Talk:Alan Turing#Autism

{{closed rfc top|result= There was overwhelming consensus for image C. There was no consensus on whether it should be cropped. Zero^talk 05:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)}}

{{tlx|rfc|bio|sci|rfcid=82AE119}}

As per above, which of the following images should be used for Turing's infobox? Absolutiva (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Alan Turing Aged 16.jpg|A

Alan Turing (1912-1954) in 1936 at Princeton University (cropped).jpg|B (current)

Alan Turing (1951).jpg|C

Absolutiva (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• C with perhaps a lil bit of cropping to take some of the left and bottom off. It's the clearest image which more than adequately makes up for Turing having his face at a slight angle. TarnishedPath^talk 10:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :File:Alan Turing (1951) (crop).jpg I just did what I thought would be a good crop of C TarnishedPath^talk 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• C. See no real need to crop, but if people prefer to, that's fine. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• B as above. --Trovatore (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :You're saying that he looks "less honest" in image C? You have no views in his wonky eye that looks like it's made of glass? And what of the odd background colour? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::It's not a perfect photo, but his eye doesn't stand out to me much. Maybe just imperfect lighting. The background color is sepia, which I kind of like. --Trovatore (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::Well, I suppose a sepia tone is more "traditional" for a 1936 photo. But I think some readers might assume he had a visual impairment on the basis of that image. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Naturally this all comes down to subjective judgment, and I've stated mine. That said, I wonder if you've noticed the eye and now "can't unsee" it, whereas new readers might not find it particularly distracting. --Trovatore (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• :::::Who knows, you'd have to do an experiment (with readers who'd never seen it before), I guess. I suppose some readers might just glance at it and never look closer again. Perhaps it could be "adjusted" digitally, but that would probably bring howls of indignation from the purists... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
• C without crop. This is quite a well-known image, and the Bank of England use it on the [https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/images/banknotes/king-charles/50back.jpg current £50 banknote]. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C is the best option presented. Nemov (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C is the higher quality image and was taken in the 50s rather than the 30s. I have no strong feelings on using the uncropped version or the cropped version above. ⇌ Synpath 20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C as I already said in the previous discussion (A too young, B with weird eye), cropped and uncropped are both fine with me no new arguments, I'm not sure if a RfC is a sort of vote or not; if not, sry for redundant posting--Qcomp (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• C As the most recent of the three. It also seems the most common / recognizable. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C is the best one Billsmith60 (talk) 01:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C {{sbb}} with crop which focuses better on head and shoulders, though without is OK. It's the clearest and {{TQ|seems the most common / recognizable}}.Pincrete (talk) 05:21, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C without crop - I think the image looks better without crop than with portrait-wise. Definitely C over A or B though, as C is the most well known. --00:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• C. It's the best quality image and a crop would make this the only real option. It's probably his most recognizable portrait. TansoShoshen (talk) 05:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

• Possible point of interest — I found [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alan_Turing&diff=1179985055&oldid=1179845968 the edit] in which the current image (the one I prefer) was subbed in. The edit summary is a little concerning. {{u|CactiStaccingCrane}}, any comment? --Trovatore (talk) 05:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• :@Trovatore, given the [https://www.google.com/search?num=10&sca_esv=acb771fffe3cabd8&hl=en-AU&q=&vsrid=CKTI1Jz______wEQAhgBIiQ3MGMyYjM3NS0zOGE2LTQzNTItOTE5Ni1lNzUzODM5YjM3MWIyAA&gsessionid=uhk9SUDpD4mmydHwgnpGDIdPdQa2E-VLDiCRmQsRI4Ss99H9_Hq4jg&lsessionid=kzb_IdO2DBqAJDgQ3wLzXKCPYxh9VK9RUzGuzFlK7blcMSu1Hxr2iA&vsdim=590,600&vsint=CAIqDAoCCAcSAggKGAEgATojChYNAAAAPxUAAAA_HQAAgD8lAACAPzABEM4EGNgEJQAAgD8&lns_mode=un&source=lns.web.cntpubb&udm=48&fbs=AEQNm0CZwa1_fUwDCOUVPaifcdpCiRj8tmKAM-rk6IPNgLU5EHIKzW1T9N5_6HsH59F_pX1bVOXTO2N0-So-1trb8Ea6L_ReLQhQfncCpW2b8bjUpf1dSJapotFH87Zvh407djsHYWIS&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj3zLSs1oiLAxWFcWwGHXElNbYQs6gLegQIChAB&biw=1768&bih=932&dpr=1 the number of search hits for that image] I think we can be fairly safe in an assumption that it is public domain, especially if the claim that it was taken in 1936 at Princeton University is correct. TarnishedPath^talk 06:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

{{closed rfc bottom}}

As Turing did not have his award rescinded following his conviction, why does "OBE" not appear in the first line after his name? Billsmith60 (talk) 01:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:The WP:Manual of Style/Biography#Post-nominal_letters cited in edit of 25 November is not absolute regarding the UK. I have reinstated it Billsmith60 (talk) 01:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

::It's currently being discussed at the Talk page there, with some suggesting the previous RfC was not valid and should be overturned. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Alan Turing|answered=yes}}

a section about his portrayal in movies should be added especially the movie "the imitation game" where he is incorrectly introduced as the person who cracked the enigma machine code. it should be noted to the public that in fact a polish mathematician cracked the code.Turing only improved the machine designed by

Marian Rejewski. Thank you Wikiakant23 (talk) 11:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:No change will be the outcome of this request as you havent suggested your change in a "Change X to Y" format as requested. It also needs some reliable sources. - Roxy the dog' 11:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:Note: Turing is mentioned a few times at Marian Rejewski. There might be a case for mentioning Rejewski in this article? The Imitation Game is already mentioned. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:34, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I propose to insert a discussion of the "light-heartedness" committed by Turing in revealing, without being asked, his homosexuality. The change could be this:

Turing had voluntarily admitted to being a homosexual. Scholars have often wondered why Turing did not conceal this detail, which could have had criminal consequences, from the police who were investigating the theft he had suffered. Simon Goldhill, professor of classics at King's College, argued that Turing, a former student of King's, was accustomed to considering homosexuality as something normal in the upper social and cultural classes, such as King's: "the provost [college principal] and many of the senior fellows [tutors] were openly and outwardly gay. They had sex with men and talked constantly about having sex with men." (With sources.) NONIS STEFANO (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

:I think that's probably WP:UNDUE. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for bringing this up again, but it's still not right. This is taken from the introduction: "He played a crucial role in cracking intercepted messages that enabled the Allies to defeat the Axis powers in many engagements, including the Battle of the Atlantic." I think it would be better to list some of these "many engagements". It appears the Battle of the Atlantic is the engagement that everyone is interested in. If it is impossible to come up with any other engagements it would be better to amend the text. The source for this is Jack Copeland's article (footnote 10) in which he asserts, "Turing stands alongside Churchill, Eisenhower, and a short glory-list of other wartime principals as a leading figure in the Allied victory over Hitler". This is surely an overstatement. And what about Stalin and Zhukov? Does anyone apart from Copeland believe this? Footnote 11 is a discursive footnote that takes note of a discussion that happened a few years back. This includes a mention of the lecture by Harry Hinsley in which he said that Turing might have shortened the war by two years, but notes his caveats about the atomic bomb etc. Hinsley is quoted in the body of the article, but this includes an estimate of 14 million lives shown, which as previously discussed came from Copeland, not Hinsley. We shouldn't misquote Hinsley. In fact, I don't think we should quote Hinsley at all, because under questioning his ad hoc assertion becomes more and more nebulous. There is no doubt that winning the Battle of the Atlantic was significant. The problem is when Hinsley discusses the "war", he is doing so from the point of view of the UK. He is not talking about the Eastern Front; he is clearly not discussing the war against Japan. This is quite clear from his comments. But it is not clear from this encyclopedic article. I think what we need is some text assessing Turing's wartime contribution which is sober and balanced. Clearly he made a significant contribution to cryptography, but he is not part of a "short glory-list of other wartime principals". Jack Upland (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2025 (UTC)