This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Regarding the issue of whether I am a Muslim or not, my religious beliefs are private. In fact, I am not a Muslim. My father is, and my mother is a practicing Christian. I am an atheist. But I do not feel this is something that needs to be common knowledge on my wikipedia page.
Jim Al-Khalili Phs1ja (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
WOW is that really you Prof.? I'm really honored. I'm a hug fan of you. I'm a 26 years old Iraqi Electrical Enginerr, I work in Saudi Arabia. Its a great honor to meet you online 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, it's probably not a matter of privacy after it's been explicitly published in the Guardian. If you want it removed here for security or other reasons you would need to raise a wikipedia OTRS ticket on it, and they will delete it here and on the main page.- Wolfkeeper 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Wikipidians can argue till the cows come home about these few words- the fact of the matter is that as a result of watching "chemistry" on bbci and coming to this resource to find out more, I, a two times Physics drop out from the '80s, have been inspired to go back to Physics and chemistry using the web resources of Prof Al-Khalili and others and begin again the journey of exploration for myself - from a school chemistry technician. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
If that's the best you can do, don't. You're on the verge of religious mania - disproportionate worship of your fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
What a bizarre outburst! I'd never heard of the man until I switched on the radio and heard him speak. If it's not appropriate, please feel free to say so, but keep things in proportion! (I see someone has added it anyway.) R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK) (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk)
I should probably mention at this stage a mild conflict of interest, in that my 11-year-old brother's best friend is the professor's nephew... is that important enough to be considered COI? Yes? No? Whatever. Right. OK. My point is, should we include ISBN numbers for Prof Al-Khalili's books as generally useful information, or remove them as being tantamount to advertisement? I've not been as active on Wikipedia as I used to be, so I'm out of touch with the relevant rules/policies/whatever.--VoxHumana8' 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Until someone can answer my NPOV comments, I think there are many other things in this encyclopaedia you could better spend your time on. This article is a prime demonstration of why Wikipedia urges articles not to be written on living persons. Firstly, it's author is at the very least an acolyte of the subject, infringing NPOV. Secondly, just as mediaeval scribes didn't start copying until after the author's death (not least in case the author ended up on the wrong side of the Inquisition, putting the copyist on the spot), so we shouldn't until an independant authority has established serious history - we infringe original work. Thirdly, contentiousness: he's a theoretical physicist turned pundit, he has no qualifications as a historian. If you must, put a couple of links to Amazon, Waterstones and Barnes & Noble in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
You seem to have failed to understand NPOV. Neutral point of view is nothing to do with who writes the article or when, it's to do with matching the article to what is in reliable sources about the subject. You're also failing to understand that his work has been published by a broadcaster, and hence has been through an editorial process. These are the things that the Wikipedia requires, not whether somebody is claimed by you to be an 'acolyte' or not.- Wolfkeeper 21:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
ISBN numbers are about "sharing the world's knowledge". They work just as well in your local public library and are not considered intrinsically commercial in nature.--22.214.171.124 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)