Talk:Stephen Hawking: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→Not Agnostic: new section |
||
Line 110: | Line 110: | ||
The caption says "Stephen Hawking at NASA in 1999." Can someone verify this? It seems much earlier than 1999, and that computer in the background looks like it's from the early 1980s. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.97.220.226|203.97.220.226]] ([[User talk:203.97.220.226|talk]]) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
The caption says "Stephen Hawking at NASA in 1999." Can someone verify this? It seems much earlier than 1999, and that computer in the background looks like it's from the early 1980s. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/203.97.220.226|203.97.220.226]] ([[User talk:203.97.220.226|talk]]) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
== Not Agnostic == |
|||
In none of the cited articles does Hawking "describe himself as agnostic", as is stated in the article. This statement is a fraudulent deception. If you can argue that he is agnostic, that is your opinion, but he has not described himself as such. [[User:Jasonid|Jasonid]] ([[User talk:Jasonid|talk]]) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:35, 3 September 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Stephen Hawking article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Stephen Hawking was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 6, 2010). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
Stephen Hawking was one of the good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Delisted good article |
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. |
|
|||||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Addition to Selected Publications -> Films and Series
"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>
Please expand "Religious views" section of Stephen Hawkings
Stephen Hawking in his new book says "God did not create the universe" , he is an atheist. There isn't an uncertainty as implied in this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.190.103 (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't like the "metaphorical meaning" insetion because it implies what Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion is saying that these men "didn't mean it" when they use the word God.
Instead keep the quote about him not being religous in the typical sense. Leave the quote about "God does not intervene" to break those laws" and be sure to illustrate that Stephen Hawkins use of the word God is philosophical and not related to any traditional sense of the word, especially to that of his christian ex-wife.
Also include some quotes from A Bried History of time to illustrate how he uses them, esp to include his famous ending to the book:
"But if the universe is completely described self-contained, with no singularities or boundaries, and completely described by a unified theory, that has profound implications for the role of God as Creator" Page 190, A Bried History of Time.
"Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?" If the no boundary proposal is correct, he had no freedom at all to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose initial conditions. He would, of course, still have had the freedom to choose the laws that the universe obeyed. This, however, may not really have been all that much of a choice; thre may well be only one, or a small number, of complete unified theories, such as the heterotic string theory, that are self-consistent and allow the existence of structures as complicated as human beings who can investigate the laws of the universe and ask about the nature of God" Page 190, A Bried History of Time.
Especially include his conclusion with its ending because that is his most famous use of God:
"However, if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find that answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God". Page 191, A Bried History of Time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.175.135 (talk) 04:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
please stop spamming your religious nonsense. Just because you believe in a blue woman with 4 arms doesnt mean the smartest man in the world does. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.151.177 (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I and my friends love science and want to become cosmologist. I have not understood the word "worm holes", I cannot understand that no one has seen worm holes we have just imagined it than how can we predict that it takes us to other dimension/time/place,etc. Worm holes are imagined from many years as they are part of movies from many years,than also we believe in it. Does it really exist? Do we have any proof of it? Is it only imagination? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.215.180.122 (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Minor addition to Discovery Show
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.
Dr. Hawking's computer interface
It seems to be a minor inaccuracy regarding the physical interface Dr. Hawking uses with his computer. The article mentions his cheek but according to his own Website he presses a switch with his hand. Please refer to [1].
--67.224.239.218 (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2010 (UTC)Fernando Vega April 30, 2010 (jfernando.vega@upr.edu)
Cambridge University in those days did not have disciplines for particular science subjects. They were all "Natural Sciences". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.46.7.99 (talk) 19:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
- Any reference for the fact and "those days"? Materialscientist (talk) 22:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
(Illness also referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease)
I would like to make a suggestion that it be clarified that his illness is also referred to as Lou Gehrig's disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nophonenophone (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Pending changes
This article is one of a number selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.
The following request appears on that page:
Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles. Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article. |
Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Pending changes" would be appreciated.
Please update the Queue page as appropriate.
Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially
Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 00:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC).
Validating one of the statement in the article for the following documentary title is needed......
http://www.channel4.com/programmes/master-of-the-universe/episode-guide/series-1/episode-1 --222.64.211.179 (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
about the projects performed by my brother
i nead some help for my brothers project n i"l be thankful if you have some time for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shraddha gomase (talk • contribs) 13:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
From Archive 5
B4 V2 The article states that "Though Hawking's parents were living in North London, they moved to Oxford while Isobel was pregnant with Stephen, desiring a safer location for the birth of their first child (London was under attack at the time by the Luftwaffe). According to one of Hawking's publications, a German Wehrmacht V-2 missile struck only a few streets away. After Stephen was born, the family moved back to London.." However, Hawking was born in 1942. That's two years before the V-2 became operational. I know the quote is sourced to one of Hawking's own books but he simply can't be right. Or am I missing something? Yintaɳ 19:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
Simple error for a V-1, possibly? Britmax (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
The V1 was in service from 1944 to 1945. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.8.126.193 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Timestamp on Photo
The caption says "Stephen Hawking at NASA in 1999." Can someone verify this? It seems much earlier than 1999, and that computer in the background looks like it's from the early 1980s. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.97.220.226 (talk) 16:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Not Agnostic
In none of the cited articles does Hawking "describe himself as agnostic", as is stated in the article. This statement is a fraudulent deception. If you can argue that he is agnostic, that is your opinion, but he has not described himself as such. Jasonid (talk) 01:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)