![]() | 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. |
![]() | The Imitation Game was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 17, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is it commonplace to copy/paste the synopsis of a film directly from the press release? I'm not entirely sure how to get started, but the oblique reference to "a now outdated criminal offence" seems unnecessarily vague consider the homosexuality of Alan Turing is commented on in the rest of the article, and considering the phrasing is exactly that in the publicized material linked to. Hpgross ( talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is copying from here.
The one with Cumberbatch's mug is a CHARACTER POSTER which means that all the principal cast will have one. Are you also going to change it when they release Keira Knightley's character poster? She's co-lead in the billing. OF COURSE NOT. The teaser poster should be the primary poster until an official theatrical poster is released. From the official twitter account of the film the poster is categorized as a CHARACTER POSTER: https://twitter.com/ImitationGame/status/515198380138430464 Porsche Mom ( talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In the info box at the right, the United Kingdom release date is listed as "November 14, 2014". Not sure where that information comes from, but it's not from that reference link, which only mentions the U.S. release of November 21. The actual London date is the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, October 8th -- which I learned from a family member of one of the producers, who is now in England to attend the event (yes, I know; that's "original research", which is not allowed), but it is also in this press release from BFI: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/imitation-game-will-open-58th-bfi-london-film-festival. Maybe someone who knows how to fix this (I don't) can do it? 71.204.84.204 ( talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need the claim that the film is allegedly "downplaying and erasure of Alan Turing's homosexuality"? Since it's entirely clear that much of the film is about his homosexuality, this statement comes over as rather ridiculous. The whole article is wildly over top - even complaining about the fact that it shows him running mathathons (which he did) as if it were some sort of slur against his gayness (!!!!) It's true that the author uses the word "erased" ("It is simply not good enough to argue that, since it is a “drama”, the real Turing can be erased.") but even this article does not say his homosexuality is being erased. I rather doubt this single silly piece counts as "controversy", and certainly think the language should toned down. Paul B ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been some issues regarding the genre of the film. The film is being reviewed, described and classified as a thriller. This is a list of some of the evidence pertaining to the matter of its genre:
Hope this makes the genre issue clearer. Babylove0306 ( talk) 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not yet seen the film but I query the historical accuracy of still pictures I have seen of Cumberbatch as Turing being manhandled by two uniformed Royal Military Police soldiers. Turing's arrest for gross indecency occurred in peacetime when he was working in a civilian (university) context, and his case was investigated by civil police local to his home. The RMP would have had no jurisdiction over civilians off military premises, his case was investigated under civilian criminal law, not military law. (Turing's only period formally subject to military discipline was his brief part-time WWII service in the Buckinghamshire Home Guard which ended when he was disciplined for failing to attend parade after he had mastered rifle training and it transpired there were irregularities in his enrolment.) Cloptonson ( talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best if you watch the film first, before picking holes in it. When you get round to seeing it, try to remember it is as fictional as U-571 (film), although at least the Americans don't claim to have broken Enigma in this one. We now have an inaccuracy section (although poorly written), which I suppose may be of use in educating those who believe the film is some form of democracy. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After reading Alan Hodges biography (which is the citation source for all the statements below) as well as other articles/books about Bletchley Park, I was struck by the number of omissions, juxtapositions of dates and people, and clear distortions that were presented in the film. Joan Clark did not answer an ad (or complete a cross word puzzle)to join the staff at Bletchly Park. She was recommended by her mathematics professors at Cambridge (as well as Oxford and the University of London) where she had established a sizable reputation for her skill at deciphering and math theory. The scene where she arrives late and is then subjected to condescension from the room monitor never happened. The heads of Bletchley Park (including Eddiston) actively recruited Alan Turing and were delighted when he accepted a position. Alan Turing earned a PhD at Princeton, toured the computer research departments at Bell labs in New Jersey and visited the ciphering " "Enigma bombe assembly line" at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. These would have had a formidable impact on his future research (particularly in computer science) and work but this is not even mentioned in the movie. There is no mention of the Cambridge Five "spy ring" which sent both the British and American intelligence networks into a paranoid frenzy of witch hunts looking for new espionage operatives. The Soviet operatives were all undergraduates together at Cambridge and two of them were homosexuals which likely played a role in the police double checking any case related to anyone with such a connection as well as his security clearance being pulled after his arrest. The film shows Turing and his colleagues openly conversing about their top secret work as they left the building and out the gate as well as in a pub. This would have resulted in extremely serious consequences in real life. Anyone running through the security gate as shown in the film would likely have been shot and the soldiers who shot them would have been decorated for doing so. Turing worked in Hut 6 (and then 8) which was primarily concerned with intercepting and breaking naval codes (U boat traffic) and thus made a significant contribution to the British War effort in what he achieved there. The German intercepts that had a bearing on the Air War (Battle of Britain), D Day Invasion of France, and/or information sent to Russia) came from another section at Bletchley Park. Alan Turing did not singlehandedly shorten the war by two years. He helped keep Britain in the war. Russian soldiers (and later American, British, Canadian and other allies fought and defeated Nazism and it was they who "won the war" (that and Hitler's repeatedly meddling). Had the war gone on any longer in Europe, atomic weapons would have ended the war there. Turing worked by himself for the first six months and then gradually took Alexander, Clark and others on board. There was never any "power struggle" between himself and Alexander or transfer of power/head of the department He was the head of the department from the get go. The scientists at Bletchley Park had no say in what was done with the information they sent on to Churchill and his War Council. Churchill made these decisions based on data and projections received from a number of sources including Bletchley Park. Churchill was only reticent about sharing intelligence with Stalin towards the end of the war. In the early years, Churchill (and later Roosevelt) had keeping Russia in the war as one of his top priorities. Churchill and associates sent numerous warnings about Hitler's intentions to attack the Soviet Union in the Spring of 1941 and they were ignored. The Soviets need have only looked at a map to see what German intentions were prior to launching their double pincher envelopment at Stalingrad. The idea that the British Intelligence agencies would knowingly place a Soviet operative at Bletchley Park so he could "keep Stalin informed" is absurd. "There was no sudden "Eureka" revelation in a bar that prompted Turing to run back to the lab (right through the security gate) to break the Enigma Code. The revelation that a German key operator was repeatedly keying in each morning with his girl friend's name and that others were not bothering to move their rotors each morning in the Enigma machines they were using, came in other sections of Benchley Park. In the film, Turing is shown building and then tinkering with his Turing Machine which he names Chritopher. He is then shown breaking the Enigma code. The "Turing Machine" was a mathematical term used by a math professor reviewing one of Turing's papers in the 1930's. The "bombe" that broke Enigma was built (based on the design of the Polish bombes that preceded it) and used elsewhere in Bletchley Park. The machine conceived by Turing was used to pare down contradictory codes and eliminate them so the real codes could be deciphered by humans. It only had one math function. It did not qualify as a computer...let alone a digital computer. Turing was not a machinist or an engineer. It is unlikely that he would have been allowed near any of the machines at Bletchley Hall which would have cost an extraordinary amount of money, generated huge amounts of heat, and were tape fed by long suffering female auxiliary workers who grew to hate working in the noisy, hot rooms. Had he tried to build such a bombe in his private flat, its weight would have collapsed the floor boards. 68.13.45.29 ( talk) 10:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
--Who says the book is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alex Lawther has a wikipedia now: Here
Could we link his page to his name in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.66 ( talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead previously said the movie is "about" Turing. This was changed to "inspired by". I reverted it and it was changed again, so I'm here to seek consensus. To me, "inspired by" sounds like something that is not designed to tell a story about him, but is something that his life, or even just one of his works or thoughts, gave some idea or creative spark to, but is overall a fictional storyline, It's quite possible a movie could be inspired by someone who is not even mentioned, named or talked about in that movie. I get that there are plenty of debates over how *accurately* the movie portrays Turing's atory, and these are covered in detail later in the article. But it seems pretty clear that the movie is "about him" - he is the main character and the storyline is based on three major periods of his life. I would argue the opening line should be changed back to just simply saying that it is about him, and then let the later sections about how correct the details are speak for themselves. Melcous ( talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Marian Rejewski is the one who cracked the Enigma and not Alan Turing. 116.212.253.40 ( talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article is not precisely correct, it states, "Turing was a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's Enigma Code." The article on Marian Rejewski, and Enigma Machine both state that the Enigma Code was cracked in 1932. Easeltine ( talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
From the article:
In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940. The building of the British machine itself was led by Harold Keen.[with 2 supporting references]
I'm not sure what the references are supposedly supporting but neither mention Marian Rejewski nor his bombi. Indeed the paragraph is incorrect on a number of levels.
31.48.73.38 ( talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940.
The Bombe machines were not the same as the Bomba or even remotely similar. And nor was the Polish Bomba redesigned by Turing and Welchman. However, with very simple clarification, the text has been corrected to better reflect the facts - and without, I hope you'll agree, unnecessarily overloading the article:
In actuality, this electromechanical machine was called 'Victory'. Victory was a British Bombe machine, which drew a spiritual legacy from a design by the Polish Cryptanalyst Marian Rejewski. Rejewski designed a machine in 1938 called bomba kryptologiczna which exploited a particular, but temporary, weakness in German operating procedures. A new machine with a different strategy was designed by Turing (with a key contribution from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) in 1940.
144.124.228.28 ( talk) 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How the machine came to be called a "bomb" has been an object of fascination and speculation. One theory, most likely apocryphal, originated with Polish engineer and army officer Tadeusz Lisicki (who knew Rejewski and his colleague Henryk Zygalski in wartime Britain but was never associated with the Cipher Bureau). He claimed that Jerzy Różycki (the youngest of the three Enigma cryptologists, and who had died in a Mediterranean passenger-ship sinking in January 1942) named the "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert of that name. This story seems implausible, since Lisicki had not known Różycki. Rejewski himself stated that the device had been dubbed a "bomb" "for lack of a better idea."
From the article to this talk page . . .
From the heading Accuracy
Sub heading Historical events
". . decisions about when and whether to use data from Ultra intelligence were made at much higher administrative levels."
Very good . . . !
The bombing of Coventry and the specific November devastation, is definitely within the popular culture as that it might have been averted with defence squadrons if Ultra data had been used. It is virtually common knowledge that Churchill advised that indications should not be given to Germany that England would have such intelligence. This common knowledge is carefully shattered and remoulded in Wikipedia giving exploration of the historical facts. /info/en/?search=Coventry_Blitz#Coventry_and_Ultra
The wishy-washy device introducing male sibling protection, perhaps worthy of text to be carefully put on a work of Origami, can rather not be taken to involve the Kennedys, say – the significance of the lives of brothers. But, say, there were other brothers in England. -- Laurencebeck ( talk): original entry – 01:32, 24 January 2015(UTC) updated – 07:16, 27 January 2015(UTC), updated-- Laurencebeck ( talk) 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here. I'd like to understand something and I hope you might be able to help. There's a lot of discussion here about the historical inaccuracy of the film, seemingly from some very qualified minds and sources. Great!
However, is it not common knowledge that any big-budget motion picture is not the place to look for historical accuracy? If "The Imitation Game" were a documentary, I think these criticisms would be thoroughly justified. But the film is a drama, not a documentary. As such, isn't some amount of dramatization to be expected?
Bellsauce ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the plot summary and reinstated the premise section, because the previous plot summary was far too long (see WP:FILMPLOT. The article needs a plot summary, but IMO it's better for an article to be missing a section than have an extremely overlong, badly written one, which makes the article hard to read. I'd write one myself but I haven't seen the film. Popcornduff ( talk) 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The plot summary previously included a summary of the text that appears on the screen at the end of the film, which notes Turing's suicide as well as his ongoing influence. This was removed by other editors. I'd be happy for it to be reinstated as a separate paragraph. However, the sentence you have added to me doesn't work - as this is a plot summary, it reads as if Turing's suicide is actually portrayed in the film, which it is not. It would be good to get consensus on this and also see if other editors have any comments. Thanks Melcous ( talk) 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead was marked by Popcornduff as too long, and thus the paragraph giving an overview of what the film covers (previously in the Synopsis section) was deleted by Babylove. I would suggest that the first paragraph does not cover what the film is about, rather it gives a one sentence description of who the real Turing was. So we now have the situation that the lead does not actually give a summary of what the film does cover, but it includes a paragraph about the historical inaccuracy of what is covered. As my original edit of including the previous paragraph in the lead is seen as making it too long, I would propose also deleting the paragraph about historical accuracy from the lead, or alternatively, rewriting that paragraph so it gives both a brief summary of what is actually in the film as well as a comment (perhaps briefer than present) about those who consider it inaccurate. My main reason why is that this is an article about the film, and yet it appears to give much more space to detailing what the film does not cover than it does to what the film does cover. Thoughts? Melcous ( talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Geniuses are a bit odd sometimes, but not like they portrayed Turning in the immitation game. We need to mention this controversy in the lead because historical documentaries create false histories.
In this film, Alan Turing was effectively portrayed as if he were a man already emotionally suffering from state torture as opposed to a man yet to be tortured. This obscures the crimes committed against him by the British government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.105.123 ( talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
More needs to be done to clarify this. Saying "based on the biography" in the first sentence is very misleading as most of the movie is fiction that contradicts the book. Also, saying "Some historians criticized" is inadequate because it sounds like the minority opinion of a few sticklers. There is a broad consensus that the movie is not factual or faithful to the biography. Roger ( talk) 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt the following should be in this article:-- 69.172.145.156 ( talk) 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In November 2014 The Weinstein Company co-hosted a private screening of the film with Digital Sky Technologies billionaire Yuri Milner and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Attendees of the screening at Los Altos Hills, California included Silicon Valley's top executives including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Linkedin’s Reid Hoffman, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Airbnb’s Nathan Blecharczyk and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. Director Tyldum, screenwriter Moore and actress Knightley were also in attendance.[35] In addition, Cumberbatch and Zuckerberg presented the Math Prizes at the Breakthrough Awards on 10 November 2014 in honour of Turing.[36]
The synopsis contains several mistakes (plus, it's generally written as if someone explained to you the film, with sentences like "the story is not linear" and "and then the attention switches to", which aren't part of the plot). The flashback to Turing's childhood doesn't start after the 1951 scene, but after Turing is put in charge of the team by Churchill. And it's not 1927, but 1928. I suggest an entire rewrite of the section. 188.218.57.162 ( talk) 17:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Which parts of Bletchley Park were filmed? I did not see the mansion and I cannot recall any other parts that I recognised from Bletchley Park. It's strange that Joyce House was portrayed as the mansion (at least that's the impression I got watching the film). I ask this as I know BP quite intimately as I was resident there for nearly two years from 1982.
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.20.68.68 ( talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"the Asperger's-like traits portrayed in the film – an intellectual snob with no friends, no sense of how to work cooperatively with others, and no understanding of humour" - Sorry, but as a woman with Asperger's, what the hell? That sounds more like a ridiculous, cartoonish, exaggerated stereotype of Asperger's, not anything like the vast majority of other people with Asperger's I've ever met. Or any of them, really. This is honestly kind of offensively written, but I'm not sure I should edit myself as obviously I'm a little too close to the subject here. Xmoogle ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to indicate that "loosely based" scarcely does justice to the fact that the screenplay bears little relationship to the book or indeed the true story; other than the broadest outline, it is a work of fiction in all the detail. I suggested qualifying "loosely" with either "very" or "only". My edits have been repeatedly reverted with the suggestion that I gain a consensus on this talk page. It is not clear to me why my edits require a consensus but the reversions apparently do not. Reading much of the other material on this page indicated to me that almost all contributors are seriously concerned about the lack of factual accuracy in the film. 31.54.193.5 ( talk) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The film claims that the Enigma decryptions won Stalingrad and shortened the war by two years. This is clearly utterly false but isn't mentioned in the inaccuracies section.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me for using Wikipedia a source, but Ultra#Safeguarding_of_sources suggests that there is no real clear evidence that the allies deliberately allowed people to die in order to protect the secret. This is a important point.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The policeman investigating the break-in at Turing's home is shown using liquid paper. This was not available in the 1950s in the UK. I remeeber in the 1970s only using Tipp-ex correction paper - liquid paper wasn't available then, let alone in the 50s in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.137.100 ( talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a British-American film. Variety is a reliable source. Why is it being removed from the article? Also, it was nominated by several reputable awards bodies for Best British Film. — Film Fan 23:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I do wish some people would finally learn exactly what the word 'latter' really means. Often they put 'latter' when it should be 'last'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.106 ( talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Shadow - but that is indeed what he is. What leads you to believe otherwise? -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that! I had assumed that was your opinion and not his actual title. I'll remove the warning from your talk page Shadowrvn728 ( talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In the scene on the grass at Bletchley Park with Joan Clarke and Alan Turing, Joan Clarke refers to Euler's theorem but despite having a first class honours degree in mathematics from Cambridge pronounces it 'You-lers' rather than the correct 'Oil-ers'. ( 82.16.132.183 ( talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() | 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. |
![]() | The Imitation Game was nominated as a Media and drama good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 17, 2021). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the
Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
Is it commonplace to copy/paste the synopsis of a film directly from the press release? I'm not entirely sure how to get started, but the oblique reference to "a now outdated criminal offence" seems unnecessarily vague consider the homosexuality of Alan Turing is commented on in the rest of the article, and considering the phrasing is exactly that in the publicized material linked to. Hpgross ( talk) 05:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The following is copying from here.
The one with Cumberbatch's mug is a CHARACTER POSTER which means that all the principal cast will have one. Are you also going to change it when they release Keira Knightley's character poster? She's co-lead in the billing. OF COURSE NOT. The teaser poster should be the primary poster until an official theatrical poster is released. From the official twitter account of the film the poster is categorized as a CHARACTER POSTER: https://twitter.com/ImitationGame/status/515198380138430464 Porsche Mom ( talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
In the info box at the right, the United Kingdom release date is listed as "November 14, 2014". Not sure where that information comes from, but it's not from that reference link, which only mentions the U.S. release of November 21. The actual London date is the day after tomorrow, Wednesday, October 8th -- which I learned from a family member of one of the producers, who is now in England to attend the event (yes, I know; that's "original research", which is not allowed), but it is also in this press release from BFI: http://www.bfi.org.uk/news-opinion/news-bfi/announcements/imitation-game-will-open-58th-bfi-london-film-festival. Maybe someone who knows how to fix this (I don't) can do it? 71.204.84.204 ( talk) 18:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Do we really need the claim that the film is allegedly "downplaying and erasure of Alan Turing's homosexuality"? Since it's entirely clear that much of the film is about his homosexuality, this statement comes over as rather ridiculous. The whole article is wildly over top - even complaining about the fact that it shows him running mathathons (which he did) as if it were some sort of slur against his gayness (!!!!) It's true that the author uses the word "erased" ("It is simply not good enough to argue that, since it is a “drama”, the real Turing can be erased.") but even this article does not say his homosexuality is being erased. I rather doubt this single silly piece counts as "controversy", and certainly think the language should toned down. Paul B ( talk) 14:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
There have been some issues regarding the genre of the film. The film is being reviewed, described and classified as a thriller. This is a list of some of the evidence pertaining to the matter of its genre:
Hope this makes the genre issue clearer. Babylove0306 ( talk) 00:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I have not yet seen the film but I query the historical accuracy of still pictures I have seen of Cumberbatch as Turing being manhandled by two uniformed Royal Military Police soldiers. Turing's arrest for gross indecency occurred in peacetime when he was working in a civilian (university) context, and his case was investigated by civil police local to his home. The RMP would have had no jurisdiction over civilians off military premises, his case was investigated under civilian criminal law, not military law. (Turing's only period formally subject to military discipline was his brief part-time WWII service in the Buckinghamshire Home Guard which ended when he was disciplined for failing to attend parade after he had mastered rifle training and it transpired there were irregularities in his enrolment.) Cloptonson ( talk) 15:05, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps it's best if you watch the film first, before picking holes in it. When you get round to seeing it, try to remember it is as fictional as U-571 (film), although at least the Americans don't claim to have broken Enigma in this one. We now have an inaccuracy section (although poorly written), which I suppose may be of use in educating those who believe the film is some form of democracy. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:40, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After reading Alan Hodges biography (which is the citation source for all the statements below) as well as other articles/books about Bletchley Park, I was struck by the number of omissions, juxtapositions of dates and people, and clear distortions that were presented in the film. Joan Clark did not answer an ad (or complete a cross word puzzle)to join the staff at Bletchly Park. She was recommended by her mathematics professors at Cambridge (as well as Oxford and the University of London) where she had established a sizable reputation for her skill at deciphering and math theory. The scene where she arrives late and is then subjected to condescension from the room monitor never happened. The heads of Bletchley Park (including Eddiston) actively recruited Alan Turing and were delighted when he accepted a position. Alan Turing earned a PhD at Princeton, toured the computer research departments at Bell labs in New Jersey and visited the ciphering " "Enigma bombe assembly line" at Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. These would have had a formidable impact on his future research (particularly in computer science) and work but this is not even mentioned in the movie. There is no mention of the Cambridge Five "spy ring" which sent both the British and American intelligence networks into a paranoid frenzy of witch hunts looking for new espionage operatives. The Soviet operatives were all undergraduates together at Cambridge and two of them were homosexuals which likely played a role in the police double checking any case related to anyone with such a connection as well as his security clearance being pulled after his arrest. The film shows Turing and his colleagues openly conversing about their top secret work as they left the building and out the gate as well as in a pub. This would have resulted in extremely serious consequences in real life. Anyone running through the security gate as shown in the film would likely have been shot and the soldiers who shot them would have been decorated for doing so. Turing worked in Hut 6 (and then 8) which was primarily concerned with intercepting and breaking naval codes (U boat traffic) and thus made a significant contribution to the British War effort in what he achieved there. The German intercepts that had a bearing on the Air War (Battle of Britain), D Day Invasion of France, and/or information sent to Russia) came from another section at Bletchley Park. Alan Turing did not singlehandedly shorten the war by two years. He helped keep Britain in the war. Russian soldiers (and later American, British, Canadian and other allies fought and defeated Nazism and it was they who "won the war" (that and Hitler's repeatedly meddling). Had the war gone on any longer in Europe, atomic weapons would have ended the war there. Turing worked by himself for the first six months and then gradually took Alexander, Clark and others on board. There was never any "power struggle" between himself and Alexander or transfer of power/head of the department He was the head of the department from the get go. The scientists at Bletchley Park had no say in what was done with the information they sent on to Churchill and his War Council. Churchill made these decisions based on data and projections received from a number of sources including Bletchley Park. Churchill was only reticent about sharing intelligence with Stalin towards the end of the war. In the early years, Churchill (and later Roosevelt) had keeping Russia in the war as one of his top priorities. Churchill and associates sent numerous warnings about Hitler's intentions to attack the Soviet Union in the Spring of 1941 and they were ignored. The Soviets need have only looked at a map to see what German intentions were prior to launching their double pincher envelopment at Stalingrad. The idea that the British Intelligence agencies would knowingly place a Soviet operative at Bletchley Park so he could "keep Stalin informed" is absurd. "There was no sudden "Eureka" revelation in a bar that prompted Turing to run back to the lab (right through the security gate) to break the Enigma Code. The revelation that a German key operator was repeatedly keying in each morning with his girl friend's name and that others were not bothering to move their rotors each morning in the Enigma machines they were using, came in other sections of Benchley Park. In the film, Turing is shown building and then tinkering with his Turing Machine which he names Chritopher. He is then shown breaking the Enigma code. The "Turing Machine" was a mathematical term used by a math professor reviewing one of Turing's papers in the 1930's. The "bombe" that broke Enigma was built (based on the design of the Polish bombes that preceded it) and used elsewhere in Bletchley Park. The machine conceived by Turing was used to pare down contradictory codes and eliminate them so the real codes could be deciphered by humans. It only had one math function. It did not qualify as a computer...let alone a digital computer. Turing was not a machinist or an engineer. It is unlikely that he would have been allowed near any of the machines at Bletchley Hall which would have cost an extraordinary amount of money, generated huge amounts of heat, and were tape fed by long suffering female auxiliary workers who grew to hate working in the noisy, hot rooms. Had he tried to build such a bombe in his private flat, its weight would have collapsed the floor boards. 68.13.45.29 ( talk) 10:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
--Who says the book is correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.247.133 ( talk) 15:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Alex Lawther has a wikipedia now: Here
Could we link his page to his name in this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.12.69.66 ( talk) 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
The first sentence of the lead previously said the movie is "about" Turing. This was changed to "inspired by". I reverted it and it was changed again, so I'm here to seek consensus. To me, "inspired by" sounds like something that is not designed to tell a story about him, but is something that his life, or even just one of his works or thoughts, gave some idea or creative spark to, but is overall a fictional storyline, It's quite possible a movie could be inspired by someone who is not even mentioned, named or talked about in that movie. I get that there are plenty of debates over how *accurately* the movie portrays Turing's atory, and these are covered in detail later in the article. But it seems pretty clear that the movie is "about him" - he is the main character and the storyline is based on three major periods of his life. I would argue the opening line should be changed back to just simply saying that it is about him, and then let the later sections about how correct the details are speak for themselves. Melcous ( talk) 18:11, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Marian Rejewski is the one who cracked the Enigma and not Alan Turing. 116.212.253.40 ( talk) 06:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The second sentence of the article is not precisely correct, it states, "Turing was a key figure in cracking Nazi Germany's Enigma Code." The article on Marian Rejewski, and Enigma Machine both state that the Enigma Code was cracked in 1932. Easeltine ( talk) 15:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
From the article:
In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940. The building of the British machine itself was led by Harold Keen.[with 2 supporting references]
I'm not sure what the references are supposedly supporting but neither mention Marian Rejewski nor his bombi. Indeed the paragraph is incorrect on a number of levels.
31.48.73.38 ( talk) 18:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
In actuality, the machine was widely known as the Bombe. It was originally designed in 1938 by Marian Rejewski, who along with other Polish cryptographers had successes in decrypting Enigma messages during the 1930s. They were then blocked by complexities resulting from changes in German equipment and procedures. The machine was redesigned and made effective again by Turing (with contributions from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) during 1939 and 1940.
The Bombe machines were not the same as the Bomba or even remotely similar. And nor was the Polish Bomba redesigned by Turing and Welchman. However, with very simple clarification, the text has been corrected to better reflect the facts - and without, I hope you'll agree, unnecessarily overloading the article:
In actuality, this electromechanical machine was called 'Victory'. Victory was a British Bombe machine, which drew a spiritual legacy from a design by the Polish Cryptanalyst Marian Rejewski. Rejewski designed a machine in 1938 called bomba kryptologiczna which exploited a particular, but temporary, weakness in German operating procedures. A new machine with a different strategy was designed by Turing (with a key contribution from mathematician Gordon Welchman, unmentioned in the film) in 1940.
144.124.228.28 ( talk) 18:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
How the machine came to be called a "bomb" has been an object of fascination and speculation. One theory, most likely apocryphal, originated with Polish engineer and army officer Tadeusz Lisicki (who knew Rejewski and his colleague Henryk Zygalski in wartime Britain but was never associated with the Cipher Bureau). He claimed that Jerzy Różycki (the youngest of the three Enigma cryptologists, and who had died in a Mediterranean passenger-ship sinking in January 1942) named the "bomb" after an ice-cream dessert of that name. This story seems implausible, since Lisicki had not known Różycki. Rejewski himself stated that the device had been dubbed a "bomb" "for lack of a better idea."
From the article to this talk page . . .
From the heading Accuracy
Sub heading Historical events
". . decisions about when and whether to use data from Ultra intelligence were made at much higher administrative levels."
Very good . . . !
The bombing of Coventry and the specific November devastation, is definitely within the popular culture as that it might have been averted with defence squadrons if Ultra data had been used. It is virtually common knowledge that Churchill advised that indications should not be given to Germany that England would have such intelligence. This common knowledge is carefully shattered and remoulded in Wikipedia giving exploration of the historical facts. /info/en/?search=Coventry_Blitz#Coventry_and_Ultra
The wishy-washy device introducing male sibling protection, perhaps worthy of text to be carefully put on a work of Origami, can rather not be taken to involve the Kennedys, say – the significance of the lives of brothers. But, say, there were other brothers in England. -- Laurencebeck ( talk): original entry – 01:32, 24 January 2015(UTC) updated – 07:16, 27 January 2015(UTC), updated-- Laurencebeck ( talk) 10:40, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new here. I'd like to understand something and I hope you might be able to help. There's a lot of discussion here about the historical inaccuracy of the film, seemingly from some very qualified minds and sources. Great!
However, is it not common knowledge that any big-budget motion picture is not the place to look for historical accuracy? If "The Imitation Game" were a documentary, I think these criticisms would be thoroughly justified. But the film is a drama, not a documentary. As such, isn't some amount of dramatization to be expected?
Bellsauce ( talk) 18:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
I've deleted the plot summary and reinstated the premise section, because the previous plot summary was far too long (see WP:FILMPLOT. The article needs a plot summary, but IMO it's better for an article to be missing a section than have an extremely overlong, badly written one, which makes the article hard to read. I'd write one myself but I haven't seen the film. Popcornduff ( talk) 12:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
The plot summary previously included a summary of the text that appears on the screen at the end of the film, which notes Turing's suicide as well as his ongoing influence. This was removed by other editors. I'd be happy for it to be reinstated as a separate paragraph. However, the sentence you have added to me doesn't work - as this is a plot summary, it reads as if Turing's suicide is actually portrayed in the film, which it is not. It would be good to get consensus on this and also see if other editors have any comments. Thanks Melcous ( talk) 00:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
The lead was marked by Popcornduff as too long, and thus the paragraph giving an overview of what the film covers (previously in the Synopsis section) was deleted by Babylove. I would suggest that the first paragraph does not cover what the film is about, rather it gives a one sentence description of who the real Turing was. So we now have the situation that the lead does not actually give a summary of what the film does cover, but it includes a paragraph about the historical inaccuracy of what is covered. As my original edit of including the previous paragraph in the lead is seen as making it too long, I would propose also deleting the paragraph about historical accuracy from the lead, or alternatively, rewriting that paragraph so it gives both a brief summary of what is actually in the film as well as a comment (perhaps briefer than present) about those who consider it inaccurate. My main reason why is that this is an article about the film, and yet it appears to give much more space to detailing what the film does not cover than it does to what the film does cover. Thoughts? Melcous ( talk) 05:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Geniuses are a bit odd sometimes, but not like they portrayed Turning in the immitation game. We need to mention this controversy in the lead because historical documentaries create false histories.
In this film, Alan Turing was effectively portrayed as if he were a man already emotionally suffering from state torture as opposed to a man yet to be tortured. This obscures the crimes committed against him by the British government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.193.105.123 ( talk) 08:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
More needs to be done to clarify this. Saying "based on the biography" in the first sentence is very misleading as most of the movie is fiction that contradicts the book. Also, saying "Some historians criticized" is inadequate because it sounds like the minority opinion of a few sticklers. There is a broad consensus that the movie is not factual or faithful to the biography. Roger ( talk) 16:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I doubt the following should be in this article:-- 69.172.145.156 ( talk) 04:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
In November 2014 The Weinstein Company co-hosted a private screening of the film with Digital Sky Technologies billionaire Yuri Milner and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg. Attendees of the screening at Los Altos Hills, California included Silicon Valley's top executives including Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Linkedin’s Reid Hoffman, Google co-founder Sergey Brin, Airbnb’s Nathan Blecharczyk and Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes. Director Tyldum, screenwriter Moore and actress Knightley were also in attendance.[35] In addition, Cumberbatch and Zuckerberg presented the Math Prizes at the Breakthrough Awards on 10 November 2014 in honour of Turing.[36]
The synopsis contains several mistakes (plus, it's generally written as if someone explained to you the film, with sentences like "the story is not linear" and "and then the attention switches to", which aren't part of the plot). The flashback to Turing's childhood doesn't start after the 1951 scene, but after Turing is put in charge of the team by Churchill. And it's not 1927, but 1928. I suggest an entire rewrite of the section. 188.218.57.162 ( talk) 17:51, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Which parts of Bletchley Park were filmed? I did not see the mansion and I cannot recall any other parts that I recognised from Bletchley Park. It's strange that Joyce House was portrayed as the mansion (at least that's the impression I got watching the film). I ask this as I know BP quite intimately as I was resident there for nearly two years from 1982.
[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.20.68.68 ( talk) 11:56, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
"the Asperger's-like traits portrayed in the film – an intellectual snob with no friends, no sense of how to work cooperatively with others, and no understanding of humour" - Sorry, but as a woman with Asperger's, what the hell? That sounds more like a ridiculous, cartoonish, exaggerated stereotype of Asperger's, not anything like the vast majority of other people with Asperger's I've ever met. Or any of them, really. This is honestly kind of offensively written, but I'm not sure I should edit myself as obviously I'm a little too close to the subject here. Xmoogle ( talk) 14:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I have attempted to indicate that "loosely based" scarcely does justice to the fact that the screenplay bears little relationship to the book or indeed the true story; other than the broadest outline, it is a work of fiction in all the detail. I suggested qualifying "loosely" with either "very" or "only". My edits have been repeatedly reverted with the suggestion that I gain a consensus on this talk page. It is not clear to me why my edits require a consensus but the reversions apparently do not. Reading much of the other material on this page indicated to me that almost all contributors are seriously concerned about the lack of factual accuracy in the film. 31.54.193.5 ( talk) 18:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The film claims that the Enigma decryptions won Stalingrad and shortened the war by two years. This is clearly utterly false but isn't mentioned in the inaccuracies section.-- Jack Upland ( talk) 09:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Excuse me for using Wikipedia a source, but Ultra#Safeguarding_of_sources suggests that there is no real clear evidence that the allies deliberately allowed people to die in order to protect the secret. This is a important point.-- Guy vandegrift ( talk) 21:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
The policeman investigating the break-in at Turing's home is shown using liquid paper. This was not available in the 1950s in the UK. I remeeber in the 1970s only using Tipp-ex correction paper - liquid paper wasn't available then, let alone in the 50s in the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.151.137.100 ( talk) 21:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a British-American film. Variety is a reliable source. Why is it being removed from the article? Also, it was nominated by several reputable awards bodies for Best British Film. — Film Fan 23:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
I do wish some people would finally learn exactly what the word 'latter' really means. Often they put 'latter' when it should be 'last'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.128.106 ( talk) 00:03, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Shadow - but that is indeed what he is. What leads you to believe otherwise? -- 2603:7000:2143:8500:1D36:6FB6:FDDA:9EB2 ( talk) 19:48, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that! I had assumed that was your opinion and not his actual title. I'll remove the warning from your talk page Shadowrvn728 ( talk) 23:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
In the scene on the grass at Bletchley Park with Joan Clarke and Alan Turing, Joan Clarke refers to Euler's theorem but despite having a first class honours degree in mathematics from Cambridge pronounces it 'You-lers' rather than the correct 'Oil-ers'. ( 82.16.132.183 ( talk) 12:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC))
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk · contribs) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hey, I'm going to be reviewing this article. Expect comments by the end of the week. Some Dude From North Carolina ( talk) 17:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
Working
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not) |
---|
|
Overall: |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |