Talk:Jim Al-Khalili

message: If he is muslim, it should be mentioned. 87.101.224.234 (talk) 04:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Muslim 

message: Prof Al-Khalili is speaking on BBC Radio Four as I type.  I thought his first choice of music, She's Not There, was particularly appropriate for a theoretical physicist!
Worth of mention in the main article?
R L Lacchin (Gloucester, UK) (talk) 11:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 81.246.165.184 (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desert Island Discs (14th Feb 2010) 

message: 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.--Vox Humana 8' 01:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 81.246.165.184 (talk) 21:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.--66.240.163.101 (talk) 14:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISBN numbers 

message: Does he know Arabic?--Aa2-2004 (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arabic 

message: The section on science broadcasting could add details of the programme which he has began to present on BBC Four on electricity. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Programme on electricity

message: Mr. Sad Dick sometimes is a simpleton (at the BBC atom documentary). Study deeper the probability theory. Particles are related probabilistic phenomena which are continuous in space, but their probabilistic density is harmoniously quantized. Harmony means least common multiple, but because of the renormalization deviations do occur in some cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:F300:D88F:F089:47F1:5C81 (talk • contribs) 08:14, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  probabilistically conditional probability — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:410A:F300:D88F:F089:47F1:5C81 (talk • contribs) 08:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: From Jesus Christ

message: I have commenced a tidy-up of the Bibliography section using cite templates. Capitalization and punctuation follow standard cataloguing rules in AACR2 and RDA, as much as Wikipedia templates allow it. ISBNs and other persistent identifiers, where available, are commented out, but still available for reference. Feel free to continue. Sunwin1960 (talk) 10:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: There appears to be an editing glitch regarding the programme "The Life Scientific".
The first reference gives the correct year (2011) and features the first programme with Paul Nurse, the second states date to be the same as a preceding one of 2012.   Can these be tidied as a single correctly-dated reference?
ThanksPhysicistQuery (talk) 23:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. There was duplication of "The Life Scientific" content; I combined it into one paragraph and there's no longer the mention of "in the same year" (meaning 2012). Schazjmd (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start date of Life Scientific and duplication