Talk:Stephen Hawking

NHS / Socialised Healthcare

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

"Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 3 § Stephen Hawking CH CBE FRS FRSA until a consensus is reached. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 06:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Personal information

parent name and wife name 36.252.69.73 (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2023

Change: Hawking claimed to be an atheist.

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

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

Recent allegations of sexual misconduct regarding Hawking’s name being mentioned in the Epstein client clist

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)

Allegations of what? HiLo48 (talk) 05:03, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Exactly WHAT do you want to allege? HiLo48 (talk) 06:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

Alleged but still serious.

Disappointing, really... 2A02:2F01:6305:800:75F3:84B5:6546:D48B (talk) 09:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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} _{(talk・contribs)} 04:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

So she was just lying to cover her tracks/ avoid being sued by Hawking's family? Martinevans123 (talk) 18:05, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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} _{(talk・contribs)} 03:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

There is no deadline. —Panamitsu (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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

the word pedophile in the lead Bomberswarm2 (talk) 05:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

That's not going to happen without a lot more evidence. HiLo48 (talk) 05:46, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Admins give Hitler here a perma ban for dictatorial conduct. Obviously a paid Hawking defender. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 10:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

We're not a tabloid. It would take rock solid sourcing to even allege that. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6250471-Epstein-Docs - Please read section 1e) of the "Epstein Documents". YorkshireiteAcademic (talk) 18:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Very well put. 2A02:1388:2095:90FD:7813:4BF5:6849:E133 (talk) 07:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)