Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 6

Infobox repair needed
The infobox is erroneously showing a "Death" field. Normally if a field is left blank it should not appear in the infobox. 68.146.64.9 (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Robert Berman is listed as an other academic advisor. The link is to the incorrect (American) Robert Berman, rather than the long-time fellow of University College Oxford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.68.200 (talk) 12:44, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion
Where it says "He advocated that, rather than try to establish contact, man should try to avoid contact with alien life forms." I think this should be changed to INTELLIGENT alien life forms, to clarify that he was talking about intelligent life - 93.97.255.48 (talk) 01:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Recognition - acclaim
Original text reads: On 19 December 2007, a statue of Hawking by renowned late artist Ian Walters was unveiled at the Centre for Theoretical Cosmology, University of Cambridge.[44] In May 2008, the statue of Hawking was unveiled at the African Institute for Mathematical Sciences in Cape Town.

The above statement is factually incorrect and infers that the sculpture of Hawking unveiled in Cape Town was produced by Ian Walters.

Actually the sculpture unveiled in Cape Town was created by Eve Shepherd A.R.B.S, S.P.S a larger version of which has been commissioned for Cambridge University.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cambridgeshire/7661892.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4914634.ece C Wilson Shepherd (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.198.215.196, 31 January 2011
edit semi-protected

Please change this statement- "Hawking has a neuro-muscular dystrophy that is related to amyotrophic lateral sclerosis...." to this "Hawking has motor neuron disease (MND), or, as it is known in the United States,amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS)." Per Stephen Hawking's own website- http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/disability/disabilityadvice - this is his correct diagnosis. Muscular Dystrophy is a different disease.

71.198.215.196 (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yellow check.svg Partly done: I just changed "neuro-muscular dystrophy" to "motor neurone disease". Hopefully that's okay. If not, replace the edit semi-protected template. -Atmoz (talk) 17:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

MC Hawking
As yet, no-one has mentioned http://www.mchawking.com/ It's not really him but it sounds like him and is an obvious tribute.155.136.80.37 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Google Chrome detects this site as containing malware. ConconJondor (talk) 10:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Citation problem
Citation 23, as the current numbering goes, has some sort of problem; one gets a most interesting error message; it doesn't seem to go bad at the destination website, but somewhere before that. This is the citation relating to Top-Down Cosmology. Ideally the editor who added that section would be best prepared to track down the proper article and try again. JohnBobMead (talk) 00:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Not my citation, but a cursory look indicates a problem at Nature servers. I would wait for them to fix it. Materialscientist (talk) 00:12, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable
Here's the real founder of the discipline. 69.254.165.61 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC) Admiral Electric


 * What? If that's a serious contribution to improving this article, I think you're going to have to elaborate a little. HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Hawking - does not believe in god
The article states that Hawking does not believe in god and seems to believe the universe created itself out of nothing: ''"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second." He adds, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing"'' So why is having him listed in the British atheist category controversial? IRWolfie- (talk) 16:52, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose what's required is for the subject to specifically and explicitly state his or her religious beliefs in order for the categorization to be valid, per WP:BLPCAT. And Hawking does not appear to have categorically denied God's existence, but said that he does not believe in a personal god. As well, his statement that he is not religious in the normal sense leaves his beliefs open to interpretation. JNW (talk) 17:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * not believing in a personal god leaves only irreligion, but yes, I've reverted my edit, he needs to specify exactly what type. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:42, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish people would read Hawking's words more carefully. I am sure HE chose them very carefully. He DID NOT say that God doesn't exist, just that he does not believe God created the universe. That this conflicts with the dogmatic view of some fundamentalist religious folk does not make him an atheist. He may well be, but the quote above does not demonstrate it. To draw that conclusion from his words is pure original research. HiLo48 (talk) 19:56, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not entirely O.R. That conclusion is understandable, even if it's presumptuous. There are sources (his ex-wife; Anthony Burgess), that make the claim that Hawking is an atheist, and notwithstanding sources to the contrary, in a less controversial context we may well accept that as sufficient. JNW (talk) 20:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd agree with that. I have heard her say that, and it's a better source than the above quotation, but it's sill not from Hawking himself, and he could make the point very publicly if he chose to, but so far, to my knowledge, has not done so. Unfortunately, I see two significant groups of people who are determined to label people as atheists here. There are those religious folk who want to say "Look, he's an atheist, and therefore evil, so cannot be right" and those from the other end of the spectrum whose view is "Look, this person is very successful and smart, and an atheist, so atheism is good". It's used as a point scoring, non-neutral word by many. We have to be very careful to get very good sources when the word is used here. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why Stephen Hawking is listed as Agnostic and not Atheist. How can there be any confusion about this? He has written a book, The Grand Design explaining that God is not required for creating Universe or anything after that. He has told that 'he does not believe in personal god. His wife has written in her book (Music to Move the Stars : A Life with Stephen Hawking) that he is an atheist. We have below listed WP:RS which confirms these things. So it would be more accurate to put him as Atheist instead of agnostic.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7976594/Stephen-Hawking-God-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/scientist/stephen_hawking_god_religion.html http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/life-and-physics/2010/sep/03/god-stephen-hawking-m-theory?intcmp=239 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/stephen-hawking-science-makes-god-unnecessary/story?id=11571150 -Abhishikt 00:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * It's a real shame that you failed to take any notice at all of the preceding discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not believing in a personal god includes also Deism and agnoticism (although most atheists are effectively agnostics). IRWolfie- (talk) 18:11, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * "Not believing in a personal god" means atheism.
 * I think it is not agnosticism as in agnosticism there is NO certainty. Wiktionary: Agnostic- A person who holds to a form of agnosticism, especially uncertainty of the existence of a deity. If we want to be too accurate, then as per Agnosticism#Types_of_agnosticism, Agnostic atheist does not believe in god. But that's because they do not claim to know that a deity does not exist.


 * And it surely not Deism because Deism means "the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of reason without reference to revelation" as per google. Also Wiki - Deism#Critical_and_constructive_deism writes 'Constructive elements of deist thought included:
 * * God exists, created and governs the universe.
 * * God gave humans the ability to reason


 * So the only logical conclusion I could get is that he is an Atheist. I didn't find a reference where he publicly used the word 'Atheist' to describe himself. But people (including his wife) have been using the word 'Atheist' to describe him and he has never denied it. And I'm sure if someone asks him this question directly, he will say Obviously.
 * Just my 2 cents-Abhishikt 04:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a biography of a living person. It is never our job, and especially not here, to draw conclusions about such things, even logical ones. HiLo48 (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My point is that "Not believeing in god" is by definition Atheism.
 * If I could turn your point of "drawing conclusion" around -- 'Hawkings has not publicly used the word "Agnostic" to describe himself. Still why does this article "draws conclusion" that he is Agnostic?' -Abhishikt 00:04, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Please reread this whole section. Your concerns about us using your definition of atheism or similar have been thoroughly addressed above. HiLo48 (talk) 06:52, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * "In an interview published in The Guardian newspaper, Hawking regarded the concept of Heaven as a myth, stating that there is "no heaven or afterlife" and that such a notion was a "fairy story for people afraid of the dark." ...Uh, that's atheism, so.. yeah. This is not original research, and it now has been verified.  WHY does he NEED to say that "I am an atheist" when the definition of atheism completely applies to his views?  If I never said I was gay, but expressed my strict attraction to only men, would that then NOT make me homosexual because I haven't used the word?  Wikipedia seriously needs to stop acting like they're protecting this page from anything. Eseress (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The point is that you're free to add exact quotes from the subject, so long as they're reliably sourced, and then we allow readers to draw their own conclusions, just as you have done. It's worked fine for you. Anything more is unnecessary. HiLo48 (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Lol, yeah okay. Too bad that's illogical.Eseress (talk) 23:28, 10 June 2011 (UTC) Eseress (talk) 23:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - Great Discussion - AFAIK - And At The Moment - Hawking Himself Has Not Denied There Is A God - See Stephen_Hawking - Hawking May Very Well Believe, Like Einstein, In An Indifferent (and/or impersonal) God - As One Defined, For Example, By Spinoza - See Spinoza - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 03:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sridhar Kulunthan, 2 July 2011
Please change "Stephen Hawking was born on 8 January 1942" TO "Stephen Hawking was born on 8 January 1942 (300 years after the death of Italian Scientist, Galileo.)"

42.104.124.183 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * IMHO - Interesting Cited Comment - Perhaps Worth Adding To Some Presentations - But Perhaps Not To The More Essential Facts Of An Encyclopedia. Drbogdan (talk) 20:38, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I agree, it may be notable enough to mention, but it is too trivial to include with his date of birth. Monty  845  17:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Why he's not using BCI and eye tracking?
The article says he can only use his cheek to provide input to the computer; why does he not use things like Brain-Computer interfaces and eyetracking? I would expect those things would allow him much better control, both in terms of variety and in terms of speed and dexterity...--TiagoTiago (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Controversial Remarks About Pope John Paul II
This section doesn't have any remarks by Hawking, he marely re-states pope. So shouldn't this section be titled "Controversial Remarks of Pope John Paul II"? Abhishikt (talk) 05:39, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

The Pope Did Not Say Those Remarks And This, And Other Controversies Surrounding Hawking, Should Be Included In This Article
The Catholic League pointed that Hawking's remarks about the Pope were not true. The Catholic League looked into what the Pope had said at that conference and did not find those words or anything like them for that matter. Hawking lied about what the Pope said at that 1981 Vatican conference and he failed to provide specific details of when and where the Pope allegedly said those remarks about encouraging him to not investigate the Big Bang Theory. The way Hawking has made his claims appears to be in of the form atheist propaganda rather than neutral.

The Catholic League is a very reliable resource. They don't even specialize in sermon preachings They are an ACLU/ADL-like defense group for religious and civil rights of Catholics. You can see for you here: http://www.catholicleague.org/about.phpJoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Enotes is also a reliable resource too. Their content is fact-checked and has been used for educational research Read here please:http://www.enotes.com/help/about.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 23:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * that is what they say .. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * (i) None of the provided sources cite any clear references; (ii) The Catholic League has a WP:COI here, (iii) the above message contains libel, please see WP:NPOV and avoid. Materialscientist (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid your argument about the Catholic League being a Conflict of Interest source is baseless. They cited words from the Pope's own speech. Enotes also quoted these various critics of Hawking too. If you want, I can cite the original sources too. I will put my statements back on when I find that you have come to your senses and not erase factual and reliable information. I didn't violate the NPOV policy and Wikipedia is not a fanpage for Mr. Hawking. Please see Fancruft.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 13:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW - *Entirely Agree* With User:Materialscientist (and User:Prolog) And Their Thinking In All This - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

in the section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Distinctions, the line

Hawking is also known for his wit; he is famous for his oft-made statement, "When I hear of Schrödinger's cat, I reach for my pistol." This was a deliberately ironic paraphrase of "Whenever I hear the word culture... I release the safety-catch of my Browning",

could someone change the link for "Browning" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Automatic_Rifle to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Browning_Hi-Power, as this refers to the Browning pistol, which was used by Nazi Wehrmacht soldiers, not the Browning Automatic Rifle, which was used by American forces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.159.123.89 (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This Is Not A Hawking Fanpage
The Catholic League cited the Pope's own text and Enotes is quite reliable. I have typed more sourced criticism of Hawking from John Leslie and an acknowledgement the man who wrote the forward passage of one of his own books that his writings may be hard to understand among a broader audience, something that Enotes already stated.JoetheMoe25 (talk) 00:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The catholic league is not a reliable secondary source. It also appears your addition that was reverted is a copyright violation from ENOTES. Please note that WP:DUE applies. The due weight or reliability of enotes as a secondary source does not appear to have been established. Of course a lot of his writing is hard to understand since many of them are in journals. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with IRWolfie here. Quibbling over the exact words of what a pope said is hardly a "controversy" worthy of inclusion here. The proposed addition utterly fails WP:DUE. 28bytes (talk) 18:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Doctoral Students
Please include "Thomas Hertog" as a doctoral student of S.W. Hawking. (See http://genealogy.math.ndsu.nodak.edu/id.php?id=112216 ). Thanks. --Tintveld (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong ABC news quote re religious views
I am not editing, but I will, if someone does not tell me the reason why he just put in [faith] in a quote of Hawking that clearly is not there in the original article. "When Sawyer asked if there was a way to reconcile religion and science, Hawking said, "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority, [and] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works." Compare that to "There is a fundamental difference between religion, which is based on authority [imposed dogma, faith], [as opposed to] science, which is based on observation and reason. Science will win because it works."[60] If you think that faith is an synonym of authority I recommend reading Heidegger. BrAndi

I would use the greek argument and say people don't want to think about imaginary figures or gods, they just want one so they don't have to think they're just ignorant as hell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.193.101 (talk) 05:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

✅ - I *Entirely* Agree - The Actual Original Quotation Is Preferable - And Has Now Been Edited Into The Main Article - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

disability: therapy Steven Hawkings
C7/T4 simply for posture, re-uptake, via phrenic nerve and scalp, respectively,. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.67.186 (talk) 11:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Disability and interface
According to Hakwing's own site (http://www.hawking.org.uk/) he interfaces with an IBM computer running Equalizer™(Word Plus Inc.). This allows him to stop a cursor going from left to right, top to bottom on a specific word or letter, by pressing a switch in his hand. Sentences assembled in this way are made into speech files by a synthesizer from Speech+ (NeoSpeech). Sentences and lectures can be saved and executed on demand. 16/12/2011 11.48 UTC


 * There was some coverage of that today, on Radio 4's program Dear Professor Hawking. Seems that the speech synth is sufficiently legacy to still be based on a PC ISA card. There are concerns over the ongoing support of this hardware, and the very distinctive voice it gives to Professor Hawking. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Article
Hi all,

I've been looking over the page and I think it would make an excellent candidate for putting through the Good_articles process, I've not been involved with editing the article before (although I'm very happy to be involved in the process) - would involved editors be happy with it being put forward? Failedwizard (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Having looked at the contributors list - it looks like this is one of those beautiful wikipedia articles that has grown my many many people making the occasional edit, rather than by one editor really pushing at it. I'm going to boldly put it forward for GA :)  let me know if this causes any problems.... Failedwizard (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

See also > new concept
I would like to suggest the *See also* section to include links to several inspirational public figures with disabilities. I know Stephen is a genius and epic and brilliant physicist, period. However we all know it is only because of his coping with ALS and disability he is inspirational. For example equally genius and epic Edward Witten can only inspire physics and mathematics lovers, but not everyone on this planet like Stephen does.

If not in the See also section, maybe a new one could be created. Ideas? Any feedback is most welcome.

Vladimir

-- See also --
 * Jessica Cox, motivational speaker and world's first licensed armless pilot.
 * Stephen Hawking, theoretical physicist, cosmologist and survivor of ALS.
 * Patrick Henry Hughes, musician born blind and unable to fully utilize his limbs.
 * Hirotada Ototake, sports writer and survivor of Tetra-amelia syndrome.
 * Mile Stojkoski, humanitarian and wheelchair marathon runner.
 * Nick Vujicic, motivational speaker and survivor of Tetra-amelia syndrome.


 * This seems to me to be a recipe for an endless list of disabled people that random editors happen to admire. I'm afraid it would attract endless peacocking and subjective arguments as to who should and should not be included and is not what an encyclopedia is for. And do you really want to say that Hawking is only inspirational for being disabled, rather than for his work in theoretical physics? Britmax (talk) 10:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree with Britmax. This would just end up a cruft magnet. Hawking is a notable scientist. The fact that he is severly disabled is not the primary source of his notability - it is actually entirely irrelevant. If it was the source of his notability it would mean all people with ALS would be notable. This idea is a direct threat to this article's current GA status and it's achieving FA status. (BTW, I came to this article from WikiProject Disability) Roger (talk) 10:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I, too, think the idea should not be implemented, for the reasons stated by Britmax. Binksternet (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

So let me take a slightly different position - Hi User:Pandovski, and thank you for bringing your suggestion forward, I don't know if there are any specific Wikipedia policies or guidelines either against or in favor of this, so it's a reasonable thing to suggest. Also, I hadn't seen any of those examples before, thanks for bringing them up - I've added the template to them so that editors who do a lot of editing of disability related articles can help out with their development. I think the consensus here is pretty strongly against having such a section in this article, but there might be scope for adding the examples to some other list - feel free to swing by WikiProject_Disability and raise it there. :) Fayedizard (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

publications
I'm not sure that the 'Notable publications' section looks ideal... how about we cut it down a bit? particularly given that most of these books have their own articles...

Test below - what do people think?

Technical

 * "Singularities in Collapsing Stars and Expanding Universes" with Dennis William Sciama, (1969)
 * The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, (1973)
 * The Nature of Space and Time, (1996)
 * The Large, the Small, and the Human Mind, (1997)
 * Information Loss in Black Holes], Cambridge University Press, (2005)
 * God Created the Integers: The Mathematical Breakthroughs That Changed History, (2005)

Popular

 * A Brief History of Time, (1988)
 * Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, (1994)
 * The Universe in a Nutshell, (2001)
 * On The Shoulders of Giants. The Great Works of Physics and Astronomy, (2002)
 * A Briefer History of Time, (2005)
 * The Grand Design, (2010)

Children's fiction
These are co-written with his daughter Lucy.
 * George's Secret Key to the Universe, (2007)
 * George's Cosmic Treasure Hunt, (2009)


 * Looks cleaner to me Abhishikt (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Important to realize he is has interests other than Science.
There have been reports of him going to "Swingers Clubs" (confirmed by Cambridge University), and it is a fact that he has previous been to at least 1 "strip-club" previously:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2106025/Stephen-Hawking-visits-California-swingers-sex-club.html?ITO=1490

This should be mentioned in his autobiography appropriately, to prove he still has "human" traits and is not a nerd entirely.

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.169.134.100 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't mind including this if we get good sources. However, the Daily Mail is not a good source for a WP:BLP. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I Agree, the daily mail does not have a reputation for fact-checking as required in reliable secondary sources therefore it should not be used. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, in addition to the sourcing issues pointed out, we'd also have balance and weight issues as well. You might want to be a little bit careful with your phrasing... "prove he still has "human" traits" is rather careless phrasing in this contex, and might polarise a debate... Fayedizard (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

True. Maybe I should have said ..."prove that he still is still a raging hetrosexual with interests other than Science, which he is well noted for". Cheers, Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.7.44.98 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We already tell the reader that Hawking has been married two times and has a daughter. There's not much call for salacious details here, a violation of WP:UNDUE, since Hawking's sexuality is not what he is known for. The merest bits of normal encyclopedic content are good enough: wives, children. Binksternet (talk) 00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I actually wasn't aware of the concept of the WP:UNDUE keystone until now, and a new entry for tabloid events in any Wiki page certainly do not meet its conditions.