Talk:Alan Turing

Boys

Why does the article not mention Turing liked young boys? (Hefrrre118 (talk) 20:11, 27 June 2021 (UTC))

Maybe because there's no evidence? But I guess we could mention the Pet Shop Boys: [1]. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

He was in his late thirties and was known for being sexually attracted to underage boys. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)) p.s. the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 raised the age of consent to 16, and so in 1952 19-year-old Arnold Murray, who was prosecuted alongside Turing, was far from being a "young boy" or below the legal age of consent.

He was in his late thirties, for about three years, after June 1939? Can you provide a reliable source for that claim? Known by whom exactly? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to back up such a claim?  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 14:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

His paedophilia was discussed extensively in the biography I read. Turing preferred boys of 11 and 12. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2021 (UTC))

So which biography did you read? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I will look for it again. (Hefrrre118 (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2021 (UTC))

Chapter and page numbers would be useful. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Also nice to see your back editing again, Martin. :).  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 20:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Oooh, thanks so much. In that case, I'd better watch out, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Grammatical errors

There are several grammatical errors "organisation" "optimise"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:49:c200:c690:d5c4:62f7:7ace:e74d (talk • contribs) 09:06, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

That's spelling, not grammar. And they're not errors. Those are two spelling variants commonly used in British English. Turing was British and the article is written in British English. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:07, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2021

Jack Copeland's view on Enigma shortening the war by two years should mention that the Allies would still have developed atomic weapons in 1945 using the Manhattan Project. 86.151.111.67 (talk) 13:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The war would still have ended in 1945 due to the Allies using atomic weapons. The claim by Copeland is misleading and demonstrably false. (86.151.111.67 (talk) 15:06, 30 June 2021 (UTC))

World War II was actually two very distinct wars: the European Theater, against Germany, and the Pacific Theater, against Japan. Cracking Enigma helped to end the war in Europe but would have done nothing to end the war in the Pacific. And it is highly unlikely that the US would have dropped nuclear weapons in Europe: there was considerable racism involved in the US' choice of target.TechBear | Talk | Contributions 15:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Germany was closely allied with Japan from 1940 onwards. Atomic weapons would most certainly have been used in Germany in 1945. There was considerable anti-German racism. (Angustyre (talk) 14:28, 1 July 2021 (UTC))

I think we're straying a little away from Jack Copeland here, and especially from Turing? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The fact is that the Allies would have developed atomic weapons in 1945 regardless of Enigma, and if the war in Europe had not ended in May they would most certainly have used them in Germany. (Angustyre (talk) 15:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC))

I think you'll find that's not a "fact" at all, but rather a personal opinion or, at best, an informed guess. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:42, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree completely -- I would refer Angustyre and other speculators to counterfactual history. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 16:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

The Allies had firebombed Dresden, Cologne, Berlin etc and would not have thought twice about using atomic weapons if the war in Europe had lasted for a few more months. (Angustyre (talk) 11:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC))

Now you tell us about the thought processes of the Allies 60 years ago? Have you tried tarot, scrying or the ouija yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Copeland was quoting official war historian Professor Harry Hinsley --TedColes (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley evidently failed to take the Manhattan Project into account. (Angustyre (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2021 (UTC))

Hinsley

Since this is just an estimate by one person it should be removed from the lede as it's just speculation. (Angustyre (talk) 18:09, 4 July 2021 (UTC))

No objection. Also unsure about the preceding sentence which introduces it. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, both are out of place in the lede. (Angustyre (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC))

I think the lede is meant to summarise the entire article, not cherry-pick items that are copied verbatim. I guess Harry Hinsley was "an expert", but "two years and saved over 14 million lives" was just his unverifiable opinion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. His opinion is verifiable in the sense we can verify it from him (an expert on the subject), but obviously since this is an expert estimation we will never "truly" know the answer. However, as far as I know most experts generally agree with the fact his efforts would have significantly reduced war and saved lives. If that is not the case then we should we remove it per undue weight. An alternative, could perhaps saying something like "experts estimate he significantly reduced length of the war and saved millions of lives" (without direct attribution to a specific expert, like Hinsley). Then subsquently having an efn detailing experts estimations and in the body as well.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 01:31, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this should be in the lead. There shouldn't be anything in the lead that isn't in the body of the article. Two years seems to be puffery, coming from someone who worked there. Is there any standard history of WW2 that says this? The implication is that the Red Army would have got to Berlin two years later if not for Turing, but I've never heard anything like that.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It is in the body of the article. Happy to scan for more expert opinions though.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

If anything it's an underestimate. It's one of his more remarkable achievements. It should be in the lead. Skyerise (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not "an achievement", it's an historical theory. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

A theory shared on the whole by those limited number of people who knew about his role at the time before it was made public. Skyerise (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. And like most historical theories it's wholly unverifiable. I've no problem with Hinsley's estimate being mentioned in the text, with the accompanying qualification. But I think the lead section ought to stick to facts. It says more about Hinsley than it does about Turing. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe you should start a proper RfC then... Skyerise (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe Angustyre, who opened this discussion thread, would like to start a proper RfC then...? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

The Red Army would have reinvaded Poland in 1944-45 without Enigma, and the Manhattan Project would have ended the war by the summer of 1945 regardless of Enigma. (Angustyre (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

Yes, maybe. It's all maybes. On either side. That's why we should steer clear of this territory, in my view. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Speculation does not belong in the lede. However, even without Enigma helping the western Allies, the Soviet Union would still have defeated Germany by 1945. (Angustyre (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

It's not speculation. It's a cited informed historical opinion. What you're doing above is speculation. Skyerise (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not informed at all. How could the war have lasted for over two more years when the Allies had atomic weapons by the early summer of 1945? (Angustyre (talk) 18:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC))

Your personal view that the expert is wrong is completely irrelevant. Please stop arguing over "but they would have made atmoic weapons by then" it does not matter. Your personal view on this history is not a reliable source. We go by what the experts say. Give me reliable subject experts please, not your own personal view.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 22:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley was not an expert. How could the war have lasted for more than two more years when the Allies had atomic weapons in 1945? (Angustyre (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC))

And you're even less of an expert. Either start an RfC or get off the pot. Skyerise (talk) 13:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm more of an expert than he was because I know about the Manhattan Project. (Angustyre (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC))

And I'm more of an expert than Angustyre, because I know all about pots! Martinevans123 (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

@Angustyre: More knowledge doesn't make someone more expert. That's a ludicrous thing to say. Another thing you have no expertise at is Wikipedia. In an editing situation like this, where other editors disagree with you, the article stays as it is until you show that there is a consensus for the change. That almost never happens in long-winded free discussion like this. If you won't open an RfC, you may as well go edit something else, because the article won't be changing any time soon unless you show a clear consensus for your change. Skyerise (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and another thing. Did you even look at the date of the reference? It's from a lecture given in 1993. So spare me your facetious claim that the expert didn't know about the Manhattan Project. Any opinion after August 6, 1945 would have included that knowledge. Skyerise (talk) 13:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I used to have a little knowledge, but I gave it up in order to edit Wikipedia... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

You just gotta love Groucho! Skyerise (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Unfortunately, this is a classic case of an inexhaustible source of folly: I can't possibly be wrong, so everyone else must be. Angustyre, the consensus is clearly against you -- so unless you want to open an RfC, as suggested multiple times, please give it a rest. DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 13:59, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Several editors in this section agree with me that it should not be in the lede. Aside from atomic weapons the Red Army would still have reached Germany by early 1945 without Enigma helping the western Allies. (Angustyre (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC))

You're hurting your own argument here. Nobody cares what your personal evaluation of Hinsley's estimate is, and you'll get a lot further if you stick with the original point: that it is speculation that doesn't belong in the lede. Personally, I like it in the lede; it gives a good quantitative sense of the impact of Turing's work which is otherwise lacking there. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:35, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Sounds good. Maybe also looks good, as a rapid take-away soundbite. Except that the "quantitative values" have been arrived at by a single historian's "qualitative judgement". Martinevans123 (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

True. And I've seen varying numbers, but they mostly seem to be extrapolation on Hinsley's speculations. Perhaps we might make it more concise in the lede? "It is speculated that Turing's work saved many millions of lives by shortening WWII" or something like that. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like Hinsley was the original culprit. In my view, changing to a statement like that would at least be a big improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I think before changing/removing it we need to scan further out on what more experts actually say, before we start changing it. If you give me some time I can do that, remember we have no deadlines here on Wiki.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 18:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

No objection. If you manage to decipher all the sources, who knows, you might save us two years of further discussion! Martinevans123 (talk) 18:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I just began Clay Blair’s excellent book, Hitler’s U-Boat War, and what I've found so far is a detailed account of how the Allies were able to use Enigma intercepts to make adjustments to the courses of convoys to avoid U-Boat packs. Many trips were made without a single U-Boat contact owing to course or speed changes courtesy of Enigma intercepts. Hopefully I will be able to distill some of this into something useful for the article. DoctorJoeE ^Stalk/_Talk 19:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Let's work out the language here; clearly the "atomic bomb" stuff does not belong. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 17:29, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Atomic bombs would have been used on Germany if the war had lasted for a few more months, and the Red Army was already in eastern Germany by 1945 regardless of Enigma. The Battle of the Atlantic did not require Enigma as Germany did not have a large surface fleet or enough fuel for its U-Boats. (Angustyre (talk) 10:07, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

So, Churchill had that all planned out and agreed with FDR? I don't see any mention in End of World War II in Europe or Operation Unthinkable? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:12, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

FDR had died in April 1945 and Operation Unthinkable was devised in May, after VE Day. (Angustyre (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

That's true. But I think FDR knew all about the Manhattan Project? Maybe I should have said Harry S. Truman (who was "uninformed about major initiatives relating to the war and the top-secret Manhattan Project")?? I know WP is not RS, but by all means show us the article(s) where the plan to A-bomb the bunker is discussed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Churchill was openly in favour of using atomic weapons in Germany, despite Eden's reservations. (Angustyre (talk) 13:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

This has nothing to do with Turing or this article. If you have a reliable source linking Turing, Hinsley's analysis, and the planned use of nuclear weapons, present it. Otherwise it's just your personal opinion and is not welcome either here or in the article. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

I would like it if someone could answer how the war in Europe could have lasted for more than two years after the Allies had developed atomic weapons? (Angustyre (talk) 13:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

You're not going to get that here, and I'll recommend you be blocked from this talk page if you continue with this tendentious approach. It's now just wasting our time. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Concur with Jpgordon, it has been explained already your own personal interpretation/view surrounding said estimation it not relevant and not how Wikipedia works. Either drop the stick or find experts... Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 16:25, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitler could have eaten magical fairydust and built a command centre on the moon.... i.e. no-one will ever know. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley is not an expert. His work is outdated and has been debunked. (Angustyre (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

The Harry Hinsley article says: "He was criticised by Marian Rejewski and Gordon Welchman, who took exception to inaccuracies in Hinsley's accounts of the history of Enigma decryption..." But there's nothing about "debunking". If you have good sources, maybe you should it to that article? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:47, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

His writings on Enigma were debunked as factually worthless and historically incorrect. His opinion should not be included in the lede of this article. (Angustyre (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

If what you say is accurate, then the Harry Hinsley article needs some serious re-writing. Sounds like we've found just the editor to tackle that job. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

He tried to credit Turing for Poland's achievements with Enigma. (Angustyre (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

Angustyre, you seem utterly bereft of any sources to support your many claims. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:03, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley credited Turing with Poland's achievements: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28167071 (Angustyre (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC))

Errm, it's shame that source doesn't actually mention Hinsley by name? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim that Bletchley Park shortened the war by two years is really fringe. Standard accounts of the war do no say this.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:47, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Quite. And the claim promoted here is not for Bletchley Park, but for Turing alone? Martinevans123 (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The reference is to Professor Sir Harry Hinsley's talk in 1993 (Hinsley, Harry (1996) [1993], The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War – Transcript of a lecture given on Tuesday 19 October 1993 at Cambridge University) under the title "The Influence of ULTRA in the Second World War". In it he said:

Now the question remains how much did it shorten the war, leaving aside the contribution made to the campaigns in the Far East on which the necessary work hasn't been done yet. My own conclusion is that it shortened the war by not less that two years and probably by four years - that is the war in the Atlantic, the Mediterranean and Europe.

Turing's work on the Bombe undoubtedly contributed greatly to the total Ultra process, but there were many other sources of information. My view is that it is funamentally important to stick to reliable citeable sources and that it would be reasonable to credit Turing with a major contribution to Ultra, and cite Hinsley's two year figure. --TedColes (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the full quote and it's source. And the "14 million lives"? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The Allies had atomic weapons by 1945, and the Red Army would still have reached Poland in 1944. Claiming Turing shortened the war by four years is even more ludicrous than the two year figure. The 14 million lives should certainly not be mentioned as it cannot be proven one way or another, and is based on the estimate of one person whose work is outdated and debunked. (Angustyre (talk) 12:20, 10 July 2021 (UTC))

Just for you?

Angustyre, you seem to be determined to keep digging your own debunker here? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hitler moved into his bunker in January 1945 because the war was almost over. I would like to know how it would have lasted for another four years? (Angustyre (talk) 12:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC))

What a clear case of WP:IDHT. You are now blocked from this talk page and this article. Enjoy yourself elsewhere. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 13:44, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Hinsley's talk indicates he is principally talking about the British war effort [but not the Far East]. This is his response to the question about the atomic bomb:This is a problem because strict, sensible, proper counter-factual history can't really take into account something like that. It is speculation. But of course if my scenario is right and the war was still struggling on and we had the bomb which presumably we would still have had, the problem of whether to drop it on Germany would have arisen. And in some respects the dropping of it on Germany would be more justified than the dropping of it on Japan because Japan was visibly on her knees when we dropped it on her, but in my scenario Germany would have been far from on her knees. So yes the prospects of it being dropped as the solution are quite high. I would mention it in a speculative scenario. In other words, he hasn't really accounted for the atomic bomb in his scenario. He also comments on what would have happened in the war overall without Ultra: My own view is that given that the Soviets survived the German attack and the Americans came in as they did, the combined forces of Russia, America and the British would eventually have won the war. The long term relative strengths of Germany and those three counties were such that Germany was bound to loose in the end. But how lengthily and with what damage and destruction we should have succeeded I don't know. Based on this source, Hinsley has not predicted what would have happened in the wider war. He has not accounted for the atomic bomb being used against Germany; he has not calculated what the Soviet and American forces would have done. Use of his comment in this article is misleading and is not appropriate for a global encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:35, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Jack, that's the most enlightening contribution to this entire thread. For me it clinches the argument that the quote is inappropriate, certainly for the lead section, and possibly for the whole article. Thank you. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

According to the BBC, the official history of GCHQ says that Bletchley Park's role in WW2 is overrated. It would be good to look at the book.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

By the way, the figure of 14 million lives saved comes from an article by Jack Copeland, which was previously used in this article. It doesn't have a global perspective on the war, completely ignoring the Soviet contribution (and it was Soviet troops who captured Berlin). Copeland says, At a conservative estimate, each year of the fighting in Europe brought on average about seven million deaths. 10-14 million were being killed every year in the war, so why use a figure for "the fighting in Europe" (whatever that means)? Again, this is not a global perspective on the war. Copeland adds the caveat: Of course, even in a counterfactual scenario in which Turing was not able to break U-boat Enigma, the war might still have ended in 1945 because of some other occurrence, also contrary-to-fact, such as the dropping of a nuclear weapon on Berlin. Nevertheless, these colossal numbers of lives do convey a sense of the magnitude of Turing's contribution. This parallels the caveat given by Hinsley, who Copeland follows. Their calculations are only valid if Germany wasn't defeated by A-bombs or some other scenario. And as Hinsley says, the likelihood of the A-bomb being used on Germany if Germany hadn't surrendered in 1945 was "quite high". So, by their own accounts, the probability that Turing & Co didn't shorten the war by 2-4 years is "quite high".--Jack Upland (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Well done, Harry Hinsley. Come back Angustyre, all is forgiven? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

There being no other response to this, I have incorporated Hinsley's comment into the proceeding footnote and removed the figure of 14 million because Hinsley never said it. I think this is just an extension of the Churchill myth. A comment surrounded by caveats in 1993 has become considered an authoritative statement on Turing. I can't see any justification for the view that this is a consensus amongst historians. A more nuanced view is given at the Ultra page.--Jack Upland (talk) 17:41, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2021

The 14 million figure should be removed from the lede as it was agreed on the talk page that it is POV, ignores the Soviet contribution, and ignores the Manhattan Project. Herm12 (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Not done Much as I tend to agree with you, I'm not sure that the discussion in the thread directly above this one has yet come to any clear conclusion about the consensus for this. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

The claim has been debunked. (Herm12 (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2021 (UTC))

Did you know one of our earlier contributors, only 10 days ago, said "The talk page on Alan Turing now accepts I was correct all along, and that the ridiculous "14 million" figure should be removed from the lede as it ignored the Soviet contribution." And he was blocked. Do take care. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2021

Change "committed suicide" to "died by suicide". 173.66.210.129 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Current consensus allowed either phrase. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Tommy Flowers

Flowers was far more important than Turing, who was often mistakenly attributed with Flowers' achievements. (Herm12 (talk) 13:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC))

Do you have some WP:RS source(s) for that claim? Tommy Flowers is mentioned and linked in the article. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I have multiple sources for this. It is yet another reason why the ridiculous and misleading "14 million lives" claim should be removed from the lede. (Herm12 (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC))

I suspect this topic might be better covered at Tommy Flowers. But if you have multiple sources, you might wish to share the best of them here. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:00, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Official Secrets Act

• From the lead: Despite these accomplishments, he was never fully recognised in his home country during his lifetime because much of his work was covered by the Official Secrets Act.

This doesn't seem to reflect what's in the article and is a very incomplete explanation (of something that doesn't really need explaining).

• Turing was never accused of espionage, but in common with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, he was prevented by the Official Secrets Act from discussing his war work. What is this sentence about??? No one said that he was accused of espionage, and as far as I can see, no one said he wanted to discuss his war work.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Wholly agree. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I have removed both these sentences.--Jack Upland (talk) 04:48, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

And now there's no mention of the Official Secrets Act at all? It's certainly discussed in his biographies and should be in the article somewhere! Skyerise (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

The baby has been thrown out with the bathwater! His postwar advocacy of the Automatic Computing Engine (ACE), and then his work at Manchester University would have been very different had he been free to talk about what he had leant during the war. --TedColes (talk) 10:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what "Turing was never accused of espionage, but in common with all who had worked at Bletchley Park, he was prevented by the Official Secrets Act from discussing his war work" was meant to convey? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Martinevans123: I think something like the removed sentence should be restored. Perhaps we need to be more explicit about how the threat of the OSA was applied disproportionately to gays due to the threat of blackmail and how for someone like Turing, losing his security clearance effectively ended the viability of his career outside academia. Skyerise (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, maybe it should. But I'm still wondering what that sentence means. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@TedColes: I agree, and my last edits added a note about that very thing which is why the ACE project stalled. Skyerise (talk) 11:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Those edits have added many references to the OSA, but it still doesn't support what's in the introduction.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:50, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

At times like these, I wish Wikipedia had laugh-reacts. Skyerise (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is really nonsensical: he didn't get "full" recognition (whatever that means) by age 41. Who does? The OSA is just one issue, and it didn't stop him getting an OBE in 1946.--Jack Upland (talk) 06:41, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

The sentence is an adequate summary of what the source cited details over a number of paragraphs. Can you show me on the doll where Turing hurt you? Skyerise (talk) 12:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing information re declassification

The article is information on when and how Turing's work under the OSA were made public. Some too many decades ago, when we studied Turing, these details were unknown. When and by whom was it decided that this information could be declassified? Shouldn't that be in the article? Or if I missed it, let me know where it is... Skyerise (talk) 04:57, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Picture

Is there a reason a young picture of Turning was selected? There seems to be plenty of free-use photos of him at an age he was best known for...

There are two others at Commons File:Alan Turing az 1930-as években.jpg and File:Тьюринг.jpg, which do not seem quite as good quality? But yes, an image of him at the age of 16 may not be the most appropriate. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2021 (UTC)