Talk:William F. Friedman
|
|
| Missing image Key-crypto-sideways.png WikiProject on Cryptography | This article is part of WikiProject Cryptography, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to cryptography in the Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
|
Pending tasks for [[Template:Articlespace:William F. Friedman]]: (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:William_F._Friedman&action=purge) | edit (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:William_F._Friedman/to_do&action=edit) - watch (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:William_F._Friedman/to_do&action=watch) - purge (https://academickids.com:443/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Talk:William_F._Friedman&action=purge) | |
|---|---|---|
Split Elizabeth into separate article?
Shouldn't information on Elizabeth Friedman be moved to a separate entry?
Possibly, but I don;t know too much about her except a little about her work at Treasury and for the Coast Guard. She is said to have insisted her name be spelled Elizebeth, however.
ww
If you or someone has enough info to write a separate entry, then yes. She was a force of her own independent of W.F. Until there is enough to write a second article, it seems OK in with W.F. Williamv1138 23:46, 27 Sep 2003 (UTC)
I guess it had seemed to me that there was enough information about her in the W.F. article to spin off into at least a small entry (3 paragraphs entirely about her, plus some scattered bits).
Is this quote from the last section(?) not NPOV?
"They demonstrated unfortunate flaws in Gallup's work" Only someone who wants to find true cyphers in Shakespeare would consider it "unfortunate" for said cyphers to be found to be junk.
I take it, from the xx, that an ironic sense was meant. If so, not NPOV at all. ww 21:15, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I've whacked the "unfortunate" (as an aside, I think the emphasis was the anon poster's not actually present in the article!) — Matt 18:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)