Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 11

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2018
The reference "Stephen Hawking to Join Newton, Darwin in Final Resting Place" gives a U.S. News and World Report URL which is non-functional (returns "Access denied") without cookies enabled (maybe a soft paywall). Since it's a reprint of a Reuters article, please substitute the original Reuters article, which avoids the problem: 23.83.37.241 (talk) 17:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done ChamithN   (talk)  17:57, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Sorry no, the date of death is definitely wrong
He died March 13, not 14. Brian Williams made the announcement before midnight last night on MSNBC. Niel Tyson also twittered about it yesterday. Tyson Twitter the post is time stamped March 13. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SentientParadox (talk • contribs) 15:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * SentientParadox, timezone difference. 14th in U.K., 13th in North America. --Neil N  talk to me 16:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I propose that a good compromise would be to determine if he was pronounced dead by midnight Greenwich Mean Time and/or his time zone at time of the pronunciation. Clearly there's some debate over whether to consider his death as being on, somewhat uncannily, "pi day"--Macks2008 (talk) 16:13, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's necessary. Neil's Twitter post is clearly marked 9:06 PM, which, even if he is on EDST, is plenty late enough for it to have been well past midnight GMT.SentientParadox (talk) 16:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same could be argued for any birth. Wherever he died, that's the time zone used.  Callmemirela   &#127809; talk 16:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * 14th: Hawking --> Pi Day --> Einstein's birthday, surely a reflection of spacetime confluence ;>) --Zefr (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

So what is the truth? OMGCCOMG (talk) 16:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please read as well as write.  The answer is above.  General Ization  Talk  16:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Both are correct as it depends on what timezone you're in. Hawking died in the evening of the 13th if you're in North/South America and in the early morning on the 14th if you're in Western Europe. The article is correct as it follows MOS:TIMEZONE: "Give dates and times appropriate to the time zone where an event took place." --Neil N  talk to me 16:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What in the world is EDST? EEng 18:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Eastern Daylight Savings Time I think... (usually abbreviated EDT).  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Does Wikipedia always go berserk when an internationally-known figure dies in the wee hours in the UK? This has been truly remarkable imo. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  19:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * "Does Wikipedia always go berserk when [insert any random event you can think of]?". Yes. The answer is always yes. --Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Late last night EDT (about 5 am in the UK), when the news broke and some of us got to work here, we addressed this issue by including "(local time)" and later "(GMT)" after the date in the paragraph under the Death heading. Does anyone know why it was removed, and can it not be restored, to at least try to provoke US-based editors to think about the time zone difference and its effect on the date of the event? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a misuse of article content in my opinion. One or more hidden comments would be better, but I think editor vigilance will continue to suffice for the couple of days until people lose interest in correcting correct information. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * OK with me, but I'd like to understand how the inclusion of a time zone indication with the date is "a misuse of article content" (and what that means, exactly). The date of every event is potentially dependent on the event's location relative to the reader (hence its time zone); it just happens that the circumstances of the date of this event (which is of international interest) could stand some clarification. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 22:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It stands clarification only because a relatively few "editors" (read people who have computers and internet access) don't understand time zones. The article already states "early in the morning", which is more detail than is normally given for deaths. Date of death is always given in local time. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mandruss, it's best to use the time zone where Stephen Hawking passed away, which is Great Britain Time. Another thing to point out with time zones is some countries observe daylight savings time, which may cause confusion in local times for different countries around the world. From there, it is simply a matter of determining whether the death occurred on March 13th or March 14. Sources at this point suggest the latter of the two dates. OfficerAPC (talk) 23:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Er, there is no such time zone as "Great Britain Time". England observes Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) (also known as Western European Time (WET), though not formally referred to as such in the UK) when British Summer Time (BST) is not in effect (it is not at this time).  And the discussion was not about which time zone should be presented in the text, but whether any should.  We have already established that the death occurred after March 14 had begun in England.  See above. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 00:05, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no issue here. GMT/UTC is the recognized standard; it also is (conveniently) the time used in the UK, where he died.
 * Why are we even discussing this? Kablammo (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, is this thing on? We were not discussing which time zone to use; we were discussing whether the correct time zone associated with the date should be presented in the text of the article, to relieve any confusion about the date of his death (as has been evident here). <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 01:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought we were discussing all of the above, but then again, I made the mistake of reading all of the above. Carry on. Kablammo (talk) 01:35, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * He lived in Britain, and the time zone most most commonly used is British. There is no reason to use any other time zone. -A la d insane  <small style="color:#008600">(Channel 2)  01:36, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I am having great difficulty understanding why any date or time other than the local time would be used. His death certificate certainly would not note the time zone. It should be assumed, and I hope it is, that the date and time of death are relative to the location of death. The need to specify otherwise seems excessive, and possibly a bit ethnocentric.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 01:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The General sees confusion among a handful of editors, and translates that into a need to provide clarification for readers. The point I've failed to articulate is that in almost 5 years I've never seen a Wikipedia BLP specify the time zone of DOD, and there is no reason this one should be an exception. If a reader is confused because they too don't understand time zone differences, that's really too bad and I suspect they get confused a lot by this complicated world. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:29, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed, curing stupidity is not one of the Five pillars. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that although wikipedia articles currently include little to no timezone information for times of day like this, maybe we SHOULD have that info attached to any statement of a time of day in any article, wherever it is actually verifiable. Why? Because governments change their rules about time zones and daylight savings time all the time. Why not take the opportunity to be as precise as we can be? Geographyinitiative (talk) 07:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just put that he died on March 13th/14th? ⌤TheMitochondriaBoi⌤(Wanna talk?)(Contributions) 15:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Because he only died once, and the event didn't span multiple dates. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 16:45, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

As the originator of this section/discussion, I'd like to suggest that since it is now March 22 EDST where I am that consensus be reached to close this discussion once and for all. I'm the one who made the challenge. I clearly see I was wrong. I think this should be dropped and closed. SentientParadox (talk) 01:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Trivia
Is it really relevant information that his birth and death coincided with Einstein and Gallileo? See Handling trivia. Note that I'm not saying to remove this bit of trivia, but to evaluate it and discuss its importance within the article and whether it should remain or not. —  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  17:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

If Einstein/139 (Hawking's death) is removed, there is no rationale for leaving Galileo/300 (Hawking's birth) in the Death section, and it should move back to the first sentence of "Family", where it was before. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  18:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Really relevant? Of course not. There's no evidence that either coincidence affected his life, such as by sparking an interest in Galileo and Einstein instead of Rembrandt and Rubens. But I could relax the relevance principle for Galileo/300 simply because the very round number (not just one zero but two) makes it such an unlikely coincidence. Einstein/139, not so much.


 * Relevance is subjective, but a wide range of sources, ranging from the New York Times to The Hindu have mentioned the coincidences. So yes, it is trivia, but it's notable trivia, so it's not unequivocally dismissable.  Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * While I'm not particularly invested either way, it should be noted that the degree of coverage in the popular press cannot make trivia any less or more trivial. The decision of whether to include it here should be based on our editorial judgment as to its significance in regard to the subject, not depth or breadth of coverage.  The popular press often includes information in its reports, such as coincidences of birth and death, that are not particularly encyclopaedic.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaning with General Ization and Mandruss on this one, though I'm still unsure. I do agree with Roger that relevance is subjective, which is why the trivia hasn't been removed yet (since the answer is so indeterminate). The information neither impacted his life nor is its inclusion in media coverage relevant to its quality as encyclopedic information. I also don't believe that the trivia being a coincidence makes it more important, though it is interesting as standalone trivia information. Maybe I could be relaxed and say to remove the Einstein trivia and move the Gallileo one back up to Stephen Hawking like Mandruss proposed (But I'm afraid that might be hypocritical/contradictory). I believe the trivia falls into the third category of trivia listed in Handling trivia: "Some trivia is actually important to none of the subjects it connects. The mention of Beelzebub as an enemy in Devil May Cry is of little importance to the topic of Beelzebub, a devil whose name is mentioned in a great variety of contexts. Similarly, that Beelzebub is the name of an enemy in Devil May Cry (a featured article) is not important enough for mention in the article on the video game (in fact, neither that article nor any of its subarticles mentions specific ordinary enemies.)" I'll leave it up to others to decide. —  Tha† emo over †here (talk)  06:41, 24 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I'm with the "undecided-and-don't-care-enough-to-make-a-decision party" on this. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest this highlights the distinction between a newspaper and an encyclopedia. The former tells people what they think will interest them, the latter should tell them what will help them understand the subject. No understanding is gained from such date coincidences, which though entertaining are, in the end, uninformative because they are entirely inconsequential. I would very much favor their removal, at least until something like an updated version of ODNB decides it is worthy of mention in an encyclopedic context. (Do we know whether Einstein was born in the same time zone as Hawking? - just kidding. Not a regular editor here, just came to see how that shameless polio story was being handled and glad to see it isn't.) Agricolae (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Five West Road Cambridge
As per Jane Hawking's 'Music To Move The Stars', Hawking's graduate student Alan Lapedes (PhD: "Quantum Effect In General Relativity" 1978) moved into 5 West Road to assist Stephen in 1975. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedthedog2 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2018
i want to edit his death date Flash200034567 (talk) 19:08, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The death date is correct, no need to edit it. -  FlightTime  ( open channel ) 19:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Funeral ambiguity
The entry about his funeral is ambiguous. He will be cremated and his ashes interred in Westminster Abbey. The way the article is phrased it reads as if his body is going to be buried there, rather than his ashes.

ref: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/20/stephen-hawkings-ashes-to-be-interred-at-westminster-abbey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.255.214 (talk) 10:07, 29 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I've added the details including the private funeral in Cambridge today, and changed the Westminster Abbey details slightly so it seems less like his body is being buried (a grave can still contain ashes). Stronach (talk) 10:53, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Pi Day
I find it rather weird that the article mentions a date coincidence that only means anything at all to a tiny 5% of the world's population that, firstly, did not include Hawking, and secondly, writes dates differently from the rest of the world.

As a teacher in Australia I had to explain to my students what the Pi Day reference meant. Their response - "That's stupid!" HiLo48 (talk) 01:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you explain to your students that there is no Wikipedia policy against stupidity? But I agree that the date trivia is getting out of hand in this article. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * - LOL. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  02:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was also the 530th anniversary of the night Copernicus lost his virginity. Should we add it to the article? <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:02, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, so long as we have a reliable source. And sorry for being a little misleading above. It wasn't Hawking's Wikipedia article my students were puzzled by. It was Google's Pi Day logo. I was simply making the point that, at least here in Australia, Pi Day doesn't exist, and cannot exist. (There is no 3rd day of the 14th month.) This would be the case almost everywhere else in the world but the USA. The mention of it in the article is only meaningful for American readers, and meaningless to everyone else. Do we do that sort of thing in Wikipedia, especially in an article that isn't even about an American? HiLo48 (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hawking was born on the 332nd anniversary of Galileo's discovery of Jupiter's moon Europa. Add your candidates below! &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:17, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hawking died on the 289th anniversary of the marriage of Lady Anne Montagu to Sir Richard Edgecumbe. Lady Anne was a daughter of Edward Montagu, 1st Earl of Sandwich. The 4th Earl of Sandwich, John Montagu, was the eponym for the sandwich, and Hawking is said to have liked sandwiches in his younger years. Certainly worth a brief mention. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * His death also coincides with the birth of Giovanni Schiaparelli and the death of William Fowler. It is also the 473rd anniversary of a milkman first winking at Issac Newton's mother. Eckerslike (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Despite the fact that pi day may not be celebrated around the entire world, it is celebrated by a significant number of people. Based on several conversations (with people outside the US) it seems that many people find it fitting that the great physicist passed away on pi day. The fact that it is not meaningful to everyone does not mean that a great many others will not appreciate it. I think that it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgu doc (talk • contribs) 21:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2018
Add the line: "which also corresponds to pi day" to the end of the sentence describing how Dr. Hawking's death corresponded to Einstein's birth. Sgu doc (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Show me a reliable source from outside the USA which makes any mention of it, and I might support this. HiLo48 (talk) 22:47, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Pi day doesn't work in the UK, as 14 March is only 3/14 in the month/day format, the UK prefers Pi Approximation Day 22 July (22/7 in our day/month format) - Arjayay (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just in the UK where it doesn't work. It's everywhere but in the USA, the 5% of the world's population who use a particularly illogical way to write the date. Mentioning it here would simply lead to more people outside the USA thinking "Americans are stupid". I'm not saying that American ARE stupid, but I can assure you that when my high school students here in Australia asked me to explain the Pi Day references made by American media when Hawking died, that's what the kids said. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see how a mention of Pi day would improve the existing article (regardless of reliable sources). Einstein's birthday and the day of Galileo's death I can understand, because all three were well known physicists. But Pi day really doesn't seem to fit in that row as it neither marks the end of a life, nor does it mark the beginning of a life, nor is Pi a well known physicist. It just happens to be on March 14th as well, just like Constitution Day in Andorra, Mother Tongue Day in Estonia, White Day in Japan and Korea and the New Year in the Nanakshahi calendar. All these could be added, however none of them (including Pi Day) have a connection to Stephen Hawking. If there are reliable sources, that Hawking's death somehow influenced the celebration of Pi Day in a meaningful manner, I might support adding a sentence or two about it to Pi Day, but I wouldn't support adding it here even then. AntiCedros (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 18:41, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Honorary Professor of the Institute of Astrophysics of the Canary Islands
Stephen Hawking was appointed in 2016 Honorary Professor of the Instituto de Astrofísica de Canarias (Institute of Astrophysics of the Canary Islands). I think this information should go in the section "Awards and honours". See references: Stephen Hawking, Profesor Honorario en Canarias, Director del IAC recuerda a brillante científico y a un luchador por la vida.--87.223.179.114 (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

More views on God
I found this little gem here and thought it would greatly benefit the religion views section

https://abcnews.go.com/Lifestyle/video/june-1988-stephen-hawking-recently-published-book-history-52169704

Do you believe in god? "I don't believe in a god who has a personal relationship with humans beings. The universe seems to enormous to believe it was created just for us" - June 6, 1988 — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueYears (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I second this motion, although I am personally unsure of any further steps to be taken in regards to it. I'm mostly replying here so lowercase sigmabot III doesn't archive it before more people have a chance to respond, because I think this discussion and quote is viable. All that said, I would like to note that the quotation is probably not transcribed correctly, given the apparent homophonic typo "to" where, to be grammatically correct, it should be "too".--Macks2008 (talk) 22:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I did not transcribed correctly, someone else should double check the video content. Its in the middle I believe. Update: 3:25 is where it starts — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueYears (talk • contribs) 06:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll check it later today if I remember to after work. In absence of comment from anyone else on this, I'll also add the quote to the article after this conversation is archived by the aforementioned Sigmabot. By the way, I fixed your indentation on your previous reply, and sinebot took care of your signature. Don't forget to preview before you save your edits! Granted, I'm a bit hypocritical to say that, but it's sound advice nonetheless...--Macks2008 (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't see the need for this quote. There are already several quotes in the article describing Hawking as an atheist. We don't need this extra quote. Binksternet (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The ABC News clip is from 1988, so gives the perspective of Hawking's younger atheistic views presently not mentioned in the Religion and atheism section. It also has two different atheistic twists that I feel are worth using: 1) why should a god govern a universe only for humans? 2) the universe is large beyond the means or needs of a god and humans. This information adds depth to his atheistic views. I vote to include it. --Zefr (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Should this be added?
Not sure if this counts as self-sourced info' or that. But Stephen Hawking's name was added to a memorial in Star Trek Online. https://www.reddit.com/r/sto/comments/84e43u/devs_dont_forget_to_add_stephen_hawking_to_the/dvphvo2/?st=jkrq4zfa&sh=9a0f8c40 85.194.12.145 (talk) 03:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)No, I will not sign my posts.
 * It's notable that he appeared in Star Trek: The Next Generation in 1993, but the online memorial mentioned is not.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 05:38, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Exchange
Please, someone authorized change the introduction to put CBE before CH, since it's more important in the position of the Honours. Thank you! 194.79.86.23 (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 February 2019
2001:8003:2A4C:A200:91C3:90CD:725D:297E (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC) stephen hawking is related to elaine hawking 2001:8003:2A4C:A200:91C3:90CD:725D:297E (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Who? <b style="color:black">Nici</b><b style="color:purple">Vampire</b><b style="color:black">Heart</b> 07:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019
In the section Personal views, please delete "has" from "Hawking has stated" (x2) and from "has considered". It is better to use simple past tense as Hawking has now been dead for over a year. Thanks. 192.41.125.253 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC) 192.41.125.253 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 13:13, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2019
There is a minor error in the section "Death" in that the first letter of the sentence beginning "in June 2018..." is not capitalised. 92.88.255.254 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cambridge MA but not Oxford?
Hawking's Alma Mater is stated as: University of Oxford (BA) University of Cambridge(MA, PhD) Although he was probably entitled to the MA at both universities, it seems unlikely that he'd have claimed it from Cambridge but not Oxford -- is there a source for that? In any case I don't think it's necessary to list the Cambridge MA here -- it wasn't his highest degree from Cambridge and the current presentation implies that he read for a master's degree at Cambridge before starting his PhD, which is not the case. This doesn't really belong in the 'Alma Mater' section any more than his multiple honorary doctorates which are not listed here. Eggybacon (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

In the absence of any explanation for listing the Cambridge MA, I've removed it.Eggybacon (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe he received an MA Ad eundem degree from the University of Cambridge due to the fact he was faculty member at this University? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking on climate change
Stephen Hawking on the hazards of climate variations are mentioned a number of times in the article but there is no reference to anything he wrote, merely newspaper reports of his opinions. Hawking had a formidable intellect and if he really had done work on this matter there must be some kind of record of it. Newspaper reports cannot be analysed or refuted, they are very much secondary sources. Surely, on their own, they have no place in this article.--Damorbel (talk) 06:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:13, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

possible infobox image
I think this image to the right could be a nicer and more up to date alternative than the current one. It is in color, good quality, and about the same size as the current infobox image. It features Hawking's face in more detail and is a close up, i am not saying the current one is bad Lochglasgowstrathyre (talk) 00:33, 30 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This seems OK. It was imported from Flickr (which always makes me a bit suspicious) but the Creative Commons licensing looks watertight. However, I do quite like the existing infobox image, even though it is older and in black and white.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 06:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Discrepancy between Stephen Hawking and Great Depression of British Agriculture articles
Stephen Hawking article says "the great agricultural depression during the early 20th century." Great Depression of British Agriculture article says "The Great Depression of British Agriculture occurred during the late nineteenth century and is usually dated from 1873 to 1896."

I'm not an expert in this subject, so I don't know which is wrong, but I do know that 1873-1896 wasn't during the early 20th century.

Someone who knows which date is right please fix the other article.

Or if these are two different depressions, then please fix the link in Stephen Hawking article to go to the correct depression.47.139.46.234 (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

It seems false that "he argued that we should be more frightened of capitalism exacerbating economic inequality than robots"
In the section on personal views it says the above, citing this cnet article. However, if I'm reading the article right, the headline is sensationalized for clickbait purposes - they link to his reddit AMA, specifically this answer he gave regarding technological unemployment. Although it clearly shows that he thinks technological unemployment and distribution of wealth are a major concern for the future, he never says it's more of a concerns than AI risk, and didn't mention capitalism at all.

Rolledquotable (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2020
Remove this sentence in the "Death" section. 1st sentence of 2nd paragraph.

"Hawking was born on the 300th anniversary of Galileo's death and died on the 139th anniversary of Einstein's birth."

While interesting to some, the sentence is unnecessary. It also implies some significance to a mere coincidence, which is misleading. Samdegregori (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done! GoingBatty (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Max Tegmark's view (and Sean M. Carroll); and differentiations or evolution of thoughts

 * Stephen Hawking said spacetime pre-existed Big Bang.
 * Max Tegmark and Sean M. Carroll say that any solvable algorithm of topological algebra which defines a spacetime guarantees its eternal self-causal existence, due to its metalogic foundations (being possible to the causal core; actually there is no core of a singular first cause, but a connectome of relationships and interactions; that's Leonard Susskind's view on how we will replace axiomaticity [nonproven statements] but that way, even the most fundamental theory, will remain relative and an effective theory. Metalogic itself cannot be sufficient [without nonanalytical trickery], thus we need a connectome effective theory [it is similar but not tautological to the "bulk"]).
 * Stephen Hawking said the alternative solutions of the wave function of the universe/parallel universes are finite.
 * Nowadays we say: Infinite nonparallelizable families of universes exist, each having a huge or infinite number of parallel subuniverses. The set of all universes doesn't exist because some universes are mutually exclusive. Nonparallelizable universe means mathematically very different to the other one we examine, and that their probabilistic contributions don't add up (they don't have the same origin); or that their relationship is undecidable. Parallel universes are mathematically closer/kin, and their overall probabilities add up and are contributing to a hypernymous bigger whole (but certainly not the undecidable "set of all universes").
 * The families of universes (cosmic cladistics) can be grouped, in a way similar to the Cantorian (Georg Cantor's) cladistics of infinities; thus there is no general answer. Some families of parallel universes have infinite members, others are finite, and others have nondefinable size. There is not a single answer for all questions.


 * Hawkingism like Platonism, isn't the exact ideas of the initial thinker; but the ever-growing and evolving cloud of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411F:4972:BD9B:6258:9D18:562D (talk) 09:38, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020
--XxxAlpha (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * ❌ It's unclear what you want changing, please submit requests in the format "change x to y". Pahunkat (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2021
stephen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.237.73.39 (talk) 13:24, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2021
he's known for Imaginary time. pretty shocked not to see this here. probably one of his most significant contributions and the word 'imaginary' isn't even on the page.

sad. 198.53.108.48 (talk) 22:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Mel ma nn   22:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2021
Remove Category:People on the autism spectrum; ALS and autism are two completely different conditions, and Hawking was never diagnosed with the latter. 2A02:C7F:7083:FD00:7D47:FE97:7697:3810 (talk) 13:59, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, and will remove in a few seconds. --Slp1 (talk) 14:15, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Done Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2022
At the end of the section #2000-2018 insert ...

In May 2021 it was announced that an Acceptance-in-Lieu agreement between HMRC, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Cambridge University Library, Science Museum Group, and the Hawking Estate, would see around 10,000 pages of Hawking’s scientific and other papers remain in Cambridge, while objects including his wheelchairs, speech synthesisers, and personal memorabilia from his former Cambridge office would be housed at the Science Museum. <ref. https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/HawkingArchive>. In February 2022 the "Stephen Hawking at Work" display opened at the Science Museum Science_Museum,_London in London as the start of a two year nation wide tour. <ref. https://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/about-us/press-office/explore-incredible-objects-stephen-hawkings-office-science-museum>.

https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8821096/blackboard-covered-with-graffiti-blackboard "The Blackboard from Stephen Hawking's Office, part of the Science Museum Group's "Stephen Hawking at Work" display. Pot-fun-zig (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

✅. I actually put it at the end of the 'Death' section, as that's where the rest of the stuff like this were included. Thank you for your work! valereee (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

FAQs?
There's a script here beneath the edit request that allows a quick 'decline, been discussed, read the FAQ'. Maybe I haven't had enough coffee yet, but I'm not seeing an FAQ. valereee (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your assistance. I had intended the blackboard to be inserted as an image but lack of familiarity with the editing tool meant it appeared as a link. I have submitted an additional edit request where I hopefully have it right. Pot-fun-zig (talk) 16:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * We can't use the image itself, as it is copyrighted. Per the link you provided © The Board of Trustees of the Science Museum. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2022
Pot-fun-zig (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I have removed the image, and tagged it on commons as copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * ans=no
 * OK but I don't understand . I am aware of the issue regarding image copyright and the importance of Wikipedia respecting it. The image in question is available at https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8821096/blackboard-covered-with-graffiti-blackboard where it is tagged with "This image is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence" Pot-fun-zig (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Since I volunteer at the Science Museum I will clarify the issue regarding the copyright as I thought they were happy for their images to be used for non-commercial purposes. If that is not possible I will take a picture of the blackboard myself. Pot-fun-zig (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Won't you be breaching their copyright? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That isn't a compatible license, as the non commercial stipulation makes it not free. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The blackboard is on public display and visitors to the museum are free to take pictures of it (as of any object on display). I have included my own personal photograph of the blackboard. I hope that is all ok now. The Science Museum is aware of the fact that their copyright is not compatible with Wikipedia's requirements for publishing images and are seeking to find a solution but I don't expect the situation to be resolved soon. Thank you for guidance. Pot-fun-zig (talk) 11:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Pot-fun-zig, the museum's guidelines for "filming an photography" here say: "We look at each of these requests on a case-by-case basis." Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's for actual commercial photography and filming. This page says Visitors are permitted to use hand-held cameras within the museum for private and non-commercial purposes, but must not... I'm not sure where that puts us on copyright. may know more about how all of this works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 Licence is not a compatible license, because that license does not allow commercial use, and our license does. Same on the Commons.— Diannaa (talk) 13:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you know if there's any issue with taking photos and releasing them to a compatible license if the photography agreement in a location is Visitors are permitted to use hand-held cameras within the museum for private and non-commercial purposes? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you one and all for your help in trying to clarify this issue. I will pass on your queries to my contacts at the Science Museum. Pot-fun-zig (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2022
In the Career section, and “1975-1990” subsection, regarding the closing sentence of paragraph 7:

Change from:


 * “and ultimately sold 9 million copies.”

Change from:


 * “and as of 2009, had sold 9 million copies.”

Justification: Date chosen based on the appended source appearing. In future edits, as more up-to-date information is found, this date can move in the direction of the present. The edit is argued for accuracy of presented content, in keeping with WP rules, including that of WP:VERIFY, which demands that content not extend beyond what can be derived from the stated source. The best that can be stated from a 2009 source is the sales of this title, by that date. [One cannot make a claim to state the ultimate outcome of continuing process (which sales of a book still in print, are).] Either the editor knows something beyond what this source states, in which case a further citation must be appended, or what the reader is presented with is what it seems, and while the sentence was accurate in 2009, it became inaccurate in months thereafter.]

Kudos, by the way, on the general state of the article—though I fail to understand the need to force all of this communication over minor matters, by maintaining the editing restriction. Cheers. A stickler (as a former prof), and a believer in open editing. 2601:246:C700:14C:CD56:6DC2:3C72:84C1 (talk) 23:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Mvqr (talk) 12:15, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

First quantum cosmology model?
In the lead it says that Hawking made the first quantum cosmological model, does this refer to Hartle–Hawking state? Is it corroborated somewhere? ReyHahn (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Stephen Hawking - Jane Wilde 1966.jpg
 * Stephen Hawking -1966 (cropped).jpg

WP:CITEVAR problems introduced via Template:Cite Q
Some WP:CITEVAR problems were introduced to this article via these edits in early 2022. They caused author names in citations to be displayed in "Firstname Lastname" format instead of the consensus "Lastname, Firstname" format used in this article. Two ways to fix these problems are to reintroduce the previous citation templates, or to add last and first to the Cite Q templates as needed, per that template's documentation. Other solutions are also possible. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove wikilinks to authors, or any other important data. int21h (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * author-link is the standard way to add links to author names in Cite journal and similar citations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That would have been a lot of data that would have been removed... int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC) int21h (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

2009 time travellers party
Where can we potentially add about the time traveller's party, which he held in 2009 and invited space and time travellers, but noone arrived. Securearth (talk) 11:50, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is mentioned in the section 2000–2018, some sourcing here. It was shown as part of the television documentary miniseries Into the Universe with Stephen Hawking in 2010. It was clearly done in a tongue in cheek way.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:20, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2022
Please change "In March 2019, it was announced that the Royal Mint issued a commemorative 50 pence coin in honour of Hawking." To "In March 2019, it was announced that the Royal Mint would issue a commemorative 50 pence coin in honour of Hawking." 86.160.117.100 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Done. Thank you for spotting that. Technopat (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands
Just a heads up that I have removed reports that Hawking once went to Jeffrey Epstein’s island in the article Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands. The only thing reported is that he once went there in 2006 for a conference, and no evidence he ever engaged in any kind of misconduct has come up. Since the island has since become infamous, stating someone has been on the island gives the impression they engaged in misconduct they never engaged in.

The two editors who supported having Hawking’s visit mentioned on the Little Saint James, U.S. Virgin Islands page have both since been permanently banned from the Wikipedia for engaging in disruptive editing. Samboy (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

"A stubbornly persistent illusion"
Hi, I noticed that the book "A stubbornly persistent illusion" is not included in the list of Hawking's popular books. I was hoping that someone could add it.

https://www.runningpress.com/contributor/stephen-hawking/

Best, Doug Ddoug1004 (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I was having a read of this on Amazon here. It is the works of Albert Einstein with a commentary by Hawking rather than a complete book by Hawking. Could be included, what do others think?-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)


 * It's a 3-page foreword. I would be inclined to say not to include it, but I notice there's a section in this article for forewords by Hawking, and Black Holes and Time Warps is on the list and it's a 2-page foreword by Hawking. Though I'm not sure why forewords deserve a mention in a Wikipedia article. I would say that if the other forewords stay, then go ahead and add this new one. Grorp (talk) 00:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Family circumstances : apparent error
The “Early Life” section contains the words

“over-extended himself buying farm land and then went bankrupt in the great agricultural depression during the early 20th century.”

But the wiki link to the great agricultural depression gives dates  1873-1896 i.e. late nineteenth century. I believe that this is more accurate.

However, a solution  might perhaps be to  write “. . bankrupt in the early 20th century in the aftermath of the great agricultural depression.” This avoids the issue of reconciling the date of the bankruptcy (legally speaking an exact day) with the date of the depression — something that from its nature can only be a rough estimate. 80.229.167.229 (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hawking Office Blackboard.jpg

Hawkings voice- Dennis Klatt
i stumbled upon Dennis H. Klatt's wiki page where his work on synthesizing his own voice for hawking to use led to his life long voice being Klatt's, but he's not mentioned here at all. just a bit interesting to me considering hawking used klatt's voice by choice and klatt died of cancer which took his voice in the end Father of one cat (talk) 16:40, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2023
information is wrong i am one of stephen hawkings brothers. Jomias Folder (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Please make a specific request backed by reliable sources.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 16:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We would not care if you were Hawking yourself. We need secondary sources, not primary ones. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Nowalking
It clearly states Stephen Hawking as Stephen Nowalking. How disrespectful! Please change it. 2A02:C7E:2761:9A00:7141:A974:6C74:72E7 (talk) 10:59, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Done. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  11:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

They lede doesn't call Steve a hero
Hundreds, nay, thousands of sources call sir Stephen a hero, why is it not in the lead? Malibu Sapphire (talk) 07:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * etc, fukk rugby blps Malibu Sapphire (talk) 07:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2023
Fixing formatting error on the link in "he began his graduate work at Trinity Hall at the University of Cambridge where" from University of Cambridge to University of Cambridge Ethan Nicholson (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 17:46, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stephen_Hawking_CH_CBE_FRS_FRSA&redirect=no Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal information
parent name and wife name 36.252.69.73 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023
Change: Hawking claimed to be an atheist.

To: Hawking was an atheist. 81.78.67.89 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ Tollens (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2024
lecure in Hebrew University in Jerisalem 2006] with this: [[User:Chestergold|Chestergold] (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

✅. Link now repaired, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Epstein Documentation and a Potential Consensus
Hi all, after reading through both sets of documents. I believe I can help you all come to a consensus regarding whether or not to include the allegations against Steven Hawking in the Wikipedia article. If you would also like to go through both documents related to the currently trending "Epstein Documents" here are the links to both documents (Document 1) (Document 2 - The More Recent Documentation With Direct Mention to Steven Hawking). The first document is the first unsealed documentation, the second are the more recent documents currently circulating around the media including high profile names. The documents are quite long, but if you would like to, have a little read of them and make your own conclusions.

I would however like to point your attention to section 1e) on "Document 1" (p.26 when viewing through .pdf), which issues a cautionary note regarding using the documentation as "concrete fact". While the allegations are serious, bordering on scandalous, the documents themselves are not fact, merely allegations. Wikipedia is a place which should be dedicated to facts, not allegations, conspiracy and gossip.

While personally, I think that the allegations against Hawking are probably correct, the fact of the matter is that we cannot include un-factual statements relating to allegations which could affect the credibility of an individual which may ruin their image/legacy (in this case).

Should more evidence come to light regarding the "Epstein Documents" then the consensus should change regarding including the allegations in the Wikipedia pages of any individuals named in the documents. Personally, I would make a seperate Wikipedia article with a list of allegations made against individuals mentioned within the documentation.

I also think that the evidence for including the allegations in the Wikipedia page is not strong enough, the documentation spans 2000+ pages with a single mention to Hawking in a single specimen within the documentation, the mention also not directing alluding to Hawking being a pedophile, rather alluding to an allegation that Hawking attended an "underage orgy" and a payoff for said allegation for attending said "underage orgy". (The mention to Hawking is on p.391 for any interested in reading the documents and drawing their own conclusions)

In conclusion I don't really think the evidence is strong enough for such a serious allegation to merit it's own sub-section/section within this article. Also given section 1e) in the first documentation makes me question whether the documentation is strong enough to justify itself as a serious citation.

Please feel free to disagree/agree or open up a discussion with your own opinion below! YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Even if any content is decided to be added to this article (which I think we should not for now), it cannot be based on those documents, it has to be founded on good reliable second and third party sources per WP:PST.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding to this the individual who made the original accusation has since clarified this wasn't Stephen Hawking but rather another Stephen.
 * So at this time there are ZERO credible sources to make baseless accusations from other than a short sentence in an email that's already been disputed JudaPoor (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * But doesn’t Wikipedia always mention allegations? We always make sure to mention these things as “alleged” I mean I’ve seen articles where a country is listed as allegedly supporting a group and it says clearly alleged. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I suppose it depends. In this case, it was an individual mentioned once in a 2000+ page long legal documentation. In most cases, Wikipedia requires multiple sources of information, especially in cases like this which is likely to harm an individual.
 * Regardless of mine or anyone's personal opinions, it wouldn't be intelligent to include such an allegation as it's own sub-heading based on such little information. As well considering the warning from the first piece of documentation. YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know the right balance, but at this point it seems conspicuous there is no mention of anything related to Epstein. In this case harm would clearly be limited as the subject is no longer alive. Owen (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there should be some mention of him appearing on the documents and his alleged visits to his island. Leaving them out would seem a bit bias from the perspective of other users. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * What words would you suggest we write? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "In early 2024, documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal were unsealed, revealing names of various individuals, including the late Stephen Hawking. Hawking was mentioned in the context of a science conference he attended in 2006 on Epstein's private Caribbean island, prior to Epstein's first charges for child sex offenses."
 * My suggestion 14.241.157.210 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * My concern with that is that is says nothing of significance. Why even bother including it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with, that's a whole lot of nothing. In addition there's the mention above of a retraction of the the original allegation (it wasn't this Stephen). Also the simple fact that he literally was incapable of going anywhere without his personal aide (BTW they were always women) makes the whole non-issue rather ridiculous. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dodger67 What a cop-out response. 2600:100B:B02F:DADE:0:6F:6C97:4101 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're apparently new here. It would probably be of benefit to you if you read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Dodger67 To add, I personally believe that you're approaching this from a biased viewpoint as being similarly physically handicapped, and your judgment being unbiased in this matter should be called into question. No offense, but it is a conflict of interest on your part whether you want to admit it or not. 2600:100B:B02F:DADE:0:6F:6C97:4101 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no similarity at all between my impairment and Hawking's. My comment is based on what is known about this matter, I express no "feelings" at all. Your attempt to make this personal about me is rejected with the contempt it deserves. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Guys guys guys whilst these are allegations, we still say allegations on the page. In personal life put it as “alleged” and you should be good but factually source it especially from the original document and reputable news outlets 99.232.236.142 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we don't mention unproven allegations. Such things are NOT about the subject of an article. In many cases, they tell us more about those doing the alleging. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course we mention unproven allegations. We have entire articles about allegations. We even have entire articles about allegations that have been proven untrue. I think the sentences suggested above look good. It might sound like "a whole lot of nothing" but it is of clearly information of interest to people judging by the many news stories involving it, and also helps limit the spread of misinformation by including what is known within the article rather than what people have been claiming with no evidence. Owen (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a list of most articles covering allegations & sexual misconduct allegations. Most of the allegations with their own article tend to have multiple third party sources, multiple points of allegation as well as various legal specimens/evidence - with some ending in some kind of conviction or legal action (e.g. Andrew Cuomo).
 * My advice to you would be to then create your own article regarding the allegations regarding Stephen Hawking. However, my understanding is that it would be rejected/be difficult to create on the basis of: the lack of evidence, that no one (to my knowledge) has come forth to allege anything as well as a lack of enough third party sources. YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * No, we don't mention unproven allegations. Except that allegations can even have entire articles on the English Wikipedia due to the extensive secondary reference coverage given within it. Not to mention that they tend to show up on other biographical articles. It's also not like original research is being attributed here given the previous revisions were just paraphrasing what the sources had already established. As per Owen, it could also help with narrowing down on what is certain and what is merely baseless rumors and hearsay you'd find elsewhere.  SuperSkaterDude45  ( talk ) 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, but let's see the proposed wording here first. I have already seen a couple of proposals that are completely unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't include anything at all. As long as it isn't established by reliable secondary sources that the person on the list is indeed the Stephen Hawking of this article, concluding that it is the same person would be plain original research. Of the worst kind. - DVdm (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Hawking’s name being mentioned in the Epstein client list
Does anybody know how to factor this in? I know we must wait for more information but at the very least we can add a stub saying there have been “allegations” and then see if the allegations are further proven then we edit accordingly 99.232.236.142 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Allegations of what? HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would suggest putting a subsection about the Epstein court case under the Personal life section, similar to the Sexual harassment lawsuits section on the Danny Elfman article. We will also need to take care to cite from reliable sources, as there are so many news outlets reporting on the Epstein documents as they have been recently made public. Panian513 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah it’s too early to discuss it as fact but it should definitely be mentioned in personal life as alleged and I mean alleged. I myself have very strong feelings in this but for the sake of journalistic integrity I would stress putting it as alleged until we get further information since this stuff has just been released. I myself am not a confirmed protection user hence why I have brought the subject for someone more skilled in editing and with more power to do so. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also there is a good source here from sky news uk
 * https://news.sky.com/story/epstein-court-documents-latest-prince-andrew-among-those-named-13041708
 * is the telegraph a reliable source because I know they have an even more detailed article on the allegations against Hawking but I’m unsure if you guys think the telegraph is reliable 99.232.236.142 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Exactly WHAT do you want to allege? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @99.232.236.142 This source says, which suggests false allegation so I think it might be a bit early to include it in Hawking's article as of now, we'll probably get more information within the next few days/weeks to write about this correctly. I do think that we should add this to an article relating to Epstein, however. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">Panamitsu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So from what I have read it says that Epstein emailed Maxwell telling her to deny that Stephen Hawking participated in an “underage orgy”. Now obviously we must wait a couple more days for more information to come out but as you can see my main root point here is that Stephen Hawking is being named as complicit since you know Epstein is emailing his accomplice to deny that hawking was a participant basically telling her to lie. Again it’s too early but more confirmation and information will come out soon 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry didn’t read it right I might have misunderstood. So yes Epstein did email about it being a “false allegation”. Again however another source that telegraph article didn’t say that. Again it’s just been a day since the news broke out so we must wait longer do determine if the allegations are true or not. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think a really good idea would be to wait for the website hosting the Epstein client list to come back online and then directly access it. This will take longer than the actual news coming out but would be direct evidence and would help clear up a lot of misunderstanding and all 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Alleged but still serious.
 * Disappointing, really... 2A02:2F01:6305:800:75F3:84B5:6546:D48B (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it's important to point out that despite what Epstein claimed in the email Giuffre never actually made allegations against Hawking. She was referring to a different academic named Stephen: https://twitter.com/vrsvirginia/status/1263957576653258752 2A00:23C6:E106:F01:D5A6:E6B7:FA72:4F5 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * She can't even spell his name properly? And now it's been all over national TV news, worldwide. That's serious. And somewhat sickening? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * In some ways, she speaks better English than Epstein, who misspelled Hawking's name by three letters. Virginia only misspelled it by one letter. lol ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * So she was just lying to cover her tracks/ avoid being sued by Hawking's family? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't know. But I don't think they're reliable sources. Neither Epstein's email nor Virginia's tweet. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 03:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is another tweet from Virginia: https://twitter.com/VRSVirginia/status/1263981493421920256 . She said "it was not Stephen Hawkins - the scientist in a wheelchair" —— obviously she misspelled Prof. Hawking's name.
 * While there are many sources on this, I don't think we should put it on Wikipedia. A source is generally reliable does not mean that all its contents are reliable. And we should not indiscriminately write anything on Wikipedia only because it could be found on a reliable source. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race(talk・contribs) 06:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely include, since he's in the Epstein documents, but be careful to be strict with the sources. There's a fake image going around about him and midgets that I've seen some people mistake as real. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Important to note these are allegations. Quite rightly, the page has had an increase in protection to stop vandals. Englandsupport4 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This issue has already been tackled on other pages. For example, see the last 3-4 years of edit comments for Marvin Minsky. The decision here should follow the consensus elsewhere: it should be included as a subsection in the “Personal life” section, and it should stick solely to the facts while only using the highest caliber of sources.
 * This is not a new problem. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, and the info should be added asap, since people are coming to Wikipedia to find out information about the ongoing unsealing of the related documents. Phatmatt12188 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is no deadline. —<span style="font-family:Poppins, Helvetica, Sans-serif;">Panamitsu (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The allegations simply don't exist anymore. They were a case of mistaken identity and instead are directed at a different Stephen.
 * This was clarified and stated clearly by Giuffre
 * Furthermore, no formal investigation or actual evidence exists to back the claim up JudaPoor (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ people these allegations don't even exist. They've been stated as misunderstood
 * They're not "unproven" or "alleged" they simply don't exist and never have in anything other than a misunderstanding JudaPoor (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Jesus Christ is this still going on? He was NOT the Hawking mentioned. This has been stated by THE PERSON WHO THE ALLEGATION WAS ALLEGEDLY FROM
 * It was a miscommunication and the only mention of the name is on ONE document in an email.
 * There is no proof to this. There is no proof it's him. Yet actual first hand information that it was a different person from the person themselves.
 * Just stop it. JudaPoor (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to read precisely what words people want to add to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * the word pedophile in the lead Bomberswarm2 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen without a lot more evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Far, far to early to make any such assumption. TheBritinator (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We're not a tabloid. It would take rock solid sourcing to even allege that.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Rock solid sourcing? The official documents released are a quite good source of information regarding the allegations. There's no need for any other information in the page currently other than the fact that both his visit to the island and the official documents have brought allegations. Contrecona 1800 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs - Please read section 1e) of the "Epstein Documents". YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

When should actions of/allegations made by, a person, be included in the article of the accused and not the article of the person making the accusation? When we are judging what is appropriate editorially, to include in an article, we need to keep in mind what the reliable sources say in their own voice. In this case, reliable sources have published this. Ok. Why should this crap be included here? A lot of notable people, have made claims about say, Obama, Clinton, Trump. Do we include those in their own articles? Usually no. This wouldn't qualify for inclusion either in this article or the Epstein article. Maybe if we create a new list article, say, "List of people associated in any remote way with Jeffrey Epstein", then you guys have a solid case for inclusion of this drivel in that list. — hako9 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)


 * the website hosting the Epstein files is now back online it’s www.courtlistener.com
 * this is a primary source as it’s literally the court documents themselves so you guys should carefully check out each document relating to this case in order for us to properly explain what Stephen Hawking did 99.232.236.142 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * We include these because there’s a good chance that these allegations are genuinely true and mind you the allegations here are far more severe than the people you mentioned. We are talking about potential complicity in child sexual abuse, rape, trafficking and all sorts of horrific crimes of which we have incriminating documents being analyzed as we speak. Once they have been properly verified then we will include this. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Your final sentence displays everything but an objective position. There needs to be an "if" there. You are talking about "allegations" of "potential complicity". That is tabloid garbage, and not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Very well put. 2A02:1388:2095:90FD:7813:4BF5:6849:E133 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)