Talk:Stephen Hawking

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleStephen Hawking is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 20, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
February 6, 2010Good article nomineeNot listed
February 16, 2012Good article nomineeListed
February 29, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
March 28, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
June 17, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
August 10, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 3, 2012Featured article candidatePromoted
February 23, 2014Featured article reviewDemoted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on March 14, 2018.
Current status: Former featured article

NHS / Socialised Healthcare[edit]

I find it surprising that the section on his views includes no mention of his forthright defence of the UK NHS and socialised medicine. https://www.hawking.org.uk/in-words/speeches/speech-1

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023[edit]

Change: Hawking claimed to be an atheist.

To: Hawking was an atheist. 81.78.67.89 (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Tollens (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Hawking’s name being mentioned in the Epstein client list[edit]

Does anybody know how to factor this in? I know we must wait for more information but at the very least we can add a stub saying there have been “allegations” and then see if the allegations are further proven then we edit accordingly 99.232.236.142 (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of what? HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest putting a subsection about the Epstein court case under the Personal life section, similar to the Sexual harassment lawsuits section on the Danny Elfman article. We will also need to take care to cite from reliable sources, as there are so many news outlets reporting on the Epstein documents as they have been recently made public. Panian513 05:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it’s too early to discuss it as fact but it should definitely be mentioned in personal life as alleged and I mean alleged. I myself have very strong feelings in this but for the sake of journalistic integrity I would stress putting it as alleged until we get further information since this stuff has just been released. I myself am not a confirmed protection user hence why I have brought the subject for someone more skilled in editing and with more power to do so. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there is a good source here from sky news uk
https://news.sky.com/story/epstein-court-documents-latest-prince-andrew-among-those-named-13041708
is the telegraph a reliable source because I know they have an even more detailed article on the allegations against Hawking but I’m unsure if you guys think the telegraph is reliable 99.232.236.142 (talk) 06:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly WHAT do you want to allege? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@99.232.236.142 This source says He said false allegations had been made, including one he described as "the new version in the Virgin Islands that Stephen Hawking participated in an underage orgy", which suggests false allegation so I think it might be a bit early to include it in Hawking's article as of now, we'll probably get more information within the next few days/weeks to write about this correctly. I do think that we should add this to an article relating to Epstein, however. —Panamitsu (talk) 07:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So from what I have read it says that Epstein emailed Maxwell telling her to deny that Stephen Hawking participated in an “underage orgy”. Now obviously we must wait a couple more days for more information to come out but as you can see my main root point here is that Stephen Hawking is being named as complicit since you know Epstein is emailing his accomplice to deny that hawking was a participant basically telling her to lie. Again it’s too early but more confirmation and information will come out soon 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry didn’t read it right I might have misunderstood. So yes Epstein did email about it being a “false allegation”. Again however another source that telegraph article didn’t say that. Again it’s just been a day since the news broke out so we must wait longer do determine if the allegations are true or not. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a really good idea would be to wait for the website hosting the Epstein client list to come back online and then directly access it. This will take longer than the actual news coming out but would be direct evidence and would help clear up a lot of misunderstanding and all 99.232.236.142 (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alleged but still serious.
Disappointing, really... 2A02:2F01:6305:800:75F3:84B5:6546:D48B (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's important to point out that despite what Epstein claimed in the email Giuffre never actually made allegations against Hawking. She was referring to a different academic named Stephen: https://twitter.com/vrsvirginia/status/1263957576653258752 2A00:23C6:E106:F01:D5A6:E6B7:FA72:4F5 (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She can't even spell his name properly? And now it's been all over national TV news, worldwide. That's serious. And somewhat sickening? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In some ways, she speaks better English than Epstein, who misspelled Hawking's name by three letters. Virginia only misspelled it by one letter. lol ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talkcontribs) 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So she was just lying to cover her tracks/ avoid being sued by Hawking's family? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. But I don't think they're reliable sources. Neither Epstein's email nor Virginia's tweet. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talkcontribs) 03:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is another tweet from Virginia: https://twitter.com/VRSVirginia/status/1263981493421920256 . She said "it was not Stephen Hawkins - the scientist in a wheelchair" —— obviously she misspelled Prof. Hawking's name.
While there are many sources on this, I don't think we should put it on Wikipedia. A source is generally reliable does not mean that all its contents are reliable. And we should not indiscriminately write anything on Wikipedia only because it could be found on a reliable source. ——🦝 The Interaccoonale Will be the raccoon race (talkcontribs) 06:56, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely include, since he's in the Epstein documents, but be careful to be strict with the sources. There's a fake image going around about him and midgets that I've seen some people mistake as real. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 22:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note these are allegations. Quite rightly, the page has had an increase in protection to stop vandals. Englandsupport4 (talk) 00:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This issue has already been tackled on other pages. For example, see the last 3-4 years of edit comments for Marvin Minsky. The decision here should follow the consensus elsewhere: it should be included as a subsection in the “Personal life” section, and it should stick solely to the facts while only using the highest caliber of sources.
This is not a new problem. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, and the info should be added asap, since people are coming to Wikipedia to find out information about the ongoing unsealing of the related documents. Phatmatt12188 (talk) 00:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The allegations simply don't exist anymore. They were a case of mistaken identity and instead are directed at a different Stephen.
This was clarified and stated clearly by Giuffre
Furthermore, no formal investigation or actual evidence exists to back the claim up JudaPoor (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ people these allegations don't even exist. They've been stated as misunderstood
They're not "unproven" or "alleged" they simply don't exist and never have in anything other than a misunderstanding JudaPoor (talk) 19:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus Christ is this still going on? He was NOT the Hawking mentioned. This has been stated by THE PERSON WHO THE ALLEGATION WAS ALLEGEDLY FROM
It was a miscommunication and the only mention of the name is on ONE document in an email.
There is no proof to this. There is no proof it's him. Yet actual first hand information that it was a different person from the person themselves.
Just stop it. JudaPoor (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still waiting to read precisely what words people want to add to the article. HiLo48 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the word pedophile in the lead Bomberswarm2 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not going to happen without a lot more evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Personal attack removed) Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Far, far to early to make any such assumption. TheBritinator (talk) 15:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not a tabloid. It would take rock solid sourcing to even allege that. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rock solid sourcing? The official documents released are a quite good source of information regarding the allegations. There's no need for any other information in the page currently other than the fact that both his visit to the island and the official documents have brought allegations. Contrecona 1800 (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs - Please read section 1e) of the "Epstein Documents". YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When should actions of/allegations made by, a person, be included in the article of the accused and not the article of the person making the accusation? When we are judging what is appropriate editorially, to include in an article, we need to keep in mind what the reliable sources say in their own voice. In this case, reliable sources have published this. Ok. Why should this crap be included here? A lot of notable people, have made claims about say, Obama, Clinton, Trump. Do we include those in their own articles? Usually no. This wouldn't qualify for inclusion either in this article or the Epstein article. Maybe if we create a new list article, say, "List of people associated in any remote way with Jeffrey Epstein", then you guys have a solid case for inclusion of this drivel in that list. — hako9 (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the website hosting the Epstein files is now back online it’s www.courtlistener.com
this is a primary source as it’s literally the court documents themselves so you guys should carefully check out each document relating to this case in order for us to properly explain what Stephen Hawking did 99.232.236.142 (talk) 23:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include these because there’s a good chance that these allegations are genuinely true and mind you the allegations here are far more severe than the people you mentioned. We are talking about potential complicity in child sexual abuse, rape, trafficking and all sorts of horrific crimes of which we have incriminating documents being analyzed as we speak. Once they have been properly verified then we will include this. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your final sentence displays everything but an objective position. There needs to be an "if" there. You are talking about "allegations" of "potential complicity". That is tabloid garbage, and not encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:37, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. 2A02:1388:2095:90FD:7813:4BF5:6849:E133 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epstein Documentation and a Potential Consensus[edit]

Hi all, after reading through both sets of documents. I believe I can help you all come to a consensus regarding whether or not to include the allegations against Steven Hawking in the Wikipedia article. If you would also like to go through both documents related to the currently trending "Epstein Documents" here are the links to both documents (Document 1) (Document 2 - The More Recent Documentation With Direct Mention to Steven Hawking). The first document is the first unsealed documentation, the second are the more recent documents currently circulating around the media including high profile names. The documents are quite long, but if you would like to, have a little read of them and make your own conclusions.

I would however like to point your attention to section 1e) on "Document 1" (p.26 when viewing through .pdf), which issues a cautionary note regarding using the documentation as "concrete fact". While the allegations are serious, bordering on scandalous, the documents themselves are not fact, merely allegations. Wikipedia is a place which should be dedicated to facts, not allegations, conspiracy and gossip.

While personally, I think that the allegations against Hawking are probably correct, the fact of the matter is that we cannot include un-factual statements relating to allegations which could affect the credibility of an individual which may ruin their image/legacy (in this case).

Should more evidence come to light regarding the "Epstein Documents" then the consensus should change regarding including the allegations in the Wikipedia pages of any individuals named in the documents. Personally, I would make a seperate Wikipedia article with a list of allegations made against individuals mentioned within the documentation.

I also think that the evidence for including the allegations in the Wikipedia page is not strong enough, the documentation spans 2000+ pages with a single mention to Hawking in a single specimen within the documentation, the mention also not directing alluding to Hawking being a pedophile, rather alluding to an allegation that Hawking attended an "underage orgy" and a payoff for said allegation for attending said "underage orgy". (The mention to Hawking is on p.391 for any interested in reading the documents and drawing their own conclusions)

In conclusion I don't really think the evidence is strong enough for such a serious allegation to merit it's own sub-section/section within this article. Also given section 1e) in the first documentation makes me question whether the documentation is strong enough to justify itself as a serious citation.

Please feel free to disagree/agree or open up a discussion with your own opinion below! YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if any content is decided to be added to this article (which I think we should not for now), it cannot be based on those documents, it has to be founded on good reliable second and third party sources per WP:PST.--ReyHahn (talk) 12:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding to this the individual who made the original accusation has since clarified this wasn't Stephen Hawking but rather another Stephen.
So at this time there are ZERO credible sources to make baseless accusations from other than a short sentence in an email that's already been disputed JudaPoor (talk) 14:52, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But doesn’t Wikipedia always mention allegations? We always make sure to mention these things as “alleged” I mean I’ve seen articles where a country is listed as allegedly supporting a group and it says clearly alleged. 99.232.236.142 (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it depends. In this case, it was an individual mentioned once in a 2000+ page long legal documentation. In most cases, Wikipedia requires multiple sources of information, especially in cases like this which is likely to harm an individual.
Regardless of mine or anyone's personal opinions, it wouldn't be intelligent to include such an allegation as it's own sub-heading based on such little information. As well considering the warning from the first piece of documentation. YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the right balance, but at this point it seems conspicuous there is no mention of anything related to Epstein. In this case harm would clearly be limited as the subject is no longer alive. Owen (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be some mention of him appearing on the documents and his alleged visits to his island. Leaving them out would seem a bit bias from the perspective of other users. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What words would you suggest we write? HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"In early 2024, documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein scandal were unsealed, revealing names of various individuals, including the late Stephen Hawking. Hawking was mentioned in the context of a science conference he attended in 2006 on Epstein's private Caribbean island, prior to Epstein's first charges for child sex offenses."
My suggestion 14.241.157.210 (talk) 05:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My concern with that is that is says nothing of significance. Why even bother including it? HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with HiLo48, that's a whole lot of nothing. In addition there's the mention above of a retraction of the the original allegation (it wasn't this Stephen). Also the simple fact that he literally was incapable of going anywhere without his personal aide (BTW they were always women) makes the whole non-issue rather ridiculous. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67 What a cop-out response. 2600:100B:B02F:DADE:0:6F:6C97:4101 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're apparently new here. It would probably be of benefit to you if you read WP:Assume good faith and WP:No personal attacks. HiLo48 (talk) 02:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dodger67 To add, I personally believe that you're approaching this from a biased viewpoint as being similarly physically handicapped, and your judgment being unbiased in this matter should be called into question. No offense, but it is a conflict of interest on your part whether you want to admit it or not. 2600:100B:B02F:DADE:0:6F:6C97:4101 (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no similarity at all between my impairment and Hawking's. My comment is based on what is known about this matter, I express no "feelings" at all. Your attempt to make this personal about me is rejected with the contempt it deserves. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:31, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Guys guys guys whilst these are allegations, we still say allegations on the page. In personal life put it as “alleged” and you should be good but factually source it especially from the original document and reputable news outlets 99.232.236.142 (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't mention unproven allegations. Such things are NOT about the subject of an article. In many cases, they tell us more about those doing the alleging. HiLo48 (talk) 00:36, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we mention unproven allegations. We have entire articles about allegations. We even have entire articles about allegations that have been proven untrue. I think the sentences suggested above look good. It might sound like "a whole lot of nothing" but it is of clearly information of interest to people judging by the many news stories involving it, and also helps limit the spread of misinformation by including what is known within the article rather than what people have been claiming with no evidence. Owen (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of most articles covering allegations & sexual misconduct allegations. Most of the allegations with their own article tend to have multiple third party sources, multiple points of allegation as well as various legal specimens/evidence - with some ending in some kind of conviction or legal action (e.g. Andrew Cuomo).
My advice to you would be to then create your own article regarding the allegations regarding Stephen Hawking. However, my understanding is that it would be rejected/be difficult to create on the basis of: the lack of evidence, that no one (to my knowledge) has come forth to allege anything as well as a lack of enough third party sources. YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 16:02, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: No, we don't mention unproven allegations. Except that allegations can even have entire articles on the English Wikipedia due to the extensive secondary reference coverage given within it. Not to mention that they tend to show up on other biographical articles. It's also not like original research is being attributed here given the previous revisions were just paraphrasing what the sources had already established. As per Owen, it could also help with narrowing down on what is certain and what is merely baseless rumors and hearsay you'd find elsewhere. SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 23:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but let's see the proposed wording here first. I have already seen a couple of proposals that are completely unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't include anything at all. As long as it isn't established by reliable secondary sources that the person on the list is indeed the Stephen Hawking of this article, concluding that it is the same person would be plain original research. Of the worst kind. - DVdm (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2024[edit]

lecure in Hebrew University in Jerisalem 2006] with this: [https://hayadan.com/hawking-lecture-huji-14120610 Chestergold (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Link now repaired, thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]