38 comments

[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 81.3 ms ] thread
(There will be better obituaries for her, but for now the DailyMail was one of the first to publish)
Surprisingly, no Wikipedia page for this notable figure.
Pages for women scientists have often been deleted (or at least nominated for deletion) for not being notable enough: https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/female-scientists-pages-...
Was she a scientist? I didn't know her, and after reading this, admittedly short, article it doesn't look like she was doing much more than technician work.
The article didn't say she was a scientist. There were also technicians. It's unclear.

I said there may be more detailed bios published. I was unable to find much under her name.

That is an odd article you've linked to. There seems to be several factors in play.

1. People observe that there is a disparity in the number of pages on Wikipedia about men and women in science. 2. This leads to a number of people searching out people to write about that would redress the balance. 3. Unfortunately some are really only notable for their gender and/or ethnicity, and Wikipedia does not view that as a factor. 4. Hence, a lot of these pages get flagged for deletion.

The discrepancy is largely a reflection of our history. Until recently women and non-white ethnicities weren't in positions of scientific research. With fewer people in the field, there will be fewer notable people even if the chance of one person being notable is the same. It sounds like the "deletion of female scientists" is the system working correctly in response to people submitting articles for reasons other than refection the historical truth.

I'm sure there are cases of someone having their contribution ignored due to racism/sexism, but artifically inflating the achievements of people just to redress some perceived imbalance doesn't help. Now another person gets credit they don't deserve whilst the true talent gets buried deeper.

Not surprising to me - is she actually notable? as far as I can tell she is no more (or less) notable than any of the millions of people that contributed to the war effort - so along the lines of an army grunt following orders to shoot at the enemy, or an assembly line worker in the USA putting together B27's.

She took coded messages, fed them into a device that someone else invented, and then delivered the output for someone to (possibly) act on. As far as I can tell she was a cog in the huge war machine.

Do all of the millions of people, or 100's of thousands of americans who gave their lives, get or deserve a wikipedia page as well?

Nothing against this woman, or anyone that contributed to the war effort, but millions upon millions of people did - and they are all equally worthy of remembrance.

Between WW2 and the Korean War my grandpa was in the army. He was assigned to transcribe intercepted Soviet telegraphs on a typewriter which would then be passed on to the actual codebreakers. His work was probably useful and helpful to our efforts to oppose the USSR, but he never considered his work more important than that of the actual codebreakers, which he thought was much more difficult and required much more talent/ability. And he didn't consider himself more important than all the other guys in his unit doing the same transcription work as him.

I've noticed that for almost every example of "important historical female/minority/whatever" that gets promoted as being forgotten or overlooked there are dozens if not hundreds of straight white men with the same achievements if not greater. The ones that did standout things that actually make them memorable tend to be, y'know, remembered. The outright lies that get shared (like traffic lights being invented by a black man) just make it even more insulting.

I think that it can be easy to take these stories with a note of cynicism and I understand the place your sentiment comes from. I imagine that if you were to talk to the people from these stories, they would feel much the same as your grandfather did, that they were one amongst many.

News these days is based in clicks and the story of the “real” XXX ignored by history for their trait of YYY is tantalizing because the unrecognized underdog is such a compelling motive. I would not ascribe malice to what is in essence profiteering. Still, these stories can be interesting, in the same way your grandfather’s story is interesting, if for no other reason than to hear about the ordinary people that composed a great effort.

The most interesting detail my grandpa shared was that they all had English/Latin typewriters but the messages were all in Cyrillic, so they taped Cyrillic letters onto all the keys and used numbers and/or special characters (can't recall which) for some of the letters since Cyrillic has 7 extra letters.
Yeah I think the point is not to pretend that white men werent involved - it’s that by default when people picture that corps all they see is white men. The point is to highlight the actual diversity of the corps, rather than defaulting to “a bunch of white guys did stuff”
Sorry, but I think a lot of people see it differently. Whilst I think the most wholesome message would be one of "everyone of all types working together to advance humanity", a lot of people seem to see it as a scorecard. +1 on your side means a -1 in the "opposition's".

Hence somebody who was one of one thousand doesn't get described "one of the army of people who helped defeat evil", but have their role inflated to an individual responsible for some key aspect. That way you don't have to acknowledge the contribution of others who, in truth, did the same as they did.

I think you're supposed to say "cis straight body abled white men". The simple "white men" includes too many protected groups of victims now.
If you are ever nearby, I can strongly recommend visiting Bletchley Park. It is a pretty small museum now, but almost everything about it is fascinating and you can easily spend a full day there.

https://bletchleypark.org.uk/

I prefer The National Museum of Computing, which now occupies a site just outside the Bletchley Park museum perimeter.

For example, the last time I visited Bletchley Park they were exhibiting a mock-up of one side of a Bombe with a video screen mounted on the other side playing something on a loop. By comparison, TNMoC has a real working reconstruction of a Bombe and we were able to watch a live code breaking demonstration.

https://www.tnmoc.org/

This one is banner worthy if any of them are.
> She decoded messages which were encrypted by German Enigma machines using Bombe machines invented by Alan Turing at Bletchley Park.

I like Turing, I've read his papers.

I like William Thomas Tutte and had the opportunity to talk to him in Canada many years past.

The Bombe machines were scaled up parallel rack mount versions of the Cyclometer created by Marian Rejewski, Jerzy Różycki, and Henryk Zygalski who cracked the Enigma code and designed the machines that automated the process.

Turing, Flowers, and others built on their work to bring it to industrial scale, which was a feat worthy of note, but the cracking and original invention happened in Poland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclometer

https://blogs.bl.uk/european/2018/01/polish-mathematicians-a...

And let us also not forget about Zygalski sheets[0] and Rejewski's Bomba[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygalski_sheets

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomba_(cryptography)

Indeed - the Enigma decoding machines at Bletchley were the evolution of earlier designs, two iterations at least that came from the Poles.

I mentioned Tutte as Bletchley can take full credit for the inhouse reverse engineering and attacks on Tunny, the Lorenz cipher, a more difficult cipher than Enigma and one used for more sensitive traffic by the Germans.

Tunny had an entirely seperate dedicated class of machines used for its attacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_cipher

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colossus_computer

    Colossus is thus regarded as the world's first programmable, electronic, digital computer, although it was programmed by switches and plugs and not by a stored program.
So why label Flowers as one of those that built their work on what the Polish did? Collosus was built (as you say) to solve Tunny.
To be fair they mention the polish contribution at Bletchley Park.
But does the Hollywood movie about Touring mention it? No, it doesn't, and you know why? Because none of the Polish mathematicians who did the actual work were gay.
Well yeah there’s a point to be made isnt there?

Anti polish racism isn’t really a thing in America nowadays - homophobia on the other hand, embarrassingly alive and kicking.

Polish Cipher Bureau had been also using leading mathematicians for breaking Soviet ciphers before WW2…

During Polish-Soviet War 1920 Polish HQ had such a complete knowledge of Soviet movements that they had to stage a deception. Polish cavalary division had been sent behind enemy lines to attack Soviet divisional HQ taking all code books and machines to give Soviets credible explanation for Polish ability to read Soviet ciphers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher_Bureau_(Poland)

Didn’t expect to see the Daily Mail at the top of HN.
Yes. It's especially ironic in this case given the fact that the Daily Mail was pro-appeasement and its proprietor Viscount Rothermere even pro-Hitler[1] and pro-fascist[2] in the run up to WWII.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/media/2005/apr/01/pressandpublis...

[2] https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2Fr...

The Daily Heil, as it’s often referred to, was and still is frequently on the wrong side of history.

Pushed for closer relations with Hitler, encouraged people to vote for UKIP, pushed for Brexit, frequently writes literally-proved-in-court lies and slander, the list is long.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

The NYT was telling us that the Holodomor was a lie around the same time, and their Moscow correspondent (Walter Durant) won a Pulitzer for it. So we should probably ignore them too if a paper's opinions from the 1930s are still relevant.
I would largely ignore the NYT, but for other reasons. Their 21st century journalism is bad enough.
(I had searched for other more detailed obituaries but didn't find any at the time of posting; since I'm very well aware of the DailyMail's poor reputation.)

If you or anyone else find a better obituary please post it.