Talk:Cryptanalysis of the Enigma

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cryptanalysis of the Enigma article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Cryptography: Computer science Mid‑importance

	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 articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computer science (assessed as Mid-importance).

History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Remark[edit]

Hello

I am very surprised after reading this article about Enigma. The authors cite the article of Gaj and Orlowski and the book of W. Kozaczuk, but there in the article is not written that polish mathematicians as first people in the world broke Enigma cipher ( I haven't found such sentence). There is only described their work, however without clear ascertaintion, that they broke this cipher. Only concerning Bletchley Park, the authors write about breaking the cipher of Enigma. The reader, who is not an expert in this matter may be desoriented.

I think it is not good.

Observer

Thanks for taking the time to post your observations! It's certainly true that this article needs work, and that the nature and importance of the role of the Poles needs to be much more clearly stated — I'll try and get round to it soon, if noone else works on it (this being Wikipedia, you're very welcome to edit the page yourself, of course!).

One note, though — the Polish were the first to break Enigma in the sense that they were the first to read live encrypted German military Enigma traffic, which they did after 1932. However, other codebreakers had "broken" some versions of Enigma earlier, in the sense of finding cryptanalytic weaknesses — GC&CS's Hugh Foss had found weaknesses in the commerical Enigma C as early as 1927 (and I suspect he wouldn't have been the only one). The Polish work was orders of magnitude more significant, but we just have to be careful and precise in how we phrase it. — Matt 06:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

sorry for direct language but the pole with wooden mockup enigam model is bs , no question. it comes from the time of around 1974 when Winterbothams "the ultra secret" book came out, archives were still secret and polish sources were ignored in the western world. that stuff should be deleted !

overuse of the word "would"[edit]

very easy to overdose on this article.

makes it sound like Polish codebreakers would just do a lot of things in life. Not only does it become unbearable once you notice it, but it also misses on opportunities to improve the reading experience with "the right nuance at the right time". Nowakki (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No wikilink to Cryptanalysis in the lead[edit]

The first paragraph naturally needs a link to Cryptanalysis concept. Dimawik (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]