Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptography/Cipher vs Cypher

Storm in a teacup: the cypher vs cipher debate

Two alternative spellings "cypher" and "cipher" (hereafter "c*pher") appear commonly in articles on topics in cryptography, along with various derivatives (c*phertext, enc*pher, dec*pher...). Should we prefer one spelling over the other? Should both be used freely? What about in certain contexts? This issue has come up several times before. See Talk:Cryptography at cypher v cipher and the links contained therein to some (but surely not all) of the prior discussions.

To the extent there is a status quo at this time, it is let it be, more or less along the line WP has adopted for differences between American English and British English, to wit, both are acceptable. Assorted spelling bots, and other spelling review folks, have mostly stopped assuming that cy in various forms is WRONG and must be extirpated root and branch. Humans continue to do so sporadically, with varying degrees of vehemence, and even vitriol now and again. And, the WP list of common misspellings now lists both as acceptable. There have been suggestions that an article predominately one way or another be made entirely that way to avoid the frisson of conflicting spellings within an article.

In the interest of settling the issue, this discussion page proposes to discuss it before finding a policy.

User:Matt Crypto advocates the following:

Proposition: use "cipher" instead of "cypher" in articles on modern cryptography

We should use "cipher" in preference to "cypher" in articles on modern cryptography. "Modern cryptography" refers to the ideas, algorithms and theory developed in the open academic community since the 1970s, originating with the DES algorithm and public key cryptography. Rationale: in modern cryptographic literature, "cipher" is used, and "cypher" is almost never seen. Wikipedia should reflect this trend.

Does it matter? Probably not a great deal, but it seems quite jarring to use a spelling that is different to the one preferred in practice. Other than this aesthetic point, using "cypher" might also suggest to a reader that the article's writers are unfamiliar with the scholarly literature.

• Lists of papers and links to abstracts of the major two academic conferences in cryptography can be browsed at the following links:
  • http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/crypto/
  • http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/conf/eurocrypt/

• Modern books use "cipher" (see list below).

• "cypher" would appear to have originally been a British spelling variant. However, British usage now favours "cipher". Therefore, "cypher" is not the British spelling variant of "cipher" in the same way as "colour" vs "color" etc. Thus the usual stipulations of treating national variations do not apply (Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Usage_and_spelling)

• However, other recommendations of the Manual of Style seem appropriate: "If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect. Thus "alternative meaning" should be used rather than "alternate meaning" since dictionaries often discourage or do not even recognize the latter. For example, the American Heritage Dictionary "Usage Note" at alternative simply says: "Alternative should not be confused with alternate." From time to time, the "cypher" spelling is "corrected" by editors to "cipher". Also, variants such as "encypher" and "decypher" do not appear in dictionaries, so are often presumed to be incorrectly spelled.

• Google test: although "cipher" and "cypher" are reported as comparably frequent in usage on Google, in the context of cryptography things are different:

Google phrase	Cipher	Cypher	Ratio
c*pher	816,000	490,000	1.67
c*pher encryption	177,000	22,000	8.05
c*pher cryptography	88,600	5,600	15.8
c*phertext	137,000	7,210	19.00
dec*pher	929,000	13,300	69.85
"block c*pher"	49,000	660	74.24

• Q: Why just "modern cryptography"? A: I would probably advocate "cipher" over "cypher" in other articles as well, such as those on the history of cryptography (e.g. the Enigma machine), but as I have read less about these, I don't know whether "cypher" appears as a variant spelling in this context more frequently than it does in the modern context.

Books that use "cypher"

User:JD Forrester, in a posting at Talk:Cryptography at cypher v cipher noted the existence of some he had used in his (current) University courses, but did not give titles. Forrester also cited instructors at his university (Warwick), both British and Russian, who used cypher; he did not give names. Most of the books I personally recall using cypher (and its variants) are from older eras, which, it could be argued, do not apply to current times. ww 14:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, User:Jdforrester said the following, when asked whether any lectures or books used "cypher": "Lectures at the University of Warwick, both by a Russian and a Briton. The books recommended, however, nearly all used the 'i' spelling variant." — Matt 15:07, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

JDF's observation to which I had reference above was made earlier on the talk page. It was: All of my cryptography books use 'cypher'. Perhaps this is a difference in spelling between you former colonials and the rest of the world? :-) ww 16:59, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Apropos the inclusion of dictionaries and such in the next section, it should be noted that all I've personally looked at cite cypher as at least a variant, thus adding authority (of a kind) to the cypher side of question. ww 19:01, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Please add books.

• CompTIA A+ Certification Guide (220-901 and 220-902): Matthew Bennett - 2017
• Reliability, Safety, and Security of Railway Systems. Thierry Lecomte, Ralf Pinger, Alexander Romanovsky - 2016
• Protecting Information on Local Area Networks. James A Schweitzer - 2014
• Compute-IT: Student's Book 3 - Computing for KS3. Mark Dorling, George Rouse - 2015
• H.I.V.E. 2: Overlord Protocol: Mark Walden - 2011
• Coding for Data and Computer Communications. David Salomon - 2005
• Sixth International Conference on Digital Satellite Communications: Communications Satellite Corporation - 1983
• Kirkus Reviews - Volume 53, Issues 19-24 -1985
• AS/400 Security in a Client/Server Environment - Joseph S. Park - 1995
• Orthopaedic Surgical Approaches. Mark D. Miller, A. Bobby Chhabra, Joseph S Park - 2014
• Fuzzy Expert Systems. Abraham Kandel - 1991
• The Boy Who Set Fire to the Bible. Carl Daoust - 2015
• The New Hacker's Dictionary. Eric S. Raymond, Guy L. Steele - 1996
• An Introduction to Neural Networks. James A. Anderson - 1995
• The Python Library Reference: Release 3.6.4 - Book 1 of 2 Guido van Rossum, Python Development Team - 2018
• Antennas and Wave Propagation. A. R. Harish, M. Sachidananda - 2007
• The Unseen War in Europe: Espionage and Conspiracy in the Second. John H. Waller - 1996
• Between Silk and Cyanide: A Codemaker's War, 1941-1945. Leo Marks - 2001
• IoT Automation: Arrowhead Framework. Jerker Delsing - 2017
• Computer Network Security: Theory and Practice. Jie Wang - 2010
• The World's Most Bizarre Murders. James Marrison - 2010
• ICSA Guide to Cryptography. Randall K. Nichols, - 1999
• The Hacker's Dictionary: A Guide to the World of Computer Wizards. Guy L. Steele - 1983
• Baal Robert R. McCammon - 2012
• Vimy: The Battle and the Legend. Tim Cook - 2017
• Classical Cryptography Course - Volume 1; Volume 6. Randall K. Nichols - 1996

Books that use "cipher"

Please add books.

• Newton - Encyclopedia of Cryptology
• Various - Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security
• Encyclopædia Britannica
• Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition
• Ross Anderson - Security Engineering (UK author)
• Bauer, F L - Decrypted Secrets
• Beutelspacher, Albrecht- Cryptography
• Biham and Shamir, Cryptanalysis of the Data Encryption Standard
• Chey Cobb - Cryptography for Dummies
• Robert Churchhouse - Codes and Ciphers
• S. C. Coutinho, S.C. Coutinho -The Mathematics of Ciphers: Number Theory and RSA Cryptography
• Joan Daemen, Vincent Rijmen - The Design of Rijndael
• H. Delfs, H. Knebl - Introduction to Cryptography
• C. A. Deavors and L. Kruh, Machine Cryptography and Modern Cryptanalysis
• Dorothy Denning, Cryptography and Data Security
• Niels Ferguson & Bruce Schneier - Practical Cryptography
• Helen Fouche Gaines - Elementary Cryptanalysis (not modern)
• David Kahn - The Codebreakers (not modern)
• Knudsen - Java Cryptography
• A.G. Konheim - Cryptography: a Primer
• Stephen Levy - Crypto
• Robert E. Lewand - Cryptological Mathematics
• Wenbo Mao - Modern Cryptography: Theory and Practice
• H.X. Mel, Doris Burnett, Doris M. Baker - Cryptography Decrypted
• Menezes, van Oorschot, and Vanstone - Handbook of Applied Cryptography
• Fred Piper and Sean Murphy - Cryptography : A Very Short Introduction (UK author)
• Fred Piper and Henry Beker - Cipher systems (UK author)
• Fletcher Pratt - Secret & Urgent: The Story of Codes & Ciphers (not modern)
• Hugh Sebag-Montefiore - Enigma: The Battle for the Code (not about modern cryptography)
• Bruce Schneier, Applied Cryptography
• Schneier et al. - The Twofish Encryption Algorithm
• J. Seberry, J. Pieprzyk- Cryptography: an introduction to computer security
• Simon Singh - The Code Book (UK author)
• A. Sinkov - Elementary Cryptanalysis: A Mathematical Approach (not modern)
• William Stallings - Cryptography and Network Security
• Samuel S. Wagstaff - Cryptanalysis of Number Theoretic Ciphers
• Fred B. Wrixon - Codes, Ciphers & Other Cryptic & Clandestine Communication

Dictionary entries

• Oxford English Dictionary
• Merriam-Webster Dictionary
• The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Further discussion

I welcome discussion and debate on this question. — Matt 11:39, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I should like to note, that as a British student of mathematics, 'cipher' looks very awkward and I should be very surprised to see British professors using 'cipher' over 'cypher'. In the interest of international harmony, I would not bother to change the spelling, but it does irritate me to see 'cypher' corrected, when it is indeed already correct.

Well, I'd assert once again that it's not an international British vs American thing; most British professors in cryptography do, in fact, spell it "cipher" in their publications; e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4] etc...— Matt 02:23, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't doubt that British professors favour 'cipher' over 'cypher' when publishing to an international audience, especially given the strength of feeling that is apparently displayed on this matter. Nonetheless, 'cipher' does look awkward to a British reader compared with 'cypher'.

Well, even internally UK cryptographers use "cipher", in my experience -- (I would note that I'm British grad student in crypto). The problem with "cypher" is not that it's a "wrong spelling", more that published cryptographic writing, whether published in the UK or elsewhere, uses "cipher" — universally, as far as I can tell. Simply put, we shouldn't use a different spelling to the one used in the field of cryptography. — Matt 02:47, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As a British reader myself, I can't say I have a preference for "cypher" which just looks wrong to my eyes, in the same was as "cyder" for the alcoholic beverage (i.e., I'd guess it was an archaic spelling). And the OED, the definitive dictionary for British usage issues, also seems to prefer "cipher".

ww suggests ...

As Matt notes above, this is a teapot tempest, but fascinating to those interested in this language and its thoroughly odd orthography. There is a mini history of the language, with some speculation on how things written got so peculiar, at user talk:Fredrik at cypher vs cipher. In addition the prior discussion contains some historical material (see Talk:Cryptography at cypher vs cipher and the links from there).

But the problem is, at base, not historical in a significant sense. It is hard to distinguish clearly for discussion purposes, but I'll try. Ferdinand de Saussure (Swiss linguist, November 26, 1857 - February 22, 1913) first distinguished clearly between language use and language theory/description. His distinction has become universal among linguists and is relevant to this discussion. In dictionaries, the related terms are descriptive (Saussurian) and prescriptive (non-Saussurian).

Languages, for reasons no one, to my knowledge, has been able to explain satisfactorily, differ in the degree of standardization on which they insist among their users. (NB: I am reifying shamelessly here, for wording economy, in using language in this manner, and readers should take care as a consequence.) For instance, some languages are resistant to import of vocabulary from others (eg, historical French, apparently; the modern situation is so overlaid with political and cultural baggage as to obscure much) while English has, seemingly, always been willing to accept new words with little difficulty. Why this should be so is, as I note, obscure.

Writing, being more formal, less spontaneous, and so on is not quite the same circumstance. The Saussurian position is less clearly applicable to written expression; but not, apparently, inapplicable either. In the particular case of English, its spelling has been, since before Hastings (ie, 1066CE) extremely variable. Whether a vice or a virtue (a vice in my view), it has not merely been a function of ignorance. The most learned writers of whom we retain record have been as wild and woolley as we can imagine the near illiterate to have always been, and insofar as we have samples, as they were (and are). Shakespeare is an example. Whoever the writer actually was, his spelling (in quartos, handwriting, and folios) was highly variable. To this day, entire communities, speaking and writing the same English language, differ on the spelling_of_English question. Matt gives the example of colour v color. Part of this is political/cultural (perhaps mostly American, and perhaps primarily Noah Webster who included virtuous republican spelling reform among his briefs in his American dictionaries). But the persistence of such differences cannot be entirely Noah's fault. He's been dead for 150+ years. Actual vocabulary also differs between BE and AE. In GB, cars have boots and bonnets and one goes to the 1st floor in a lift. In AE, cars have trunks and hoods (even British ones) and one is already on the 1st floor when one enters a building -- elevators are needed only for 2nd and higher floors.

There being more Americans than British, a majority vote of English speakers/writers would dispense with all BE differences (spelling, unique vocabulary, etc). That English doesn't (quite) operate on majority vote in such cases is, it would seem, an aspect of Saussurian use rather than theory as English' modus operandi.

Accordingly, I would respect the way that English does it, and leave the spelling alone in this case. I have suggested that articles be internally consistent on cy v ci, but that wholesale changes not be made to conform to 'conventional' use. English doesn't work that way. German and others might, but might is still spelled very oddly in English, though it rhymes with knight and both were spelled as pronounced once upon a time (Chaucer's time or before!).

I think this spelling difference is a grace note, an opportunity for bemusement (at English, the speller's nightmare), and should be made visible to our Reader, not concealed behind a veil of (in English) artificial convention.

Comments? Observations?

ww 14:49, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

ww -- you say the difference "should be made visible to the Reader, not concealed behind a veil of artificial convention". There is a very real convention to use "cipher" in the context of modern cryptography, and I've tried to provide evidence for this. If Wikipedia also subscribed to this convention, it would not be "an artificial veil"; it would simply be reflecting (overwhelming) usage.

Matt, The 'convention' meant was not in re spelling of any particular thing, but that there is a convention of 'correct spelling' at all in English. There's too much variation, and too much tolerance for it, to act otherwise. ww 20:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree -- there clearly is a notion of standard spelling in English, and it's determined by the fact that the vast majority agree on it. This is why, in Wikipedia, we prefer the spelling "consciousness" to "conshussnuss". Surely you don't dispute this? — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, Actually, in principle, I do. Any language in which an actual case can be made for ghoti being pronounced as 'fish' has not the slightest credible rational right to any claim of a 'standard' spelling. Its greatest (by most lights) writer couldn't even spell his own name the same way twice. We now have (what is it? 12?) samples of his signature on this or that, and ... Well, if the most incandescent genius of English can't manage (nor did most anybody, including the other geniuses, of his time), it's probably hopeless for we grain of wheat bulbs to insist. It's why the spelling / pronounciation rules we are dragged kicking and shreiking through in elementary school are so perversely, annoyingly, infuriatingly, arcane. Don't you remember thinking this stuff was insane at the time? I certainly do; and I still do, eons later. Probably accounts for most of the serial killers and polluters in the English speaking world, too; it's the Devil's work, I say! Anyway..., string theory (pick your version poison there) makes more sense, and is probably easier to understand.

An actual example is Mark Twain (or indeed any author making a point about characters' use of language -- some of Dickens, I remember dimly, might qualify here) in many of whose works English spelling, usage, and pronounciation are rather thoroughly stretched by 'conventional' standards. There are frequent (and recurrent) attempts here by Miss Fidditches of assorted stripes to ban Twain (or this or that work) as so bad an example of writing (or as racist or as impious or ...) as to be impermissably non-standard, unconventional, unacceptable, and outa here!

In practice, in this case, I think the problem is nonexistent. Hence my bemusement at it all. The degree of confusion caused by use of both spelling forms (ie, actual confusion, not presumed disapproving judgement by onlooking Miss Fidditches) is nil. Even in the mind of a not so crypto Reader. ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

If I've understood you correctly, you argue that, because English is somewhat accepting of variation in vocabulary and spelling, we should accept this particular variation in spelling in the Wikipedia. I would respond by pointing out that, in the context of modern cryptography, it's so rare as to almost fail to be a variation at all. It's almost entirely absent from the published literature.

Matt, And the majority vote conveys little in English. It certainly doesn't convey illiteracy or inability to understand this or that about crypto.

If an average reader came across an article about "consciousness" where the author spelled it "conshussnuss", how wary would they be of the content? They would be suspicious about the content, of course, because the spelling was unusual. Rightly or wrongly, it is expected, in any field, to use the terminology, jargon and conventions of that field. If we increase the confidence of (even a few of) our readers by using "cipher" over "cypher", then I think we should prefer "cipher". — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, A bit of a strawman arguement that, isn't it? In any case, It is expected... -- by whom? And by what right? Is this the way the language works? Where is our (ie, English speakers') collection of Immortals deciding on correctness and acceptability? In some sense, I think myself representative of English speakers now and past; an Academy might be OK for French, they do a number of unusual things in France, not for this English speaker! It's my language and I'll persist in behaving thus. If nominated as an Immortal I shall not run, and if selected I shall not serve! <-- a merely personal position, of course.

I think it ill advised (in a situation as this in which the danger of actual confusion is nil, and so any controversy is essentially over an arbitrary stylistic point) to be driven by imagined (albeit we have all encountered such folks) disapproval by one sort of Miss Fidditch or another. It just encourages 'em. ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

"It is expected" by most people. I'm not suggesting by any means that there is some central body or authority who decides, just describing the fact that the majority of readers expect conventions to be followed, and are suspicious of authors who buck the trend and appear "outlandish". My argument is pragmatic. I'm not asking that we declare "cypher" to be an incorrect spelling, I'm asking that we agree to use "cipher" in Wikipedia articles. — Matt 08:27, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, I think I would disagree that the non cryptiac reader has any expectation as to this spelling. Whether that's a majority amongst crypto corner readers is more questionable, I suppose, but the relevance of majority expectation to the behavior of English in re spelling or just about anything else is quite dubious.

Many readers of our articles will have encountered other cryptographic material before. Experts, as well as novices, consult encyclopedias, even in their own fields. Remember the "Encyclopedia of Cryptography and Security"? It's targeted at those with a fair degree of knowledge already. Many of our more technical articles will be read predominantly by non-newbies, and some of them might find "cypher" a little worrying. — Matt 10:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a 'notion' of correct spelling in English, just as there is a 'notion' of fair play in international relations. In neither case does the notion describe reality 'as she actually is'. ww 14:59, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

ww — I agree there is no axiomatic way to point to something and deduce that it is the correct spelling destined for the English language and that everyone must use it. However, there is, emphatically, a notion of correct spelling that describes reality pretty well: most people agree about how most words should be spelled. In my view, correct spelling is a de facto rule of thumb. Exceptions - yes; British variants - yes, but the notion does describe reality. — Matt 10:32, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I trust this is approximately the correct nr of ':'. Blasted things! You are correct that there is agreement on many words amongst writers and readers, there is not 'at the margin'. That margin includes the AE/BE differences (which incorporate a great many common words, usages, and concepts), so all readers who are exposed to both are front line observers of some of this anarchy, as are writers who write for both audiences, and editors who police those writers. There are also (within GB and NA) regional differences in usage, vocabulary, phrasing, idiom, and certainly accent of pronounciation -- all 'at the margin' in the sense above. Axiomatic is a concept which is hard to apply to languages and especially so to English. ww 17:01, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

As an illustration of how spelling can adapt in different contexts, one (UK) school I attended in 1991 demanded the spelling "computer programme". Now, the accepted rendering in British English is "computer program", the same as the US, even though the spelling "programme" is still used in other contexts. The use of "computer programme" nowadays, even in the UK, would be strong evidence that the user had little experience with programming. — Matt 16:52, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, To be sure such things change, as do styles in fashion. Do you still use boot or colour? If so that style has survived a movement toward uniformitism. But I would strongly disagree that use of the 'programme' spelling indicates anything about one's experience with the discipline. It need not, in fact, indicate anything except a fondness for unstylish spelling or a love of mm in one's words. ww 20:29, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm not saying that using "cypher" logically implies that the author knows nothing about crypto (ww, you are a clear counterexample). But the spelling is so unusual in modern cryptography, that it is bound to make some people — including myself initially — wonder. We should reflect the usage and conventions of the field; it can only improve the cryptography articles. — Matt 15:00, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, And so is User:Jdcc (ie, Jon) who has a similar (also bemused, I take it) affection for cypher. Although I suspect he's a better counterexample than I, being a professional cryptographer and paid for it and all. I wonder what Philip Zimmermann thinks about this -- noting of course, as with Jon, that one's actually published work does not necessarily reflect one's preferences? Down with tyrannical editors!

You recovered from your (tch, tch, tch!) suspicions, did you not? I've been persistently concerned, at times in opposition to you and your sense of it, with Our Reader and possible problems we might create for him/her {English DOES need a gender neutral pronoun, but hasn't found one -- why is that? I surely don't know, it's one of the mysteries of how languages (and perhaps cultures (in conjunction?)) work!} in his/her understanding of this odd little corner of human endeavour [sic]. In this case, I don't think there can seriously be much problem for even the most non crypto Reader, especially if we note for Him/Her that there is a divergence of use and opinion which has no significance beyond a TT. Such a note was once in Cryptography, but was progressively removed by the, ahemmm, collectively non-bemused.

'Usage and convention' can be dangerous in several ways, and helpful in others. The danger comes mostly it seems to me from insistence that, in such cases of more import than this, it's other than mostly harmless and needs to be 'fixed'. Where the boundary is is, of course, of considerable moment, even in re such trivial cases as this. As a US citizen, I am painfully aware of the risks of such things taken to extreme. We here have had more than a few examples in my lifetime. In recent times, students have been sent down from University (expelled from courses, from activities, ...) here for using language in ways that (except formally by some standard of imposed convention) carried no insult or derision; an opposition to Political Correctness taken to extreme is one of the few positions I share with some of our more dexter folk, though I'm confident the grounding and intent of my opposition is quite different.

Not, of course, that (imagined future) enforcement of some WP policy on the spelling of 'sifer' (don't know how to do IPA here!) is any such thing! ww 16:10, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

Securiger comments

(I made some interlineated comments here, and in so doing confused the software. Please be assured that Securiger's original posting was very neatly formatted and sequentially numbered. My reactions have deranged the software so that it can no longer count by whole numbers. ww)

My thoughts:

1. I will chime, not chyme, which is icky stuff and quite different.

Oddly enough, no one else has noticed that! ww

1. "There being more Americans than British, a majority vote of English speakers/writers would dispense with all BE differences...". Actually, I think you will find that the majority of English speakers worldwide are Commonwealth of Nations members who mainly use British spelling (e.g. although only a minority of Indians speak English, enough do so to give the Yanks a run for their money). I am an Australian, and we generally use British spelling (but sometimes not). Having said that, I do not believe it is correct to claim that 'cypher' is a current British variant.

Head count correction noted! Thank you. ww

1. By and large I do not feel strongly about it, but it looks very strange to my eyes in articles about modern cryptography - having been reading crypto journals and such for more than a decade, where the variation simply does not occur, regardless of the author's nationality. Also once came across the phrase "(cypher in modern parlance)" (by Ww, I think) which set me on an unreasoning fury because it certainly is not modern 8^)

Sorry about that. I trust BP is better now? ww

1. 'Cipher' was also the original spelling. In my experience and reading, 'cypher' is a variant spelling which appeared at a time when British writers were generally fairly free and easy about changing 'i' to 'y'. Some of these variants (e.g. 'wyvern') became accepted or even preferred orthography; some died utterly (e.g. 'kyng'); while others, like 'cypher', lingered for a long time. 'Cypher' was apparently never common in the US but was a common variant in British usage until about 60 years ago, and is now approaching obsolescence in British usage too.
2. Investigating Google hits for 'cypher', I note that when the 'y' spelling does appear today, it is mainly (but certainly not exclusively) in one of about 10 contexts. I list these contexts here, along with how many times they occurred in Google's first 100 hits on 'cypher':
   • Deliberately archaic or unusual usage for poetic, artistic or advertising effect, e.g. the recent movie Cypher and the character 'Cypher' in The Matrix (88);
   • References to cryptography, but by those with little knowledge of the subject or generally poor spelling (4);
   • References to DNS names whose owners may well have taken the 'y' spelling because the 'i' spelling was already registered, or for commercial reasons (2);
   • Non-native speakers of English (2);

I think they're already so far underwater nothing we here on WP can ever do will help them. English structure is simpler than most (fewer cases, no genders, simple basic verb constructions) but the spelling is hellacious. Spelling reform is sadly needed, but the history of the language suggests it will fail. And no one seems to have an idea why. Puzzling. ww

1. • References to cryptography, by those who can spell and seem to know what they're talking about but simply prefer the unusual spelling (this includes one link to Ww's articles here on WP) (2);

Y marches on!! Hye the kyng to the wyvern! (Anyone know what a wyvern (or wivern) is?) ww

1. • Historical references (1);
   • Dictionary and other references noting the alternative spelling, but using only 'cipher' in the text (1);
   • Heraldry, where 'cypher' means a monogram more or less (but most heraldic terms are otherwise archaic) (0); and
   • The word 'cypherpunk' and its derivatives, in which the 'y' was used because Jude Milhon coined the word by analogy with 'cyberpunk' (0),
2. That is what concerns me most, then:
   • The variant spelling is mainly associated with non-cryptographic meanings, and could confuse searchers or researchers;
   • In a cryptographic context, the variant spelling is mainly, but certainly not exclusively, associated with novices and gives an impression of lack of professionalism.
3. Yes it is a minor point but it is not completely trivial; to the extent that an encyclopaedia is educational, we should not be teaching beginners that it is a common and widely accepted variant when it is not. Having said that, I am sure we have already expended more energy on the matter than is reasonable.
4. Thus I vote against 'y' spelling except where the context specifically calls for it (e.g. historical references, noting the variant exists, etc). Securiger 04:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Current Standings

At the moment, and off the top of my head, things stand as follows in re: WP crypto editors' positions. Please feel free to correct any misinterpretations or misconstruals here. In no order whatsoever as this was written.

ww -- use yt exclusively in writings on the subject, use yt preferentially in WP where possible. Regard the whole TT with bemusement, mostly at the oddities of English. A grace note, mostly harmless. Unwilling to alter anything whatsoever in forestalling anticipation of irrelevant (ie, disapproving) judgements by others about his (or anyone's) familiarity with the scholarly literature or the content of the subject -- including spelling. For other reasons perhaps, but not that one.

user:Jdcc -- prefers cypher, regularly loses battles with editors of his writing who insist on cipher

user:Heron -- prefers cipher, but does not want to be prescriptive against cypher [Agreed. However, having read more about this subject, I am now even more biased against cypher. From what I can see by using Google - and I mean from reading the words, not just counting the instances - cypher seems to be used mainly by non-mathematicians, including mystics and historians. I'm not saying that any of these groups is absolutely right or wrong, but we should prefer cipher in the context of modern cryptography, and allow either form in other contexts. -- Heron 16:21, 25 May 2004 (UTC)]

user:jdforrester -- does not want to be prescriptive against either [edit: I'll live with cipher, though I normally use cypher (will have to remember to behave on Wiki ;-)); as Pete says (below), it's "no big loss". James F. (talk) 21:02, 25 May 2004 (UTC)]

user:imran -- prefers cipher, has suggested standardization, has ended up at non prescriptive either way.

user:wmahan -- has no strong feelings either way, wants things spelled correctly, but recognizes this constellation of alternatives

user:Spellbott -- similar to wmahan

User:Matt Crypto -- prefers cipher, but does not want to be prescriptive except as WP style prescribes. Is concerned for standardization on one or the other to avoid incorrect conclusions about WP article crypto authority/sophistication.

ciphergoth -- I prefer cipher (unsurprisingly given my nick!). I have a couple of publications in the field. Pretty much all the papers I've read use "cipher"; using "cypher" would just make Wikipedia look unprofessional and ill-informed. Let the lit-crit people have "cypher".

[Only familiar with cryptography through one undergrad course, so not expecting this opinion to carry as much weight as experts... but you did ask at the pump :)] It seems like that the proposal to allow mixed spelling is perhaps inspired partly by the decision to allow mixed spellings in general to cope with Brit/American (and others) differences. I think you shouldn't follow that lead too much... standards are prefered where possible... they just aren't possible when you are talking about all articles. In this smaller we are talking about a smaller subset of articles, overseen by a single project, and so it would be possible to enforce an "i" only policy, if an overwhelming (80%? 90%?) proportion of interested parties wanted to. Because in actual fact this is a tiny issue, I imagine those in the minority would acquiesce to that on the grounds of "no big loss". Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

NealMcB 18:50, 2004 May 26 (UTC) I think cipher is the clearly favored choice in educated usage. I think usage of computers to scan and process text (including search engines, word processors, etc) causes consistency to be increasingly helpful and important. So I think wikipedians would be producing a better product if they would stick to just cipher. I don't know enough about wp etiquette and politics on such topics to know the best way to achieve this result.

Regarding etiquette and politics, I think the (ideal) Wikipedia way is to work to achieve consensus. One of the recommended steps when parties disagree about something is to request community comment (Wikipedia:Requests for comment), hence this page. — Matt 08:03, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

I vote no 'y' variant except where context specifically calls for it. See discussion above. Securiger 04:00, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Denni I prefer "cipher" but see so much pathetic spelling that I don't care either way, as long as it's not "sihper" (though I have a secret longing to spell cryptography with an 'i').

Birkett Not heavily involved in the wikipedia, but I went on a bit of a rampage changing cypher -> cipher without much regard to other people's views on the issue, then discovered that people really didn't like me doing that and reverted all my changes. Fair enough I guess, should have read this first :-) Sorry to whoever it was that I offended. Really do prefer cipher though, cypher looks kinda archaic to me.

Elonka - I prefer "cipher" in my own writings. As far as wikipedia goes, I won't specifically edit a page *just* to change "cypher" to "cipher", because I do agree that it is an acceptable variant. However, if I am doing other copy-editing on a page, I may change the variants that I run across. The reason for this is that when I am proofreading, I tend to read things both in detail (stream?) and large chunks at a time (block, heh). And the "cypher" spelling tends to jump out at me in blocks, perhaps distracting me from other typos that may be in close proximity. So if I change the attention-drawing words to "cipher", I am more likely to catch other errors that might otherwise escape my notice.

Can we agree on facts?

(Yet again there is software derangement caused by interlineated comments. Matt, like Securiger above, had produced a perfectly formatted and numbered, series of points. Should we be sending this software (the editing module?) back to grammar school? ww)

ww — I get the impression that we don't so much disagree on facts but on what we should do about them. I think we should first clarify what we agree on, since we should be working towards consensus. Do you agree with the following? ...

1. In the published literature of modern cryptography, both in books and academic papers, the spelling "cipher" is used overwhelmingly more frequently than the spelling "cypher".

Agreed. But with the observation that this language anyway is and has been actually rather tolerant of divergent spelling and resistant to spelling mandates. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

1. Some readers may make judgements about the quality or trustworthiness of an article based on whether the spelling conforms to that used by a very large majority. (Whether or not they should do this is a separate issue).

Agreed some readers might do so. And some readers might do many other things as well; some quite odd. It's a strawman. I think there is little danger of an actual problem, most especially if we just announce the variational difference. All (apparently) the dictionaries do. Securiger notes above, in his magesterial coverage, some possibilities of confusion rather than disdain by Readers. I agree they are possible. So are many unlikely things; we can't (and I think shouldn't) zig to accomodate an (unlikely) inability to see that this is an example of this language's spelling insanity. There are more important problems Our Reader is likely to have in re crypto and its (non stylistic) oddities, as Securiger also notes. These deserve more of our time I think.

On the question of "should or shouldn't", of course they shouldn't! Only article content should matter, and that's the bit we WP cryptiacs should, in my view, keep foremost in mind, for, as I've said (here?) before, this crypto stuff is twisty twisty twisty and Readers, especially the non crypto ones, should receive some helpful untwisting from the stuff they read. There's too much snake oil (and snake_oil_thought) out there. That's the actually dangerous bit. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

1. On Wikipedia, "cypher" is, from time to time, changed to "cipher" in articles about cryptography, but not the other way round (apart from edits by yourself). (Recent example in the last couple of days: "cypher" -> "cipher"

I may indeed be a culprit (I certainly was in a fit of 'automatic editing' at substitution cipher; the séance has now concluded and except for flashbacks, it shouldn't happen again), but I'm shocked, just Shocked!, to be alleged to be the only one. (Hounds, and villagers with torches and pitchforks, at my heels appear in my mind's eye....). This is a point which was, as I noted (above?), made in cryptography but has been removed by others who deemed it superfluous. Which removal was protested at the time by at least two readers, myself and JDF. And now apparently by Securiger (see above). ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

(Please add your own suggestions as to what we might agree on) — Matt 09:04, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Matt, My suggestion, most seriously meant, is that we laugh about it, observe that English spelling is incomprehensible, and move on. Bemusement is the only position I have ever personally found on this that does not drive me barking mad (something only the English talk about, is it?), or that I can really advise for anyone else. Neither majority vote (nor use counting, nor persistent pedagological pestering) has seemed to do the trick in any other context and I am certain no action we take will either. I think WP should (and that we also in the crypto corner should) follow the language, not try like Cnut to command it. Like the tide it will probably ignore us. Indeed this is now formal WP policy on spelling questions as I understand it; explicitly so in regard to AE/BE/(AustE?) differences. So, note the variant and proceed. It's a TT, after all.

I think (and I mention this in the next section) that, while bemusement might be sufficient for yourself, there is a real (although modest) opportunity to improve our articles, and, moreover, that it is practical to enact the changes in the relevant articles. You say (paraphrasing) "I am certain no action we take will do the trick". Do you mean that it is difficult to change the relevant Wikipedia articles from "cypher" to "cipher", and maintain it that way? This is evidently not true (if you need more convincing, a practical demonstration could be arranged...). If you meant something more, then you are mistaken about what I'm aiming for. I don't want to magically convert every English speaker and make them use only "cipher"; I want Wikipedia's articles on modern cryptography to only use "cipher". There's a big difference.

To take your points up, in order. 'Sufficient' is off the mark; 'despairing coexistence' or 'sanity preservation' is closer. On 'improve' see below. On 'difficulty of change', no I didn't mean that, I expect that some careful scripting could do most of it without too much trouble. On 'magical conversion', not what I thought you had in mind, nor what I had in mind. I agree it's a big difference. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

Also, I dispute your assertion that "this is now formal WP policy on spelling questions". For sure, there are recommendations in the Manual of Style for dealing with differences in American and British English. This is not one of those cases, however, as in both British and American English writing on modern cryptography, "cipher" is used. — Matt 10:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I've had this policy quoted to me, and heard it quoted to others in connection with AE/BE differences. It would appear then to be the recommendations you note that was meant. In any case, it was that I had in mind, not an edict from on High (eg, from Wales). As for both American and English writing using exclusively cipher, I don't / Jon wouldn't / JDF doesn't. As the dictionaries (all of them?) point out, it's a variant. When it is that a variant is impermissable in the face of uncommon use (or editorial stodiginess) is not clear to me, though it may be (I think incorrectly given that this is English) to others. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

This language has resisted all efforts to make its spelling behave, and so has its actual spoken and written usage aside from spelling; Securiger can surely suggest any number of DownUnderisms that would sound exotic to the AE or BE ear. But then being asked by a Briton if you'd like to be knocked up in the morning has a truly exotic sound to the AE ear, and I'm certain AE has more than a few as well, I just can't myself hear them. A Burkean respect for custom and tradition (and our grandfathers and their fathers) suggests that we just live with our absurd orthography rather than trying to fix it. But Burke never managed to gain a Cabinet post (this is correct, is it not?) and so perhaps that militates against adopting his position.

See the above comments: I'm not trying to "fix" English spelling in any other sense than changing a hundred or so Wikipedia articles. I think it is flawed to compare attempts at standardising a language spoken by millions with a few tweaks to some cryptography articles. Also, we do not need to have "respect for custom and tradition" if the rest of the field of cryptography has moved on. — Matt 10:04, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm glad you're not setting yourself (or the crypto corner) up for the heartbreak of correcting English spelling. It would likely cause more distress than Securiger's BP problems (see above) if so. As for respect for custom and tradition, it's precisely the past which is where the custom and tradition (in that Burkean sense) are to be found, not the present. Well sort of anyway. As for 'the rest of the field moving on', see reply just above. ww 16:51, 30 May 2004 (UTC)

There is much (as always, illegitimate) reification in these comments and I apologize, but it's difficult to discuss such things without doing so. The argument is, I trust the same after de reification which I commend to readers. ww 14:32, 27 May 2004 (UTC)

Can we agree on what to do?

"If a word or phrase is generally regarded as correct, then prefer it to an alternative that is often regarded as incorrect." — Wikipedia Manual of Style.

ww — OK, it's good that we agree on some of the above facts. We disagree on whether it matters. Regarding using "cypher", you say, "it's a grace note", "mostly harmless", "an opportunity for bemusement". However, I, and a couple of other editors, think that using "cipher" would improve the articles; for example, User:Securiger says, "In a cryptographic context, the variant spelling is mainly, but certainly not exclusively, associated with novices and gives an impression of lack of professionalism." This is not some great debate about whether "cypher" is "incorrect" in some absolute sense, but a discussion about how we can improve Wikipedia articles. The question is whether "cipher" is a better spelling for Wikipedia articles.

Because of this, would you be willing to go along with using "cipher" in modern cryptography articles? Deducing from your own statements, this change would be "mostly harmless" from your point of view, but would be an improvement in some other editors' opinions.

By the way, I appreciate (and share) your objection to attempts to prescribe what is correct and what is incorrect usage (believe it or not!). You say "I think [we] should follow the language, not try like Cnut to command it."; I agree. My argument is simply that in this case and in this particular context people use "cipher" — overwhelmingly. Therefore, we should follow the way the language is used, and use "cipher".

— Matt 15:35, 27 May 2004 (UTC)