Talk:Alice and Bob

message: What names are used in other languages? Or cryptologist only write in English? 09:37, 22 Jun 2004 80.224.96.250 
: That's an interesting question! The majority of modern cryptographic research is indeed written in English. Some of the German Wikipedia articles on cryptography use Alice and Bob (e.g. de:Quantenkryptographie). A google search for "Alice Bob kriptografie" gives a Czech page (http://cml.fsv.cvut.cz/~kupca/qc/node25.html) as well as German, so it seems fair to say that Alice and Bob are used, at least sometimes, in other languages as well. — Matt 13:54, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And there is some discussion on the question of cryptographer / cryptologist at Talk:Marian Rejewski from a Polish language perspective. No comments on names for the 'strawfolk' in Polish discussions however. ww 13:44, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

text: Alisa and Boban in Serbocroat. Edrigu 03:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (Archive URL: ) Jimw338 (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other languages

message: Don't use the term Mallory if you want to get a paper published. The use of the Mallory character is very severely deprecated after complaints from someone called Mallory. The name Marvin is not much better because the MIT AI lab was founded by Marvin Minsky and using that name looks like a personal attack. This point came up long ago and the name Mallet is now used in pretty much all the recent papers. Can't find a reference for it but this is not the sort of thing that gets written down. Thats why Mallet should be the main character. --Gorgonzilla 17:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Goodness, does every person named Mallory get to veto use of the name?  There are easily tens of thousands of 'Mallory's in the world.  And Mallet does not sound like a name to me, and I wager to most Americans, making it an odd choice.  I understand it's hard, but please try to find a reference for any of this.Xkcd 12:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mallory is the de facto more common name (as indicated by scholarly citations, and according to Bruce Schneier). But, since there is a significant amount of ambiguity, I've left both and identified the ambiguity in use. Quinn d (talk) 09:06, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its Mallet not Mallory 

message: I added "* Alice and Bob, placeholders for archtypal characters in fields such as cryptography and physics" to the disambiguation pages for Alice and Bob.  I didn't bother with the rest of the names as they are less well-known.  davidwr 09f9(talk) 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to disambiguation pages for "[[Alice]]" and "[[Bob]]" 

message: Huh, I see that the Talk page wasn't moved by the admin...  eh, not a big deal.  Anyway, this page was moved unilaterally to Placeholder names in cryptography, which I moved back (with admin help via db-move, due to the target page having an extra revision due to the first, botched move).  While this is a perfectly correct and referential name as well, I'm not in favor of the trend for Wikipedia when a good, non-controversial alternative exists.  (Side comment: The main reason why these names proliferate is that, say, neither side can agree whether to call it "Operation Cast Lead" or the "Gaza Massacre" so we end up with something like "2008-2009 Gaza conflict", since mercifully renamed to just "Gaza War.")  Alice & Bob are by far the best-known of the pair, and the rest of the group vary somewhat.  This page is really "Alice and Bob and Friends," but the Alice and Bob part is by far the most recognizable, so that should be the page title.  It's the same in that many articles on, say, a city could also be entitled "City of Springfield and environs" or even "Settlement at 39° 46′ 59.7″ N, 89° 39′ 1.34″ W," but the recognizable and famous name is used. SnowFire (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I have changed the category to bring it into closer semantic association with its (main) topic (cryptography). Alice and Bob are not technically "placeholder names," so that category is not correct. --Quinn d (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page title 

message: Throughout this entire page, it seems that the name Chezky is completely ignored.  Someone should really add that in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.103.123 (talk) 02:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This would require literary warrant, and an example. (In general, the "list of names" isn't terribly helpful for an encyclopedia, but it remains nonetheless) --Quinn d (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing Information

message: This list is quite long and mostly unreferenced. I suggest we start by removing all unreferenced names not identified in Applied Cryptography — that is, all except Alice, Bob, Carol, Dave, Eve, Mallory, Trent, Walter, Peggy, and Victor — until they cite a reliable source. Feezo (Talk) 02:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and pruned the list. Feezo (Talk) 01:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Wikipedia:No original research  you are correct in there removal  -  additions with no refs can be removed at any time by any editor - does not matter how long they have been here. The "BURDEN of proof" is on the editor(s) that  adding the info originally or back into the article. All that said - were did this info come from - i take it its not madeup - can we not find references?Moxy (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the feedback...I won't remove the list again myself, as part of my personal 1RR policy, but I will look for some references. The problem is that many of these don't appear to have ever been used in a reliable source. For example, I can only find a single use of "Plod" anywhere on the Internet — in a blog — and there were no relevant Google Books or Scholar hits for it either. Feezo (Talk) 04:36, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: any thing here?Moxy (talk) 05:06, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: sockpuppets!72.2.50.3 (talk) 05:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Replied on user's talk page. And no, I haven't found much more. Some of the names, e.g., Steve have in fact been used in published works, but not according to the way described; "Steve" was merely a third party along the lines of Carol, and had nothing to do with steganography. Feezo (Talk) 07:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would take the IP's response of "sockpuppets!" as meaning to say  "I dont have any refs for what i am trying to restore to  the article and will not revert again  as per WP:BURDEN". Ok then all solved.Moxy (talk) 07:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I've cleaned up the list again. There are still a number of missing citations, and some of the names are VERY uncommon and therefore of little value, but I've left them in anyways. Quinn d (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of characters 

message: Now what's with Mallory or Mallet? I always encounter with just Mallor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by MoZo1 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mallory is the most common (see discussion on this talk page, above). Quinn d (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

text: Upon a further survey of the literature, it seems there is no overwhelmingly clear preference in use. I've adjusted the language accordingly, and added another reference. Quinn d (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mallor? 

message: This page is getting vandalized. A lot. It's on my watchlist, and in the past two weeks alone, I've seen someone change "Eve" to "Obama" and someone replacing random words with a name for a piece of male anatomy, to put it lightly. -- 23:08, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Greetings! Could anyone verify if the names Alice and Bob were used in Criptography in 1978 in the paper on the RSA algorithm for public-key cryptography? If it is true, it'd be a good idea to add this datum to this article.
Besides, it'd be even better to find out the first use for the rest of names.
Sources:
*http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/10/01/crypto_analogies/
*http://people.csail.mit.edu/rivest/Rsapaper.pdf
George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSA paper is indeed the first use. I'll be adding it, and other illustrative ones through Feb 2017. Quinn d (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added this, in my extensive revisions. Quinn d (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First use 

message: I am puzzled by the edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alice_and_Bob&diff=next&oldid=593836767 by OsamaBinLogin on 2014-02-11T07:41:00 — the first part of OsamaBinLogin’s added text seems a reasonable clarification, but the last two steps do not follow on and seem to contribute nothing:
:::10. Then David decrypts the email he got, and gives a copy to Gena.
:::11. Then Erin decrypts the email she got, and gives a copy to Heather.
I suppose they are meant to illustrate how the cast has been expanded through the alphabet, but I think that becomes clear from the next section anyway.
Does anyone feel that they should be kept?
PJTraill (talk) 13:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. The latest addition, ‘Dave Googles "How to read decrypted messages".’ seems even less helpful. PJTraill (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

text: P.P.S. If we are to keep these texts, perhaps we can add some explanation to avoid them confusing other readers. PJTraill (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unhelpful examples of David, Erin, Gena and Heather 

message: I'm a computing historian and scholar (PhD), and have been doing historical research on Alice and Bob. As part of a visiting scholarship at University of Victoria's ETCL, I'll be updating this page extensively (starting Feb 13), incorporating my academic research. Quinn d (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome!  --rugk (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

text: The page is now in decent shape, so that's it for major revisions for now. I'll continue to add materials after I complete and publish my (peer-reviewed) article on the subject (so as to not run afoul of Wikipedia's "no original research" requirement). Quinn d (talk) 21:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edits upcoming over the next month (Feb 2017) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Alice and Bob. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070303030954/http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html to http://www.networkworld.com/news/2006/103006-bob.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Google Books suggests there was an Alice and Bob (and Carol) as placeholder names in Indicator Hunt: A Goal Analysis Game, Sivasailam Thiagarajan, Educational Technology, Vol. 14, No. 4 (April, 1974), pp. 17-20, though this was not about cryptography.  There may be other examples - 23:48, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earlier example 

message: I'm a first-time visitor to this article, with no specific background in either cryptography or general science or engineering, but it has long been my clear impression, since first reading about public-key cryptosystems in Scientific American probably around 1980, and in every reference in general science publications since that time, that Alice is invariably the sender, and Bob is invariably the recipient.
Is this an incorrect impression? There's no mention in the article to this effect; and in fact a 2007 illustration on the page depicts Bob as the sender and Alice as recipient. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:30, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conventional roles of Alice, and Bob 

message: Hello
I ended up on this article when searching for information on the notable event regarding the two AI chatbots Bob and Alice, which, in 2017, was put to engage in a dialoge with each other. However I only found this article about the characters Bob and Alice in Cryptology, but no page about the mentioned chatbots with the same names, wherefore I thought that perhaps it could be a good idea to either create a separate article about them, or make a subsection in the article on them? 
Just a suggestion.  Okama-San (talk) 17:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same problem in the Italian version. In the Italian version I put a final part, in which I describe the history of the two chatbots. Besides, they were called Bob and Alice. What do you advise me? Stephen kleckner (talk) 21:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bob and Alice AI chatbots? 

message: The page is missing names for vandals. Jidanni (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for vandals 

message: The page is also missing names for trolls. Jidanni (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names for trolls 

message: TV Tropes is a website that often uses "Alice and Bob," so we should have a section for it, I'm thinking we should put it under "Pop Culture" but if you have anything better (or disagree with the idea entirely) then write down below. Paradox Marvin (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV Tropes 

message: There are a number of the citations that seem out of place or unexpected for this document all together.  For example in the sentence:
: In 1984, John Gordon delivered his famous[10] "After Dinner Speech" about Alice and Bob, which he imagines to be the first "definitive biography of Alice and Bob."[11]
Citation [10] refers to "Visualization of cryptographic protocols with GRACE".  Is this intended to be used as the citation for Grace in the cast of characters?  Citation [11] at the end is the "correct" citation for the After Dinner Speech.  The citation[16] for the Grace entry refers to an article ("Contact Tracing Mobile Apps for COVID-19: Privacy Considerations and Related Trade-offs") which explicitly references Grace as a government rep so I'm not sure where citation 10 should be instead if it makes sense to move.  --Veleek (talk) 19:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The GRACE referred to in "Visualization of cryptographic protocols with GRACE" is not the same as the Grace character. I only have access to the abstract of the "Visualization of cryptographic protocols with GRACE" but hopefully the body of the paper supports the famous claim for the "After Dinner Speech". If so, all is fine. ~Kvng (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Problems