Jump to content

Talk:Alan Turing

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 86.187.232.88 (talk) at 21:13, 6 July 2023 (→Compulsory sterilisation: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Good articleAlan Turing has been listed as one of the Mathematics good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
In the newsOn this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 7, 2005Good article nomineeListed
May 3, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
August 23, 2007Good article reassessmentKept
In the news News items involving this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on September 12, 2009, and December 24, 2013.
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on May 28, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2009, May 28, 2010, June 23, 2012, May 28, 2013, May 28, 2015, May 28, 2016, May 28, 2017, November 30, 2021, and November 30, 2022.
Current status: Good article


Autopsy Report

Here's a link to Turing's autopsy report: http://www.polarimagazine.com/features/killing-alan-turing/attachment/alan-turing-post-mortem-report/ 88.106.15.126 (talk) 18:59, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the UK that's called a "post-mortem". That's probably the word that should be used in this article as we have {{Use British English|date=June 2020}} (although the suppoprting BBC report never mentions either word). I don't think it's possible to use that post-mortem report as a reference because of WP:PRIMARY. But it is interesting to see what underlies the comments made by Prof Jack Copeland. I assume that the report was not made public at Turing's inquest. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC) p.s. how do we know that image of the report is 100% genuine?[reply]

Alan

Born in Maida Vale, London, Turing was raised in southern England. He graduated at King's College, Cambridge, with a degree in mathematics. Whilst he was a fellow at Cambridge, he published a proof demonstrating that some purely mathematical yes–no questions can never be answered by computation and defined a Turing machine, and went on to prove that the halting problem for Turing machines is undecidable. In 1938, he obtained his PhD from the Department of Mathematics at Princeton University. During the Second World War, Turing worked for the Government Code and Cypher School (GC&CS) at Bletchley Park, Britain's codebreaking centre that produced Ultra intelligence. For a time he led Hut 8, the section that was responsible for German naval cryptanalysis. Here, he devised a number of techniques for speeding the breaking of German ciphers, including improvements to the pre-war Polish bomba method, an electromechanical machine that could find settings for the Enigma machine. Turing played a crucial role in cracking intercepted coded messages that enabled the Allies to defeat the Axis powers in many crucial engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic.[11][12] 2A02:C7C:664D:A500:34F3:40B5:17A:C754 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

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

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

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

In commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_in_Category:Alan_Turing, it is established that the author of both photos is either William Matthew Chaffin Jr (1861-1937) or Arthur Reginald Chaffin (1893-1954). Copyright term for both the US and UK lasts for the life of the author + 70 years. So both photos became public domain on 1937 + 71 = 2008 or will become public domain on 1954 + 71 = 2025. Thus, the copyright for the two photos will certainly expire on 2025.

I apologize for not having contacted the archivist, as I promised before, in a timely manner. I should have done that a lot sooner and not put it off for such a long time. I have finally contacted the archivist and they provided an email with useful information about the copyright of the two photos. The email is posted with permission in the deletion request link above. FunnyMath (talk) 15:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Chia Seed Study

I've added information about study "Abstract: F46.00003 : Studying Turing patterns in vegetation." As this study is fairly recent, I have not been able to locate the official scientific journal. Feel free to ping me if my addition doesn't follow scientific journal guidelines & I'll be more than happy to remove, adding again once the official report is made accessible. Porcinipal (talk) 16:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Compulsory sterilisation

@Johnbod, why is a law that mandates jail time or chemical castration for being a homosexual not an example of compulsory sterilization? A choice made under duress is not a choice made voluntarily, it is coercion. Bart Terpstra (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not the point. Chemical castration, which was mentioned but not linked, is clearly the more relevant term and article, and well-referenced in relation to Turing. Sterilising him was not at all the aim. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sterilizing homosexuals was, is that not relevant? Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
compulsory sterilization does not even has a section on the UK. Nor, btw, does Chemical castration seem to link to compulsory sterilization. I believe what happened to Turing did not technically make him sterile (or not permanently so). Your addition was unreferenced. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make that section rn to win this argument.
Yes, because chemical castration can be done voluntarily, i'll add a section there to.
Doesn't matter, also uncited and also unlikely, it was intended to make him sterile.
I don't need a reference as it's a common sense factual conclussion from the premises and something freely available in other sources Synth is not obvious inference. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's definitely not a "common sense conclusion" that the intent was to prevent homosexuals from reproducing, and I don't think it's true. My understanding was that the intention was to prevent them from engaging in homosexual behavior. Conceivably the fact that it also made it harder for them to father children was a secondary motive, but that would definitely need to be cited. --Trovatore (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it require that specific intent?
The page specifies that the rationalization is independent from the concept, there are a lot of rationalisations that were used.
If my government forcibly sterilize someone because a priest has said god judged them, that's still Compulsory sterilization, even if that specific rationalisation wasn't mentioned on the wikipedia page.
The essential properties are a government program to by force or coercion sterilize people. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You specifically claimed that it was the intent. You said "[s]terilizing homosexuals was, is that not relevant?". You have not even shown that "chemical castration" results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have to proof the sky is blue.
Is there a case where chemical castration by coercive government force is not a subset of sterilization by coercive government force?
Wikipedia:What_SYNTH_is_not#SYNTH_is_not_obvious_II Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you do in fact have to prove that chemical castration results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
According to wikipedia.
Castration causes sterilization (preventing the castrated person or animal from reproducing).
However, chemical castration can be reversed if treatment is stopped.
However, this is irrelevant for it to have happened. Bart Terpstra (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Castration (removal of the testicles) of course does cause sterilization, because there are no more sperm. That's obvious. "Chemical castration" is not castration, so it is not obvious that it results in sterilization. --Trovatore (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chemical castration does mention compulsory sterilization, it mentions criminals being able to select it to lower their assigned punishment. Bart Terpstra (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a precisely relevant link, which was already referenced, to an article on exactly what was done to Turing, and where the article already mentions Turing. You had added an unreferenced OR link to an article that doesn't even mention the UK, never mind Turing. Enough! Johnbod (talk) 18:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bart Terpstra, your argument seems to be entirely specious. Do you have one single source that says Turing underwent "compulsory sterilization"? WP:BLUESKY is wholly irrelevant. 86.187.232.88 (talk) 21:13, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alan_Turing&oldid=1163871490"