Talk:Stephen Hawking/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Verifiability problems

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)

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)

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)

I see that the citation needed tags have been removed from the illness section, with some textual changes made, but unfortunately, as far as I can see, problems with verifiability remain.

• Maybe I am missing something, but where in this article is there anything about preparing remarks in advance?

Neither of these sources talk about needing "only a few characters to signal a complete word or phrase" (which I think is actually wrong: it sounds from this that Hawking is using abbreviation expansion codes of words/phrases, when the sources I've seen in the past and the very bad video I saw once showed him using word prediction).

1975-present section: "(Hawking famously used the example of broken teacups reassembling)"- as far as I can see in chapter 14 the broken teacups metaphor is not attributed by Hawking. Maybe he did use it but it doesn't say so there or that he did so "famously".

As an aside, aren't the pages numbers in books required per WP:Page numbers? Their absence makes checking for verifiability quite difficult and timeconsuming. Slp1 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

These requests for citation were made on talk on 18 December; it is now 21 December, and neither can I locate that information in the sources, so I have re-added the tags. And yes, the books that list entire chapters for citation need page numbers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.

As noted below I went to the library and got a few of the Hawking bios. I've had a quick look and noted another problem already. Both bios say that his father studied medicine, specialized in tropical medicine, and that he later worked in medical research. The Larsen book, used as the source at present - and to which I have partial access - to say the same thing. I don't know where the "research biologist" currently in the text comes from, and maybe practically speaking it comes to much of the same thing, but it is not the term used in the sources I've checked, so I will be changing it to "medical researcher" which seems to be more accurate and can be easily sourced. Slp1 (talk) 14:06, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've found more problems with the first paragraph, including incorrect information according to the source given and (much more minor) incorrect page numbers.Slp1 (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Repetitive and redundant prose, other ce needs

I made a first pass [1] at reducing prose redundancy, replacing some of the repetitive prose and structure with different word choices and phrases, and I did some other minor ce (I don't know why reviewers missed that the acronym wasn't defined on first occurrence) ... since my prose isn't stellar, someone might want to review, and I imagine more of same is needed. I found multiple instances of phrases being used twice in two consecutive sentences, repetitive sentence structure, and lots of word redundancy (still, even, certainly, things like that). Some of the word choices I made for variety might not be optimal; help appreciated. [2] Based on that first pass, I suggest more of same may be needed once the article is written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I've just read the article for the first time. Prose is indeed still a problem, beginning with the cumbersome second sentence: "His significant scientific works have been a collaboration with Roger Penrose on theorems on gravitational singularities in the framework of general relativity, and the theoretical prediction that black holes should emit radiation, often called Hawking radiation." I don't see the reason for naming Hawking's sisters and adoptive brother. "An average, but not exceptional student" seems tautologous. No date given for his entry into Oxford, which would be useful. There are further prose infelicities and omissions throughout the article; a few examples:

• "However, Hawking's father wanted him to apply to University College, Oxford, which his father had attended" - to whom does "his father" refer? As written it implies Hawking's grandfather.
• No indication is given as to why he was "immensely bored" at Oxford, or of whose description this is.
• "The mid to late 1970s were a period of growing popularity and success for Hawking"

I'd be happy to give the prose a bit of polishing, though after today I'm off until the 28th so it won't be immediate. Also I may be hampered by my lack of scientific knowledge; failed O-level Physics circa 1969 is not the most impressive credential. Brianboulton (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Infobox issues

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)

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 [3], 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 [4] 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 [5]). 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)

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)

Oops, and now a new editor has added back the students, with a citation to a user-submitted source. [6] That source doesn't seem to meet WP:RS, not sure of the oversight since it is user-submitted data,[7] 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)

Another oops, rather than cite the director of the Centre for Cosmology, that text was deleted [8] ... 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)

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)

 Not done This list of students is still to be resolved. Subsequent work here calls into question whether the bios suggested in the first FAC were fully consulted and accurately represented, so while Slp1 has the sources, these names might be checked:

• Raymond Laflamme
• Fay Dowker
• Bernard Carr
• Malcolm Perry (physicist)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Centre for Cosmology

 Not done This also needs to be checked; earlier, the article said he was a founder, I believe. That was uncited, it was changed to director, that was uncited, so it was deleted. But sources say he was the director; why was it deleted, and what significance does it have? Since Slp1 has some of the bios now, perhaps that can be checked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Major awards and honours

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Does everyone/anyone consider this addressed now, or is there something Slp1 might check in the sources she has? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

too many lists

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, the article is very listy (and still short on biographical info as I pointed out in the first FAC); how this article passed FAC 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)

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)

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)

I think Montanabw misunderstands the nature of the problems as outlined by Sandy. The lists are a symptom of the problems. As far as the banner is concerned, I don't object to its removal as long as you address the problems of the lists. Re other problems, it's probably best to contact Sandy as she has a more comprehensive understanding of the FA process than I do. As Sandy says, "still a very short but listy bio on an important scientist". I agree with Sandy that the article shouldn't appear on the main page in its current state. As Sandy says, once you remove the lists, there's very little left to the article. I've read books on Hawking and by Hawking and I think there's more information available about him that could be in the article. Currently it seems skimpy. Perhaps looking at other FA articles about important scientists would help, like Charles Darwin or J. Robert Oppenheimer or others. Comparing an article on a scientist to one on Bette Davis (as someone does above) is not appropriate. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Matthew, it sounds like you'd be willing to remove the tag if folks would take this seriously?? That would be a good outcome for all. This article has 2,700 words of prose without the lists; that is ridiculous in the extreme in general, and even more so when specifically compared to other important FA bios and relative to the amount of published info about the man. I mentioned these problems in the first FAC; it wasn't addressed. I wasn't around for the second and third FACs; I don't know who supported, but it's a shame. When and if this article is written, the new content will need to be reviewed. Houston, we have a problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

yes, I'm willing to remove it. I didn't know what tag to add to indicate my concern. Just wanted to get someone's attention. As you say, there is little left excluding the lists. MathewTownsend (talk)

Okay, it's great to be getting somewhere, now I don't want to go rushing off on this until I understand each step. Who is it that you want to take this seriously (I pressuming that 'this' in this instance is the proposed move/proposed prosing of one of more of the lists)? and what are the actions that they can take to show you that they are taking it seriously? Fayedizard (talk) 14:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, now the FA - related stuff is in another thread - how can editors on this article show you that they are serious about the list issue? Fayedizard (talk) 17:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe start by asking that it be withdrawn from TFAR, since significant contributor requests are honored, so that the article can be worked on outside of time pressures? And then start writing; if I see progress, I won't bring the WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I do understand that there are things that you'd like to do differently on a fundermental level - I am taking them on board and I think it were making excellent progress on the FAR issue in the thread below. In this thread my focus is on responding to the banner that Mathew put accross the top of the article that was in relation to specific issues about lists - if we can have a conversation about that then we can hopefully make the changes that Mathew would like, and then he can remove the banner pressuming he's satisfied. Fayedizard (talk) 18:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved the first list so it was down with the others and tweaked a subsection heading. Now, if someone wants to get SPECIFIC about what ELSE needs to happen (what I have heard above is not specific, it's generalized whining; "too many lists"? Well, what shall we toss then?), and thus when His Great Royal and Always Correct Matthewness deems it worthy to remove his tag or, if that never occurs, when the consensus of the group is that the tag can be removed, regardless of the views of the person who put it up. Montanabw^(talk) 21:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• The "See also" section is also a list, inappropriate for an FA. FAs are supposed to be comprehensive, meaning the need for any links to be in See also is rare. If anything is worth mentioning in a See also, it should be in the text of a comprehensive article. So we have three lists, and little to no text about most of the issues in the lists. This article currently fails 1b, Comprehensive and 1c, Well researched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree that the "See also" section is also a list, and needs to be integrated into the article per standards for FA. I don't agree with Montanabw that the issue of lists is "generalized whining" by "His Great Royal and Always Correct Matthewness". If this is the attitude, then I don't think my concerns about "lists" are being taken seriously, and as I indicated above, I don't think the tag should be removed until they are. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Prose

• The article also fails 1a, prose. Random issues are found everywhere one looks, quite similar to what I raised in the first FAC. The prose is disjointed, all over the place-- what is the flow? The first thing we find in career, is a mention of his illness. His illness is mentioned four or five places before the acronym ALS is defined, and the flow is disjointed. We find repetitive prose like: "As a person of great interest to the public, Hawking has been referenced or asked to appear in a great many works of popular culture ... " Great, great. There are prose issues like this throughout. I don't see how this article can be copyedited, though, when the content is still lacking.

  As to Montanabw's rude and personalizing comments about "His Matthewness", only three minutes after she made that post [9] she was curiously accusing me of snark. [10] Please stop personalizing, Montanabw and focus on content; the content issues to be resolved here are significant.

  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Partially done, I did some work on reducing redundancy and repetitive prose, but a full copyedit is still needed, and the article flow issues still need to be resolved; it still bounces around as I mentioned in the first FAC. The problem seems to be how to work his illness in relative to the rest of the article, but it will be hard to sort out that flow until more is written about the rest of his life. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended commentary
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Well, twinkle, twinkle, little star! I'm done doing anything here, I tried a bit of wikignoming and that seems be holding, but it's clear that anything substantive I might try will simply be dismissed as stupid and ill-informed. So I shall depart and allow the lead editors to do the best they can to satisfy those who probably will never be satisfied. I'm quite frustrated with the people here how have yet to make any substantive edits and only criticize. I have minimal respect for people who only criticize, especially with the snark and sheer meanness I see here (and then these people's stunned outrage when a mild bit of the same comes back at them), and who exhibit no interest in actually EDITING the article to help fix it. I have only contempt for those who will not put their own efforts up to scrutiny, but instead can only nitpick the work of others and consistently find fault. I have never said this article is perfect, but I think the snark being leveled at the other editors here who were the main content contributors is quite unneeded. Montanabw(talk) 20:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Factual errors or sources misrepresented

I see that Slp1 is working to add the missing page numbers, and another source, and finding problems as she goes. Kudos to Slp1 for undertaking this work during the holiday season!

A concern I had when I realized the article was essentially the same as the one I read last March and that it had passed FAC without addressing the issues I raised in the first FAC was that it appeared that the bios had been consulted only to add a "Chapter" reference to them, without adjusting the text accordingly, expanding the article, or polishing the text to account for better information than the gossipy laypress sources that had been initially used. The number of factual issues that Slp1 is finding (along with the BLP vio that Slim found) raises concern about the accuracy of the rest of the article, and the possibility that more source checking is needed. Slp1 has found so far:

• Not mentioned anywhere in the source: [11]
• Not mentioned in the source, but found close information in another source, so changed: [12]
• Not mentioned in the source or in any source Slp1 checked: [13]
• Better representation of the source: [14]

My question to Fayed is, how did these sources come to be misrepresented? Most of them seem to be "Chapter" references (missing page nos), suggesting they were instances where earlier inferior sources were replaced. I could go back and check the history, but some feedback from Fayed would be faster and give possibly a better sense of how much of this article needs to be checked for accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I may have found a partial answer. In the version that failed the first FAC, a marginal source was used. Some of that information came from that source. That source was removed, but text wasn't altered. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it seems, from what I've checked to date, that there is a problem. There are likely multiple factors. I'll just point out, for example, that the link SandyGeorgia links to above [15] also shows Fayedizard making an accurate summary of Ferguson (and others) regarding the fact that Isobel went to stay in Oxford temporarily to give birth in safety. It seems like later editing, by someone else, actually caused the drift which had the couple "moving" to Oxford. So kudos to Fayedizard for that original edit.Slp1 (talk) 17:27, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

next step (after fixing the lists)

Hi Fayedizard, I understand that you may be confused and discouraged by the comments above. Looking at the article history, I see that you were given some very good advice, but also that major problems in the article were overlooked by (what seems to me) superficial "supports" that didn't offer you the feedback needed. At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive1, SandyGeorgia offered very good and extensive advice that if followed would immensely improve the article. I suggest that you examine her comments in depth and follow them as best you can.

At Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive2, the last comment reads:

Comment For the world's most recognisable scientist today, I am shocked by how short this article is: less than 50 kB. Is there really so little to say about this iconic 70-year-old man? To compare with an equally well-known physicist, Featured article J. Robert Oppenheimer, that the latter article is 110 kB. Even Featured article Edward Teller (though only 60 kB) appears to be much longer, wordcount-wise.—indopug (talk) 10:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Although at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Hawking/archive3, the article was passed, there are some good suggestions to improve the article.

indopug repeats his comment from the prior nomination. (see above).

He adds: "For starters, there's very little of Stephen Hawking the author (there more here about a bet he made than all the bestselling books he wrote put together). Forr eg: why did he write Brief History, what did the critics say about it, why was so popular, does it have a place in the modern non-fiction canon (Time 100 for Non-Fiction, for eg) and similarly for his other books. Also, there's nothing about Hawking the iconic public figure? Surely there must be a lot of commentary about that ("As a person of great interest to the public"—why, exactly?)? As it is, with its focus on scientific achievement, lists of books written and awards won, the article has a bare-bones résumé feel to it. I think it needs more drama."

I think the third review was very superficial. I also repeat the suggestion that you look at the above mention featured articles on scientists to get an idea of how to expand the article. I don't think his ideas and his thinking is adequately covered. Nor is there much to explain what motivated him. In a way his disability overshadows his thinking and his important contributions to physics. I know I read his books to learn about his contributions to physics, only superficially covered here. Also, I think the physical challenges he faces could be expanded and how he coped with specific ones. I found the article frustrating because it didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, and I'm no expert on Hawking or physics.

These are my thoughts and others may disagree. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fayed, next step is called "roll up your sleeves, get to a library, and do the work" that an FA requires, and that should have been done before these 2,700 words were awarded with a star by driveby supporters at FAC. And pay attention when people who know the topic professionally are telling you that your text is not supported by the sources, because they understand and know the topic, and anyone can read the sources. You mentioned at WP:TFAR that you wanted "senior editors" to help. No, you brought this to FAC, you should be the person who has the sources, you should have been the person to write a comprehensive article. If you are unable to do that, it will end up at WP:FAR. The "senior editors" you mention (whatever those are) might include an admin who added accurate tags to the article, because the text was not supported by the sources. I found a lot of that in my first review-- enough to raise concern that there may still be more of same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sandy, that is quite an insult to someone who put this article through GA twice and FA three times! This is obviously a hard-working lead editor who does not need or deserve your snark. On the FAR issue, I frankly DGAF, the rest of you can sort it out. That said, Sandy, above you stated something about "not knowing who promoted it" so I looked at the review, and among those who signed off were Dank and Casliber, whom I generally respect, AND it was its third time to FAR. I noticed you only commented on the first, failed FA and not on the subsequent two, so if there was some glaring mistake missed, frankly, you had your shot and didn't take it then; those who sit on their hands can hardly be outraged when things are decided by others. Montanabw^(talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't recall asking who promoted it, and I didn't know Dank and Casliber could promote articles. Dank supports on prose only (a partial support) and Cas supports everything. Perhaps you could sit on your hands while you're reading WP:CCC and thinking of something helpful to say about the content of the article instead of the persons involved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi both, thank you for spliting the FA-based issue away from the list issue, I think that's certainly made it easier to follow the discussion. I'm, obviously, not able to comment on the amount of time that any of the reviewers, GA, PR, or FA spent on the article, but I, and I suspect many readers, are greatful for the the time they put in and the way they have all shaped the article (for what it's worth indopug's comments created a nicely enguaged thread with compromises from several viewpoints) . This, of course, includes Sandy, whose Oppose in the first review caused a great many changes to the article. From my reading of the thread, the issues that you both raise appear to be as much about the process of the FA review as it is about this particular article. Given that Sandy has already stated an suggested we take the article to FAR - I suspect that's the best route, as then we can have the wider discussion about the FA reviewing process, "driveby supporters", "superficial "supports"", and so on. I understand that an editor is only aloud to have one nomination for FAR at a time - I'm happy to do it on Sandy's Behalf if that works for people.Fayedizard (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm in no rush to bring this to FAR; it can wait until after Christmas, so the one nom at a time doesn't concern me. I am concerned that following on the debacle that was Imagine (song) as TFA (another article that many argued was unprepared) that we not run another unprepared article. This article needs work; it is not mainpage ready. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Fayed, I also think it is important for you to know that the FAR won't be looking at the FAC process itself and whether it was or was not adequate. That's all in the past now, and the FA status is a done deal. FAR will instead focus on whether the article currently meets the standards expected of an FA, and if people believe not, then by working to try to bring things up to snuff. It would be much better to try and address people's concerns before going to FAR, where the stress and pressure is much greater, and there is a risk that the FA status would get removed. And I am sure that everybody would prefer to avoid both FAR and obviously the removal of the FA status. People have already started to work on improving aspects of the article, which is great, but I have to agree with Mathew and Sandy that there are still lots of issues in terms of comprehensiveness, verifiability etc, and it would be nice to sort these out as soon as possible. I could try and help more than I have been, but only if you want the help.Slp1 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandy and Slp1. --John (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• I see some changes; ok, so now we have three paragraphs on the man's career from 1975 to present (almost 40 years). That's all we can say about a man of this stature? I think the problem is clear here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

  The first step would probably be to bring in summaries of what is currently in the "see also" section: Bekenstein–Hawking formula, Gibbons–Hawking ansatz, Gibbons–Hawking effect, Gibbons–Hawking space, Gibbons–Hawking–York boundary term, Hartle–Hawking state (this appears to already be mentioned in the text, though not linked). That does, though, need to be guided by the most up-to-date and authoritative overview of his work that is available, otherwise the balance will be all wrong. It is also very possible to prosify the awards list if details are brought in such as awarding institution (not all are listed), the date and location of the presentation of the award, lectures delivered as part of the award, citations for the awards (usually only for the major ones, many will be very similar), and so on. It is usually also possible to arrange thematically or chronologically into several paragraphs. I may try and help if I have time. The proposed main page appearance date is his birthday (8 January)? Carcharoth (talk) 02:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Agree with Carcharoth. Good idea to prosify the awards list with details that would add information. Also agree with integrating the "See also" section, accompanied by explanations that are "guided by the most up-to-date and authoritative overview of his work that is available". He was primarily a theoretical physicist rather than a sports better or a person with an illness. I'd like to see a format similar to that of Charles Darwin or Albert Einstein, explaining the evolution of his thinking as well as an explanation of his scientific contributions that made him famous. The TOC of Charles Darwin shows the evolution of Darwin's thinking i.e. how his life experiences influenced his scientific contributions. The TOC of Albert Einstein separates his "Biography" from his "Scientific career", giving neither short shrift. I think more of Hawking's personal life similarly could be included, which includes his illness and how he dealt with it.

  And since Hawking made great efforts "to help non-scientists understand fundamental questions of physics and our existence", I think this article should attempt to do the same, rather than just linking to general articles on scientific concepts like Big Bang that only link but don't explain the Hartle–Hawking state. That's why I think it's especially important to include the topics in "See also" (the linked articles are not informative) in the article with explanations the non-scientist can understand. These are my thoughts and others may not agree. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above, including the need to prosify the awards and in some cases the other lists, and also to expand the aspects of his personal and academic life. On the personal level, for example, and as a very minor point, but one that struck me, we have a lot about his use of speech generating devices, but nothing about when he started to use a wheelchair, which must have been a big step too. I went to the library yesterday and got the Ferguson 2011/2012 bio [16] and the 2002 of the White and Gribbin bio [17], as well as this interesting scholarly book [18]. I am very busy over Christmas-as many people are- but could try and work on some of the issues identified using these, and perhaps some other resources. On the other hand I don't want to tread on Fayedwizard's toes.Slp1 (talk) 13:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of prosified awards (just one I ran across, not necessarily the best):

Awards and honours in the article Roger Penrose. It helps to explain his work by rounding out the awards, I think. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Organization and other comments

I have been going through the article, checking the sources and adding pages numbers where needed. I have also been expanding the article where it seems there is information in the bios that help to round out the man and his life, and clarify some issues. I am aware that I may have included too much detail; somehow it seems easier to include what seem to be the main points and then condense it down. I would welcome other editors' comments about this and help sorting out what pruning would help.

I have also got to the point in the bios where he gets diagnosed with ALS, meets Jane and gets married. The bios are all linear and I tend to prefer that approach myself. Would people object if we tried to incorporate the "Personal Life", "Illness" "Awards" and maybe some other subsections into the text in a more linear way? I think it would help; for example, in the current organization, we need to talk about doing his PhD and the impact of his illness on it, but the information about the illness/diagnosis is several sections below. We could have a section about "Views" or something with the religious information, alien stuff and maybe his scientific approach??? at the end. For some scientists etc it would be fine to separate out the information into career and personal life (and illness) etc, but with Hawking they seems so intertwined that it does not seem to make sense to do it that way --Slp1 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

I have also read through the article and tried to implement some improvements. I agree with your proposal. It's kind of questionable how this article got the FA star while in such relatively poor shape. --John (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have to confess that some of the errors you fixed were ones I introduced during my rewriting. I'm trying to focus my limited time on checking the sources and reworking. I'm being as careful as I can but welcome the editing of others to correct the things I miss. Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The flow and organizational problems have persisted since at least the first FAC, and since Fayedizard hasn't before and isn't now working on it, I think it fine for Slp1 to reorg as necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Since there haven't been any objections, I have decided to restart, with the plan to merge most of the information as I go. Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm also wondering why we have a section on 1975 to present: 37 years in one section, three paras. Is that (1975) a normal/natural break in terms of his career? At what point did he become a "pop culture" figure? Would that be a more natural breaking point, once the text is expanded? Or something else ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:34, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I also don't know why the "bet" is a separate section, when it part of the 1975 to present timewise. It think it is likely to be a legacy of the fact that it was imported from a merged article or something like that. Slp1 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

agree that a reorganization and a linear approach is the way to go (incorporating "Personal Life", "Illness", "Awards", "Views" etc. as suggested. It's not as if his illness, for example, was a specific period of his life; rather it is interwoven with and affected his entire adult life. And part of his bio is how he dealt with it all, IMO. e.g. the various wheelchairs, manual, electric etc. but the article seems to dwell on the speaking device when other aspects of his disability definitely impinged on his life - things that he daily had to deal with and overcome. (Not important for the article but it's interesting how the laws of the UK and the US varied in accommodations for those with disabilities - e.g. what he and his wife had to go through in England because it lacked accommodations gives a glimpse of what daily life for him was like. ) MathewTownsend (talk) 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

See also removed

I disagree both with this removal, and with the reasoning given for it; all of that is information that should be incorporated somehow in the article if the article is to meet 1b, comprehensive. Removing it entirely is less desirable than incorporating it into the text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:12, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I took a look at all of them and most of them were small stubs on obscure concepts that don't seem very relevant to Hawking's biography. In fact Bekenstein–Hawking formula isn't even an article - it was a redirect to Black hole thermodynamics which doesn't even mention the formula. I changed that one to a redlink in the hope that someone will fill it out one day. Of the other articles, the only one that seems plausible to integrate here would be Hartle–Hawking state. The others are of no interest to anyone but specialists and there is no indication that they were especially significant to Hawking's career. Granted, I'm basing these assumptions on the contents of the articles and haven't dug through the sources to verify it. I should also state that I'm not a theoretical physicist :) Kaldari (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The agree with the removal of these links. Binksternet (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

The quality of Wikipedia articles on the topics isn't what we use to determine whether the concepts should be included in this article. This article should be comprehensive; whether those articles are stubs on Wikipedia has no bearing on WP:WIAFA.

I see Slp1 is at work now with the sources, so perhaps we should leave a copy of the list here should she uncover anything useful on any of these topics as she works:

• Bekenstein–Hawking formula
• Gibbons–Hawking ansatz
• Gibbons–Hawking effect
• Gibbons–Hawking space
• Gibbons–Hawking–York boundary term
• Hartle–Hawking state

I also see that Slp1 is adding page numbers as she works. The number of factual errors and misrepresentation of sources gives pause wrt the integrity of the article. She is finding enough that the entire article may need to be checked for factual accuracy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't saying we shouldn't link to them because they were stubs, I was pointing out that they were unlikely to be significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article, and part of my evidence for that was the fact that they were merely 2 or 3 sentence stubs. Compare them with Hawking radiation which is an enormous article. Obviously this isn't a scientific test, but considering the number of physics geeks editing Wikipedia, I think its fairly indicative of their importance. I do think Hartle–Hawking state might be an exception, however. If no one can figure out how to integrate it into the article, I wouldn't object to re-adding it as a See Also link. Kaldari (talk) 21:45, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

There is something in the article already on the Hartle–Hawking state. It is in the paragraph beginning: "In collaboration with Jim Hartle...". I pointed this out above, along with a list of the 'see also' links. I do have a copy of Ferguson's biography now, if any help is needed, but I'm wary of too many people getting involved with this article as the lead in terms of overall balance should be taken by those who have read most of the main sources (which I have not done). Carcharoth (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

My feeling is that all of this will be sorted out as we work through the bios and other sources. That will give us a good feel about which of these should be included and which not. Carcharoth, if you have time to work on a section or two using Ferguson, that would be great. When I worked with User:qp10qp on Learned Hand I started at the beginning of Hand's life and Qp started about midway through and then we joined in the middle! It seemed to work okay. I think Ferguson is pretty solid as a source, with both the life and the science incorporated. I can always check/expand things from other sources I have to hand if needed. --Slp1 (talk) 15:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Kaldari said, I was pointing out that they were unlikely to be significant enough to warrant inclusion in this article, and part of my evidence for that was the fact that they were merely 2 or 3 sentence stubs. Compare them with Hawking radiation which is an enormous article. Again and still, that is faulty reasoning, FYI. The determination of whether these items belong in the article per WP:WIAFA is made by a comprehensive survey of the highest quality sources. Wikipedia does not fall remotely into that category. This article should not have passed FAC with these lengthy lists, which indicates a thorough survey of the relevant literature wasn't done.

Excellent work so far, Slp1; the article is being written! Carcharoth, go ahead and dig in, Slp1 is so easy to work with (the Learned Hand collaboration was an excellent result where she was involved, and I've worked on numerous other articles with her). I see a scanty lead, but that can always be done last. I have holiday houseguests, two parties, and nasty bronchitis, but will dip in as I'm able; I'm so impressed that you two are willing to do this work over the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for not doing any work on this. I need to deal with a few other things (off-wiki) over the next few days. What does the timetable look like now in terms of what may still need doing? I could read a chapter of Ferguson, but not much more than that. Carcharoth (talk) 00:24, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

The possible date for mainpage is the 8th of January, which is coming up soon. I also am very tied up for the next couple of days, and to be honest am finding reading through the books very slow going. Ferguson has section divisions at Chapters 7, 13 and 17. If you have time to have a go at starting one of these that would be great. --Slp1 (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I read the first two chapters (to get a feel for the book), but not much more yet. I did leaf through the rest of the book, but won't have enough time before the 8th to really make any meaningful contribution. I'll say that at the TFA discussion if that is still going. Carcharoth (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Bekenstein–Hawking formula

I now have a couple of books that mention the history of the Bekenstein-Hawking theory regarding black hold thermodynamics, first proposed in 1973. There's plenty of info on Bekenstein–Hawking formula per Google[19] Not sure I'm smart enough to understand this though. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Something happened there; no time to investigate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, yea, pretty clear that the redirect should not have been removed. Black hole thermodynamics#Black hole entropy, and it has now been reinstated by a member of WP Physics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 December 2012

Please change the author details of reference 72: the co-editor is Gibbons, not Gibbon. 2.96.216.230 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Someone seems to have done this; the overall citation looks goofy, so I'm working on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

• See Guth (1997) for a popular description of the workshop, or The Very Early Universe, ISBN 0-521-31677-4 eds Hawking, Gibbons & Siklos for a more detailed report.

What is Guth? It's not listed in the Bibliography. The Gibbons citations is all wrong; they are editors. I don't speak harv ref, but it needs to be fixed still. I think Gibbons should be listed first. [20] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Timing

My view is that, considering the extent of the problems and the significant rewrite needed, it is difficult to imagine that anyone has the necessary time to commit to this over the holidays. I don't; I have guests and two parties to host. Anyone? Considering also that the final result is likely to need re-appraisal to determine if it meets FA standards at FAR, I continue to suggest that this year is not the time to run it at TFA. It is his 71st birthday; 72nd will do just as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 20 December 2012 (UTC)  Done, not scheduled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

BLP issue

I agree with this removal of dubious text about the divorce, and wonder why better sources weren't used for such text. We have several biographies; if they were used more, and better, the "gossipy" tabloid tone of the article might improve. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I too agree with the removal based on the flimsiness of the source. However, it was a significant if uncomfortable story, and is covered by non-tabloid sources so it does need to be included. For example, it is referenced on Stephen Hawking: His Life and Work by Kitty Ferguson, on pp 326, 366 and 372 (ISBN 0857500740). --John (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Typo under Early Life and Education

I believe neuron is misspelled as neurone in line 7 of this article. I can't change it.Drlithoi (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2012 (UTC)drlithoi In the last sentence of the first paragraph in Early Life and Education, the article calls him "Hawkins" (sic). I can't change it. 108.83.240.144 (talk) 07:03, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for pointing this out. I've fixed it now.--Slp1 (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

 Done SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Comprehensive survey of relevant literature

We have two sources in Further reading, and the entire NYT archive in External links. To encompass a survey of the relevant literature, these sources (at least) need to be consulted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 28 December 2012 (UTC) As of this version:

1. At least the New York Times tells us why he's important; our article doesn't. We need to work something in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
2. Nowhere do we mention anything of the significance of Hawkings' work on black holes: "Dr. Hawking discovered by a prodigious calculation in 1974 that black holes can radiate energy, evaporate and eventually disappear, a revelation that set physics on its ear and helped reset cosmologists’ agenda for the 21st century." We mention black holes, but never put it in context. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:23, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
3. We don't appear to have addressed a lot of this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
4. We don't explain the signficance of or context for his zero gravity flight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:30, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
5. The Guardian also summarizes Hawkings' significance, as well as more of a glimpse of the person, missing in this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

These are likely to be very helpful for figuring out issues of balance, I think, as well as how to summarize his academic work and achievement in summary form and in lay language. I will look into them later. Thank you. Slp1 (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

External links

Why is the mathematics genealogy project in External links? [21] It is a user-contributor site (a wiki) and I can't decipher any reason for it to be in WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It's user generated to some extent, but they do check things. I've corrected a few errors, from a university address, and they did not do a thorough cross examination. :)

I believe it is supported by the American Mathematical Society and by the ___ foundation (both serious), and it is reputable. There have been discussions of its reliability at the relevant article. The advisor and students of a notable mathematicians are always of interest, and that site is the most reliable source. I don't think there's any question that the site is more reputable than any other source, except for the c.v.s of academics not under indictment. :) Departments maintain checks on their graduates and mathematicians monitor their family trees, so there are few errors. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Look at the article history if you want to see examples of "not fun". Kiefer.Wolfowitz 20:19, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Question still, why is it in External links? What does it add that shouldn't be in a comprehensive article anyway? Any of Hawking's notable students should be mentioned in the article already and cited to high quality sources, per WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

FAR query

Timing ? Fayed seems to have abandoned the article after its premature promotion, MathewTownsend is now blocked, and Carcharoth and Slp1 seem to be willing to or doing the most work on the article. I can pitch in with minor items, but don't have time to add the missing comprehensiveness. Regardless of how much we are able to fix now, the article's FA status will need to be re-evaluated at FAR, since it has needed a complete rewrite.

Would those who are working on the article prefer that we initiate the FAR now, or wait until more work is done?

Separately, I will create a unique archive for the FAR issues, so we won't have to retype all of the issues when the article goes to FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wow. I've been away and super busy for the last few days, and see what I come back to! Okay, well I would prefer to put off the FAR for a while, to try and get as much as possible cleaned up first. The houseguests are leaving soon, the major holiday celebrations and parties are done and dusted, and I should have time to get back to this shortly. I'm glad the pressure of the potential TFA has been removed, though. --Slp1 (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC).

Works for me ... you are a real trooper to salvage this article, Slp1. Happy New Year, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Awards / recognition

Why has Stephen Hawking not been awarded a knighthood? He has done more than any other living British person to popularise science and bring to the forefront of society the theories behind the evolution of everything. He has made significant scientific discoveries and is rightly the modern equivalent of Sir Isaac Newton, whose position at Cambridge he also held.

130.255.26.167 (talk) 09:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, apparently he declined.TR 10:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

This week

I am currently editing from an incredibly slow connection which means that the page can take about 30 mins to load or save. As a result I have been editing in larger chunks than normal. Unfortunately it seems that I reinstated a mistake in just such an edit... I thought I had an edit conflict with myself as I had tried to save multiple times, but it seems it was with somebody else. Anyway, I am sorry for the trouble: I am just trying to get on with this article in rather trying circumstances. Slp1 (talk) 20:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

family?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

 Not done Twelve days since MathewTownsend's query: Fayed, are you planning to work further on this article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

In terms of personal life, it may be relevant to talk about his reluctancy to accept help. There are several anecdotes which show that he would rather people treat him as though he had no disability; he feels as though it is belittling when others offer help. This supports the claim that he would like to be known as a scientist first and a disability icon second. kathvogt (talk) 20:04, 18 February 2013 (UTC)