Revision as of 06:01, 10 September 2014 editHiLo48 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers91,429 edits →Is "burgle" formal written British English?: Oxford← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:53, 10 September 2014 edit undoTrovatore (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers38,199 edits →Is "burgle" formal written British English?: rNext edit → | ||
Line 204: | Line 204: | ||
::::::(My reaction is only partly specific to ''The Grauniad''. Even if it were ''The Times'', I'm not sure I'd be that impressed. It's still a newspaper. Journalism is about conveying information quickly; it's not a terribly formal register of language.) --] (]) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | ::::::(My reaction is only partly specific to ''The Grauniad''. Even if it were ''The Times'', I'm not sure I'd be that impressed. It's still a newspaper. Journalism is about conveying information quickly; it's not a terribly formal register of language.) --] (]) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
:::::::OK, , a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. ] (]) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | :::::::OK, , a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. ] (]) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC) | ||
::::::::Hmm, but OED aims to be comprehensive rather than prescriptive, I think. "Not slang or lower class" isn't really the standard. Encyclopedic writing is one of the highest registers there is, second maybe only to diplomatic or society nonsense. | |||
::::::::If you found it ] in ''Brittanica'', that would satisfy me, I suppose. --] (]) 07:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:53, 10 September 2014
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Turing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Template:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology Please add the quality rating to the{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Alan 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. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the On this day section on May 28, 2004, May 28, 2005, May 28, 2009, May 28, 2010, June 23, 2012, and May 28, 2013. |
On June 23, 2012, Alan Turing was linked from Google, a high-traffic website. (Traffic) All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history. |
Archives | |||||
Index
|
|||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present. |
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)
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)
- Nothing wrong with a retrospective diagnosis. --TedColes (talk) 19:15, 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)
- See Asperger syndrome article. --TedColes (talk) 18:21, 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)
- 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)
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. 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)
- 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)
- 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:
- 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)
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)
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)
Autism?
I see nothing in the article about Turing being autistic. An editor has just added a WikiProject Autism tag, and the article is already included in three autism related categories. I submit that unless something well sourced on this is added to the article, those categorisations and the project link are inappropriate. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- WikiProject banners don't categorize an article; they're just a note that the article is of interest to the WikiProject. I suppose the WikiProjects are entitled to be interested in anything they like. In this case, it makes sense; given that there has been speculation, however possibly ill-founded, that Turing was somewhere on the autism spectrum, WPA members have an interest in making sure that anything that is said about it reflects the understanding in the field. --Trovatore (talk) 22:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand the speculation. Speculation is a difficult area for Misplaced Pages. We cannot directly include it in articles. It just seems odd to have such speculation displayed around, if not in, an article on someone. I suspect our BLP rules would prohibit it for a living person unless it was very well sourced. And it's a bit of a teaser. If there is real, well publicised speculation, from appropriately qualified people, that Turing was autistic, it should probably go in the article, not just be hanging on the ends of this Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The main point is that it's up to WikiProject Autism to decide where they want their banners. They don't have to justify it. At least that's how I look at it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If their reason's a good one, I'd like to see it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) Well, depends. If the reason is of the form "there are reliable source that show that people who know what they're talking about have proposed that Turing may have had an autism-spectrum condition", then sure, that should go in the article. If it's more along the lines of "it's reasonably forseeable that a discussion of autism-spectrum disorders may appear in the article, and if so, we want to be aware and make sure that any information is of high quality", well, I think that's still a pretty good reason, but it doesn't mean anything needs to go in the article. --Trovatore (talk) 23:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- If their reason's a good one, I'd like to see it in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- The main point is that it's up to WikiProject Autism to decide where they want their banners. They don't have to justify it. At least that's how I look at it. --Trovatore (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I can understand the speculation. Speculation is a difficult area for Misplaced Pages. We cannot directly include it in articles. It just seems odd to have such speculation displayed around, if not in, an article on someone. I suspect our BLP rules would prohibit it for a living person unless it was very well sourced. And it's a bit of a teaser. If there is real, well publicised speculation, from appropriately qualified people, that Turing was autistic, it should probably go in the article, not just be hanging on the ends of this Talk page. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- See Retrospective diagnoses of autism for the appropriate sources. Historical speculation is questionable as a reliable source, and in this case is the only source to use since Alan Turing lived before autism diagnosis was widespread, and for the most part, before it even existed. However, the criteria for adding a WikiProject banner are far more lax than for in-article information. Just because Turing is not categorized in Category:People with Asperger syndrome for example, does not mean he is of no interest to WikiProject Autism. The talk-page categories of GA-Class Autism articles, High-importance Autism articles, and WikiProject Autism articles are automatically generated by adding the WikiProject template. Muffinator (talk) 23:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. All seems a bit doggy to me. And obviously speculative. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- I completely agree and think we shouldn't add anything in this regard to the article page unless a better source is found. Muffinator (talk) 23:15, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
- Hmmmm. All seems a bit doggy to me. And obviously speculative. Not a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Autism project tag on Alan Turing when there is no evidence he was autistic
I removed the autism project tag and was reverted. So I have asked a question about this at Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard to find out if the biographies of people can be put in the autism project when there's no evidence in his biography that he was autistic. Thanks, Parabolooidal (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- I have removed it as well until there is consensus for inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 21:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan Turing is in no way the only historical (or living) figure whose neurotype is questioned, so please centralize this discussion at
Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism#WikiProject_Autism_banners_on_biographical_articles. Muffinator (talk) 22:18, 5 August 2014 (UTC)- ... looking forward to neurotype(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- ... neurotype(?) Me too! Let's have it. What is a neurotype? Parabolooidal (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ... looking forward to neurotype(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Alan Turing is in no way the only historical (or living) figure whose neurotype is questioned, so please centralize this discussion at
- I think people who want to remove the tag are completely misunderstanding what the tag is about. Inclusion of the tag does not in any way mean that Turing was autistic, so there doesn't need to be any evidence that he was.
- It means that WikiProject Autism wants to keep an eye on the article. That's all it means. --Trovatore (talk) 22:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- Inclusion of the tag, and interest in the wikiproject should be based upon concrete data, the majority of scientific/historic opinion/evidence, or sufficient controversy. It should not be based upon the opinions of two scholars who never met him, and having read the parts of the chapter that I can, in the book by Ioan James, the evidence seems very circumstantial. wrt. the tag and wikiproject:Autism, it is not for wikiprojects to dictate where their tags go, but for consensus of the community. There are multiple editors complaining about the inclusion, so consensus needs to be reach for inclusion based upon such speculative evidence. Martin451 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- It is extremely arrogant to try to dictate to a WikiProject where it should put its tags. The purpose of the tags is for bots to keep track of the articles on behalf of the WikiProject. It doesn't really concern anyone else.
- Now, there is some question in my mind whether the members of that WikiProject, in general, really want to keep track of articles like this one, but if they do, they should be allowed to. --Trovatore (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- A wikiproject is a collaboration, and should work in consensus with the rest of the community. Is there support from the entire wikiproject, or just one editor from that project? Turing is claimed to have had Aspergers/Autism spectrum disorder based upon one very hearsay reference, and another locked behind a paywall (about children). This is not the way we should categorise and wikiproject wikipedia, especially when there is nothing suitable to put in the article. Martin451 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there's support in the project in general. I am not associated with that project.
- However, surely wikiprojects are entitled to choose what they're interested in, however they wish. "Consensus" on this page is irrelevant. --Trovatore (talk) 00:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- A wikiproject is a collaboration, and should work in consensus with the rest of the community. Is there support from the entire wikiproject, or just one editor from that project? Turing is claimed to have had Aspergers/Autism spectrum disorder based upon one very hearsay reference, and another locked behind a paywall (about children). This is not the way we should categorise and wikiproject wikipedia, especially when there is nothing suitable to put in the article. Martin451 00:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Inclusion of the tag, and interest in the wikiproject should be based upon concrete data, the majority of scientific/historic opinion/evidence, or sufficient controversy. It should not be based upon the opinions of two scholars who never met him, and having read the parts of the chapter that I can, in the book by Ioan James, the evidence seems very circumstantial. wrt. the tag and wikiproject:Autism, it is not for wikiprojects to dictate where their tags go, but for consensus of the community. There are multiple editors complaining about the inclusion, so consensus needs to be reach for inclusion based upon such speculative evidence. Martin451 23:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Consensus" on this page is irrelevant. That is a pretty big statement considering WP:CON is one of the core principles. One member of wikiproject Autism, plus yourself, against multiple people questioning this inclusion. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only official guideline about when not to tag with a WikiProject template is when the article is only tangentially related to the project. That principle is difficult to apply here: Alan Turing was either autistic or not autistic. If he was, he's certainly not tangential. To make a generalized resolution to this dispute, it would be necessary to amend the guideline. Muffinator (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considering there are no reliable sources to verify that he was autistic, I'd say it's a very speculative rewriting of history to diagnose him with this condition retrospectively and therefore doesn't even reach the threshold of being tangential. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Turing was either autistic or not autistic." No, like many mental disorders, Autism is a spectrum, from those really bad, to those with Aspergers and those who show no symptoms. Tagging this talk page like this borders on WP:OR given the references that back that up. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're right: Autism is a spectrum, a spectrum that every person in the world is either on or not on. I'd advise against trying to weasel your way out of the logical absolutes. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Have you read the article on Aspergers? It "is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) that is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction and nonverbal communication, alongside restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." That doesn't sound like a persons "who show no symptoms". If there are no symptoms, how is is a disorder? Parabolooidal (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It would be OR if it were in article space, no doubt about it. So what? Look, I can't say this strongly enough, the tag per se does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 01:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Saying something, even in bold, doesn't make it "true", just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)That's true, but irrelevant. In bold or not, whether I say it or not, the tag still does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it does. It asserts that there is speculation about him having been autistic. I guess we disagree on this point :) --Malerooster (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It does not assert there is speculation about him having been autistic. It asserts that the members of WikiProject Autism would like to keep an eye on the article. That's all it asserts, and that says nothing whatsoever about Turing per se. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, are they "keeping an eye" on the article?? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surely that's up to them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Boom. Looks to me like this debate has been unambiguously won. I'm not even taking credit for agreeing; it's all Trovatore. Good job. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Surely that's up to them. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Why, exactly, are they "keeping an eye" on the article?? --Malerooster (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It does not assert there is speculation about him having been autistic. It asserts that the members of WikiProject Autism would like to keep an eye on the article. That's all it asserts, and that says nothing whatsoever about Turing per se. --Trovatore (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Of course it does. It asserts that there is speculation about him having been autistic. I guess we disagree on this point :) --Malerooster (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- (ec)That's true, but irrelevant. In bold or not, whether I say it or not, the tag still does not assert anything whatsoever about Turing. --Trovatore (talk) 02:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Look at the number of categories this article is already in - mind boggling. And the proposal is to add more? (The bolding makes mind boggling true.) Parabolooidal (talk) 02:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- No, there is no proposal to add the article to any categories. The tag adds the article talk page to some categories. They should be exclusively talk-page categories, not article categories. --Trovatore (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Saying something, even in bold, doesn't make it "true", just saying. --Malerooster (talk) 02:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You're right: Autism is a spectrum, a spectrum that every person in the world is either on or not on. I'd advise against trying to weasel your way out of the logical absolutes. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- "Turing was either autistic or not autistic." No, like many mental disorders, Autism is a spectrum, from those really bad, to those with Aspergers and those who show no symptoms. Tagging this talk page like this borders on WP:OR given the references that back that up. Martin451 01:44, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Considering there are no reliable sources to verify that he was autistic, I'd say it's a very speculative rewriting of history to diagnose him with this condition retrospectively and therefore doesn't even reach the threshold of being tangential. Parabolooidal (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The only official guideline about when not to tag with a WikiProject template is when the article is only tangentially related to the project. That principle is difficult to apply here: Alan Turing was either autistic or not autistic. If he was, he's certainly not tangential. To make a generalized resolution to this dispute, it would be necessary to amend the guideline. Muffinator (talk) 01:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Just curious Trovatore, though I think I know the answer. Would you feel differently if this was a living individual? Thanks, --Malerooster (talk) 02:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- More care is always needed when talking about living persons. --Trovatore (talk) 02:24, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not letting you off the hook that easy :) Would you be ok with having the banner on the talk page of a BLP who was only suspected of having autism. And don't say it "depends" the way I like to do :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about it in that case. The concern would be that readers unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags might draw unintended conclusions from them, and that that could be construed as defamation. This is not a concern, at least legally, in the case of someone no longer living. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ok, what about Prince Azim, a member of the royal family of Brunei born in 1982, who attended two autism-related events in Brunei and therefore is tagged with the "autism" banner? Parabolooidal (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is more problematic. I have not come to a conclusion on that issue. However, the BLP issue does not affect the current question, because Turing is not an LP. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority of our readers will be unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags. To such readers, the existence of the autism tag is likely to tell them that Misplaced Pages says Turing was autistic. It's a very poor practice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The tags are not for our readers. --Trovatore (talk) 03:12, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Keep in mind also that readers (meaning non-editors) typically don't bother with talk pages at all. --Trovatore (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the cloud of tags needs a heading saying "Readers - please ignore these. They don't mean anything.". This suggestion is not a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that it is very typical of biographical articles to be relevant to many different WikiProjects. Take a look at Talk:Nikola Tesla: We have a tag for Belgrade, Serbia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Croatia, and New York City, on top of all of the work he's known for, because guess what, he lived in all of those places. "Too many WikiProjects" is not a valid argument. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- But WHY is it relevant? Don't tell me to ask the project. The answer should be here, where the tag is, where some curious readers might see it. They may actually be interested in the reason. It could be a good reason. Right now it's a mysterious, suggestive, tasty hint of something that somebody knows, or thinks, but that hasn't been properly fleshed out in the article. Actually, I am curious! HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Popular speculation most notably by Tony Attwood and Ioan James. If you think that's not a good enough reason, I suggest you take it up with the project members on the project page, or propose a change of policy, because the current policies suggest that consensus outside of the project is mostly irrelevant. Muffinator (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not even looking for consensus. Just some explanation here as to why the tag is here. Right now, with no mention of autism in the article, it sits there all alone like a shag on a rock. If it was the Blue Eyes Project, it would hardly matter, but autism is often seen as a major negative attribute. (Not saying that's right. Just that it's how it's seen by many.) For such a negative factor, an explanation is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- By negative factor, you mean that it is likely to result in discrimination. Not only is the template still not a statement of any kind, but WP:AVOIDVICTIM doesn't apply since Alan Turing is not a living person. Muffinator (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I'm not even looking for consensus. Just some explanation here as to why the tag is here. Right now, with no mention of autism in the article, it sits there all alone like a shag on a rock. If it was the Blue Eyes Project, it would hardly matter, but autism is often seen as a major negative attribute. (Not saying that's right. Just that it's how it's seen by many.) For such a negative factor, an explanation is needed. HiLo48 (talk) 05:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Popular speculation most notably by Tony Attwood and Ioan James. If you think that's not a good enough reason, I suggest you take it up with the project members on the project page, or propose a change of policy, because the current policies suggest that consensus outside of the project is mostly irrelevant. Muffinator (talk) 04:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- But WHY is it relevant? Don't tell me to ask the project. The answer should be here, where the tag is, where some curious readers might see it. They may actually be interested in the reason. It could be a good reason. Right now it's a mysterious, suggestive, tasty hint of something that somebody knows, or thinks, but that hasn't been properly fleshed out in the article. Actually, I am curious! HiLo48 (talk) 04:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- It should be noted that it is very typical of biographical articles to be relevant to many different WikiProjects. Take a look at Talk:Nikola Tesla: We have a tag for Belgrade, Serbia, Austria, Yugoslavia, Croatia, and New York City, on top of all of the work he's known for, because guess what, he lived in all of those places. "Too many WikiProjects" is not a valid argument. Muffinator (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps the cloud of tags needs a heading saying "Readers - please ignore these. They don't mean anything.". This suggestion is not a joke. HiLo48 (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- The vast majority of our readers will be unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags. To such readers, the existence of the autism tag is likely to tell them that Misplaced Pages says Turing was autistic. It's a very poor practice. HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- This is more problematic. I have not come to a conclusion on that issue. However, the BLP issue does not affect the current question, because Turing is not an LP. --Trovatore (talk) 03:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- ok, what about Prince Azim, a member of the royal family of Brunei born in 1982, who attended two autism-related events in Brunei and therefore is tagged with the "autism" banner? Parabolooidal (talk) 03:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I would be more concerned about it in that case. The concern would be that readers unfamiliar with the nuances of our tags might draw unintended conclusions from them, and that that could be construed as defamation. This is not a concern, at least legally, in the case of someone no longer living. --Trovatore (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I am not letting you off the hook that easy :) Would you be ok with having the banner on the talk page of a BLP who was only suspected of having autism. And don't say it "depends" the way I like to do :) Cheers, --Malerooster (talk) 02:32, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Muffinator, you suggest we take it up with the project members, on the project page. Well perhaps you should look at section 4.2 of WP:OWN. In this case the founder and main contributor of wikiproject autism seems to be yourself, so we would just be moving this conversation there. Placing a tag on a talkpage, with no explanation of why that tag is there seems very strange to me, and a bit of flaky speculation by a couple of scholars is not enough IMO. Martin451 17:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- I posit that moving this discussion to the project talk page would make it easier for the other project participants to become aware of the dispute and offer their input. Section 4.2 of WP:OWN does mention WikiProjects, but if you look at the top of the page, you'll notice that it says "This page is about control over an article's text." It says nothing whatsoever about talk pages. Muffinator (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator - You are behaving like a classic bureaucratic, hiding everything behind rules that don't rationally apply here. Doing something stupid, just because the rules say you can, is not a very smart thing to do. You are ignoring a lot of very sensible comment here by hiding behind rules that clearly aren't in touch with the reality of situations like this. In effect, you are saying "We'll have Misplaced Pages do this really dumb thing because nobody thought of situations like this when they made the rules." How about you actually try to discuss the points made by others without saying the rules say we can do it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm not involved in this debate, I do have this page+talk on my watchlist. The latest edit summary caught my eye as it is abusive. Please avoid creating abusive edits and edit summaries as per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. To everyone involved, please consider allowing this conversation to cool off by stepping away from it for a day. Thanks and happy editing. —Waldhorn (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- You just did get involved in the debate by excusing the bad behaviour of an editor on one side of it. I don't apologise for that edit and Edit summary. To me, they ARE dumb rules. (Is it rude to say so?) An editor here has avoided actually discussing the issues raised by others by saying "...but the rules allow it". It's non-productive and confrontational behaviour. Too much real incivility here is couched in broader, bad mannered behaviour without using stronger words. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you are explaining the behavior of editors in an inaccurate and biased way. I am not WP:Wikilawyering, but rather responding to other editors' reference to guidelines by saying "actually, those rules aren't applicable to this situation." We must discuss this dispute on its own merits, or propose an addition of new policy that this dispute would be in the scope of. Muffinator (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I could paraphrase your position here as "What has been done isn't against the rules. The opinions of editors here don't count for anything, so I won't discuss them." That's very poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The consensus opinion of the editors here—and at Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Isaac Newton, and perhaps more—seems to be that the project tags do not belong on this talk page. That, per our consensus policy, should have ended this discussion a while ago already . - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- To me, the tracking templates are more or less the equivalent of an individual editor's watchlist (albeit slightly enhanced with the "quality" and "importance" fields). I don't need to get consensus for what to put on my watchlist, and I don't think a Wikiproject should need consensus (except in-project) for what it puts on its. Perhaps the banners could be made less obtrusive, though. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- That's a wise suggestion. Especially since I also made it myself earlier in the discussion, but my ego doesn't need the credit. Can we progress something in that direction? HiLo48 (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- To me, the tracking templates are more or less the equivalent of an individual editor's watchlist (albeit slightly enhanced with the "quality" and "importance" fields). I don't need to get consensus for what to put on my watchlist, and I don't think a Wikiproject should need consensus (except in-project) for what it puts on its. Perhaps the banners could be made less obtrusive, though. --Trovatore (talk) 21:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- Quite. The consensus opinion of the editors here—and at Talk:Albert Einstein, Talk:Isaac Newton, and perhaps more—seems to be that the project tags do not belong on this talk page. That, per our consensus policy, should have ended this discussion a while ago already . - DVdm (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree. I could paraphrase your position here as "What has been done isn't against the rules. The opinions of editors here don't count for anything, so I won't discuss them." That's very poor manners. HiLo48 (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- HiLo48, you are explaining the behavior of editors in an inaccurate and biased way. I am not WP:Wikilawyering, but rather responding to other editors' reference to guidelines by saying "actually, those rules aren't applicable to this situation." We must discuss this dispute on its own merits, or propose an addition of new policy that this dispute would be in the scope of. Muffinator (talk) 18:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
- You just did get involved in the debate by excusing the bad behaviour of an editor on one side of it. I don't apologise for that edit and Edit summary. To me, they ARE dumb rules. (Is it rude to say so?) An editor here has avoided actually discussing the issues raised by others by saying "...but the rules allow it". It's non-productive and confrontational behaviour. Too much real incivility here is couched in broader, bad mannered behaviour without using stronger words. HiLo48 (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- While I'm not involved in this debate, I do have this page+talk on my watchlist. The latest edit summary caught my eye as it is abusive. Please avoid creating abusive edits and edit summaries as per WP:Civility and WP:No personal attacks. To everyone involved, please consider allowing this conversation to cool off by stepping away from it for a day. Thanks and happy editing. —Waldhorn (talk) 22:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
- Muffinator - You are behaving like a classic bureaucratic, hiding everything behind rules that don't rationally apply here. Doing something stupid, just because the rules say you can, is not a very smart thing to do. You are ignoring a lot of very sensible comment here by hiding behind rules that clearly aren't in touch with the reality of situations like this. In effect, you are saying "We'll have Misplaced Pages do this really dumb thing because nobody thought of situations like this when they made the rules." How about you actually try to discuss the points made by others without saying the rules say we can do it? HiLo48 (talk) 20:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's worth noting here that Muffinator has now been indefinitely topic banned from all articles and talk pages related to Autism. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Is "burgle" formal written British English?
This isn't the most important issue ever, but might as well have it out. I reverted a recent new editor's BrE -> AmE changes, on WP:ENGVAR grounds, but I let the change from burgle to burglarize remain.
Is that correct? I know that burgle is more used in the UK than in the US, but it still strikes me as a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Really I always thought it was sort of a joke, a play on words.
“ | When the enterprising burglar's not a-burgling (not a-burgling) When the cutthroat isn't occupied in crime (-pied in crime) He loves to hear the little brook a-gurgling (brook a gurgling) And the pealing of the little village chime |
” |
— W. S. Gilbert |
On the other hand, burglarize is qualified as "chiefly North American" in Wiktionary. Is there burglarise instead? Or is there some more formal word, that doesn't have this jocular quality I hear in burgle? --Trovatore (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Australian here, but been reading and hearing UK English all my life. Burgle seems fine. Burgalise is horrible. Reminds me of the less nice word buggerise. (To reading and hearing above, I could add singing, having performed the above ditty on stage some 40 years ago. Maybe it still influences my judgement.) HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's probably influencing my judgment too, but in the opposite direction — I can't help hearing it as a G&S play on words. Wiktionary dates burgle to 1872, albeit without an attestation until 1892; Pirates of Penzance came out in 1879. So probably the word was not invented specifically for Pirates, assuming the 1872 date is reliable (not sure where it came from). But in any case they weren't far apart. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard the term burglerise(d) in the UK, but burgled is quite common. Martin451 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- So one thing is "common", and another is "sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia". Is there a more formal word, or can we rephrase? It still sounds jocular to me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Guardian uses it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Uh huh. Not exactly the gold standard, is it? --Trovatore (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- (My reaction is only partly specific to The Grauniad. Even if it were The Times, I'm not sure I'd be that impressed. It's still a newspaper. Journalism is about conveying information quickly; it's not a terribly formal register of language.) --Trovatore (talk) 04:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, the Oxford Dictionary, a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- Hmm, but OED aims to be comprehensive rather than prescriptive, I think. "Not slang or lower class" isn't really the standard. Encyclopedic writing is one of the highest registers there is, second maybe only to diplomatic or society nonsense.
- If you found it used (not mentioned) in Brittanica, that would satisfy me, I suppose. --Trovatore (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- OK, the Oxford Dictionary, a British gold standard if ever there was one, gives a straightforward definition with no hint of it being a slang word, or one used only by the lower classes. Think more about that song above, the word "burgling" is where Gilbert stretched the language beyond normal usage. It isn't mainstream, but "burgled" is. HiLo48 (talk) 06:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- The Guardian uses it. HiLo48 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- So one thing is "common", and another is "sufficiently formal for an encyclopedia". Is there a more formal word, or can we rephrase? It still sounds jocular to me. --Trovatore (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Never heard the term burglerise(d) in the UK, but burgled is quite common. Martin451 23:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's probably influencing my judgment too, but in the opposite direction — I can't help hearing it as a G&S play on words. Wiktionary dates burgle to 1872, albeit without an attestation until 1892; Pirates of Penzance came out in 1879. So probably the word was not invented specifically for Pirates, assuming the 1872 date is reliable (not sure where it came from). But in any case they weren't far apart. --Trovatore (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
- All unassessed articles
- GA-Class biography articles
- GA-Class biography (science and academia) articles
- Top-importance biography (science and academia) articles
- Science and academia work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- GA-Class Computing articles
- Top-importance Computing articles
- GA-Class Computer science articles
- Top-importance Computer science articles
- All Computing articles
- GA-Class Robotics articles
- Top-importance Robotics articles
- WikiProject Robotics articles
- GA-Class mathematics articles
- Top-priority mathematics articles
- Featured articles on Mathematics Portal
- GA-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- GA-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- GA-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- GA-Class philosopher articles
- Mid-importance philosopher articles
- Philosophers task force articles
- GA-Class logic articles
- Mid-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- GA-Class philosophy of science articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of science articles
- Philosophy of science task force articles
- GA-Class philosophy of mind articles
- Mid-importance philosophy of mind articles
- Philosophy of mind task force articles
- GA-Class Cryptography articles
- Top-importance Cryptography articles
- WikiProject Computer science articles
- WikiProject Cryptography articles
- GA-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- GA-Class London-related articles
- High-importance London-related articles
- GA-Class Greater Manchester articles
- High-importance Greater Manchester articles
- GA-Class Cheshire articles
- High-importance Cheshire articles
- GA-Class England-related articles
- High-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- GA-Class Running articles
- Low-importance Running articles
- WikiProject Running articles
- GA-Class Athletics articles
- Unknown-importance Athletics articles
- WikiProject Athletics articles
- Misplaced Pages good articles
- Mathematics good articles
- Misplaced Pages In the news articles
- Selected anniversaries (May 2004)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2005)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2009)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2010)
- Selected anniversaries (June 2012)
- Selected anniversaries (May 2013)
- Articles linked from high traffic sites