Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Things to be fixed

There are many different vandalizations to the original article. When I went to access it the first time, it said "steven hawking is a **** (sorry about the language, just quoting it.)

Add that his book was used in the film, Donnie Darko.

That should be added to the popular culture section. His book was mentioned in the scene where Donnie and Professor Monnitoff were discussing time travel and worm holes. [MadGirl]

This article is in a bad state. Some particular examples:

  • "there is every chance that he would never have made the discoveries he has were it not for the support of his family". Is there? Says who? Clear POV.
  • "Hawking proposed that although the universe has no boundary, it is finite in space-time, and in 1983 he proved this mathematically." This should be justified further. He may have proved it based on certain assumptions, but the nature of science is that you cannot prove anything for certain. To a reader from a non-scientific background, this might sound like the last word on the subject.
  • "no previous knowledge in this field is required to enjoy these books." POV.
  • "an encyclopædia from which information is easily retrieved." Embarrassing.

These are mistakes that require a bit of thought to fix, and there are other basic errors. Please could someone help me bring this article up to scratch? Agentsoo 01:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I'll give you a hand doing this Agentsoo. That article is really all fluff, and it needs to be expanded to show what he has discovered.(Unless this is detailed somewhere else). Hawking is one of the giants on science, and the article needs to show why. User:Scope_Creep 18:39, 31 July 2005 (GMT)

Well said. Let's get stuck in! Agentsoo 20:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)


This article indicates that Stephen Hawking "eats babies." This is evidently a typographical error. Perhaps it was supposed to read, "eats babies' food."


No i think it was vandalism. Jacknife737 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

although it would be cool if he did eat babies.Lalbe4 02:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

"Though Hawking's parents were both male and had their home in North London, they relocated to Oxford while Isobel was pregnant with Stephen..." -- this sentence makes no sense. how are his parents both men, yet one of them is pregnant? Steph 19 February 2007

Stuff that needs to be added, in no particular order

  • Working with Roger Penrose in 1965 to 1970 (Proving that a singularity existed at the start of big bang, if the General Theory Of Relativity.
  • Perhaps add detail regarding difference between mathematical time and real time and an entry added to the Time article mentioning Imaginary time, which has been sucessfully used to build some of the thoeries he has formulated.
  • Use of Global Methods to prove/create certain theories. No entry in the Wiki about this.
Wolfram Research details these as being methods invented out of the toplogical methods used by Penrose to prove the singularity theorem. What they are though User:Scope_Creep


  • The fact that he went to a girls school, St Albams, at the time.
  • No mention that some of the computers he used for voice synthesis were custom built by intel and donated to him.
  • His work with Jim Hartle regarding the No boundary proposal. I can't find Jim Hartle in the Wiki. Found him as James Hartle.
  • His 12 honourary degrees. University of Waterloo is one. Hartle, Hawking and Penrose all received one here in 2004.
  • Writing The Large Scale Structure of Spacetime, with GFT Ellis, published in 1973. No mention of Ellis in Wiki.
  • The Wolf prize he shared with R. Penrose in 1988 and what for exactly ?
I've attempted to find this out. I found this: "In 1988, [Penrose] received the internationally prestigious Wolf Prize for physics, shared with Stephen Hawking, for their joint contribution to our understanding of the universe." Most other sources say something similarly vague. Really I'd like Wikipedia to have or at least link to something more specific. Anyone know? Agentsoo 02:01, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Agentsoo the Wolf foundation is located in Isreal. Its a prestigious organisation which offers prizes in 6 branches of science, specifically, Agriculture, Chemistry, Maths, Physics and the Arts. I have an URl here to the page, which details his work. User:Scope_Creep
http://www.wolffund.org.il/cat.asp?id=25&cat_title=PHYSICS
  • Being awarded the Eddington medal in 1975 and what for exactly ?
Well it's the Royal Astronomical Society which awards this medal. But their site does not detail exactly why it was awarded. User:Scope_Creep
  • Member of the US National Academny of Science.
  • Link to the Hartle-Hawking wave function.
  • No mention of his parents wanting him to study medicine, his father being a noted research biologist in tropical diseases.
  • His chair/communication system recently received an upgrade to Windows XP. http://www.hawking.org.uk/disable/computer.html
  • He is finding it increasingly difficult to operate a hand switch, and now controls his communication system mostly with a 'blink switch'.
  • He uses a ventilator during the night.
  • He has 2 sons and a daughter

"Relationships drive him, not physics."

This seems an odd, noninformational statement. Can anyone cite or reference this? 128.114.6.122 20:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


How come the vast Simpsons Wikipedia Empire has not gathered in Hawking? He was mentioned as "the wheelchair guy" in the episode in which Homer travelled to the fourth dimension. Seriously, this shows the impact that Hawking has had on the popular imagination. The Hawking article doesn't mention his best-seller status either. Neither Simpsons nor physics is my field, but I do like to ask. Ortolan88 06:59 Jul 25, 2002 (PDT)

I added a paragraph about his best-selling status. --User:Hbw


more than that, he guest-stars in an episode (when Lisa & co run the town). And in Star Trek. -- Tarquin 08:39 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
That episode was "They saved Lisa's Brain" (Episode: AABF18 - 1999-05-09), one of the more memorable quotes from Hawking was: "Your idea of a donut-shaped universe intrigues me Homer; I may have to steal it"

I thought it was hilarious when Homer Simpson mistook Stephen Hawking for Larry flynt. I seems like an honest mistake to me.207.157.121.50 00:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)mightyafrowhitey

And I'm adding a comment about how pathetic the state of this article is.-&#35918&#30505sv
Hi Stevertigo, the problem with that is that, to people who don't know anything about SH (e.g. me) it looks OK! :) Could you please specify what its problem is? (Or even fix it!) Thanks, Nevilley 09:36 Mar 9, 2003 (UTC)

He is just known as "Stephen Hawking" - no need for the middle initial. --mav

No need but shouldn't we name an article for a person properly if we can? -- Taku 06:06 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
How is calling the article "Stephen W. Hawking" naming the article properly? You should have the middle name in full, or not at all. (And I vote for "not at all", because nobody ever uses his middle name or initial.) -- Paul A 06:27 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
So you can tell him apart from, you know, all those other Stephen Hawkings out there, like, umm... yeah, all those others. Pardon me now while I rush off to disambiguate George Washington and Albert Einstein.... -- John Owens 06:34 May 12, 2003 (UTC)
President Washington, sadly, had no middle name. john 06:41 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

Probably I was mistaken but okay so how do you put his name in biblograhy? Just Stephen Hawking. I mean I thought it might be offensive if we omitted a middle-name since it is part of the name. -- Taku 13:35 May 12, 2003 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the following - "He has been compared to Isaac Newton by some observers." - for two reasons: Firstly who has compared him to Isaac Newton? Without qualification this sentence is meaningless. Secondly I think that if anyone has compared him to Isaac Newton then they are grossly misinformed. I believe I can say the following without doing the man a disservice: Although a well-known scientist who has contributed a great deal to his field, he is generally regarded as not in the same league as Einstein or Newton. His notoriety largely extends from his disability, and if he didn't suffer from Motor Neurone Disease he would be as anonymous to the general public as the many other scientists in his field. Mintguy 13:12, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I find it strange that you say that his notoriety largely extends from his disability. He has done quite a lot to popularize science. Carl Sagan didn't have a disability and I'm guessing you know who he is.

Have you seen this? Probably not suitable, but pretty funny! [1] - Mark Richards 00:41, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Has anyone checked that you have permission from star trek for the picture? If not I have pictures you could use with permission (Stephen has agreed to a number in support of the charity I run which he supports). BozMo

I've seen the episode and that of course is a shot from the episode descent. However, we are trying to tell people about things they do not yet know, and that picture looks like just another picture of him. A shot with Hawking and Data in the same frame would be great --Mike

Black hole information paradox

According to New Scientist, Hawking plans to reveal his solution to this paradox on July 21, 2004. Maybe this interesting bit can make its way into the article somehow. A-giau 23:00, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Information paradox

I've added a note to this article and the Hawking Radiation article explaining that the vaporization of particles at the event horizon has been called incorrect by Hawking. I've also noted that he will present new findings at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation in Dublin, Ireland in July 2004.

I'll try to update the article once Hawking has presented his findings.

I added a little note about the new theory, hope there is no problem until the theory is explained. --KeyStorm 09:48, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
this particular area of the article "The Euclidean path integral over all topologically trivial metrics can be done by time slicing and so is unitary when analytically continued to the Lorentzian. On the other hand, the path integral over all topologically non-trivial metrics is asymptotically independent of the initial state. Thus the total path integral is unitary and information is not lost in the formation and evaporation of black holes. The way the information gets out seems to be that a true event horizon never forms, just an apparent horizon" In my eyes is unnecessary. It adds nothing to the article and is trying to just show how complex all of this is, so people will say," oooh that hawking is clever", leave the link in for people who know what it means but it doesn't contribute anything to the article

The Onion

The article mentions that Hawking responded to the Onion article with a letter cursing them for exposing his plans for world domination. Can someone back this up with a reference?

it comes from http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking, but I'm no good with citing. Would someone mind formatting it for me?

Jellocube27 07:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just a mirror of this article. (See how at the bottom it says "This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia"?) On this page, Tim Harrod (senior writer for The Onion) says Hawking "learned of the parody and sent an amiable email message to The Onion" but doesn't say what the contents of the message were, and that's the only reference I could find before getting bored. Junkyardprince 18:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

speak?

It doesn't look like he's doing anything to trigger TTS. If anyone knows how this man is able to speak, could you please put it in the article? Thanks. --69.104.62.219 06:06, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Twitching a cheek, apparently. — ceejayoz ★ 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Photo

The header photo on this article is truly horrid. It has got to be the single worst picture of Dr. Hawking I've ever seen. Drool is dripping off his chin!!! As long as we're using copyrighted images here we can do much MUCH better than this. --Deglr6328 03:50, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)


SHHHHH!! don't tell anyone no one must know his horrible secret or else everyone would think of him as some kind of nerd yall kfc rocks hey mum im on the internet woot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Polarbear69 (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC).

I thought the same thing, when I looked over the article before. The new picture is much more dignified. -- Mike; yeah, yeah I'll make a username sooner or later.
Much better.--Deglr6328 05:24, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please let us find a better more becoming photo of Stephen. Maybe in this case a simple passport like photo with just the face is good enough.Kendirangu 11:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

In reading "A Brief History of Time", I've found that Hawking says he suffered from pneumonia, and not bronchitis. This can be found in the last paragraph of the second page in the acknowledgements. I am therefore changing this in the article.

I addded this little quote from this current week (14 Oct 05) which exemplifies his use of pithy homor to make his points and the fact that his popular influence is just as relevant as his academic achievements, though one rests of the other of course. I also wonder if it's helpful or not to mention the case against his wife and widespread suspicion that in spite of his unqualfied support for her she treats him in a dominating and less then kind way. (MK)

His IQ

Does anyone know what His IQ is? (Sorry, guys, I'm a Hungarian and I don't really know wether Your IQ is big or high or whatever.)

According to The Simpsons, 280 ;-) - Fredrik | talk 09:21, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

After falling down a flight of stairs in his youth, Dr. Hawking feared he had brain damage, so he took an intelligence test. He received a score of 161, the ceiling of the test. It is uncertain whether he just has at least a ratio IQ of 161, or that this a deviation IQ, which implies a ratio IQ of around 180. - 24.253.120.206 20:43, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to Stephen Hawking himself, "I have no idea. People who boast about their I.Q. are losers."
Great quote. Shawnc 06:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[2] reference link invalid

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=577860 No longer works. Laundrypowder 18:35, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

why did someone criticize him in the opening paragraph. take that out that's filth.

Abuse

Does anyone have any information about the allegations that his wife has been abusing him for years, leaving him outside in the sun for hours without water, beating, etc.? I can't remember where I read the article, but I remember reading about it and hearing that he didn't want charges pressed


.--TheGrza 21:41, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Doubt it.--64.219.78.241 04:41, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that was an episode of Law and Order, of course those are "ripped from the headlines" so who knows--64.12.116.135 23:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember this being in The Daily Mirror a few years ago. It was pure tabloid journalism: a journalist heard that a 52-year-old man in Cambridge was in hospital, and his wife was susupected of beating him. The journalist knew that Stephen Hawking was a 52-year-old man who lives in Cambridge and has a wife, so figured it must have been him. Hawking was apparently very surprised when he read in the papers that he had been abused. --Adam (Talk) 19:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Divorce

The current article seems to imply that he's still married to his first wife, when in fact he divorced her in 1990 and in 1995 married his nurse. Cmdrjameson 23:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

He filed for divorce from his second wife last year as well. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/10/20/nhawking20.xml I am surprised that no mention of his marriages/divorces is in the article. Roy 09:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Religion?

Can anybody add anything on Hawking's views on religion/spirituality? - 23 November 2005

Dr. Hawking's religious views are somewhat difficult to pin down. He tends towards atheism, but I believe he has denied that he is an atheist. His books and general philosophical bent favor postivism/materialism, and a great deal of his work has (indirectly) been an attempt to show that God is superfluous and unnecessary for the creation of the universe. His popular books have several lines that hint at his disbelief in God (such as in his discussion of the no-boundary proposal, he says "what role, then, is there for a creator?"), and he later said that he wanted to omit the famous line at the end of A Brief History of Time (that we would know the mind of God). In any case, the only reason why I would be wary of simply calling him an atheist (which is the view that I think most resembles his) is that he said that he had never called himself an atheist. 12-15-05

where are you reading that he wanted to omit the line? do you have a quote? do you think that its correct to assume that a "great deal of his work" has been an attempt to show that God is superfluous? would that indirectness make this assertion moot? - mbk 4-25-07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.125.77 (talk • contribs) 20:49, April 25, 2007

He sounds like an Agnostic. Given that he's a genius, it would make sense that he makes no claim to know whether or not God exists.--Lithfo 01:10, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, because no genius makes any claim to believe in something as outlandish as God. 147.72.103.11 22:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
He's problably an agnostic strong atheist ie. he believes that gods doesnt exist, but does not claim to know.

sci wager

Anybody have a picture of the science wager he had with Kip Thorne?

(NEW PERSON - the other guy forgot to sign) I don't think we'd have to - besides how is his wager about a star/black hole symbiosis relevant at all to this page? Wikisquared 22:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Who edited the picture? -- 134.91.200.16

The Current edit

I removed much of the information in the biography because much of it was repeated elsewhere in the article. What wasn't repeated in other sections didn't belong under biography, so I moved them to their appropriate sections. I don't like to be so brutal with my edits, but unfortunately, the text that was added, besides being redundant and making unverifiable claims, was so florid it was unencyclopedic. If what I did seems like a chop job, I apologize for that, though I felt it was necessary given the reasons above.

And on a more lighthearted note, to whomever wrote that UCSB (go gauchos!) isn't big in cosmology or theoretical Physics, I should point out that Walter Kohn, Alan Heeger, Herbert Kroemer, and David Gross are all professors there. And Stephen Hawking visits our Institute of Theoretical Physics every once and awhile! Gershwinrb 00:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I quite agree. The article was entertaining and, for the most part, well written but not quite what one would expect from WP. I think there are a still a few things in there that are a bit trivial but I like to chop even less than you. Maybe later. --JGGardiner 06:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


The bet

I subtly changed the chapter describing the wager (Losing an old bet) since there are two wagers that were confused as being the same. It could still use some polishing as I just made it clear they are two and not the same. More information in Scientific_wager.--nunocordeiro 23:27, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Einstein on Gunsmoke

http://www.snopes.com/radiotv/tv/gunsmok1.htm << Einstein died before Gunsmoke ever aired. This should be removed.

I don't know if it should be deleted, how about a note stating that clarifying that Einstein never appeared on Gunsmoke. The quote is real, it's reference isn't.--RLent 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Complex time

In A Brief History of Time, Hawking considers the possibility that time has an imaginary component, and that the further you went back in time, the larger the imaginary component would become, this the universe would have no point of creation. I'm unable to grasp this idea, can anyone point me to any sites that could explain it further?--RLent 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's... crazy. Imaginary time? The mind boggles. Well, I guess it's not crazy, really. But it sounds crazy. Deskana (talk) 18:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Imaginary time? Markyour words 23:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hawking's "imaginary time" is no more imaginary than "imaginary numbers." Imaginary numbers are just a special kind of mathematical number. Hawking looks at time as just another spatial dimension. This is not new. It is part of Einstein's theory of relativity. Einstein made the observation that time can be considered a fourth geometric coordinate if we add "i" to it. i = the square root of minus one.

Here is one way to imagine a universe with no beginning. Imagine every black hole including the big crunch as drains that merge together and lead back to the quantum singularity from which our universe sprang. Such a universe would have no begining and no end. It would resemble two horns of bulls connected wide-end to wide-end, narrow-end to narrow-end. The sides of the horn represent space-time. As the cross-section of the horns get larger, space increases and the contents of the horn get further from the narrowest section. As the cross-section of the horns diminish space gets smaller and the contents of the horn get closer to the narrowest section.

Hawking's universe would have a near infinite number of such universes with all the narrow-ends at the S. Pole and all the wide-ends at the N. Pole. If you make a complete circle in any universe starting at the S. Pole, you will finish your journey at the S. Pole. Your trip back to the S. Pole (big bang) will not take you over the same land that you traveled when you travelled from the S. Pole to the N. Pole.

His disease

This is confusing because in the US the term ALS is used to cover all forms of MND. But Hawking's form of MND is almost certainly not ALS, please stop re-adding it. See [2] Jooler 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hawking refers to the disease as ALS on his own Web site. -- Freshyill 03:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Hawking refers to the disease as ALS on his own website as does almost everyone when his name is mentioned in connection with the disease in the USA. The majority of cases of MND are ALS and consequently in the USA ALS is used as a synonym of MND. However, if Hawking had ALS he would almost certainly be dead now and most neuoroligists believe that he probably has another form of MND. Jooler 10:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Students

Why do we have a list of students for most of whom no article exists? Either they are n otable (in which case they should have articles) or they are not, in which case they should not be listed. This is pretty much common practice. Just zis Guy you know? 22:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If they are not notable, they should be removed from the list. --Siva1979Talk to me 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Steven hawking is my dad =]innit chava


Picture

I think we owe Steven Hawking's page and future memory a better picture than that currently displayed. any offers?--Light current 22:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)


Quotes

None of the quotes have quotation marks around them. Is that wikipedia styling? because personally, I think it just looks sloppy. Does anyone know? Verloren Hoop 18:11, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree and I'd like to see some sources. I can't believe it's hard to source the quotations. --Popeyedoyle 23:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Enquiring minds want to know.

I know there is a big secret surrounding Hawking's divorce and his new wife. I thought I would find this in the article.

I was told Hawking has been abused by Elaine and they divorced. -- Toytoy 16:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

minor edit, 2006 June 13, 3:45P.M. PST

I've made a minor edit that may or may not be complained of; where in the "Distinction" section of the article the second sentence claimed that "His first book, A Brief History of Time, was published on April 1, 1988," A Brief History of Time is not his first book, as may be seen by investigating the list of his publications at the end of this article (The Large Scale Structure of Time, published in 1973, preceded it). Hence this first sentence has been revised to say "The first of these," with reference to the "popular science books."

--GrammarGeek 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

nobel?

Is any of Hawking's work eligible for a Nobel Prize? And if so, is it peculiar that the most famous scientist on Earth hasn't got one? Any thoughts anyone?

AGM

Nobel prizes are for those who achieve something with a nice practical usage, like dynamite, or a fusion reactor.

The inventor of dynamite did not win a nobel prize. There is nothing peculiar about the most famous scientist not winning a nobel, because nobel prizes are not awarded on the basis of popularity polls.--59.95.5.99 21:17, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Then again, the inventor of dynamite was Alfred Nobel, so it was kind of hard for him to actually win the Nobel prize...--83.226.212.70 23:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Only person to play himself on TNG?

According to The Outrageous Okona Joe Piscapo also cameod as himself So im afraid mr Hawking will have problems taking that honor --[GhOstFaCE] 16:48, 15 June 2006 (CET)

Joe Piscopo did not play himself in that episode ... see http://memory-alpha.org/en/wiki/The_Outrageous_Okona#Guest_Stars where he is listed as playing "The Comic". --Dennette 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
And what about that "cool" Woodstock guy in that Voyager episode with Q and Quinn? As far as I know, he played himself — his character name and actor name were identical. Sorry, I don't even remember the episode's name. — N-true 18:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Radiohead? I think not

I am a HUGE radiohead fan and in no way did Hawking work on OK computer for the voiceover in Fitter, Happier. Just because a voice is computerized, it doesn't mean it was Hawking!!! Sublimebrc 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

You are correct. The voice in Fitter Happier is none other than Fred, one of the voices that has come with the Mac OS since the early 90's. I'm removing the reference from the article.

--amRadioHed 05:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ph.D. advisor

I find it annoying that his Ph.D. advisor Dennis William Sciama is never mentioned in the article. Someone with more than a passing knowledge please include htis link! Mhym 22:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

wow

what a wack job, i actually had some respect for this guy (even if he is an aitheist) until he made a point of playing on a polictical bullshit issue like global warming, he may as well just be runnning campaign comercials for bleeding heart alarmist leftists everywhere, what a --Kepin 23:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC) Your badly spelled opinion, I suppose. I recommend you actually read his books if you haven't already. Wikisquared 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Vague insinuation that atheists aren't worthy of respect (strike one), scoffing at the idea of Global Warming when in order to do so you need to know something the entire scientific community doesn't, (strike two)... I'd put a lot of money on Hawking being far smarter and more knowledgeable on these subjects than you. Ifitmovesnukeit 17:29, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

pix

Are there any pictures of Hawking as a young man before visible symptoms of ALS existed? JDG 06:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

  • yes, I've seen entire documentaries of him before the ALS, if someone can track one of them down a screencap should be covered under fairuse--64.12.116.135 17:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Critique

So where is the critique in this article? This is a fan-article. --62.251.90.73 16:38, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd go further; the article barely seems to discuss his work, being dominated by his illness, his bet with Kip Thorne and 'Popular culture'. He is, first and foremost, a theoretical physicist. Yet you'd think he was some kind of Marilyn Monroe-esqu icon by reading this piece. Personally, I'm shocked this one has been deemed a Good Article. It bares scant resemblance to an entry in a proper encyclopedia. Compare Albert Einstein, for instance. --Popeyedoyle 23:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

I think that is a fair representation of the current situation. Hawking is to a great extent the creation of the media, a kind of "celebrity scientist", and were it not for the "human interest" aspect of his extremely courageous battle with a debilitating illness combined with the fact that he works in a "sexy" area of theoretical physics, he would be as anonymous as the next physicist. The article here merely reflects this media image, and to be fair to the media, Hawking appears to have done little to discourage its attention. This is not to undervalue his pioneering contributions, in the areas of Gravitational singularities, quantum gravity/Hawking radiation and the popularisation of science. But comparisons with Newton and Einstein are nothing more than your usual media hype. Part of the problem is that one of his main predictions: that of exploding primordial black holes has not yet been confirmed, whereas some others, in the area of black hole thermodynamics are not yet open to proper experimental check. Until he scores a hit with one of his predictions, it's very hard to imagine him winning a Nobel. And even if they were confirmed, that still wouldn't be enough to place him in the same rank as Newton or Einstein.DPB 12:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I would disagree with you that comparisons with Newton and Einstein are media hype. Have you actually read A Brief History, or Universe in a Nutshell? At every opporunity he compares himself with them, attempts to put himself on the same plane as them. He begged TNG to put them in the show - in the same scene as Newton, Einstein and the guy who invented Warp Drive (zerphram cochrane). The hype is from Hawking's clever self-promotion, he has charmed the media out of their pants with his anecdotes, vulnerability and gift for explaining complicated things (a necessary skill for any teacher in any discipline). I am horrified at the thought of this book he is writing for children, where he will no doubt cement his 'legacy' with Einstein and Newton for at least a generation. However, in 100 years I really think he will be forgotten. His physics work is ground breaking but not fundamental - as was Newton's and Einstein's. There are many physicists, whose work can be found in any University standard physics textbook, who have contributed far more to understanding of fundamental physics than Hawking. Have a look for Hawking's work in such a textbook - you won't find much.

Image

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


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

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

Family

The "Biography" section says:

His parents were Frank and Isobel Hawking. He had two younger sisters, Philippa and Mary, and an adopted brother, Edward. Of his family, Hawking was closest to his mother, who was active in politics.
Hawking's parents lived in North London, but moved to Oxford for Stephen's birth because it was safer since London was under Nazi bombardment. After the birth they moved back to London. Hawking's sister, eighteen months younger than he, was born there, by which time the bombing had subsided.

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

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

More questions about biography section

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

The 11+ was an exam, taken at the time by all children in UK state schools (what are called in the US 'public schools', though that has quite a different meaning in the UK), to determine which school they moved on to at age 11. See the article Eleven plus. The exam has since been abolished in most areas of the country. It's not of much interest to say that Hawking passed that exam, as that will have been true for all state school children who went on to university. I think the wording 'not available to study' means he was not accepted to study Maths. I will make some changes to the text to clear that up.--MichaelMaggs 06:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Maurreen 14:53, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Mensa membership

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

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

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

Added new image...

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

Please, add complete source and copyright status for this image, unless it will end up being deleted from Wikipedia. We need the url for the page where the image appears to make sure it's really usable on Wikipedia. According to the link you provided, images from that site may or may not belong to them. And, in the case it belongs, it will not be usable on Wikipedia as it's said that their images can only be used "for non-profit".
Also, assume good faith when dealing with other fellow editors. There are a many reasons to prefere some image use over other, not only "defamation". --Abu Badali 05:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


I added the copyright status of the image as well as the source of it. Moreover Wikipedia is not a profit organization. [3]

Wikidudeman 07:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Also concerning any specific details about the copyright of that specific picture I believe theWP:IAR would apply here. Considering the fact that the picture currently used is extremly 'bad'. Ignoring any specific details concerning the copyright would help improve this article and I think it must be done.Wikidudeman 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
We need the exact url for the page where this image appears. When I follow the links you provided, I can't see the image there.
Yes, Wikipedia in not a "profit organization", but also, it does not accepts such restrictions on image's licensings. --Abu Badali 07:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The exact link is...http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/people/today/hawking.htmlWikidudeman 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I’ve temporarily removed the image considering we can’t reach an agreement. If you think the current image should stay up and I think the one I put up should remain then I don’t believe there should be an image until some compromise is reached. The current image is extremely poorly shot and is very demeaning to Stephen Hawking and IMO bias against him.Wikidudeman 07:52, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
That image, unfortunatelly, is not free. I've readded the free image to the article. I don't consider it "extremely poorly" nor "demeaning to Stephen Hawking". There's no point in not using an image when we do have one. --Abu Badali 08:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


Firstly I propose a VOTE to determine if this bias image should remain on wikipedia. Secondly I direct "Abu Badali" to WP:IAR. Clearly this applies in this situation. This image is clearly bias and ignoring the copyright rule is the only way to improve the article in which Wikipedia allows.Wikidudeman 08:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
I don't see how replacing a free image for a copyright violation would improve Wikipedia. --Abu Badali 08:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


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


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


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

GA review

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

Cultural depictions of Stephen Hawking

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

what happened to date of death?

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

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

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

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

Cite his plans for a children's book.

In the 'Distinctions' section it says,

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

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

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

Update 'Illness' Section

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

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

His Children?

Hawking has children, but not enough info is given.

Intro

Zargulon and I have made some changes to the intro, primarily to remove peacock phrases. I also took out the explanation of his motor neuron disease as it made the paragraph a giant run-on sentence and is better discussed later in the article (particularly since the diagnosis is somewhat debated). The diffs:[4][5] Kafziel Talk 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay...sick people.

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

-Dwslassls

purge the quotes section

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

Nazi?

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

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

Smartest Man Alive?

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

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

Death

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

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

Galileo

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

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

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

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

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

Global Warming

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

I agree, it is excessive. It's worth noting that this article has repeatedly come "under attack" by people with a pro-global warming agenda. I've removed most of it, as it is either unverifiable or inaccurate (see edit summaries for detail) on individual removals). The remaining quote should probably be moved into to another section. --h2g2bob 19:41, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Renamed section Comments on the future of humanity, and expanded it to include wider views. --h2g2bob 20:04, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Bob, I agree with the removal of the material, as it's not a fair reflection on the man or his achievements. However, I disagree with the rationale for removing a quote based on a reference to a TV program. While it is not easily verifiable, it could be looked up and referenced by a sufficiently motivated researcher. I occasionally make references to radio news reports, and I would hate to think that they would be removed for verifiability. Cmprince 00:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Quote (so people don't need to look through the edit history to find it):
  • Hawking further explained his views in a 2006 American television interview: "The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already," he said. "We have to reverse global warming urgently if we still can. The earth is in much more danger from human action than from natural disasters. This is not a prediction of doom but a wake up call. We have to recognise the dangers and control them. I’m an optimist and I believe we can.” -- 20/20, 16 August 2006. ABC News
It's a fairly long quote, but even on that program he talked about 7 ways the world could end.[6] I accept it could be verified, but unless someone has the tape of it, it will be very difficult. To be honest, I was being a bit aggressive as this page has been used for promoting the global warming agenda in the past.[7] Perhaps part or all of it should be re-added, but it would be better to find quote for some of the other ways too. --h2g2bob 01:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
It is several quotes run together as one from an 20/20. "There is a possibility that the human race could go extinct, but it is not inevitable. This is not a prophesy of doom, but a wake-up call."[8] ... "We are not going to stop making progress, or reverse it, so we have to recognize the dangers and control them. I'm an optimist, and I believe we can."[9] ... " The danger is that global warming may become self-sustaining, if it has not done so already. ... We have to reverse global warming urgently, if we still can."[10] There are quotes on some other stuff too, which is quite good. Unless anyone else wants to do it, I'll try and add some stuff tomorrow when I can do it properly. --h2g2bob 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

book

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

Criticism

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

Criticism

Latter-Day Saint, In All Likelihood

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

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

No.

67.130.11.100 06:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Live Webcast

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

Ambiguous statement

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

GA in zh.wikipedia

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

Bad Pic?

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

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

Stephen Hawking

Stephen Hawking (Courtesy NASA StarChild)

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

Protection of the article

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

"See you in Zero G"

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

Unclear paragraph about his first two years at Cambridge

I'm having difficulty understanding this paragraph:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Computer

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

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


Weightlessness

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


85.178.23.32


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

85.178.8.207

Family Guy Cameo?

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


His affair?

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

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