Talk:Stephen Hawking: Difference between revisions

Stephen Hawking is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 12, 2006 Good article nominee Listed September 20, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted February 6, 2010 Good article nominee Not listed February 16, 2012 Good article nominee Listed February 29, 2012 Peer review Reviewed March 28, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 17, 2012 Peer review Reviewed August 10, 2012 Featured article candidate Not promoted September 3, 2012 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. Biography: Science and Academia / Core FA‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Top-importance). This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Disability FA‑class Stephen Hawking is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Education FA‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. England FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mathematics FA‑class Mid‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the project's priority scale. Physics: Biographies FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce. University of Oxford FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject University of Oxford, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the University of Oxford on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.University of OxfordWikipedia:WikiProject University of OxfordTemplate:WikiProject University of OxfordUniversity of Oxford articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Wikipedia CD selection Template:V0.5

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Text and/or other creative content from Thorne–Hawking–Preskill_bet was copied or moved into Stephen_Hawking with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

"Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking" is listed, but is not an actual link, it only has a citation to the link. "Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking" should be made into an actual link. Here is what you can type to do so; <a href="http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking/about/about.html">Into the Universe, with Stephen Hawking</a>

http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/stephen-hawking/ is the link to his new show on the Discovery Network, and should be included with the rest of the links. Thanks.

"Fonseca Prize" appears as "Fonseca Price" on this page. Thanks. Sam Blackburn (Graduate Assistant to Stephen Hawking)

I removed this para today...

Although a mid-2009 corporate press release said that he had chosen NeoSpeech's VoiceText speech synthesiser as his new voice,^[1] a 30 December 2011 interview with Hawking's technician indicates that Hawking is still using an older synthesiser containing a card "which dates back to the 1980s" and that any upgrade would have to be the same voice, otherwise "it wouldn't be Stephen's voice any more".^[2]

…because I don't think that it's particularly useful to the reader - although I do think it is very useful to editors in case the NeoSpeech bit gets reinserted. As always, comments welcome Fayedizard (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]

In the Personal Life: Illness section, the DecTalk link should be revised. There is a page on DECtalk. 216.165.253.27 (talk) 04:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

so he has this major neuron disease. does that mean he's dying? answer me on my talk page DevilFTW (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned in the first FAC that there was information in the infobox that was neither mentioned nor cited anywhere in the text. I have requested citations for this info-- my suggestion is not that the citations be added to the infobox, rather that either the information is worthy of cited text, and should be cited in text, or it should be removed from the infobox. As it stands now, readers have no means of verifying information in the infobox.

I also pointed out in the first FAC that "he became research director at the university's Centre for Theoretical Cosmology" was not supported by the citation given; that text has been removed from the article body, and yet it is still in the lead, uncited as far as I can tell.

I also mentioned in the first FAC that some other text was not supported by citations, and I see those issues persist.

Is anyone watching this article? Were any of the issues from the first FAC corrected before the second and third FACs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sandy, it's great to hear from you again. I've removed the research director line - good catch :), and I also believe I've removed the infobox items that you tagged. Regarding the FA process - It's my understanding that those items were added to the infobox after the FA status was awarded [1], but I may have got that wrong. Also, there were a great many changes made to the article following your review - a quite detailed response was posted at [2] at the time, but I believe you (quite rightly I now understand) reverted the post because it was after the cut-off point (which is why I asked for advice a few days later on your talk page [3]). I am anxious that any remaining issue you have with the article are addressed, it's always great to get the perspective of such an experienced editor - what would you like us to do? (Also, if you'd like to get involved, I've got a favour to ask of you...) Fayedizard (talk) 22:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thanks for reminding me to look at those posts-- the first FAC was long ago, and I'm sorry I wasn't around to respond to followups (long spring, summer and fall of extensive re-landscaping here)!

On the infobox, no, here's the diff from the time it was promoted til now. Those items were still in the article when it was promoted (indicating someone wasn't making sure previous issues had been addressed). Anyway, you've removed them now, so that is solved. But, I hope you'll keep the article watchlisted and address the addition of unsourced text, or citation needed tags, as quickly as you're able so the article won't deteriorate and end up at WP:FAR. An article on a popular figure of this nature will be hit routinely by all kinds of IP and other edits, so keeping it watched and up to snuff is essential.

On the TFAR page, I see you've asked that "senior editors" resolve the text not supported by citations. I'm not sure what you mean by "senior editor"; as you brought the article through FAC, one assumes you are the most likely to have access to and be able to check all of the sources, and be familiar enough with the sources to know how to correct the text. If not, perhaps you should ping the editor who added the remaining citation tags, as that editor presumably has the sources.

I don't have enough free time to get much more involved here-- I just saw this at TFAR and remembered I had reviewed during the first FAC. But ask away on the favor-- I'm willing to help as I have time. Good luck, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, and now a new editor has added back the students, with a citation to a user-submitted source. [4] That source doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, not sure of the oversight since it is user-submitted data,[5] and why are these students worthy of mention in the infobox, if there is nothing to say about them in the text? Do you have a reliable source for the student list? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another oops, rather than cite the director of the Centre for Cosmology, that text was deleted [6] ... but this source says he was the founder of the Centre. Now we have no mention of the Centre at all. I'm a bit worried about how this article is being edited; at this stage, basic information like this should not be in dispute. Fayedizard, were you consulted in advance about the article's preparedness for the mainpage? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've re-removed the students list on the basis that a) they aren't in the text, and b) I don't believe the source is sound enought. Of course, Hawking had a great many students and a number of them pop up in the various autobiographies and such - some with much greater roles than others. Making the call is always going to be a subjective one, and I think we should be open to including them on a case by case basis - on the other hand Hawking has had an interesting and complex life (I remember being amused during the FAC process that I had to remove reference to his TED talk for being relatively uninteresting, which I found pretty cool at the time). Similarly with the Centre for Cosmology - if people would like it in then I'm all for it, at the moment my opinion is that it's not really important enought to put in, but it's not a strongly held opinion...Fayedizard (talk) 09:51, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this list could be put more toward the end of the article rather than in the middle where it seems to to interrupt the flow. I don't know what the FAC criteria for this is, so maybe this request is not right and should be ignored. MathewTownsend (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree. There are several other lists (e.g books and films) that I think would be better at the end of the article. Slp1 (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Major": a word horribly vague and overused IRL, and on wiki. Who defines "Major"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. The implication is that he won many others (which he probably did) but "2003 Michelson Morley Award of Case Western Reserve University" doesn't sound "major" though maybe it is.

An unrelated nitpick: he is quoted as saying that his disease has not hindered him from having "a very attractive family". I just wonder why this is quoted, since it's not clear what he is referring to - presumably it's Jane and his children - but he's had two wives so maybe this quote is too vague. MathewTownsend (talk) 21:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to check - is the proposal to move just the list - or the 'Recognition' section it is part of? Fayedizard (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Using a since-retired legitimate alternative account, in September I corrected several citations and added various citation needed and failed verifiability tags to parts of this article. Nothing seems to have happened to fix this, and now it seems that they are an issue at WP:TFAR where I am accused of being a POV-pusher (of what, I might ask... properly cited articles??? Sounds good to me!!!). Anyway, no worries, life is too short.

Unfortunately, there are many more of problems of this sort. I corrected one of them this evening, and also added back a citation needed tag where it was needed. What would you like me to do about some of the others I've spotted? Add more of the citation needed and not-in-citation tags? One easy start place for people to starting checking are the Popular Culture and Popular Publications sections. For reference here are some of the problems that I have noticed...

• information regarding the two films about him are unreferenced
• the publication date of A Brief History of Time is not mentioned in the citation given.
• The text says that "A Brief History of Time was followed by The Universe in a Nutshell (2001)", no citation and actually the one didn't follow the other: as the list below it says Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays came next, in 1994.
• There is no citation for the sentence about A Briefer History of Time, including the motivation for writing it.
• The publication date of George's Secret Key to the Universe is not mentioned in the citation given. It couldn't... the book was published in 2007 and the source in 2006.

Slp1 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A book mentioned in text serves as its own citation for publication date. The motivation for Briefer is very easy to source as it appears in the book's Foreword on pages 1 and 2. Regarding the phrase "followed by", you are arguing for exact mathematical precision but English allows more leeway, selectively omitting some events such that a later event can be said to have followed an earlier one, even though intervening events occurred. Binksternet (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree that book publication dates aren't a big issue, but they do need to be cited somewhere for verification purposes. I just corrected one that was wrong, for example. This is even important more so you are going specific with a date such as April 1, which is not generally listed in the book being published. (Though I now note in the case of April 1 that Hawking mentions that date in the foreword to the tenth anniversary edition so I will add that shortly.)

And yeah, "followed by" doesn't have to be exact, but there does to have a reason for mentioning particular books and omitting others. Is there is a reason here? What is it? The one that did follow chronologically was a New York Times bestseller too. However, maybe the idea is more of of one being a sequel of the other, and if so that language might be clearer, but we still need a citation, for being a sequel, for being popular etc.

And yeah, I imagine most of this stuff can be cited: it's just that it isn't currently; and sometimes when there is a citation and you look carefully only part of the information is present. Slp1 (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating my comment above: he is quoted as saying that his disease has not hindered him from having "a very attractive family". I just wonder why this is quoted, since it's not clear what he is referring to - presumably it's Jane and his children - but he's had two wives so maybe this quote is too vague.

Also, since his wife, Jane, has written two books on Hawkings, shouldn't there be more included about his personal life? Perhaps some description of his personality, how he got along with his wives and children despite his disability, etc.? Nothing gossipy, but just some indications such as usually included in biographies if the information is available? MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few things going on here - first of all I'm very cautions about increasing the amount of personal life stuff - all though the GA and FA process stuff on personal life was parsed out (I've come to argree with the recommendations as well) because it was a touch on the trival side, and regularly the point was made that articles such as these can be magnets for cruft. The biographies do have lots of charming little details (I particularly enjoy a story about him running over Prince Charles's foot), and I'm happy to put any and all of those in if that's the concensus - but I strongly suspect that the other side of the argument is that he's notable first and foremost as a scientist, and secondly as a disability icon. It's certainly open to interpretation but the impression I get from going though the FAC process is that most of the opinion was against... what do people on here think? Fayedizard (talk) 12:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's going to add more family details I would like to see what they are and how they are treated before passing judgement. In general the family stuff should be limited to main themes so that the scientist is featured rather than the man. Binksternet (talk) 14:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, maybe not "family". I'd be interested in more details related to how he managed to be so productive, how he wrote and organized his work etc. when he wrote only one word per minute. I thought family members (his nurses/wives) might shed some light on this. But I defer to the judgment of others.

I still object to the ambiguity of the quote "a very attractive family". I don't think there is a need for a quote since the wording is not unusual, and especially since the following sentence in the material quoted includes specific members of his family as well as others. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's only recently that his communication rate has slowed to one word a minute so his productivity was much higher in the past. Roger (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could the article be updated to reflect this? MathewTownsend (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a lot of lists. I think as mentioned above. Could some of them be put into prose? The one "Major awards and honours" really breaks up the article and leaves a lot of white space in the middle. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article passed FA with them in; but more to the point, there are, for all practical purposes, only two actual list sections, both relevant and both appropriate as lists, with every item on them sourced. While there is an argument to be made for prosification of lists in many articles, here I don't see how the Major Awards and Honours section really could have such a long list prosified without looking even more ridiculous. I suppose there's an argument for putting both list sections together down at the end of the article where the list of publications is, and maybe that would clean things up a little, but I really don't see tossing or prosifying the lists... and the tag didn't help, as it was not the right tag for this, it was overkill about what is basically a style and layout question. Montanabw^(talk) 21:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you and others (above) have also. See Slp1's comment above. A FA should not have a list in the middle that leaves unnecessary white space. There is no reason that list has to be where it is. As suggested above the Major Awards and Honours section could be moved toward the bottom. Also it is unclear, as someone commented above, what "Major" means in this context. Please see section above "Major awards and honours" and SandyGeorgia's comment "ugh" about the word "major". What is the "Michelson Morley Award"? Also, some of the many lists at the bottom could be prosified, yes? Are they all really necessary as lists? MathewTownsend (talk) 21:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, if no one objects by tomorrow, move the honours list down and cut the word "major." (I agree that "major" is probably unneeded, though I suppose it keeps out stuff like the PTA good citizen award or something...) That doesn't seem like a big deal. There is only one list section at the bottom, in three subsections, one for books and two for other media. How can you prosify those? They are sourced and annotated. They certainly aren't excessive, particularly if you were to compare them to, say a filmography list of a major actor like Bette Davis (another FA article). I think we have a minor formatting concern here, not anything that's a big content issue. Montanabw^(talk) 21:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article is very listy (and still short on biographical info as I pointed out in the first FAC); how this article passed FA is a topic in and of itself, considering that issues raised in previous FAs are supposed to be resolved before nomination, and they weren't. But there is nothing delegates can do when articles get faulty review. The article passed FA with inaccurate text and without prior issues being addressed; that says something about the quality of the reviews. Now we have diluted text (because so much has been deleted), listy text, and text removed that was requested at FAC for comprehensiveness, and still a very short but listy bio on an important scientist; I think FAR in a few months (when FAR instructions allow) is a better option here than TFAR. I'm disapointed that the community is !voting for such an article to appear on the mainpage, and I don't understand why folks do that. We had a hard enough time with Imagine (song) on TFA, although many folks pointed out it was not up to standards; must we keep doing same? If the substantive issues here aren't addressed within a few months, this article is on my FAR list. The problem here is that cutting the lists reveals how brief this article is-- we don't cover a scientist of this importance with lists. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Two lists? More content may be helpful, agreed, but tagging over two sets of lists? Why not those with these concerns just write more material and improve the article? Really, content is good. Montanabw^(talk) 00:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really lost, and I'm surely not the only one. I understood that Mathew proposed moving one of the lists - nobody particularly objected and I asked if we were talking about the list or the section containing the list (I think they probably belong together, but I'm persuadable) - I don't understand why that thread just stopped and moved down here... can someone give me a bit of context? I also understand that Sandy doesn't believe that the article as it stands should have passed FA - which is a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold - although I honestly struggle with the detail and would love to work with Sandy to address these - and I suspect that the best way of dealing with this is for me to nominate it for FAR - would that be acceptable to everyone? I'm just trying to find concreate things to move forward on... Lastly I really don't understand why there is a banner on the top of the page - and I'd like to remove it on the grounds that there is constructive conversation going on - would anyone mind? and if anyone would like to fill me in on some of the fine detail that would be great to... Fayedizard (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]