Talk:Elonka Dunin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Wikipedian An individual covered by or significantly related to this article, Elonka Dunin, has edited Wikipedia as
Elonka (talk · contribs).
This user's editing has included this article.

Readers are encouraged to review Wikipedia:Autobiography for information concerning autobiographical articles on Wikipedia.
Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1]" 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)