? At least we get to improve this article whenever we want. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

British vs. English
Some editors prefer "was a British mathematician..." while others like "was an English mathematician...". The latter was just with summary "restore original word. Nationality listed in info box". Having the lead and the infobox agree would be sensible, but the article now says "English", and the infobox says "British". I have seen these nationality wars in other articles—is there a guideline or consensus somewhere to decide this? Johnuniq (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There have been enormous amounts of discussion on Wikipedia about English/British. This essay (not policy) Nationality of people from the United Kingdom "strongly discourages" trying to impose uniformity (meaning uniformity across Wikipedia, rather than uniformity within an individual article).Southdevonian (talk) 12:26, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well he was, of course, both, so maybe it's a good idea to have both English and British? It would make sense at other articles that have English, Scottish, etc., in infoboxes instead of British. — JonC ॐ 16:05, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Wiki best practice demands the country of birth in biography articles, Turing was English with British nationality, I have updated the article to read so. Twobells (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Twobells, where did you find this "best practice demands"? I could only find this: "It is not possible to create a uniforming guideline, when such strong disagreement exists on the relative importance of the labels. Re-labelling nationalities on grounds of consistency—making every UK citizen "British", or converting each of those labelled "British" into their constituent nationalities—is strongly discouraged" (from Nationality of people from the United Kingdom). Southdevonian (talk) 09:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's stick to discussion of this article. What is the recommended text in this article, and for what reason? Johnuniq (talk) 10:24, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would say British: all British people are necessarily also English, Welsh, Scottish etc but a precise definition is difficult (place of Birth, or main residence, or parentage, etc), but I would reserve English for quintessentially English for reasons of main work or the period of history. Per the article his mother was Scottish and another part of the family Anglo-Irish. Also as to his war work, I tend to think of the participant nation as Great Britain rather than England. Mcewan (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What a farce, Turing was born in Paddington, London, he loved England and described himself as an Englishman. The old adage really is true that success has many fathers. Twobells (talk) 21:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
 * British was his nationality and that is without dispute. "English" is a subjective description which takes us into the area of ethnicity and subjectivity. We don't call American Jews (including atheists who strongly associate with the Jewish community) either Jews or American-Jews in the first sentence of the lead. We also don't call someone from California a Californian rather than an American. This desperation which some editors seem to have to label British individuals as English or Scottish in the first sentence of the article seems horribly parochial and POV-pushing.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference is that the UK is a nation made up of nations. There is an English national football team, Radio Scotland is one of the BBC nations, etc. Whereas California is considered a state inside the USA, and Judaism is considered a religion and an ethnicity (and also a nationality, but based on ethnicity, rather than geography). But I have no real opinion on whether it should be British, English or both. 91.85.57.191 (talk) 13:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Turing's influence on the creation of the computer
"He was highly influential in the development of computer science, providing a formalisation of the concepts of "algorithm" and "computation" with the Turing machine, which played a significant role in the creation of the modern computer."

The Turing machine was just an abstract model with little influence on the creation of the computer; neither Konrad Zuse nor ENIAC/EDVAC's creators were aware of Turing's work:

"Zuse completed his work entirely independently of other leading computer scientists and mathematicians of his day. Between 1936 and 1945, he was  in near-total intellectual isolation."

"Independently, J. Presper Eckert and John Mauchly, who were developing the ENIAC at the Moore School of Electrical Engineering, at the University of Pennsylvania, wrote about the stored-program concept in December 1943.[8][9] In planning a new machine, EDVAC, Eckert wrote in January 1944 that they would store data and programs in a new addressable memory device, a mercury metal delay line memory. This was the first time the construction of a practical stored-program machine was proposed. At that time, he and Mauchly were not aware of Turing's work."

Noczesc (talk) 11:39, 24 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not that its relevant, thats two examples, overlooking many others (Colossus being one). I have reworded cited content.Chie one (talk) 18:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In what sense did he "provide the blueprint" if the first computers were built entirely independently of his work? It's misleading. Noczesc (talk) 19:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Again, you gave just two examples.. not that its relevant. Finally its "a" blueprint not "the". Cited.Chie one (talk) 08:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * One example would have been entirely sufficient. You can specify what it was a blueprint for below; the current formulation is not particularly informative and even misleading. Noczesc (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The material is referenced. As for an example, "Thanks to Turing, the Colossus machine was one of the world's earliest programmable electronic digital computers. Today Turing's computer designs, as he described them in his day, are still what computer specialists utilize". - The 100 Greatest Inventions of All Time, by Tom Philbin, Citadel Press, New York, 2003. Mitchell NZ (talk) 23:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Suggesting that Turing had any influence on the invention and creation of the first computer (or even the first influential computer) is wrong (thankfully your quote says something entirely different). Why do you insist on keeping such a misleading fragment in the article?


 * By the way, I'm not sure if "Turing's computer designs" even means "Turing machine" here. Noczesc (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I have just posted a reference (which backs up references already there) that contradicts your comment. Btw there was no definitive "first" computer.. there was a series of early computers, and "Thanks to Turing, the Colossus machine was one of the world's earliest programmable electronic digital computers."Mitchell NZ (talk) 23:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * In what way does it contradict anything I've said? I say "Turing had no influence on the invention and creation of the first computer"; the reference says "Turing had influence on the creation of one of the earliest computers" (but definitely not the first or most influential); you say "Turing machine was a blueprint for the computer".


 * I provided evidence that we'd still have the computer even if Turing hadn't existed. How can you say that he "provided a blueprint for the computer"? Noczesc (talk) 13:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * And even if he had hypothetically invented and created the computer before anyone else, it would still be misleading to say that he "provided a blueprint", because other people constructed (influential) computers *independently*. Noczesc (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * My two cents. Providing A blueprint (what the source states) is accurate. As mentioned previous it doesnt say he provided THE blueprint, hence others worked independently with different components/variations. There is a great big difference between stating The and A. No one individual invented and created the computer and no one has suggested so. Hal Mangen (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Alan Turing was, in a phrase, the founder of computer science. These are the words of his biographer, Alan Hodges. (See: ) Arguing "firsts" in computing is a rather sterile activity. By the time machines were being built that have most of the characteristics of modern computers, both the papers by Turing and Von Neumann et al. were in the public domain and known to those who built the machines. Von Neumann acknowledged that Turing's ideas had influenced him. I suggest removing the contentious phrase and substituting something about Turing being widely accepted as the father of computer science. --TedColes (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Computer science is really not that much about building computers. Turing did something far more spectacular than providing the design of a computer. Noczesc (talk) 16:55, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The beginning of digital devices
I have read the whole article and one of Turing's thoughts caught my attention. He was utterly convinced machines had the ability to think by themselves. If we analyse this statement deeply today, it may does not make any sense because of our development at computability and informatics which proves machines are subordinated to us. However, what did impulse him to believe that? Either real or not, what is certain is that belief was produced by something or someone that made him think that and influenced during his life so as to establish his first own ideas about what informatics will be in the future. Focusing on this statement, he was used to work with the binnary code, using his knowledge to work out the secret messages of the machine Enigma while the Second World War was happening. Some sources said he started thinking machines can truly think while that moment. So perhaps that idea came when he was using that code. Related to this, when someone says a machine can think by themselves, it means something made him believe that. According to his childhood, he was supposed to overcome the worst tragedies he had and once achieved the adulthood he had to get through his friend's death. This make him stronger than before and set his way, the way of the primary informatics. After being punished for his homosexuality by the British government and being refused by the majority of the traditional people who rejected homosexuals, he used to feel alone, without any close friend. At that moment, he was suffering the conviction he accepted (an hormonal treatment), trying to overcome that difficult time. It would be logical to think that while all of this was happening, he tried to invent a stuff like a friend, using his knowledge in computability and the binnary code, what is usually said a digital friend. He spent his adulthood studying why a specific animal had spots or stripes and another with the same colorcast had different ones, and he reflected this on his book The chemical basis of the morphogenesis. Why did such a mathematic as him want to study that? That's because spots on animals are closely related to maths. But it is possible that he was attracted to this due to his need to talk to someone as well, he could use his knowledge at this topic to modify the appearance of an animal and introduce the data in the ancient computer. If we think this deeply, it could be the beginning of "Tamagochi", where one has a pet and must keep it alive by giving food and teaching what is good or bad. This topic could stop here, but according to that idea he always had in mind, "I think machines can think by themselves", it is not so weird to think he went furhter and tried to make up a new digital animal which could be very similar to what we know today as digital monster. This digital monster would have a digital world to live inside the computer made by data, but it was not possible to talk each other because there was no way to do that. Related to this, we know he worked close to Norbert Wiener in the development of the cybernetics, which is usually defined to establish a system of communication between man and machine as a basic premise. So perhaps, Alan used his knowledge at this science to set a digital connection between him and the monster, giving way to a digital device which could be named digital device. With cybernetics, he also questioned the limits of simulation of human reasoning, and he could use this to implement his own digital animal to evolve it to higher ranks physically and psychologically, which could be likely named digital evolution. It is not totally demonstrated he had such a digital friend with whom he could spend his time of loneliness, but we know the net is kind of infinite and there is no reason to believe there was not like a world in the net where these digital monsters could live in connection with real world by any kind of way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersmash8 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Chemical castration
Currently the article reads:

He accepted chemical castration via injections of stilboestrol, a synthetic oestrogen hormone;[81] this treatment was continued for the course of one year.[82] The side-effects of the treatment rendered Turing impotent 

Can impotence really be regarded as a side-effect of chemical castration? Ordinary Person (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reasonable point. I am not sure that it is even helpful to talk about "chemical castration", although it is a term that is widely used. Was the treatment meant to suppress his libido for a year or was it supposed to do some more lasting damage? Was it reversible? I don't have a copy of Andrew Hodges book (footnote 83) so I don't know if he actually says it made him impotent, etc. In the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Hodges just says this "To avoid prison he accepted, for a year, injections of oestrogen." I will assume the book is being quoted correctly and just take out the "side-effects", and also footnote 81 because it is not a published source. And footnote 82 is superfluous here as Hodges must say the same thing.Southdevonian (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite agree. It wasn't a "side effect", it was the entire aim of that wonderful "treatment". If we really want to include side effects, try this (sorry it's the Daily Snail, but the reported quote is still his): "They transformed his body. The man who had run a marathon in 2 hours and 46 minutes - when the world record was 2 hours and 25 minutes - was reduced to a shadow of his former self. 'They've given me breasts,' he was reported to have said to a friend, describing the shameful process as 'horrible' and 'humiliating'."   Martinevans123 (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Early life and career
This section starts: "Turing was conceived...". I have always been a bit puzzled by this. Most articles don't say where someone was conceived. Is there some significance that I have missed? Southdevonian (talk) 08:26, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem unreasonable to mention that Turing's parents were living abroad immediately before his birth, but yes, I agree that this is a rather odd way to put it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:01, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Madurai festival
An editor inserted some text about the Rainbow Festival in Madurai, India, in the Centenary celebrations section. However the event does not seem to have really included anything about Alan Turing's life and work, other than simply borrowing his name. This is more of a tribute than a celebration, so I have moved it to the Tributes section. I have also cut it down as the text was promoting a particular event rather than improving the article. On the other hand it is nice to have something from India, a country which had an influence on Turing's life, even though he never went there. I also found a source, as the one with the text had been incorrectly formatted and didn't work. Southdevonian (talk) 04:37, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Letter to Churchill
I like this article but I am a bit surprised that there is no mention of the letter to Churchill (Hodges pp 219-221). I think this is important. It meant that substantial resources were diverted to code-breaking. We now know that code-breaking made a big contribution to the eventual success of the British war effort but up to that time the British strategists had been starving it and ignoring its results. This letter's effect in changing strategy and turning the balance of the warring powers is hard to measure but it must be substantial and could even have been decisive. It also shows Turing as a man with strategic vision and passion, not just a "brain". He may have been a poor administrator and no politician but at that moment he really was a leader.

Is there any support for a section on this topic? Budhen (talk) 18:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I would say a mention rather than a whole new section - if you want to put it in. Southdevonian (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Now been added. I think it's OK. Budhen (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Engima message
The Enigma message doesn't seem to read "Founder of Computer Science". Enigma is incapable of enciphering a letter as itself. The 14th letter in plaintext and enciphered are both U. I wonder what it really says or if someone made a mistake with the letter groups. I suppose it could be the phrase translated into German and then encoded. Assuming that's also 24 letters it would be very appropriate. I tried to make one fit below padding with x's operators sometimes used but not sure if that is correct in German.


 * FOUND EROFC OMPUT ERSCI ENCE
 * IEKYF ROMSI ADXUO KVKZC GUBJ
 * xxVAT ERxDE RxINF ORMAT IKxx

Skywayman (talk) 16:01, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice to those editing for a class
Please do not change British spelling and dates to American spelling and dates. You risk having all of your class's edits reverted. We use British spelling in this article. Do not change -ise to -ize or -our to -or, etc. See WP:ENGVAR for the policy on this. Yworo (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

A spent conviction?
I have reworded the bit about the relationship, keeping in the bit about a few weeks as someone wanted to stress it wasn't a long-term relationship. Firstly meeting at a cinema is ambiguous - is that where they first saw each other, or did they arrange to go to a film together? "Lunch-date" sounds odd. Anyway that is just what you do when you have a relationship - cinema, meals, going to someone's house - it isn't encyclopeadic. The only significance here is because it led to a court case. I think it is enough to say they started a relationship... there was a burglary, etc. I was wondering if we should even name Murray. Thoughts, anyone? Southdevonian (talk) 12:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually I have just refreshed my memory in Hodges and it appears Arnold Murray gave quite an extensive interview to the author. Presumably that is where all the info about the relationship came from. Alan approached him in Oxford Street about Christmas, they had lunch together, etc. Burglary on 23rd January. I will put back some of the stuff I took out. Southdevonian (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Apple logo
"The logo of Apple Computer is often erroneously referred to as a tribute to Alan Turing" is too contentious, and needs to be balanced by the point of fact that since many people consider it a tribute (reaching Urban legend status), it defacto is. even ify that was never the original intention. Something like "The logo of Apple Computer is considered a tribute to Alan Turing this was not the original intention ..." would reflect the real situation more accurately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.65.59.201 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I just actually saw an episode of QI where Stephen Fry mentions this and talks about a discussion he had with Steve Jobs about it. He confirms that it is a myth and the bit apple is not a reference to Turing. Posted up here as a starting point if source is needed ツ Jenova  20  (email) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Statutory pardon
There is "On 26 July 2012, a bill was introduced in the House of Lords to give a statutory pardon to Turing for offences under section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 of which he was convicted on 31 March 1952", sourced to http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/alanturingstatutorypardon.html This bill apparently failed, since another bill has been introduced to the Lords with precisely the same purpose, see http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/alanturingstatutorypardon.html -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Nationality
Someone keeps changing his status from English to 'British', it is best wiki practice to lay out the description by country then nationality, examples
 * I think we have had this discussion before. His family were Scottish and Irish.Southdevonian (talk) 14:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Links for unsigned addition by User:Twobells:
 * Martinevans123 (talk) 17:22, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

A practicing and aggressive homosexual?
"Aggressive" is a strong and disparaging word. Is there more evidence for this paragraph than the single citation from a journalist? TedColes (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)


 * It's loaded with unspoken stereotypes. I can just about get my mind around describing someone as "aggressively homosexual", meaning they have a very high libido and they proposition many people for sex and/or refuse to take No for an answer but persist until they either get their way or their marching orders.  Something like that.  I could even settle for "an aggressively practising homosexual" (and it's practising in BrEng, not practicing).  But to use the adjective "aggressive" suggests he was generally aggressive by nature, and particularly so when he was engaged in the practice of homosexuality.  Awfully inappropriate.  We have to find some better words.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I removed the whole paragraph . See my es. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Good. Thanks.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  08:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Gossip wrapped in name-dropping and &lt;ref> tags: still gossip.
 * Let us analyse the now removed paragraph . So in 1987 A.C. Brown writes that Menzies (1890–1968!) "had known" (not "always knew" as I wrote earlier) about his --qualificated by adjectives-- homosexuality. A source for the Brown quote is missing here, possibly in the Brown book too. And, apart from the journalist not sourcing, Menzies himself has not produced a source too (possibly in the MI6 archives).
 * So Brown introduces words like "aggressive" and "molesting". This should be seen in the fact that homosexual activity (even apart from under whatever age "schoolboys" and not "aggressive", i.e. in age of & with consent) was criminal in Britain during Turing's life. The Brown quote does not explain why Menzies did not use that law.
 * Now within the Brown quote there are questionable things too. The "Early in 1944" suspicion wrt Luton is not sourced too. The claim that Menzies wanted Turing removed, but only after his services, is not sourced in any point. We must also note that 1. a spymaster (Menzies) is always supposed to have damning though speculative information about his people, and that 2. Menzies, if he acted, did not move until five years after the war (why wait?) and that 3. A. Hodges in his 1983 biography does not even mention Menzies.
 * Turing "was" moved to Haslope which was "further away from Luton" (where an alleged molestation took place) is true, but only displacing from about 10 mi to 24 mi. Also, this "further" argument was not in the quote, so OR by a wiki editor.
 * Turing "was" moved to Hanslope Park after "molestation" suspicoin arose in "Early 1944". Actually, already "september 1943, when he [Turing] cycled the ten miles from Bletchley to inspect the possiblilities" (Hodges, chapter 'Running Up", my p.271).
 * Brown does not contemplate that Turing after the war was usefull for MI6 still. Remember that the Ultra project was secret until the 1970s.
 * All in all, Brown did a useless job for the wiki. As the OP TedColes wrote above, we need more sources. The speculation by Brown about a dead MI6 chief is, I repeat, gossip. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks DePiep. There was a bit about Luton library in the article a couple of years ago and I (or possibly someone else) removed it. There was also a brief discussion on the Talk page. I think I looked in the book that was given as a source and there wasn't a footnote. Southdevonian (talk)
 * Appreciated. I did not know these talk histories. Because this is just aftertalk, I was sloppy with the argumentation buildup (my points are mixing up a bit), and anyway sure the paragraph won't be back unless a much better source pops up. AC Brown does not backup anything as a source, so the new source should be complete in itself. Good riddance. -DePiep (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested Edit
Is it possible that this photo: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Flowers_on_Alan_Turing%27s_Memorial,_as_an_early_part_of_the_flowers_for_Turing_Project..jpg might be added to the page? I took the photo (and wrote the page at http://joereddington.com/flowers-for-turing/ giving the circumstances... ) so It would be a bit of a COI if I put it in... I think it is a nice illustration of the place that Turing holds in people's hearts so many years later..

(Tried making this request on the memorial page but it looks like there isn't much traffic on that talk page...)

Joe


 * I have put the photo on the memorial page, as there are already a couple of the statue here. Southdevonian (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Joe,
 * Lovely sentiment and thanks for taking the high road with the COI. I don't think the picture quite fits, as the explanation for the flowers would probably cross into WP:UNDUE.  If the tradition continues and there is some media coverage, then I think we can reconsider.  Thanks for the contribution, though&mdash;I enjoyed reading the "flowers for turing" piece.  Garamond Lethe t c  07:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Did Turing have Schizophrenia?
I had thought that it was quite well known or 'widely believed' that Alan Turing had suffered from some kind of mild schizophrenia, but on looking through this article and even the talk page and its archives I can find no mention of it anywhere. I have also hunted on Google briefly and didn't get very far. Am I chasing down some spurious reference in a old documentary or is this a piece of history that has been 'revised' in the name of political correctness?

Anyone with any info?, I had thought this was an important part of his life and was once cited as a potential reason for his suicide. Maybe someone has made the mistake of conflating schizophrenia = mental illness with homosexuality = mental illness - the two were definitely not the same thing. Lucien86 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * In the biographies I've read, this was never mentioned or hinted at. If it's a conspiracy, they're making a really good job. Maybe that was temporary hypotheses, that didn't have much support behind it and was abandoned? If you can find some information we could include some mention of it in the article, as this biography is not a BLP. Diego (talk) 09:51, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
 * There is some evidence (although I don't have a source to hand) that Turing showed some evidence of Asperger syndrome. Might this be the cause of this confusion? --TedColes (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Ted, your link says that Asperger started describing this disease in 1944, and that is was re-discovered in 1981. Would be great if you have a contemporary source. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * See Asperger syndrome article. --TedColes (talk) 18:21, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, is where I got the years from. It started with children in 1944. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with a retrospective diagnosis. --TedColes (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless it jumps from Asperger's to schizophrenia, of course... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:28, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Turing baronets
Alan Turing is the uncle of the present twelfth Turing baronet, Sir (John) Dermot Turing. Alan was the brother of the eleventh baron, Sir John Leslie Turing, Dermot's father.[ref: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2009/09/more_from_turings_relatives.html] The article is rather vague about Turing's aristocratic background, saying the family 'included a baronet'. Wouldn't it be better to state his close relationship to the baronetcy more clearly? ie Turing was from a posher immediate background, rather than having some third uncle ten times removed who was a baronet? 62.7.177.190 (talk) 11:04, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The twelfth baronet is indeed Alan Turing's nephew. However he did not inherit the baronetcy from his father (Alan's brother). He inherited it from his third cousin once removed, Sir John Leslie Turing, 11th baronet. (Alan's brother was John Ferrier Turing, not John Leslie Turing.) So Alan had third cousins who were baronets. Many people don't know their third cousins, and I am not aware that the Turing baronets played any role in Alan Turing's life. The twelfth baronet was not even born when Alan Turing died, and did not become a baronet until 1987. Southdevonian (talk) 20:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Passport
The article says that his passport was never revoked. Why should it be? Although this is common practice in the US, my understanding is that passports are never revoked in the UK, although there may be temporary requests to surrender a passport as a condition of bail or similar  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  06:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that sentence has always puzzled me. The bit about his passport could probably just disappear. Not mentioning it is the same as saying nothing happened involving it, and doesn't lead to "What the..." questions? HiLo48 (talk) 07:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I've removed that sentence. In the US, passports are the property of the state which will remove them as it seems fit. In the UK they are individual property and cannot be removed from citizens for political reasons. I guess that the editor or the author of the source confused these policies. I think the bit about him being free to visit Europe is stating the obvious and is the same mould, but one step at a time.  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  08:01, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: Surrender of passport is usually a procedure considered before a trial, not after. Where a defendant is remanded on bail, there are two types of bail:
 * Unconditional - where the defendant is told to return to Court on a specific date for the next hearing
 * Conditional - where the defendant is told to return to court on a specific date but with conditions set by the Magistrates to ensure their attendance (e.g: surrender of passport).
 * But the paragraph here is obviously talking about what happened after his conviction, so it seems quite irrelevant. Or has the law on indecency (specifically after conviction) changed in the past 61 years? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * As I say, it looks like confusion with US practice, where people like Paul Robeson were denied passports on political grounds, even when no offence had been committed  Jimfbleak -  talk to me?  11:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes. But I suppose the considerations here (if there were any) were to do with "national security" rather than "political". Martinevans123 (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Private member's bill
The lead paragraph went into quite a lot of detail about the process of pardoning Turing, and this is not what the lead is for. That level of detail belongs in the relevant section of the article. I have edited it down a bit. Richard75 (talk) 13:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The father of computer science and artificial intelligence?
Well, I think I'll dare to say that this is a common thought that is not actually true... To disarm this fallacy, we have to talk about Mr. Leonardo Torres Quevedo, a Spanish engineer of the late 19th century and early 20th century. If we read and study about his theoretical contributions and inventions, we'll see that he wrote the first essay on automation when that word didn't even exist, in the decade of 1910. He built various algebraic computing machines, solving with them math problems that were unsolvable till then. As an example of automata, we have his "Ajedrecista", a mechanical machine that can play chess and give check mate to a king with a tower and a king. He indeed built the first computer in history, the "Aritmómetro Electromecánico" (Electromechanical Arithmometer). This machine used a typewriter as an input/output device and could be programmed to make calculations. For more information, you can read his writing or make a research on the internet (most of the info about him is in spanish and french). He was also prolific in many other engineering fields but this is not the issue here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.37.228.104 (talk) 01:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Alan Turing's "a-machine" is a mathematical model that can emulate a universal machine on which the correctness, practicality, and many other properties of algorithms can be evaluated. The same thing cannot be said about -any- earlier model. I'm sure you can find many many mathematicians before Alan Turing trying to achieve what he achieved, and they are all respectable as mathematicians (no doubt in that). Alan Turing and John von Neumann are the ones who -directly- influenced the technology we are using today. You and I surely are not in a position to debate over who is/was or is/was not most influential in the computer science and mathematics... leave the debate to computer scientists and mathematicians. I'm guessing you are Hispanic/Latino, hence your bias toward this particular Spanish engineer. A discussion about science should not be ethnically-charged.198.72.137.243 (talk) 07:53, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
 * After the fact, one can point to many preceding designs or devices that could be considered predecessors. For example, the devices of Napier, Pascal, Liebniz, and especially Charles Babbage.  And theoretical work going back to Aristotle, probably.
 * But most of that didn't lead to anything. Turing's work did.  He developed actual, working computing devices, he met with many of the pioneers of computer hardware, like Zuse, Flowers, Atanasoff, and von Neumann, and his design papers were very influential on others.  So he is called the 'Father' (not the First).  Just like Columbus is called the 'Discoverer of America', though others (Vikings, for example) reached it first -- his voyages led to the subsequent communication, trade, and emigration to America, so he gets credited as 'Discoverer'.  T-bonham (talk) 09:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? Meet me here for a discussion. To give a taste of my argument: Wasn't he the first European of the time to discover America and lead others there? Besides, he thought he was in India. At least the Vikings didn't claim it was something other than what it was! James Woodward (talk) 23:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Turing and Telepathy
In his essay on artificial intelligence where he posits the famous Turing test (I don't have it to hand, but I'm sure of this) Turing affirms his belief in telepathy. Can we put this in in the passage about his religious/nonreligious beliefs and views on life after death? I don't want to do it now as I don't have the source for reference, but anyone who does can check that I'm right.89.100.155.6 (talk) 20:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Alan Mathison Turing Esq OBE
"Turing would go on to be honoured by the British state. In a supplement dated Tuesday 18 June 1946, Gazette number 37617 reports that Alan Mathison Turing Esq ‘employed in a Department of the Foreign Office’ is to be promoted to become an officer of the civil division of the British Empire." issue 37617, page 3124 of the London Gazette Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)