Talk:Dilly Knox

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|listas=Knox, Dilly|blp=no|1=

{{WikiProject Biography|needs-photo=yes|s&a-work-group=yes}}

{{WikiProject Cryptography}}

{{WikiProject University of Cambridge}}

{{WikiProject United Kingdom}}

}}

{{Photo requested|people of England}})

Untitled

The Wiki-link to Rodding appears to go to an unrelated page. -- JamesYoungman 10:42:24, 2005-09-04 (UTC)

: I have changed the link, though now it goes nowhere. Molinari 20:00, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

We are told that 'rodding' is a linguistic method, not a mathematical one. Really, we aren't told anything. Could we have a bit more explanation of what 'rodding' actually means? Dean1954 (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Cause of death

Was it war-related or natural causes ? -- Beardo 05:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

: The latter: I've added a couple of sentences about it. Sebag-Montefiore relates a rumour -- probably a little too apocryphal even for Wikipedia -- that Churchill made a warship available so that Knox could be taken to the West Indies to recuperate. — Matt Crypto 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Franco's Enigma cracked in 1937

[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article5003411.ece This page] says Knox cracked a commercial Enigma machine in 1937. Should be included surely, if it's true. Malick78 (talk) 05:55, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Erroneous attribution

I have removed much of the following that was added by Mickwsmith on 21 September as it is not referenced and contrary to very many sources. "Knox worked in "the Cottage", next door to the Bletchley Park mansion, as head of a research section, which broke a number of Enigma systems. It was this section that actually broke the Enigma systems tackled by the British, a feat that is frequently and inaccurately attributed to a number of other Bletchley Park codebreakers.(The Enigma systems were a family of machines which had to be broken separately and at Bletchley this task fell to Knox and his team alone.)" --TedColes (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

LGBT Category

I don't see any explanation in the article for this person to be in Category:LGBT people from England. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilly_Knox&diff=466679062&oldid=446040888 This is the relevant edit]. MDCore (talk) 15:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I have removed this category until further information substantiating the claim is added. I feel that an alleged affair with another boy while at boarding school does not constitute sufficient evidence; I gather that such experimental liasons were (and perhaps still are?) common in those days in that all-male environment. The fact that Knox married and had children and surrounded himself at Bletchley with young, tall and attractive female assistants would seem to refute the claim. Jack1956 (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
  • "He (Dilly Knox) was homosexually-inclined" and "had a romance with John Maynard Keynes" according the television movie/play Breaking the Code about the life of Alan Turing. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S23yie-779k] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.35.36.66 (talk) 23:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Zimmerman Telegram

The lead currently contains the sentence "He was a member of the World War I Room 40 codebreaking unit who decrypted the Zimmermann Telegram and brought the USA into the war." The use of "who" rather than "that" implies that Knox was involved in decrypting the telegram. Is there a source that states this? I can't find it in Erskine, Ralph; Smith, Michael, eds. (2011), The Bletchley Park Codebreakers. --TedColes (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally speaking, I would have written "He was the member of the ... unit who ..." or phrased it much more simply and directly had I wished to claim that I had evidence for this. I agree that the phrasing would be less ambiguous using 'that', or split into two simpler sentences. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilly_Knox&oldid=559786209 has a stronger claim and doesn't include evidence from The Bletchley Park Codebreakers RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I feel that the original Zimmerman Telegram claim on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dilly_Knox&oldid=559786209 is quite strong to be stated so bluntly. I would have expected more context and background from a source.RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The reference for section on the Zimmerman Telegraph is http://www.paulgannonbooks.co.uk/styled-3/files/intro-edited-for-web.pdf who is clear that Knox decrypted at least part of the Telegraph. Would be good to fill in more details from that source RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Gannon states that Nigel de Grey and Dilly Knox did the initial partial decryption. So I've switch to stronger and more direct language with a source. Not sure why the citation stuff isn't working very well between the notes and references. Hopefully someone who knows more will lend a hand... RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 19:26, 21 July 2013 (UTC)