Talk:Alan Turing law: Difference between revisions
→Apology to Turing: new section |
|||
Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
Wikipedia's articles are generally better than journalistic texts at providing specifics and technical information in amongst the broad brushstrokes that give the reader an overview of the topic. It is also a great advantage of Wikipedia that it often links to primary sources, where available in these cases, as well as the secondary sources that bring the topic within the ambit of the encyclopaedia. For this article it would be really appreciated if something could be added about where specifically in the P&C Act the relevant provisions are found and how they operate legally, and if this could be sourced to the legislation itself. Thank you to anyone in a position to make this improvement to the article. [[User:Human470|Human470]] ([[User talk:Human470|talk]]) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
Wikipedia's articles are generally better than journalistic texts at providing specifics and technical information in amongst the broad brushstrokes that give the reader an overview of the topic. It is also a great advantage of Wikipedia that it often links to primary sources, where available in these cases, as well as the secondary sources that bring the topic within the ambit of the encyclopaedia. For this article it would be really appreciated if something could be added about where specifically in the P&C Act the relevant provisions are found and how they operate legally, and if this could be sourced to the legislation itself. Thank you to anyone in a position to make this improvement to the article. [[User:Human470|Human470]] ([[User talk:Human470|talk]]) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC) |
||
== Apology to Turing == |
|||
Turing himself received a posthumous apology in 2009,[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/sep/11/pm-apology-to-alan-turing] but I guess it didn't apply to everyone else affected. The apology should be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure of the best way to work it in, so I'll leave it up to the regulars. [[Special:Contributions/2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4|2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4]] ([[User talk:2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4|talk]]) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:24, 13 August 2023
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Alan Turing law article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving Alan Turing law was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 1 February 2017. |
This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
Aren't all pardons retroactive?
The article states that this "serves as an amnesty law to retroactively pardon men". But aren't all pardons retroactive? I think the term may be used here because people can sometimes be prosecuted retroactively for things that were not yet crimes when those people committed them. I guess this might count as retroactive if the record were changed to suggest that the people pardoned had never been prosecuted in the first place, or the prosecution were somehow undone in a more substantial way. But that doesn't seem to be the case here. I'm willing to be corrected, however. Is there a useful distinction between a retroactive and a non-retroactive pardon? Garik (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think the term is redundant, as a pardon requires a conviction. It also invites confusion with "posthumously". So I think it should be removed (now clarified in the ITN blurb). Martinevans123 (talk) 17:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think what you said is right, a pardon requires a conviction indeed. Χρυσάνθη Λυκούση 2001 (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Specific mechanism and sources
Wikipedia's articles are generally better than journalistic texts at providing specifics and technical information in amongst the broad brushstrokes that give the reader an overview of the topic. It is also a great advantage of Wikipedia that it often links to primary sources, where available in these cases, as well as the secondary sources that bring the topic within the ambit of the encyclopaedia. For this article it would be really appreciated if something could be added about where specifically in the P&C Act the relevant provisions are found and how they operate legally, and if this could be sourced to the legislation itself. Thank you to anyone in a position to make this improvement to the article. Human470 (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Apology to Turing
Turing himself received a posthumous apology in 2009,[1] but I guess it didn't apply to everyone else affected. The apology should be mentioned in the article. I'm not sure of the best way to work it in, so I'll leave it up to the regulars. 2601:644:8501:AAF0:0:0:0:3AB4 (talk) 01:24, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia In the news articles
- All unassessed articles
- C-Class law articles
- Low-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- C-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class United Kingdom articles
- Low-importance United Kingdom articles
- WikiProject United Kingdom articles