Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Hawking's Reputation In The Media vs. His Achievements And Reputation Amongst Physicists

I had read somewhere that in spite of his fame, is reputation among other physicists is not in any way commensurate with his reputation among the general public. Does anyone know anything about this? Hi There 02:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that is a fair representation of the current situation. Hawking is to a great extent the creation of the media, a kind of "celebrity scientist", and were it not for the "human interest" aspect of his extremely courageous battle with a debilitating illness combined with the fact that he works in a "sexy" area of theoretical physics, he would be as anonymous as the next physicist. The article here merely reflects this media image, and to be fair to the media, Hawking appears to have done little to discourage its attention. This is not to undervalue his pioneering contributions, in the areas of Gravitational singularities, quantum gravity/Hawking radiation and the popularisation of science. But comparisons with Newton and Einstein are nothing more than your usual media hype. Part of the problem is that one of his main predictions: that of exploding primordial black holes has not yet been confirmed, whereas some others, in the area of black hole thermodynamics are not yet open to proper experimental check. Until he scores a hit with one of his predictions, it's very hard to imagine him winning a Nobel. And even if they were confirmed, that still wouldn't be enough to place him in the same rank as Newton or Einstein.DPB 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I would disagree with you that comparisons with Newton and Einstein are media hype. Have you actually read A Brief History, or Universe in a Nutshell? At every opporunity he compares himself with them, attempts to put himself on the same plane as them. He begged TNG to put them in the show - in the same scene as Newton, Einstein and the guy who invented Warp Drive (zerphram cochrane). The hype is from Hawking's clever self-promotion, he has charmed the media out of their pants with his anecdotes, vulnerability and gift for explaining complicated things (a necessary skill for any teacher in any discipline). I am horrified at the thought of this book he is writing for children, where he will no doubt cement his 'legacy' with Einstein and Newton for at least a generation. However, in 100 years I really think he will be forgotten. His physics work is ground breaking but not fundamental - as was Newton's and Einstein's. There are many physicists, whose work can be found in any University standard physics textbook, who have contributed far more to understanding of fundamental physics than Hawking. Have a look for Hawking's work in such a textbook - you won't find much.

Image

Is there anyway we can use a better picture of him? I'm not saying we should use one that hides his illness, but he just looks horrible in the current one (I didn't even recognize him). — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Stephen William Hawking CH, CBE, FRS, is considered one of the world's leading theoretical physicists."

POV --Scotteh 18:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Family

The "Biography" section says:

His parents were Frank and Isobel Hawking. He had two younger sisters, Philippa and Mary, and an adopted brother, Edward. Of his family, Hawking was closest to his mother, who was active in politics.

Hawking's parents lived in North London, but moved to Oxford for Stephen's birth because it was safer since London was under Nazi bombardment. After the birth they moved back to London. Hawking's sister, eighteen months younger than he, was born there, by which time the bombing had subsided.

The past tense in the first paragraph above implies that the rest of his family is dead. The reference to “Hawking's sister, eighteen months younger than he” does not make clear which sister. Maurreen 22:19, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, does "by which time the bombing had subsided" refer to the sister's birth or to his parents moving back to London? Maurreen 03:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

More questions about biography section

What is "Eleven-plus"? How could mathematics not be available for him to study in college? Maurreen 03:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The 11+ was an exam, taken at the time by all children in UK state schools (what are called in the US 'public schools', though that has quite a different meaning in the UK), to determine which school they moved on to at age 11. See the article Eleven plus. The exam has since been abolished in most areas of the country. It's not of much interest to say that Hawking passed that exam, as that will have been true for all state school children who went on to university. I think the wording 'not available to study' means he was not accepted to study Maths. I will make some changes to the text to clear that up.--MichaelMaggs 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Maurreen 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mensa membership

Dispite all of the claims, I can find no verifiable reference to his having every been a member of Mensa ... while his IQ obviously qualifies him for membership (like 120 million other people around the world), he has just never bothered to pay the annual membership dues, like a lot of other famous people with a high IQ. (By definition, one out of every 50 people can join, but less than 1% of the 6 million Americans who qualify have joined.) --Dennette 19:22, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I just realized my posting should be in here instead: I recall in one of his documentaries that he was excited by the fact that he was accepted into Mensa - but that it surprised none of his peers. But, from what I read in the IQ section it hardly seems as if he'd want this fact recorded in the standard wiki category way.Source.transformer 21:51, 14 November 2006

-- It seems unlikely in the extreme that Steven Hawking was "excited by the fact he was accepted into Mensa". He is on record as saying he has "no idea" what his IQ is. To which, Hawking appends: "People who boast about their IQs are losers." [Source: NY Times interview quoted on MSNBC.com]

Added new image...

I have added a new image that is much more dignified. The last image was a terrible image. The new image is not only free to use because permission was given by those who hold the copyright(Unlike the last) but also is much better in itself. Do not revert it again. I can only theorize that those who continue to edit it to this undignified photo attempt to defame Stephen Hawking and his theories.Wikidudeman 04:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Please, add complete source and copyright status for this image, unless it will end up being deleted from Wikipedia. We need the url for the page where the image appears to make sure it's really usable on Wikipedia. According to the link you provided, images from that site may or may not belong to them. And, in the case it belongs, it will not be usable on Wikipedia as it's said that their images can only be used "for non-profit".

Also, assume good faith when dealing with other fellow editors. There are a many reasons to prefere some image use over other, not only "defamation". --Abu Badali 05:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I added the copyright status of the image as well as the source of it. Moreover Wikipedia is not a profit organization. [1]

Wikidudeman 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Also concerning any specific details about the copyright of that specific picture I believe theWP:IAR would apply here. Considering the fact that the picture currently used is extremly 'bad'. Ignoring any specific details concerning the copyright would help improve this article and I think it must be done.Wikidudeman 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

We need the exact url for the page where this image appears. When I follow the links you provided, I can't see the image there.

Yes, Wikipedia in not a "profit organization", but also, it does not accepts such restrictions on image's licensings. --Abu Badali 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The exact link is...http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/today/hawking.htmlWikidudeman 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I’ve temporarily removed the image considering we can’t reach an agreement. If you think the current image should stay up and I think the one I put up should remain then I don’t believe there should be an image until some compromise is reached. The current image is extremely poorly shot and is very demeaning to Stephen Hawking and IMO bias against him.Wikidudeman 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

That image, unfortunatelly, is not free. I've readded the free image to the article. I don't consider it "extremely poorly" nor "demeaning to Stephen Hawking". There's no point in not using an image when we do have one. --Abu Badali 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly I propose a VOTE to determine if this bias image should remain on wikipedia. Secondly I direct "Abu Badali" to WP:IAR. Clearly this applies in this situation. This image is clearly bias and ignoring the copyright rule is the only way to improve the article in which Wikipedia allows.Wikidudeman 08:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how replacing a free image for a copyright violation would improve Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Because the current image..For lack of a better explanation.."Sucks"?Wikidudeman 02:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

And your retort is what Abu?Wikidudeman 01:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Abu, Hellooo? Ignoring talk for a solution is also against wikipedia rules.Wikidudeman 00:50, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

GA review

This article has been delisted from it's WP:GA/R discussion, two people were sort of leaning towareds delist, one person seemed sure it should be delisted, and nobody seems to of given this article a real review to start with, so it looks like delist. The primary concern seems to be broadness and the lack of the article covering all of Hawking's works, the dispute is archived at Wikipedia:Good articles/Disputes/Archive 5 Homestarmy 18:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Stephen Hawking

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 15:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

what happened to date of death?

yesterday when i looked up stephen hawking it said he he'd died on the 23 of october 2006, when i looked today the date of death was gone,what happened to it?

Um, he forgot to actually die? CMacMillan 00:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

thats vandalisim! hes not dead yet........... I think.someone tell me if he is.Lalbe4 02:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

You are right on both counts. It was vandalism, and he's not dead. CMacMillan 02:32, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cite his plans for a children's book.

In the 'Distinctions' section it says,

"He has recently announced that he plans to write a children's book focusing on science that has been described to be "like Harry Potter, but without the magic.""

but there is no citation. Someone please cite it before it's denounced as fiction, as it is not listed on his website or any other 'external links' as far as I've looked.

Done. Kafziel ^Talk 16:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Update 'Illness' Section

His diagnosis is debated, but it does not say so on this page (although it does say so on the ALS article). Someone should mention this, his symptoms, and include reasons for/against the diagnosis of ALS and any other possible diagnoses.

I've heard that his initial diagnosis was made by a general practitioner, not a neurologist; that he has never let himself be examined by a neurologist is well known. Most patients with ALS do not live as long as Hawking has; some would say that no patient with ALS can live this long and that this alone is proof of the error in diagnosis. I have heard a prominent neuromuscular specialist speculate that he actually suffers from an inherited spastic tetraplegia. He may conceal this because he wishes to spare his children from the stigma or even from knowing that they may carry a gene for a debilitating disease. 67.170.212.250 02:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

His Children?

Hawking has children, but not enough info is given.

Intro

Zargulon and I have made some changes to the intro, primarily to remove peacock phrases. I also took out the explanation of his motor neuron disease as it made the paragraph a giant run-on sentence and is better discussed later in the article (particularly since the diagnosis is somewhat debated). The diffs:[2][3] Kafziel ^Talk 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay...sick people.

Somebody wrote an obviously rushed section on death saying that he died...I'll delete this...

-Dwslassls

purge the quotes section

The quotes section is an ugly, ugly mess. Some quotes taken out of context, others completely unverifiable. We have a Wikiquote page on Hawking. Any good quotes here should go there. The rest should get out of here entirely. This article can be a Good Article again, but not with cruft laying around. — coelacan talk — 16:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Nazi?

Someone has indicated his nationality as Nazi, and current residence as Kenya. I'm pretty sure it's United Kingdom (or Britain or England) on both counts, as I rememeber he holds a position at Cambrige or Oxford —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.63.142.13 (talk)

It was vandalism. Next time you see something like this, click here to see how you can help — coelacan talk — 19:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Smartest Man Alive?

the final comment in the Biography section states "Hawking is widely regarded as the most intelligent man alive, even to this present day."

First of all, could we get a citation on this, since it is a pretty bold statement. Second, could the tail end, "even to this present day." get removed, since it is not very encyclopedic. I will leave it to the Hawking experts to discuss, but from an outsider's veiwpoint, this sentence really sounds both weasel wordish and even fannish. CodeCarpenter 16:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Death

Added section about his death. More will be added as details are released. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.231.172.182 (talk • contribs).

And I've removed it. Until and unless you cite at least one reliable source to show this is true it must not be added to the article. Further attempts to do so without proper sources may lead to you being blocked from editing. Please read WP:BLP for full details. Gwernol 01:54, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Galileo

OK, he was born exactly 300 years after Galileo's death, to the day. Sorry, but so what? How is this anything other than a minor coincidence? As I said in edit summary - if he indeed wrote about this and made some kind of substantive point - even just that he thought it was cool - then put in a sentence and citation somewhere appropriate in the article. But to just add the phrase "300 years after the death of Galileo" or whatever was there, at the beginning when you say his date of birth, is gratuitous and, as I say, mere coincidence or no import. Tvoz | talk 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the link to Glileo's date of death is trivia. BUT, he was born 65 years ago today, January 8th. Happy Birthday Stephen! Many happy returns. Que-Can 16:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a fun fact and adds some flavor to the article. Please leave it intact. - mbk 4-25-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.125.77 (talk • contribs) 20:51, April 25, 2007

In the news - Stephen Hawking says he hopes to see space

Stephen Hawking says he hopes to (see) space AP. ^BlankVerse 01:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming

I may be wrong, but it seems that for a man with so many acheivments puting an entire section on global warming in this articl is a subtle, biased political move. THis may need to be mentioned, but putting this as a whole section implys this was a major part of his career. Giving oen speech does not make him a global warming activist, and because of his notable IQ this seems like a biased attmpt to sway the article in favor of a certain political opinion, against Wikipedia policys. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lophoole (talk • contribs) 01:33, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

I agree, it is excessive. It's worth noting that this article has repeatedly come "under attack" by people with a pro-global warming agenda. I've removed most of it, as it is either unverifiable or inaccurate (see edit summaries for detail) on individual removals). The remaining quote should probably be moved into to another section. --h2g2bob 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Renamed section Comments on the future of humanity, and expanded it to include wider views. --h2g2bob 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bob, I agree with the removal of the material, as it's not a fair reflection on the man or his achievements. However, I disagree with the rationale for removing a quote based on a reference to a TV program. While it is not easily verifiable, it could be looked up and referenced by a sufficiently motivated researcher. I occasionally make references to radio news reports, and I would hate to think that they would be removed for verifiability. Cmprince 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Quote (so people don't need to look through the edit history to find it):

• Hawking further explained his views in a 2006 American television interview: "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already," he said. "We have to reverse global warming urgently if we still can. The earth is in much more danger from human action than from natural disasters. This is not a prediction of doom but a wake up call. We have to recognise the dangers and control them. I’m an optimist and I believe we can.” -- 20/20, 16 August 2006. ABC News

It's a fairly long quote, but even on that program he talked about 7 ways the world could end.[4] I accept it could be verified, but unless someone has the tape of it, it will be very difficult. To be honest, I was being a bit aggressive as this page has been used for promoting the global warming agenda in the past.[5] Perhaps part or all of it should be re-added, but it would be better to find quote for some of the other ways too. --h2g2bob 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

It is several quotes run together as one from an 20/20. "There is a possibility that the human race could go extinct, but it is not inevitable. This is not a prophesy of doom, but a wake-up call."[6] ... "We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognize the dangers and control them. I'm an optimist, and I believe we can."[7] ... " The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. ... We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."[8] There are quotes on some other stuff too, which is quite good. Unless anyone else wants to do it, I'll try and add some stuff tomorrow when I can do it properly. --h2g2bob 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

book

This could be added to list of books "God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History ".83.100.183.48 18:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Although this article here is a biographical one, it contains data about the theoretical physics and cosmology research presented by this renowned physicist, that is, from a point of view of current institutional standards, and worldwide acclaimed through the popular media. However, it should be noted that this physicist's notions are not universally accepted; on the contrary, a minority of scientists (having also at least an equal large background in Physics and other akin fields) do indeed regard those misleading theories, immersed in illusions derived from a degenerated imagination, as a mark of the true pseudoscience (those who have forsaken Science in favour of dogma) and of the intellectual arrogance that goes deep into the society of our present times, awarding to itself proud honorific titles in exchange of no longer verifiable speculative theories.
In order to give some balance to what I see as a biased article (and all those supporting external links), I added earlier, now deleted, at the related section a link as a counterpoint to Prof. Hawking's theories; it is a link to a lecture which, being notable of not, I find to have the most solid arguments based upon objective and verifiable physics and cosmology research:

Criticism

• Why Hawking is Wrong! (1998), by a former student of Trinity, Cambridge: Abstracts of Dissertations, 1953-54. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.30.86.140 (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC).

Latter-Day Saint, In All Likelihood

Isn't he possibly or at one time was a Mormon?

Arkhamite 19:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC) ^BergBergh

No.

67.130.11.100 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Live Webcast

[9] "talk aimed at the general public", March 13. 2007, 7:30PM Pacific Time, University of California Berkeley -- Cherubino 17:22, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous statement

Was he worried about losing his genius because he fell down the stairs and hit his head, or because of his illness? 86.220.241.142 17:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

GA in zh.wikipedia

Please add {{Link GA|zh}} in interwiki section. Thanks! -- Givegains 13:32, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad Pic?

The picture of Stephen Hawking is particularely demeaning. Quite frankly, he looks bad. Couldn't someone find a more appropriate picture? Wikiisawesome 11:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought the same. Actually, a quick look at commons shows we have 3 pictures of him:

• 
  Stephen Hawking
• 
• 
  Stephen Hawking (Courtesy NASA StarChild)

I guess I will replace with the rightmost one. It appears to be a PR photo of sorts, with NASA licensing. Hopefully the copyright nazis will be ok with it. Danski14^(talk) 15:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Protection of the article

I was looking through the history, and the page looks like has been vandalized an awful lot after the last time it got pulled from protection. I think with the vandalism going on in the article, it would be a good idea to put the article back on protection. Whammies Were Here (PYLrulz) 12:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

"See you in Zero G"

Steven Hawking will be in zero gravity for 25 seconds, as the NASA jet will plunge over the Atlantic ocean. He also has Lou Gehrigs disease, it's sad, I know. I hope his 25 seconds of fun will be a fantastic experience for him. Here is a quote from Mr. Hawking, "As you can imagine, I am very excited. I have been wheelchair-bound for almost four decades, and the chance to float free in zero G will be wonderful. See you in zero G,"

Unclear paragraph about his first two years at Cambridge

I'm having difficulty understanding this paragraph:

During his first two years at Cambridge, he did not distinguish himself, but, after the disease had stabilized and with the help of his doctoral tutor, Dennis William Sciama, he returned to working on his Ph.D..[4] Stephen revealed that he did not see much point in obtaining a doctorate if he was to die soon. Hawking later said that the real turning point was his 1965 marriage to Jane Wilde, a language student.[4]

It all seems so contradictory to me. What did he do during his first two years? Based on the first sentence it would appear that he didn't work on it during these first two years (as he evidently only "returned to working on it" after these two first years). However if he didn't work on it at all during the first two years then when did he start?

I also don't quite understand what "During his first two years [], he did not distinguish himself" is meant to imply in this context. Does it mean that he wasn't working?

Thirdly, since we've just established how he resumed working on this Ph.D after two years of stabilization and tutoring, then why does it say "Stephen revealed that he did not see much point in obtaining a doctorate if he was to die soon"? During what time was he working on it and at what point did he decide to stop working on it?

Finally, "Hawking later said that the real turning point was his 1965 marriage to Jane Wilde", seems to be relevant until you realize this "turning point" is not defined and not even mentioned later from what I can tell. Exactly what 'turned'? Did he resume work on this Ph.D or does it mean he found some other value in life?

If anyone else thinks this is confusing and is able to correct it, that'd be great. --Oreckel 02:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Computer

The section about his computer seems to imply to me that this computer is connected / built into his wheelchair?* If so, this should be spelled out a bit better. Also, the section is unreferenced.MadMaxDog 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• At the risk of being a bit crude - does that make him into a sort of cyborg, seeing that he needs the chair anyway? ;-) MadMaxDog 07:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Weightlessness

Great picture of Hawking experiencing weightlessness aboard a Boeing 727 in the German paper Tagesspiegel of April 28, 2007. I wish there were more commentary on this guy's having lived such an incredible life after a death-sentence style diagnosis at 21 years of age -- how many people survive beyond the 3-5 year time window with ALS? The unlikeliness of everything about his life is just flat-out amazing. I'm not familiar enough with this entry to add this info (and picture?) about the weightlessness, but somebody may want to.

85.178.23.32

OK, just saw that there is some mention of all of this at the end of the biography section. What's up with the pricing of the flight? 100K British Pounds in one paragraph, $3750 in the next... If it really ONLY costs $3750 for "10 to 15 plunges" I would think that would be quite a popular birthday gift -- and quite in demand -- must be a mistake?

85.178.8.207

Family Guy Cameo?

On the topic of popular culture, the article states that Hawking has "'played'" himself in Red Dwarf, Futurama, Family Guy, and others. According to IMDB, he did make a cameo in Red Dwarf and voiced himself in Futurama, but it doesn't mention Family Guy. I seriously doubt he made the cameo there, can someone look into this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.7.66.249 (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

His affair?

There used to be a lot of info on here about how stephen hawking had an affair (in fact, mroe than one as i recal), but the word "affair" isn't even mentioned on the main page or discusion page anymore. How come? Was that vandalism, or did a fan of Stephen remove all mentions of an affair that way he seems like a more perfect person? DurotarLord 21:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Probably removed because of biographies of living persons policy. If you can find reliable sources, feel free to add it to the article. --h2g2bob (talk) 21:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)