Talk:Elonka Dunin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Potential additions

For anyone wishing to update this page, I have a list of potential factoids on my userpage, at: User:Elonka#Stuff which could potentially be added to the official page at some point. Feel free to pick and choose. Elonka 11:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Sources

Hipocrite, thanks for taking on the project! Please check this page for sources that can be listed: http://www.elonka.com/elonkanews.html . Specifically: Articles in St. Louis Post Dispatch, Science magazine, Riverfront Times, Binary Revolution Radio episodes, KFTK Newsradio, Wired News, Woman's World magazine, GIGNews, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Cleveland Free Times, CNN, UK The Guardian, Wall Street Journal, IGDA website, St. Louis Business Journal, and Inc. Magazine. Most of them can also be found with pretty simple Google searches, but let me know if you'd like exact links. And if you see anything else at User:Elonka which you think would be relevant for the official article, but can't find a reference, let me know and I'll see what I can dig up to help. Elonka 16:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

CIA citations

• Wired News, January 26, 2005.[1]
• St. Louis Post Dispatch, October 8, 2003.[2].
• Woman's World magazine, March 16, 2004. [3]

Elonka 16:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Fact tags

Because this edit was basically a reversion to the unverified version that was cleaned up about a month ago, instead of just reverting, I've put fact tags all over the article, and believe that all of the information that I mentioned cannot be verified except by Dunin herself. The standard for Wikipedia is VERIFIABILITY, not TRUTH. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Biography standard

This edit was actually a retooling of the "cleaned up" version so that it would come into line with the Template:Biography page. A list of bullet-points an encyclopedic article does not make. The bullet points were changed into complete sentences and strung together into paragraphs. A few details were added to flesh it out. These details came from reliable sources which are acceptable according to the WP:V. (Points not taken from news articles in respected publications were taken from "self-published sources for use in an article about themselves" which according to the WP:V, is okay.)

Since then, several people found typos and fixed links, which were good edits. The multitude of fact tags and wholesale rollbacks were removed because they made the article unreadable. I'm happy to add back in a few citations if they're necessary, but the CIA information is clearly verifiable. - Subversified 00:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Where did you get your information from? Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I got my information primarily online by following the links listed above this entry on the talk page. To be more specific:

• Information on relations listed in "trivia" are found on these websites:
  

http://www.umsl.edu/%7Emuns/elonka/nyt19451117p17.pdf

(a 1945 NYT obit for her great grandfather)

http://www.elonka.com/public/familytree/

(self-published by Dunin, but according to the WP:V this is okay)

• The website popularity/comparison and hits are mentioned in these sources

http://books.guardian.co.uk/danbrown/story/0,15931,1505474,00.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/19/cracking.the.code/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/17/sanborn/index.html

or you can go to this blog entry:

http://www.memestreams.net/thread/bid23249/

again, WP:V says self-published material is okay when it's used as a reference for an article about the author.

• And references for the CIA talk are listed above on this talk page. If you would like to read the slides from the talk, they're available here:
  

http://www.elonka.com/steganography/

With the massive increase in single-sourced laudatory information from the subjects own site, I have tagged the article with primarysources. Please do not quote policy at me - I do not take well to being lectured by new users who have edited only one or two articles. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm not seeing what you mean by single-sourced laudatory information. Do you mean her list of famous relatives? The other two points you've quibbled with before have many well-respected sources (CNN, Wired, various magazines and newspapers). Her famous relatives have entries in wikipedia and I don't see any reason to doubt a person's own account of who her parents are. As for being "laudatory," the fact that Dunin is a remarkable person is the whole reason an entry is needed for her. Also, I didn't intend to lecture anybody. Since I am new, I'm trying hard to read the policies carefully and follow them closely. When you questioned what I did, I was just trying to point to where I got the idea that this stuff was okay. The wording of primarysources makes me think maybe I need to add two in-line references, instead of just listing them at the bottom of the page. I'll do that, and remove primarysources. Subversified 18:52, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Distant relatives

Listing 5 generations of relatives seems like a stretch. Notable father, certainly, but great great grand-uncle? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Too chatty

I happened across this just because I saw her contributions as a Wikipedian. Dunin seems notable enough, but the tone of this article is a bit too autobiographical, sounding like something one might write on a profile of a blog or a social-network site. For example, some of the stuff about "dad took her to work", while probably true, is more like the conversation you would have at a party than like an encyclopedia entry. I see User:Elonka has contributed to the article, which may be the reason for the tone (I haven't traced where each wording came from). LotLE×talk 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is too much subjective data in this artice, as well as data that is presented as fact without a proper source citation. Where are the numbers that prove the site was more visited than the CIA's site? etc. Extreme with the use of distant relatives; some questionable. Again, citations?

We also agree that there are way too many subjective claims made. It reads more like an advertisement for this lady (Elonka Dunin), instead of a page out of an Encyclopedia. September 27, 2006 User:Johnyajohn

I tried to make it more like an entry in an encyclopaedia, not like her personal online resume. For example, stuff like who organized her trip to antarctica is totally unnecessary. Listing every plane she has worked on is also not necessary. "Various aircraft" is enough there. I wouldn't call her a cryptogrpher, maybe just "amateur cryptographer". There were too many details about her website, much more than you should find in an encyclopaedia. It was too much like a resume, with "she did this, she also did that", listing every little thing. Just hit the major stuff and eliminate the other stuff, and it'll be a better article. Checking the history, I see that she has edited the article herself in the past, isn't this against some unwritten rule? - conflict of interest or something. Bitethesilverbullet 15:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the early resume stuff that is not related to her notability can be pared down, maybe even further than you did it. Certainly the list of aircraft was uncalled for. However, her notability is mostly as a cryptographer, including for her cryptography website so that part really should stay. I reverted that. Maybe it can be trimmed a little, but I would be wary of even that - the references and citations are important, for example, what they refer to should stay. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how we should handle it, but there's something about this article which is not completely right. I agree that it does read more like a CV (Brit for resumé) than an objective, disinterested encyclopedia article. The inclusion of lots of glowing details about various achievements, for example, I dunno...the effect is amplified because Dunin is not a particularly prominent crypto person (as these things go). As an indication, there are few, if any, modern cryptographers who have a longer article than this one; e.g., Whitfield Diffie, Martin Hellman, Ronald Rivest, Leonard Adleman, Adi Shamir, and so on. All respect to Elonka, of course, but her contributions to the field aren't really comparable. I don't know what to do, but one suggestion is the following: we could adopt a policy of only including information if it has been mentioned by a third party in a notable context. I believe that this principle cwould help us focus on the facts that are encyclopedic. — Matt Crypto 16:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How about expanding those articles then? No matter how much this article is trimmed, those will remain short. Clearly as major figures, there is more to be written about them; however, that they are too short is not a sufficient reason to delete the work that someone else has put in here. That the work here is irrelevant to the article may be -- but we shouldn't delete and think we are doing useful work. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying we should remove things because other articles are shorter (as I said, that's merely an indication that something's wrong here). The reason we should remove things is because an encyclopedia article is different from a CV or a personal biography. If a fact has not been mentioned by any notable third-party, then it's hard to argue a case that it should be included in a Wikipedia biography. — Matt Crypto 17:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Reasonable point. I'll agree that if a fact has only been mentioned on the person's own site, we shouldn't write paragraphs about it. It may still be very worthwhile of inclusion in a sentence, though - common examples are birthplace, birthdate, and important association with notable figures (studied under X). But I can see trimming much of the "resume"/CV stuff as mentioned above. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you AnonEMouse and agree with Matt. I *cannot* call Elonka a cryptographer (I see you removed the "amateur" that I added) and anyone in the field will agree that she is not a cryptographer. What she's done doesn't compare (doesn't even come anywhere close) to what those other guys (whom I do call cryptographers) have done. (She didn't solve the cyrillic projector, she did organise a group to try to solve it, but the group did not solve it. What she did do was take the plaintext (it had already been decrypted) and translated it. Spelling errors had been encrypted and this made the plaintext difficult to understand, especially since the person who had solved did not understand cyrillic. I stress: the hard part had already been done by somebody else, what she did was easy in comparison) Elonka is not a cryptographer, there's more in that section than should be expected based on her contributions to cryptography. I think saying that she has a popular kryptos web site (just one sentence about it) would be enough. I would have removed even more from the article, but I did not want people to think I was vandalizing the page. Bitethesilverbullet 19:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Elonka is not a cryptographer

Elonka is not a cryptographer and it is wholly unaccurate to say that she is. Cryptographers are almost always professor types with PhDs who have studied the subject for years. They need to understand a wide variety of topics including (but not limited to): computer science, mathematics, number theory, group theory, computer architecture, the P!=NP question... As far as I know, Elonka has not studied these topics - in fact I do not see anywhere that says that she studied these at above the undergraduate level. If you can get a reputable cryptographer to say "yes she's one of us" or you can show me a paper that she has written for a peer-reviewed crypto journal (ACM or similar) I will gladly eat my hat. Her claims to fame: the phreaknic code (which was in my opinion just a brain-teaser) and her Kryptos web page and the mammoth book. That's about it - nothing that shows she is a legit cryptographer. She may be big in the pop culture pseudo-cryptography world, but in the hardcore crypto world, she's nobody. You know, there's more to cryptography than encrypting/decrypting quotations. I was generous when I called her an amateur cryptographer, I personally do not think she deserves to be called any type of cryptographer. Bitethesilverbullet 17:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since this is not her profession, I won't object to the qualifier amateur. AnonEMouse (squeak) 23:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, Elonka has not only published a book on the subject, but been called to the CIA to consult on cyptography, making her a professional cryptographer (ie one that gets paid to do cryptography). As I understand it, one's academic credentials are irrelevant in determining whether one is a member of a profession; most emerging fields rely mostly on those trained in other fields (eg computer science) coming to a new field. For example, no early cognitive psychologists were trained in the field. They were philosophers, computer scientists and so on. If we want to restrict those who can enter a field to those who have been in the academy, we'd be in sore trouble indeed! 68.190.90.190 05:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not correct to say that she has published a book on cryptography. Her mammoth book was a *puzzle book*, with puzzles like the cryptoquote puzzles found in newspapers. She has not written anything about cryptography. Contrary to what you say, people need to be trained in the fields they want to enter: police officers need to be trained before they hit the streets, doctors need to be trained before they can see patients. And cryptography is not an "emerging field". Like I said, there's more to cryptography than encrypting and decrypting quotations. It's a great travesty to place Elonka in the same category as people like Rivest, Diffie, Hellman, etc. I realize that some people are loyal to Elonka and think she's a great lady but Wikipedia is not the place to make people more important than they actually are. Bitethesilverbullet 15:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Come on, let's not be silly here: "cryptographer" is fine. If someone is known because of their work in cryptography, then we can call them a "cryptographer", just as we would call someone a "photographer" if they were known for taking photographs, or a "musician" if they were known for making music, and so on. The issue of whether someone is good or important at what they do is not relevant to the question of what name we call them when they partake in that activity. There's hundreds of people in Category:Musicians that have little or no musical talent, but that is irrelevant to whether or not we call them a "musician". — Matt Crypto 19:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as contributions to cryptography, not only did Elonka crack the PhreakNIC 3 (and 5 and 6) codes, but she wrote a tutorial [4] for it explaining each step for novices to cryptography. Not only did she found the Kryptos group (which collaboratively led to cracking the Cyrillic Projector code-- she has always given credit to the group, not herself), she also independently discovered an alternative solution to Kryptos part 3 [5]. Her recent book is an added bonus, with tutorials and a plethora of puzzles to work with. "Mammoth" also deals with a wide selection of cryptography, including a piece on RSA encryption via pencil/paper. Demeaning the codes as puzzles does not make them any less a part of cryptography. I will agree that she was an amateur cryptographer, up until the point where she was paid for her work. Not having released any papers in higher cryptography theory doesn't make her any less worthy, it just means she's focusing on a different aspect of the art. Aestetix 22:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Solving cryptograms has very little to do with modern cryptography. Thus finding Elonka in Category:modern_cryptographers is very strange to me. Designing cryptograms and writing tutorials about how to solve these puzzles does not make anyone a modern cryptographer. For a comparison look at the page about Simon Singh. He wrote "The Code Book", which is a history of classical cryptography and a short introduction into modern cryptography. It contains, in my opinion, one of the best description of how the enigma machine was broken. The book also helps to understand the difference between classical cryptography and modern cryptography and is understandable without requiring a degree in mathematics. Clearly if Elonkas "Mammoth" book is a contribution to cryptography then so is the "The Code Book". But Simon Singh is not classified as a cryptographer. And despite having written even more about mathematics he is not even classified as a mathematician. He is classified as science writer, which I think is indeed the right category. Thus I propose to remove Elonka from Category:modern_cryptographers. That should not imply that I want to degrade her in any way, rather that the classification would be more accurate. 212.254.78.1 09:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless there is an official designation from some official professional or academic body your main point rests solely as personal opinion and preference. For example, I hold the title of librarian. In the United States, such a designation is based on obtaining a Masters Degree in Library Science (or equivalent) from an ALA (American Library Association) accredited institution. I don't know if there is an official Professional International Cryptographers Association or a clearly delineated degree in the subject (e.g., Masters in Cryptography), but should such a thing exist you would have a stronger case. Even then, taking my own example, I would have no problem classifying Casanova as a librarian (his final profession before dying) even though he never attended an ALA accredited institution.

Also, categorizations aren't badges or ranks. They are means by which information can and should be collocated for an end user searching wikipedia for a wide variety of reasons. I would hope to find both Ms. Dunin and Simon Singh in a search for "cryptographers," or by browsing those categories. I can always read the articles to determine to what extent the classification is accurate. I would hope that dissatisfaction with Singh not being classified as a cryptographer would lead you to remedy that oversight. - Quartermaster 17:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

You did not respond to my main point: Solving and generating cryptograms has little to do with modern cryptography. It is about as wrong to call someone who is solving crypgrograms a cryptographer as it is to call a person who solves or generates Sudoku problems a mathematician. I am not dissatisfied with Singhs page. It seems appropriate to me. I used him as an example for someone who also knowledge about cryptography but is not called a cryptographer. Not having an organisation that awards professional titles does not mean one can simply give titles to people regardless of whether they made any notable contributions to the field. 212.254.84.85 15:21, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems that other people have no problem calling her a cyptographer.[6] EVula 15:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

To give another example, you might want to check out the page of David Kahn. Again he is mainly a historian and author. That's how he is also described by wikipedia. But under circumstances you'll find that articles call him a cryptographer. That is ok, since it depends on the context. Here we are talking about Category:modern_cryptographers, which with very few exceptions contains distinguished professionals with significant contribution to cryptography. 212.254.84.85 17:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We probably want to reserve Category:Cryptographers (and subcategories) for people who are known for making or breaking codes and ciphers. Whether they're professionals, distinguished or have made significant contributions to the field is really not too important. I really don't see a need to insist that the term "cryptographer" implies some minimum level of prestige. Elonka Dunin has certainly done a little codebreaking and, while I don't see that she necessarily needs to be in "modern cryptographers" (because "modern cryptography" carries a special connotation, especially when contrasted with "classical cryptography"), it's not unreasonable to describe her as an amateur cryptographer. — Matt Crypto 22:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all what you said here. Category:Cryptographers needs some work too, but I'll better discuss that there.212.254.78.225 12:03, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: 212.254.84.85's contention about 'not responding to his main point.' I did not respond to your main point because I found it unsupported. If you can support your statement with an outside source (you didn't) then one might accept your argument. Alternatively, a discussion can be pursued as to which, among competing, source is best. Simply stating "Solving and generating cryptograms has little to do with modern cryptography" sets you up as the definitive arbiter for the term - again, with no supporting documentation for the statement. What I'm asking for is simply that you support a contention beyond opinion. Such support could be "I am a cryptographer with a PhD in mathematics and none of my friends at the CIA would call Elonka a cryptographer" would be a step in that direction. Or, as you so readily ignored in my original response, you can cite specific degrees or certifications (which as far as I know, don't exist) entitling one to the sobriquet "Cryptographer."

Yes, I do have a PhD on a subject on cryptography, but that's not the point. I didn't define the term modern cryptography, because it is so basic and the destinction can be found in almost any serious book about cryptography. Speaking about ciphers only classical cryptography deals with ciphers that are designed for pencil and paper use, are in most cases only marginally secure even if attacked in a known ciphertext scenario only. Looking again at ciphers only, modern cryptography deals with ciphers that are designed to be secure even if the attacker has enormous computational resources and is additionally allowed to perform a chosen ciphertext/plaintext attack. Please note also, that almost everyone on the list of modern cryptographers has a PhD. Many of the people there are professors and teach cryptography or have affiliations with companies specialized in cryptography and information security. So while there is no certification for the title cryptographer, these people have at least an enormous academic or industry record. 212.254.78.225 12:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

FYI, from the American Heritage Dictionary (2000 ed.) we have the definition of cryptographer thus: One who uses, studies, or develops cryptographic systems and writings. According to the American Heritage Dictionary Elonka (and many of us) can easily be called "cryptographer" and I have absolutely no problem with that. You may not like or agree with that definition, but notice it has nothing to do with my personal opinion - it is an authoritative outside source. I continue to be confused with a trait of many wikipedians to imbue qualities on labels that just don't exist; No offense meant to User:Matt Crypto, but I'm just as confused about "special connotations" with the phrase "modern cryptography." I see no connotations whatsoever. Two words with well defined meanings. If you don't accept them, try to find a competing authoritative source to counter. Unsourced opinion is a bain to many a wikipedia entry. -- Quartermaster 20:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quartermaster, with respect, I'm not "imbuing qualities on labels that just don't exist". The term "modern cryptography", in contrast with (as I said above), "classical cryptography", has a special connotation in the field. Oded Goldreich's use is typical:

In contrast to "classical" Cryptography, which focuses on (the single problem of) providing secret communication over insecure communication media, modern Cryptography is concerned with a huge variety of problems. In fact, modern Cryptography can be defined as the study of arbitrary "abuse-resilient" systems; that is, systems that should withstand malicious attempts to make them deviate from their prescribed functionality. Established in the mid-1970s, modern Cryptography has witnessed revolutionary developments culminating in the emergence of methods for specifying and constructing general "abuse-resilient" systems....[7]

If you're not convinced, go and Google it, and you'll see what I mean. — Matt Crypto 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quartermaster: There is no cryptography major per se. It's usually offered at universities at the graduate level by the computer science department. (Sometimes also through the electrical engineering or mathematics departments. Some universities may offer it at the undergraduate level, however at a slower pace and in less depth than at the graduate level.) If you wanted to study it further, you'd probably do some kind of thesis. When a modern (i.e. living) person is described as a cryptographer, to me that implies that he does work with modern cryptography. There is no such thing as "modern cryptographer who works solely with classical cryptography". Classical cryptography is but a curiosity nowadays. The distinction that 212.254.84.85 and Matt crypto make about classical and modern cryptography does in fact exist. Classical is only used for fun & games today, you surely wouldn't use any of those ciphers to encrypt state secrets, for example. Nobody does any serious work with those, I'd call such a person an "enthusiast" or something similar. But definitely not "cryptographer" or "modern cryptographer". Bitethesilverbullet 14:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Phreaknic is not an acredited cryptological conference. I think that Elonka could be credited with amateur cryptanalyst at best. However, any professional cryptographer would take note at her lack of participation in any IACR (International Association of Cryptologic) research or lack of work in the serious academic or professional literature about the subject of Cryptology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 02:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

I think that there may be a certain stigma surrounding the field associating cryptography and cryptanalysis as a male-dominated field. It catches people by surprise, even in today's world, to find a woman who does well in a mathematically-oriented field. Elonka Dunin -does- know a lot about codebreaking and cryptanalysis. She does contribute to the field -- even if she -doesn't- have a Ph.D. A LOT of people have gotten interested in the field because of her continued efforts. Mindraker 01:16, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution would be to create a new category, Category:Recreational cryptographers, to distinguish those who make contributions to modern advanced cryptography and those who indulge the subject in more whimsical fashion. Quatloo 01:24, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is deciding what distinguishes a serious cryptographer from the more "whimsical" -- that seems largely subjective. I guess I don't see the need to make the distinction in the first place. — Matt Crypto 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It need not be subjective. What you call "serious" cryptography would be scholars who advance the state of the art, those employed by governments to break codes used by other governments, etc. Recreational cryptographers solve cryptograms, author works oriented towards other amateur cryptographers, tinker with Voynich, etc. A few individuals play on both sides -- William F. Friedman (The Shakespearean Ciphers Examined), for instance. But most are clearly on one side of the fence or the other. Quatloo 11:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Mindraker -- I don't think this is sexism; if anything, it's elitism (and I'm not saying it is). Dunin is just not a certain type of "academic" researcher, unlike, for example, professors Kaisa Nyberg or Wang Xiaoyun. Some people want to limit the "Cryptographers" category just to people who are part of academic crypto. I think that's imbuing the word with connotations that it simply doesn't have. — Matt Crypto 08:04, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Matt Crypto -- Elitism -- that may be a better way of phrasing it. Although Elonka Dunin would be the cream of the crop of a new category of 'Amateur' or 'Recreational' cryptographers/cryptanalysts, I'm afraid that there would be a lot of crackpots (just visit the yahoo Kryptos group to find out) with their claim to fame as a 'Recreational' cryptanalyst, saying that the solution to Kryptos can be found in their magic 8-ball. You really don't want all those people flooding wikipedia, vying for a page. Mindraker 12:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It's quite simple: if a reliable source refers to Ms. Dunin as an amateur cryptographer, then, so far as we're concerned, she is. It's completely inappropriate to create a category for the purpose of downgrading anyone's achievements. If someone doesn't have a particular credential, the solution is to refrain from stating that she does.p.s. if Kryptos was such child's play, why had no one else solved it?Proabivouac 06:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Drive by Anonymous AfDs

There have been three or four recent anonymous AfD taggings of this entry in the last week. They all ignore the recent unsuccessful vote (23/7/2006 see top of this discussion) for deletion. Rather than attempt to improve the article, a sort of underhanded vandalism is taking place based on what appears to be purely personal reasons. I agree that this article (and scads of others in wikipedia) can always be improved and that NPOV is desirable, but this isn't the approach that appears to be taken.

I have to explicitly compliment Johnyajohn as an example of someone who actually, and non-anonymously, engages in constructive criticism of the article. I would encourage the anonymous taggers (apparently from the University of Virginia according to one of the IP addresses - 128.143.230.221) to come out and engage without personal malice.

And, no, I am not a sockpuppet. Explicitly me for some time now, Quartermaster 12:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing deletion prods and AfD flags as soon as I see them as vandalism. I, too, applaud Johnyajohn's actually correct method of criticizing the article, and wish that the anons would follow his lead. EVula 17:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I would not applaud Johnyajohn. Not because of the constructive criticism, which of course is good and needed on all articles but because he’s tried to open even more AFDs, the very thing that EVula has mentioned. The only reason that these haven’t been noticed is because he’s failed and been unsuccessful. [8][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Elonka_Dunin&diff=prev&oldid=77851805][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Elonka_Dunin&diff=prev&oldid=77851429][ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elonka_Dunin&diff=prev&oldid=77851123] Trying to reattempted numerous AFDs is damaging to articles as it slows down the editing process as the editors are either put off from editing by the AFD notice or are too busy explaining why the article should kept. Englishrose 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Pfft, crap, I hadn't seen that. I just saw his actual attempt at discussion, which was more than any of the AFD-horny anons were doing. Applause revoked. EVula 06:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. -Quartermaster 23:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Promotional, windy and of dubious value

While this is clearly a bright and unusual woman, the entire tenor of this template is promotional. Promoting what I cannot glean, but there is clearly an advertisement-like patina to this whole entry. While this contributor would appear to be a tireless editor of Wiki, this does not entitle a bio dwarfing Albert Schweizer's. It is anathema to the spirit of Wikipedia for posters to vote on or protect the content of firends - however controversial or prosaic. I would urge this entry to be deleted. Elonka Dunin's bio would fit quite well on the user pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harangus (talk • contribs)

The article has already been submitted for deletion twice. It survived both times. If you think it should be rewritten to read less like ad copy, be bold and do it yourself.

If you're unhappy with Albert Schweizer's article, I again suggest you be bold and expand it yourself.

Claims that some editors are "protecting" this article out of a sense of camaraderie is just paranoia at its most basic; I've never met Elonka (and am pretty sure I've never conversed with her here on Wikipedia), and yet here I am. EVula 18:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I shan't edit this page because I have encountered Elonka on Wikipedia and found her difficult, so may face a COI, but I feel compelled to weigh in here and agree that this page is ridiculous. It is a shame that Wikipedia has not been able to remove it or at best merge it into two sentences at another page. The content and citations establish beyond a doubt the nonnotability of the subject. She has had minor press coverage, very occasionally, on a single topic. Not everyone quoted or described in a sentence in newspapers is notable. Outside Wikipedia, this page has been mercilessly criticized for the joke that it is. Hopefully an unbiased AfD may one day succeed. I suggest, at least, someone tag the article as an advertisement. Antiselfpromotion (talk) 04:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Time to act Tough

This article has obviously been targeted by vandals and they have attempted to put it through numerous dubious AFDs, even though one was recently carried out. I suggest that these should be treated just like any other vandals and vandalism warnings/further action should be taken when needed.

Just for the record, I have worked on articles with Elonka but all those questioning notability should in my look no further to the references section. I do agree that the article may need some tweaking. Englishrose 22:48, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Am I wrong?

So far, I've had to revert two edits (and another is sitting around) that add Elonka's Wikipedia username to the article. I'm almost positive that we're not supposed to have those in the article proper (which is the rationale for the Notable Wikipedian talk page banner). However, I don't know where that rule is. Can anyone back me up? EVula 18:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I can. We can include if and only if it's a notable fact, and the fact that "X's Wikipedia username is Y" is almost never a notable fact. — Matt Crypto 19:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And for concrete guidelines, there's WP:SELF. It helps to consider that this article is part of a different encyclopedia than Wikipedia, and ask ourselves whether that encyclopedia would include the fact. — Matt Crypto 20:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

SELF is pretty much what I was looking for. Thanks for the link. EVula 21:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Original research/unsourced claims

I removed some unsourced claims.--Tom 14:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

No, actually you removed some well sourced claims. The text you removed reads "These events, plus hints referring to Kryptos on the bookjacket of Dan Brown's 2003 bestseller The Da Vinci Code, steadily increased the visibility of Dunin's growing website." and that CNN citation you removed includes "As the book's popularity soared, so did the sculpture's. A Web forum where cryptographers collaborate on the puzzle went from attracting about 50 hits a day to thousands of hits a day, according to its moderator Elonka Dunin." That's a very good source. I reverted your removal. Please be more careful. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

This "claim" is by the subject of this article. I added that into the article. Also there seems to be more attention to this Kryptos material than necessary. Just trying to work on this article since it reads like a vanity page. Anyways, squeek squeek :) Cheers, --Tom 16:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The Kryptos material is the source of her main notability, so it can hardly have too much attention. But feel free to be more specific, that's always good. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

James Gillogly receives half of a sentence of attention for solving the first three parts of Kryptos. Dunin has (according to the references) not contributed to the solution of Kryptos. Trying and failing is not a source for notability. Therefore it seems like a good idea to remove all references to Kryptos from this article, unless of course I missed something. 85.2.25.105 21:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I learned about Elonka because of the DaVinci code, so references to Kryptos are warranted and should stay.Julia 21:51, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Plenty of people have become quite famous for trying to something and failing, from Squeaky Fromme to Robert Falcon Scott. Failure is irrelveant, merely notice is; she has been noticed for this, so we should write about it. That is not to say that Dunin has failed - from what I read, most references consider her quite successful. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

None of the refereces indicates that Dunin has contributed to the solution of Kryptos. You call that successful? It's certainly not notable. Otherwise we should list all the cryptographers, who have tried to break RSA, AES etc. and not found an attack. Comparing Dunin with someone who has failed an assasination is really a far fetched example. My comparison with James Gillogly is much more appropriate since both tried to solve the same problem. However, Gillogly was successful. 85.0.106.171 06:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Holiday

I have removed the fact that Elonka speaks more than one language, as this is so common it fails notinbility to be included in an article, and the fact is not critical to Dunin or her work.... it is therefore irrelevant.

Also removed was the mention that Dunin has been on a trip to Antartica. From the link to her personal website, she states why she made the trip:

Well, the quick answer is, "I hadn't been there yet!" <grin> The longer answer is that I'd been all the way around the world, and been to every other continent *but* Antarctica, so I knew that I was going to have to go there someday, just for completeness' sake. Also, this particular expedition was appealing to me because it was being sponsored by the Planetary Society, and I knew there would be some interesting co-travelers... Plus I liked that the invitation came from Dr. Louis Friedman, the Society's Executive Director, who was also going on this trip, and I wanted to meet him. Plus I just needed a vacation that would get my mind off work for awhile, and Antarctica fit the bill. Plus it was a good price for this particular trip, about $7,000 including airfare from St. Louis. Plus I figured I'd better go now, in 1999, before everything breaks in Y2K!"

I fail to see therefore why this trip is relevant to the article. I can understand if this is a vanity section written by Elonka or one of her friends, but not otherwise. If this was not Wikipedia but another encylopedia, would this detail be included about Elonka...? The answer surely would have to be 'No'....which is why it also has no place here. If the author wishes to boast about how exotic her holidays are, then there are blogs and personal webpages to impart this information; not in a dispasionate encyclopedia article. She is apparently notable for her work in the field of Cryptography, as opposed to being notable for the places she decides it would be interesting to holiday... This mention is therefore irrelevant. --•CHILLDOUBT• 12:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree; this stuff just isn't relevant. — Matt Crypto 13:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that any person who has accomplished note worthy achievements in their lives that warrant having their own Wiki listing says a great deal about them and in that, I think that readers would take great interest in finding out all they can about a person, so the fact she speaks many languages, has traveled extensively may be of great interest to those reading to learn more about her. I think the material should stay. Julia 21:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable relatives section

This whole section should be nuked IMHO as orginal research. We have a link already to her folks.--Tom 16:26, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed •CHILLDOUBT• 07:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Showing the links between notable people is one of the strong points of the Wikipedia, of course it's relevant. If they have an article, we should certainly show the relation. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that it's notable -- who, besides Elonka's family, have noted the connection? Do we even have a reliable third-party source? That's a tell-tale sign that we shouldn't be including it. — Matt Crypto 14:40, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to find the link but Jimbo also chimmed in that this looked like original research, for what its worth. Also, the comparison to John and Quincy Adams is a bit of a stretch don't you think??--Tom 17:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this what you are referring to? [9] I would agree with Jimbo that a self published family tree fails reliable source in this particular case •CHILLDOUBT• 21:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo's quote is in reply to someone who didn't cite sources at all, but used personal interviews. That would be original research. This is citing the family tree, which is published on the web. Per Wikipedia:Reliable source, this seems to fall under "Self-published sources in articles about themselves", which is allowed for non-contentious items - unless you know of anyone who is disputing these claims? AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with AnonEMouse. The relatives section of the article can be sourced appropriately and should be included to help give the article depth. Other sections should be reintroduced as well including the fact that she has been to every continent.EnsRedShirt 04:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see what 'depth' a mention of Elonka's holidaying gives to a dispasionate encyclopedia article! That detail is more suitable for a 'my space' page or a personal webpage. I reiterate, if this was not wikipedia, but another encylopedia written without Elonka's input, would the vacation detail be included? The answer would certainly be 'no'.. which is exactly the reason it also has no place here. In addition If the relatives section of the article 'can be sourced appropriately' as you state, then please source this and add to the article. All information should be verifiable. If it is notible enough to be included, it should be notable enough to be validated from an independent reliable source.

Also, in reply to AnonEmouse, Jimbo's intervention was not just in reply to someone who used personal interviews to write the article as you have stated; both the author and Jimbo specifically refer also to a family tree being used as part of the research of the article. Jimbo included the family tree as not being a reliable source for the article. The family tree mentioned there is exactly the one being disputed here... •CHILLDOUBT• 08:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes her status as someone who has been on an expedition to Antartica WOULD be in any complete article about her as it is still a fairly uncommon event for most people. That would then lead to including the fact that she has been to all seven continents, again a fairly uncomon and notable occurance for most people. EnsRedShirt 09:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with Ensign Red Shirt, the section add depth to the article that is not uncommon on Wikipedia. Generally it is not trivial to list notable relatives and is much better then a category imo. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 20:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Anon e mouse

You are showing up far too often to defend the indefensible with regard to Elonka Dunin. Her tendentious editing has been well-chronicled. The bot-like editing habits have also been curious, but now we see Elonka shamelessly tout that she is amongst the top 200 wikipedians on the basis of rote edits. Thus, this mindless tagging activity was undertaken to drive edits up on the 'hit parade'. The self-references in "her" articles are unacceptable, as is the vanity and showcasing of friends and relatives. As a new admin, you should be aware of these issues and work with her to curtail and fix them, not defend the indefensible. 24.249.148.22 21:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss editors. This page is exclusively for discussion of the article. If you want to complain about "Anon e mouse" please do so on his or her tlak page, on WP:AN, or by other dispute resolution means. -Will Beback · † · 07:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The article doesn't mention her Wikipedia work in any way, and I have no interest in her editing. Frankly, my concern with this article was merely the unusual attention it was receiving from vandals and others who want to delete it, completely or partially. I had suspected this was due to her Wikipedia editing, but until now had not known for sure (or really cared that much).

However, by addressing me specifically, you have ... let's say piqued my interest in the article as a whole. Elonka has gotten a lot of interesting press, some of which I have now read, and the article about her seems to have a lot of unachieved potential. I think I'll be seriously editing it for a few days. I'd appreciate some help - will you help? Let's see if we can hit Wikipedia:Good article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the Dunin article Mouse, this is now much more encyclopedic. 12.178.121.172 23:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Bloodwrath hoax

I fail to see how this section is in any way worthy of inclusion in an encylopedic article. It could perhaps be mentioned in a one-liner somewhere throughout, or mentioned in an article on Dunn, if there is one. However, an entire section on this rather unremarkable event is complete overkill and adds to the biographical tone of the article. Icemuon 21:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

4 newspaper articles from 3 unrelated newspapers, over a period of 8 months, all prominently mentioning Dunin's role. That meets all our standards of Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Notability, and everything else you can find, even the proposed and overly strict Wikipedia:Notability (news), we could write a whole separate article on this incident if we wanted. One paragraph is certainly warranted. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 21:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Icemuon that it seems out of place in this article. It would make more sense to have it in the Dragonrealms article and perhaps mention Dunin there. JoshieTV 01:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Totally irrelevant, ego-driven drivel

And, for the record, NO, this is not a personal attack, just an observation on the total pointlessness of this entry...

Maybe we should all put our CV's on Wikipedia, but I thought that Wiki was attempting to become a credible medium of encyclopeadic information on the Internet, not for self-publicity seeking ego merchants to paste up their life story and that of their woefully un-spectacular personal and family histories.

This entire entry is no more suitable for a page than my life's contribution to the study of Ethiopian-styles of ballroom dancing. It belongs on a Wiki personal page and no more.

Considering that my family tree can be traced to before the Norman invasion of England and I hold an hereditary title (which was once owned by Elizabeth I and Francis Bacon) maybe I could start posting up my little life story and my g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-uncles and g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-g-grand-daddies and which castles they built, etc. (yawn) But there again, I am not a vain, egotistical numpty who wants to use Wikipedia as an online CV service - I do wonder if the crypto-consultancy industry needs a few heads at the moment... Hmmmmmmmmmm.

(I only mention dear old Lizzie the First and Nick Bacon as they have actually been heard of by most people)... not becuase I wish to pump up my ego. In fact, the title was grabbed by Liz after the Reformation, so it wasn't all that good news for us, after all... and certainly not something to be gloating about.

There are loads of unsubstantiated claims in this article, including stats about website hits compared to the CIA... oh yeah, come off it!! :-D

I think the German Wikipedians have got it about right... does not warrant inclusion.

Meanwhile, I'll carry on editing the 2-3 topics that I do know about (Templar History, aviation, and erm... maybe a bit of medieval history too) and I won't try to be all things to all people in offering my omnipotent edits on a variety of subjects that I only know a very little, unlike some of the people on here. Maybe it's just an attempt to get edit counts ever higher to make oneself look incredibly intelligent and important. And then get supported by all our colleagues from work and our own self-created crypto-society members, etc. to come to our defence when we need them.

P.S. By the way, my mother's Scottish line is distantly related to Alan Bean, your esteemed astronaut who was the fourth man on the moon, but I don't hold it against him. A good chap.  :-)

Now, just where did I put that can of anti-ego spray? Lord Knowle 21:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• If you managed to get a dozen newspapers to write about your story, you would deserve an article too; we don't judge the worthiness of people's lives here, merely summarize the way the world sees them. And notice that her Wikipedia work isn't mentioned in the article, though it does seem to be the reason for most of the attacks on her. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have more newspaper articles on my family history (and academic papers) than I can count - certainly more than are scraped together here. Those articles don't even begin to include the number of press articles covering off the family's Trust work over the last 17 years of charity work that has raised an accumulated total of just over £9m for various good causes. However, I don't do it for my own personal glory and a Wiki entry for such news coverage would be extremely vain. Not being an egostistical wannabe Z-lister, I hereby state quite categorically that I don't want one, and if anyone does create one, I shall remove it - someone's status in this World should be based on their contributions and merits, not getting their mugshot online with an attached CV. Oh, but I forgot, you are one of the contributors here so no doubt a friend or aquantance. As to the 'attacks' they seem to be people's personal views, not attacks, and when there appears to be common-denominator comments about the vanity of this entry, then I believe that there must be something in it. A lot of people have made complaints about Elonka's autocratic editing 'style' (if that is the word), so it's not just me. Still, birds of a feather flock together, eh! Lord Knowle 13:36, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Lord Knowle - you must see the discussion of similar with Elonka in Tom Stone a magician. this is not a serious publication so friends who are the editors all help to make a big profile here. Jan Antwerpmagic2 10:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I've made a few comments on Antwerpmagic2's complaints on my article talk page. A bit late, but still... TStone (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I have just see Lord Knowle is a 'vandal'. I suppose this is significant from what I have been saying. Jan Antwerpmagic2 10:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Order of the Left Handed Path

I've noticed that the wiki page about the OLHP was taken out... and I figured that noone would be better to add it again than you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.56.41 (talk • contribs) 11:43, 14 June 2007

Sequential sections

The three sections on the Elonka Dunin page (biography -> online games -> cryptography) are sequential in time. It might make better sense to boil down the three sections into one "my life" section, and create another "my life's work" section (like Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector and so on.) Mindraker 21:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of her name — looking for a source

Does anyone know of either a recording in which Elonka says her own name (e.g., by way of self-introduction), or else a written source in which Elonka herself describes how her name should be pronounced? I can find plenty of audio/video recordings (on her website) in which other people say her name, and virtually all of them say /ɪˈlɔŋkə 'dʌnɨn/, but one or two recordings have /iˈlɔŋkə 'dʌnɨn/ (slightly different initial vowel). These two pronunciations would, of course, likely be indistinguishable to many (possibly most, but probably not all) American English speakers. I went to school with Elonka a long time ago, but I can't remember for sure which of these two pronunciations she herself used (or if she used both indiscriminately) — and, of course, even if I did remember, that would clearly be OR and not usable here. Richwales (talk) 06:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagged the article

Hi all! There is a lot of assertions in this article that either have no citations, are not directly verifiable through the citations given, or are problematically sourced to primary source documents. Additionally, there is an issue of certain wording that is unspecific or dealing with general attribution. There are a lot of "facts" asserted in this article that I do not find sourced. Please help. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I also think there is an issue of this website reading like a "fansite". There seems to be obsessive focusing on the details of this person's life which are far from encyclopedic. As far as I can tell, she is famous for one particular event and the rest of her life (studying astronomy for a year in California?) is not likely encyclopedic. Additionally, the reliance on self-published primary sources (elonka.com?) is troubling, to say the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW I tend to agree (gee, unexpected that...) but as pointed out over on Wikipedia Review, this particular article seems to lead a charmed life... Shot info (talk) 09:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The case could be made for deletion of this article or merger with Kryptos from which, I gather, this article gains most of its notability. I'm fairly certain that producing mid-range to poor-quality video game merchandized options of low-budget syndicated television series does not an encyclopedic biography make. ScienceApologist (talk) 09:58, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to WR, there would be enough Keeps in any AfD for the article to stay, so it's probably futile. Sometimes Encyclopedic content needs to give way to reality :-( Shot info (talk) 10:11, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not one to let WR dictate what goes on. I'm not inclined necessarily to think we should delete this article anyway. A strategic merge with Kryptos would do the trick, methinks. Let's propose it below. ScienceApologist (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Commenting on the two issues at hand: I do not see the article being read as a "fan site" per se. Given that the article is about Elonka, it would be fair to assume that her actions and her involvements would be fair game for inclusion, and I am not seeing that she was made notable for one event. She was on the team that cracked the Cyrillic Projector cipher and then published a book regarding that. She has also become a speaker for events relating to that. She was also involved with Cyberstrike and IGDA, although the latter needs citing. We've got articles on people for far less notable and singular events.

As for the self-references, I do agree with SA in that self-published references should be removed and replaced with third-party articles and citations. seicer | talk | contribs 16:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, the article can use some work but... I think the folks who are currently or regularly in a dispute with Elonka should probably steer clear of the article about her, to avoid the appearance of editing with an agenda or in the pursuit of a vendetta. Avruch ^T 17:04, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Avruch. People currently in dispute with Elonka are probably not the best people to make suggestions or do work. Unless the work they do is along the lines of writing for the enemy. I also agree with SA and others commenting, this article reads rather fannishly. It's almost a puff piece. This may not be the team to fix that, and now may not be the time but it's a valid observation. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I respect and understand your concerns, Lar and will take them under careful consideration. However, I have a lot of experience paring down biographies to what the sources say, so I'm going to go ahead with this. Also, please remember to comment on the content and not the contributor. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is there anyone who has been on Wikipedia more than a few weeks and is not involved in a dispute with Elonka (either on the same side, or in opposition)? I have my doubts. That being said, SA is particularly unsuited to edit this article, so I would advice against it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now there's a point! However, I'm not editing this article, although until this morning, I never knew Elonka was so notable. I never bothered to look, after 15 years. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The article doesn't read like a proper fan site, but it does have some tacky CV elements, and some minor aspects (like books in which she is acknowledged) were hyped up. So an "advert" tag would have been more appropriate (do we have a "reads like a CV tag"?). But I don't care much about tagging, as about fixing the article. Instead of endless COI comments here (SA has effectively stopped editing on it), I invite you address the issues in the article. Warring over the tags would be really silly. VG ☎ 23:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

{{like-resume}}. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Kryptos

I propose we merge this article to kryptos per WP:ONEEVENT considerations. Any objections? ScienceApologist (talk) 10:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I think notability comes from multiple events, it's not oneevent. ++Lar: t/c 17:12, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

As noted above in my comment, I also disagree with the merge. seicer | talk | contribs 18:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I support the merge, after searching on the web she appears to be not very notable at all. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

A general Google query results in numerous interviews and third-party sources. I also located 28 newspapers, 4 transcripts, 2 journals and 1 newswire sources through the Access World News service between 2001 and 2006. seicer | talk | contribs 18:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Support merge. Without Kryptos, I don't see anything else in the article that would be sufficient to pass notability. Other sections of the article apart from Kryptos are a Biography, Public speaking and her Jobs in gaming companies - nothing in those sections would be sufficient to justify an article by themselves. Her work re: Kryptos is notable, and should therefore be merged into that article. This does therefore seem to come under the citeria of WP:ONEEVENT •CHILLDOUBT• 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

• I also disagree with the merge. I don't agree that ONEEVENT applies here. --John (talk) 19:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Disagree with merger, the ONEEVENT clause pretty clearly does not apply based on my interpretation of the numerous sources readily available. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a merger, there is more here than oneevent implies. Avruch ^T 19:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of notability

Can we explain exactly what makes this person notable? Let me start a list:

1. Worked as a mid-level executive video game developer. However, this is not really noted all that much by many sources: only in passing, it seems.
2. Cracked a PhreakNIC cipher. But we haven't year independently verified this claim yet.
3. Organized a group that collectively cracked the Cyrillic Projector cipher. (This one is independently verified.)
4. Co-founded a yahoo group dedicating to solving Kryptos. (Apparently, but not yet verified, this fact was picked up on by various media outlets as a possible slow news day feature).
5. She published a book on "Secret Code Puzzles" which may or may not satisfy the literature notability criteria.

So, let me put it to the field, is there anything else which makes this person notable?

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

She's notable per WP:GNG. A sufficient number of sources cover her in connection with the two cryptanalysis efforts for Kryptos and Cyrillic Projector, so it's not WP:BIO1E either. Some coverage was trivial like the one-quote mention in a CNN article, which I removed (because it just said she ran a web forum dedicated to one of the problems), but there's enough non-trivial coverage in the mainstream press: NYT, wired.com and some lesser newspapers. You'd expect that two significant efforts in cryptanalysis would be covered by some more specialized press, which would allow a higher quality article (on the two projects and her contribution), but the sources, although somewhat sensationalist, and perhaps not sufficiently knowledgeable on the topic, are sufficient by Wikipedia standards. Her crypto exercises book (2 editions with slightly different titles) appears be held at some libraries, but not at academic ones, so it's fair to say that it targets amateur cryptographers. She's no Bruce Shneier, (compare with his applied crypto book), but it does add something to her notability.

I don't have an opinion on her executive career in the game industry; it seems sourced mainly from primary sources, and frankly I think detracts from the readability of the article by cluttering it with various dry lists. YMMV. VG ☎ 22:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Why is the study of two pieces of art notable? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the individuals that do it, or the journalists that keep writing/reporting about it. But those 3rd party writings/broadcasts are sufficient for WP:GNG. VG ☎ 17:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"...it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability..." If anything the claims of her notability are -defined- by 'a short burst of news' Wikipedia:NOBJ#OBJ Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, WP:NOBJ is in the eye of the beholder. I haven't seen a single AfD discussion centered around that argument (or more often WP:NOT#NEWS, which says pretty much the same thing) that wasn't effectively a vote. My opinion in this case (and you are entitled to yours) is that there are sufficient sources, and not just news sources (e.g. PBS NOVA), that make the coverage "more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event". VG ☎ 19:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Not to repeat myself, but I think that while the subject probably deserves mention in Wikipedia, I'm not at all convinced that an entire article is appropriate. There is a gaping hole where amateur cryptography should lie. I would love it if people here would help develop that article to see if we can contextualize this subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to agree with you if such an article existed (depending on the content). But it doesn't. So there's no suitable merge target at this point. Frankly Kryptos is too big of an article to merge with anything, so I doubt that a single article about amateur cryptography is feasible. VG ☎ 23:39, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Kryptos may be good enough to stand as a separate article, but I think we should think about the value of the content forking policies. If we consolidate all the relevant articles first then we can think about which articles deserve to be spun off and which subjects should simply be integrated into the main article. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing problems

The last sentence in the lead is not sourced properly. The only thing we can verify from that source is that the subject of the article was an Online Games SIG steering committee member. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, the sources for her breaking the PhreakNIC ciphers are all to interviews where she explains that she did it. Independent verification would go a long way to establishing this in actuality. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Easy enough to find PN6, but I can't find anything about 3. It should be removed, or could be reworded that 'she claims to have...;

[[10]]Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

"Claims" is a word to avoid. We can say instead, "she has said in interviews with web media that..." I think that's a bit better. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of interest that is not covered under WP:COI

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Elonka, ScienceApologist, and Martinphi § Conflict of interest

List of game-related white papers

Can anyone offer a reason for listing them? I don't see any indication of importance. They also makes her bio read like stuffed resume (see WP:RESUME). It's not clear if she authored them or was just an editor (as in journal editor, not Wikipedia editor). VG ☎ 21:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I think that this section is problematic. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, the editorial policy at IGDA is a bit unusual. She's both editor in chief and co-author for some of the chapters in those white-papers. I've changed the article to make this clear. VG ☎ 00:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Editor in chief

SA added a tag to the lead after the sentence that says she was editor in chief. This can be easily verified from the 2004 IGDA white paper; I'll remove the tag. Feel free to link somehow to the paper if you think it's necessary. VG ☎ 15:54, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is because I looked at both the IGDA items and missed the editor in chief thing. I'd say it needs citing not just by referring to the item but by giving a page number. ++Lar: t/c 19:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Books in which she is thanked/acknowledged

Listing those two books is a bit ridiculous. In what other biographies do we do this? VG ☎ 21:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None that I know of. I don't think it's appropriate. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Now, I agree, that is tacky. I (Arthur Rubin) am thanked in a number of my (late) mother's books and in one of Jon Barwise's books. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Ya but what was her Erdős number ? ++Lar: t/c 22:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

(LOL) Likely less than 9. At least one prominent cryptographer is a 2, and applying the 6 degrees of separation principle.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Your mother was a cryptographer? ++Lar: t/c 04:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, she was a best-selling college mathematics textbook author in Canada, selling over 500 copies (actually, I don't recall the number, but, for one year, she really was #1 among Candian sales of college mathematics textbooks.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

It did say where her "contributions are acknowledged" - does that mean she was a significant (credited) contributor, or just that she was mentioned in the acknowledgment as someone with a contribution to the field? Avruch ^T 22:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Both these books [11], [12] are listed each with a single author (not editor). The latter book is searchable and Elonka is mentioned exactly once in along list of names on page iv (general acknowledgments). VG ☎ 23:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks to me like the consensus here is to get rid of this section. Am I reading that right? ScienceApologist (talk) 06:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I think so. As I said, I have my doubts about you editing this article, but if you make all your edits after gaining consensus like you did with this section, it just might work out. ++Lar: t/c 14:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Lar, your message has been received. You don't need to keep repeating it. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I was trying to give you some praise here... ++Lar: t/c 00:14, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

It felt like damning with faint praise to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, wasn't the intent but I can see how you read it that way. I'll try harder next time, my apologies. ++Lar: t/c 01:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Crytographer?

This was left in in Crypto project talk page. I'm curious, what exactly makes this person a cryptographer? I haven't been able to find any cryptography related publications. It sounds like she's interested in puzzles and not modern cryptography. Does she have any refereed articles related to cryptography? Skippydo (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

She's an amateur cryptographer and works with ciphers. She is not a scholar, but she has published a book on "secret codes" and has started some amateur enthusiast groups. If amateur cryptography is a subject, then she certainly could be one of them. ScienceApologist (talk) 06:30, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Importance of the biographical information

If we grant that the subject is notable enough for an article, and the jury is still out on this, I have a hard time understanding what relevance there is for listing her high school education, aborted college careers, airforce work, and interest in the internet. I just do not think this is encyclopedic. Moreover, it may be impossible to source to third parties. Therefore, I tagged the section.

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This information is important and should be included, if it can be reliably sourced that it had an impact on the notable achievements of her career. (for example, Thomas Edison's deafness, and his job for the railway, (which he got fired from) are important, as they both had influences on his career and inventions. David B. Steinman growing up in Brooklyn within sight of the Brooklyn Bridge is important as it was a profound influence on his career choice: designing bridges) If it can't be shown to have an influence, or isn't in some other way relevant, it isn't important and shouldn't be included. That's my view anyway. ++Lar: t/c 14:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Its pretty typical for biographical articles to include biographical details - they aren't the source of the subjects notability in most cases, but the purpose is to have a complete article about an individual who meets the requirements for inclusion. Relevance to an article about Elonka is the standard for inclusion in a bio - so her educational and professional background is in. Hobbies I'd normally exclude, but since Internet activity is related to her profession and the source of her notability I think "interest in the Internet" is probably something we should touch on. Avruch ^T 15:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Nod... I agree with Avruch... some bio details are needed to flesh out the biography. People don't spring fully formed from the earth the day before they do their big thing that makes them notable, after all. But I also agree with me (oddly :) ). Beyond a bare sketch, measure the details in context against whether they are influential or not, sourced or not, etc., as I outlined. My wife is far better at this than I am, her biographies tend to have a good mix of shaping and background detail... (of course I may be prejudiced in evaluating her work :) ) ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The bigger problem, however, is sourcing. Where should we get our sources for her biography? I think there is a level of justifiable self-promotion that goes on by the subject in her own biography provided on the private website. But that means that it is difficult for us as editors to determine what exactly is encyclopedic and what is not. A third-party discussion would be best, but I've been unable to find any. We may have to push asserting facts by the wayside and simply attribute her biography to her as though we did a WikiNews interview. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a real problem. Material that can't be sourced from other than autobiographical material needs to be looked at with considerable aspersion/skepticism. Or, at best, reported as "X said" sort of phrasing. Too much of that is not good, though. ++Lar: t/c 00:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In general, we are happy to source minor, non-controversial biographical detail from self-published sources. I see no reason to change that common consensus here. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

"Minor" being the key here. The issue right now is that there is an entire section devoted to sourcing some biographical detail from self-published sources, and it is arguable as to which bits are "controversial" per {{not resume}}. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Birthdate

The birthdate issue is one that has come up from time to time at WP:BLP. The general consensus, as I remember it, unless there are third-party references to birthdates, it is likely that the birthdate is not important enough for inclusion. In general, birthdates should only be given if they are notable for some reason or if the person is famous enough that their birthdate might be encyclopedic (and if that is the case, there will be third party references to it). I'm fairly sure that we are not likely to find third-party sources for the birthdate, so I recommend removing it. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

In particular, see Wikipedia:BLP#Privacy_of_personal_information which says pretty clearly that for most "notable" but not "famous" people, leave it out, so I agree. Is this generally true for non living persons as well? I tend to always include the full date in those if I find it in a source. What about including just the year? (I ask for general interest, not to challenge your suggestion) ++Lar: t/c 12:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

From what I remember, giving the year is okay because it indicates (approximately anyway) their age. For dead people, the birthdate is fair game, as far as I remember. This kind of makes sense from a sainthood perspective. If you are dead already, you're going to maintain your notability for all time and certainly your privacy doesn't need protecting. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Some points. The issues here are privacy, accuracy and importance. Accuracy - while the birth date is not sourced, we have no reason to believe that it is inaccurate (I'll address why we should assume its accurate in a moment). importance= while a birthdate is not crucial, it establishes an age - and generally speaking, age is a key detail in a number of respects for a biography of a living person. Privacy - The fact that the subject of the article is a Wikipedia editor is, for the most part, irrelevant to the content of the article. On the other hand, we should keep in mind that this article has been on Wikipedia for some time, and Elonka has in fact edited it herself (I believe). Certainly she weighed in on the 2nd AfD. I think we can assume, then, that she does not believe including the date of birth infringes on her privacy and that the date itself is likely accurate. Avruch ^T 01:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The privacy and accuracy issues are actually still problematic because of our BLP policy. In paticular, Wikipedia has no system in place to verify the identities of users (indeed it's one of the major feature-bugs of Wikipedia). To that end, we have no way of being able to verify that User:Elonka is actually the subject of this article, and the assumptions that the information this user does/doesn't provide coupled with the issues this user does/doesn't raise has absolutely no bearing on our considerations of WP:BLP with respect to this article. The reason is fairly clear. Imagine a user came on Wikipedia spoofing a famous individual (don't laugh, it's happened in the past). Since we have no way of verifying the identity of the user, it would be irresponsible for us to weight the opinions/considerations/statements/lack of statements made by this account in a way to tilt article content. I believe that User:Elonka is who she says she is, but we should maintain a level of consistency and since we cannot verify for certain any account's identity, we must not use the supposed IRL identity of an account as justification for mainspace edits. The alternative runs the risk of subjecting us to real trouble. It's best to keep all supposed facts and attributed statements justified solely to outside sources rather than relying on Wikipedia-community-based justifications. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia does not have a system in place to verify identities but the WMF does. It is not a foolproof system (no system can be completely non spoofable) but it's fairly reliable. However, it doesn't scale. It's also possible to build webs of trust. But I digress. Moreover, while the fact that I could validate Elonka's identity (thus shifting the trust from her to me, and I HAVE been validated by the WMF) quite easily is interesting, it's not relevant. ScienceApologist is right on the money, especially in his last sentence. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Abstract of Science Now article

“ Amateur cryptographers Mike Bales, a computer programmer in Michigan and Frank Corr, a computer programmer in North Carolina, have decrypted an unusual code. The "Cyrillic Projector" is just one of a number of codes created by artist James Sanborn. When Sanborn enthusiasts posted transcripts of the Cyrillic Projector's text on the Web, Bales and Corr decrypted it. By analyzing the statistical characteristics of the encrypted text, they independently discovered that the code was a variant of a well-known encryption scheme known as a Vignère cipher. But the resulting plaintext was Russian — a language neither code-breaker knew. By mid-September, game designer and amateur code-breaker Elonka Dunin had the plaintext translated. It appears to be a fragment of a KGB document about the morality of spying and a bit of a speech by dissident Andrei Sakharov. ”

The full-text isn't a lot longer (364 words), but I won't post it here (copyright). So, her involvement seems to be that she translated the text from Russian. Also, she's referred to as a "amateur code-breaker". Given that this is a science publication, I'm inclined to add "amateur" to cryptanalyst in the lead. Alternatively, if other editors feel strongly that the WaPo and NPR quotes have equal weight, then both views should be presented. Thoughts? VG ☎ 21:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

The story told by St. Louis Post-Dispatch is quite different. According to them Dunin was "leading the charge". There seems to be major contradiction here, but given that the newspaper story uses vague language, and also contains ridiculous uninformed sentences like "She knew binary - the language of computers - by heart", I'm inclined to discount it. But given that this is Wikipedia, we'd have to present both version and let the reader decide. VG ☎ 22:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Whenever writing about an academic subject, it's best to use sources that are most used to writing about the subject. Therefore, if we were writing an article on astrophysics, the local paper's reporting of the news would usually be considered less-reliable than the Science Times reporting or the IAU circular. There are different levels of reliablity when it comes to science and I think cryptoanalysis is no different. The contradiction in sources likely comes from the Post-Dispatch reporter being a bit more credulous than the ScienceNOW reporter. That's just my guess. I would take Science Now article to be far more reliable than the other sources. I'm inclined to say that we should use it primarily and supplement with the other sources. I don't think we need to present "both versions" per WP:WEIGHT. I think that the careful consideration of the evidence leads us to approach the Science Now article as better than the other mentions.

I think it is vital to emphasize the subject's context as an amateur. That's the sense in which she is recognized by the media. Unfortunately, from a sourcing standpoint, it doesn't look like the professional community has commented much on her which makes sourcing exactly what the experts and best sources for the field which she seems to garner the most notability difficult to determine.

ScienceApologist (talk) 22:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

There's also an article in Science proper, which pretty much says the same thing as the one in ScienceNOW; it gives some extra coverage to Dunin: "“When we were first translating, we thought, ‘Ooh. Heavy stuff,’ ” says Dunin. “It was very exciting.”". But no mention she led a/the team. The link is given at Cyrillic Projector. VG ☎ 23:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

...it doesn't look like the professional community has commented much on her.... Any cryptographer will tell you that cracking a variant of the Vignère cipher is completely unremarkable. Skippydo (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was trying to be polite and stick to WP:V stuff. I had to crack a Vignère as a class assignment, and it was an undergraduate class as well. VG ☎ 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I used to write love letters to my junior high girlfriend in a Vigenère cipher. ANYWAY.... ScienceApologist (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I had already added 'amateur' from somewhere, with a source, as it is in WP:V. Sticky Parkin 21:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability of her job description

The 2006 NYT article says "computer game developer", but the older 2005 Wired article says "an executive producer and manager at Missouri gaming company Simutronics". I don't think she got demoted; it just seems that NYT was being concise. Thoughts? VG ☎ 19:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm raising this because someone (not me) removed "executive" from the lead. VG ☎ 19:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Wired is more likely to obsess over the bureaucratic minutiae of a video game company than the New York Times. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a more recent Wired article from 2006, which only says "game developer for Simutronics", so I'll leave it at that. VG ☎ 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Image number 2

File:Elonka Dunin 2006.jpg

Elonka Dunin, illuminated by part of the Cyrillic Projector code, 2006

I'm not sure what the value of this particular image is. It's a bit stylized and doesn't seem to adequately illustrate the point it's trying to make (which, as far as I can gather, is that she likes cryptography). Should we remove it?

ScienceApologist (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Normally I would not say "no preference" and stay silent, but since no one answered you, I'll say "no preference". It does seem rather unencylopedic but it's mostly harmless. ++Lar: t/c 19:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

While it may be harmless, you yourself said that "It does seem rather unencylopedic" and as far as I know wikipedia is an encyclopedia not an image dump.The Spudicus (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The photo on the article now seems very stagey to me. I much prefer the cryptography related photo as it expresses more about who the person is and their interest. Would we put a photography studio photo of Charles Darwin on his page or have him in the field studying fossils? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Since the majority of the editing had died down, I attempted to do some grammar and flow repair. I also added additional references, added authors and other details to existing references and even repaired a disambig link or two. For some reason an editor has referred to my edits as whitewashing.

This editor also added information claiming that someone else decoded the sculpture.[13] I have no idea where this information comes from, but since it isn't in the source provided for the sentence, I've removed it for the time being. If there is a source out there that indicates Elonka's team only translated the work and based their work on that of Mike Bales and Frank Corr, then lets see that source and make sure the statement is properly referenced. Shell ^babelfish 22:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

It comes from Science_(journal), which is way more reliable than St. Luis Post blah-blah see the discussion above. Pcap ping 22:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that reads a lot better now and straightens out the references. Shell ^babelfish 22:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Made one more change - I moved the 2003 paragraph down one to put things in chronological order. I also tried my hand at re-wording the sentence a bit to make it more readable, its kind of a bear still, but I'm not sure how else to work it. I also removed the bit about the two "being on her team" - the reference says "including Mike Bales, a Michigan computer programmer on Dunin's team" but doesn't mention that Corr was part of that group. Shell ^babelfish 23:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Me again - after re-reading the Science Now and Post-Dispatch references, they actually don't say whose decryption was used, just that Bates and Corr discovered the keys. I've broken the sentence apart to better reflect what the sources actually say. I'm trying to get a hold of the full text for the Science article as well to verify. Not usable in the article, but I did find this which might help sort what the other sources are saying. Also, this doesn't appear to be used as a reference currently, but the UNCC paper wrote an article about the decryption/translation that might offer additional info [14]. Shell ^babelfish 23:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

"Amateur cryptographer"

Saw this in a couple of discussions above. "Amateur" isn't the phrase you're looking for - it's something more like "puzzle cryptographer". I'm an amateur in that it isn't my day job, but I'm taking part in the same field of study as professional cryptographers (see here), whereas even if breaking Kryptos was your day job, that wouldn't make you part of our field. ciphergoth (talk) 16:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)