7 ms·

Not only that, but also: "He died by poisoning in 1954." No account of the motive of his poisoning, or his prosecution. When activists protest against erasure,

Not only that, but also: "He died by poisoning in 1954." No account of the motive of his poisoning, or his prosecution. When activists protest against erasure, this is what they're talking about.

oh_sigh 7y ago
This isn't a biography of Turing doing that. It doesn't seem particularly relevant for an article about some documents.
- neltnerb 7y ago
  It was a bit odd that the reporter seemed to see nothing odd about Julia Turing claiming to be his daughter.
- ineedasername 7y ago
  If the method of death is going to be brought up, the context is relevant. I would agree with you if all they did was list the year of death. But once they say "poisoning", they leave entirely too many unanswered questions for readers.
  - JulianWasTaken 7y ago
    I think that's probably poor writing rather than anything malicious, but perhaps you're (or parent comment is) right.
    - dmurray 7y ago
      It looks like the hand of an editor to me. The writer wrote "Alan Turing, who died after consuming poison in an apparent suicide in 1954...". The editor told him "we do not editorialize or speculate in this newspaper, stick to the facts" and it got rewritten. Of course, it should just read "Alan Turing, who died in 1954...".
      - greglindahl 7y ago
        It's not a fact that he's the exemplar of a law forgiving everyone ever convicted for being gay in the UK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law
        dmurray 7y ago
        That's 1) editorializing, since the act isn't officially called that, 2) not what I speculated the original copy said and 3) needlessly political. And before you tell me "gay rights aren't a political issue, human rights go beyond politics": a new law being passed by politicians is literally as political a subject as it gets.
        greglindahl 7y ago
        Huh. The way I remember it, the government first only forgave him, and then after a huge public debate decided to forgive everyone in similar circumstances. But if you think that's editorial and political if mentioned at all, despite being endorsed by all sides of the parliament, I guess that's a valid opinion. It's certainly the case that many people claim that anything objected to by a single person is political. I usually find that the BBC is more clever than that.
- biggestdecision 7y ago
  It's like saying "he was killed in 1954" about someone wrongfully executed by the government.
- munk-a 7y ago
  It's weird to specifically note the poisoning angle without going into more depth - just stating "he died in 1954" would be one thing, but the author appeared to cherry pick a relatively minor note about his death for a quick synopsis over much more relevant points.
freepor 7y ago
His suicide has not been conclusively proven (as was probably his intention) so a news article about his personal effects isn’t really the right place to discuss the broader context.
- greglindahl 7y ago
  The last article I read about him was the government apologizing for being shitty to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law This is a huge milestone in the history of LGBT people in the UK, so it's hard to imagine that it's not worth mentioning in any article about him.
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    But aren't his possessions valued because of his accomplishments in computer science rather than because he was gay and prosecuted for it?
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      Like many people, there are multiple reasons to value his life highly.
    - aspaceman 7y ago
      Arguably, it's both now. He is both a legend to computer scientists and to folks in the LGBT community. It also touches a nerve since in the past Turing's gayness is always whitewashed by the news. Why still do it? Especially when it was so important to who he was and specifically why we died.
      - yostrovs 7y ago
        Being gay is very important to most gay people. They don't become famous for that. He's famous for his science. The gay aspect of his life is an interesting interlude for us (not for him mind you).
mirimir 7y ago
Requisite mention: Turing & Burroughs, by Rudy Rucker.
simplicio 7y ago
The motive for his poisoning is unknown. Some people speculate it was suicide brought on by his indecency conviction, but this isn't anywhere near as certain as its often presented, and there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident. "Died by poisoning", on the other hand, is certainly true.
- retsibsi 7y ago
  > there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but can you link me to any good sources on this? The most authoritative-seeming ones I've read lean pretty heavily on the side of suicide, with the alternative case presented mostly as wishful thinking on the part of his grieving mother. edit: the particular source I had in mind was the Hodges biography; other sources may have largely been relying on Hodges. And to partially answer my own question, an NYRB article[0] points me to a newer biography[1] which is apparently much more open to the possibility of accidental death (or even murder, though more in a 'can't rule it out' sort of way)[2]. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan... [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182?cc=au&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
  - simplicio 7y ago
    I got it from Hodges book ("Alan Turning: The Enigma"). Hodges actually comes to the opposite conclusion, that Turing's death was likely a suicide. But he does a fair enough presentation of both sides of the issue that I walked away thinking an accident was most likely. To be clear, there's no definitive evidence either way. Reasonable people can differ in which version they find more plausible. But I think the extent to which a lot of people tell it as certainly being a suicide (and certainly being due to anger over his unjust conviction, he could've committed suicide for unrelated reasons!) is distorting the issue.
    - 7y ago

Not only that, but also: "He died by poisoning in 1954." No account of the motive of his poisoning, or his prosecution. When activists protest against erasure, this is what they're talking about.

oh_sigh 7y ago

This isn't a biography of Turing doing that. It doesn't seem particularly relevant for an article about some documents.

neltnerb 7y ago
It was a bit odd that the reporter seemed to see nothing odd about Julia Turing claiming to be his daughter.
ineedasername 7y ago
If the method of death is going to be brought up, the context is relevant. I would agree with you if all they did was list the year of death. But once they say "poisoning", they leave entirely too many unanswered questions for readers.
- JulianWasTaken 7y ago
  I think that's probably poor writing rather than anything malicious, but perhaps you're (or parent comment is) right.
  - dmurray 7y ago
    It looks like the hand of an editor to me. The writer wrote "Alan Turing, who died after consuming poison in an apparent suicide in 1954...". The editor told him "we do not editorialize or speculate in this newspaper, stick to the facts" and it got rewritten. Of course, it should just read "Alan Turing, who died in 1954...".
    - greglindahl 7y ago
      It's not a fact that he's the exemplar of a law forgiving everyone ever convicted for being gay in the UK? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law
      - dmurray 7y ago
        That's 1) editorializing, since the act isn't officially called that, 2) not what I speculated the original copy said and 3) needlessly political. And before you tell me "gay rights aren't a political issue, human rights go beyond politics": a new law being passed by politicians is literally as political a subject as it gets.
        greglindahl 7y ago
        Huh. The way I remember it, the government first only forgave him, and then after a huge public debate decided to forgive everyone in similar circumstances. But if you think that's editorial and political if mentioned at all, despite being endorsed by all sides of the parliament, I guess that's a valid opinion. It's certainly the case that many people claim that anything objected to by a single person is political. I usually find that the BBC is more clever than that.
biggestdecision 7y ago
It's like saying "he was killed in 1954" about someone wrongfully executed by the government.
munk-a 7y ago
It's weird to specifically note the poisoning angle without going into more depth - just stating "he died in 1954" would be one thing, but the author appeared to cherry pick a relatively minor note about his death for a quick synopsis over much more relevant points.

freepor 7y ago

His suicide has not been conclusively proven (as was probably his intention) so a news article about his personal effects isn’t really the right place to discuss the broader context.

greglindahl 7y ago
The last article I read about him was the government apologizing for being shitty to him. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing_law This is a huge milestone in the history of LGBT people in the UK, so it's hard to imagine that it's not worth mentioning in any article about him.
- yostrovs 7y ago
  But aren't his possessions valued because of his accomplishments in computer science rather than because he was gay and prosecuted for it?
  - greglindahl 7y ago
    Like many people, there are multiple reasons to value his life highly.
  - aspaceman 7y ago
    Arguably, it's both now. He is both a legend to computer scientists and to folks in the LGBT community. It also touches a nerve since in the past Turing's gayness is always whitewashed by the news. Why still do it? Especially when it was so important to who he was and specifically why we died.
    - yostrovs 7y ago
      Being gay is very important to most gay people. They don't become famous for that. He's famous for his science. The gay aspect of his life is an interesting interlude for us (not for him mind you).

mirimir 7y ago

Requisite mention: Turing & Burroughs, by Rudy Rucker.

simplicio 7y ago

The motive for his poisoning is unknown. Some people speculate it was suicide brought on by his indecency conviction, but this isn't anywhere near as certain as its often presented, and there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident. "Died by poisoning", on the other hand, is certainly true.

retsibsi 7y ago
> there's at least as strong an argument it was simply an accident I don't mean this in a passive-aggressive way, but can you link me to any good sources on this? The most authoritative-seeming ones I've read lean pretty heavily on the side of suicide, with the alternative case presented mostly as wishful thinking on the part of his grieving mother. edit: the particular source I had in mind was the Hodges biography; other sources may have largely been relying on Hodges. And to partially answer my own question, an NYRB article[0] points me to a newer biography[1] which is apparently much more open to the possibility of accidental death (or even murder, though more in a 'can't rule it out' sort of way)[2]. [0] https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan-turing/ https://www.nybooks.com/daily/2014/12/19/poor-imitation-alan... [1] https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182?cc=au&lang=en& https://global.oup.com/academic/product/turing-9780198719182... [2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18561092
- simplicio 7y ago
  I got it from Hodges book ("Alan Turning: The Enigma"). Hodges actually comes to the opposite conclusion, that Turing's death was likely a suicide. But he does a fair enough presentation of both sides of the issue that I walked away thinking an accident was most likely. To be clear, there's no definitive evidence either way. Reasonable people can differ in which version they find more plausible. But I think the extent to which a lot of people tell it as certainly being a suicide (and certainly being due to anger over his unjust conviction, he could've committed suicide for unrelated reasons!) is distorting the issue.
  - 7y ago