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 is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics
This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cryptography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CryptographyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptographyTemplate:WikiProject CryptographyCryptography
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cheshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cheshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CheshireWikipedia:WikiProject CheshireTemplate:WikiProject CheshireCheshire
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Running, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of running on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RunningWikipedia:WikiProject RunningTemplate:WikiProject RunningRunning
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
All prior and subsequent edits to the article are noted in its revision history.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single year to make it into the Top 50 Report annual list. This happened in 2015, when it received 9,892,611 views.
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report6 times. The weeks in which this happened:
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
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. TarnishedPathtalk10:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. ⇌Synpath20:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
'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 thedog11:27, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
level-3 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
A
B (current)
C
