Talk:Dennis Gabor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spouse[edit]

In the short bio on the right, one could get the impression he died in 1971 by the phrase 'his death'. It more likely her death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.118.124 (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

At the top of the article it says that he died in "no, England" this is obviously a mistake as clearly there is no such place in England, please change it to the correct place of death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.163.142 (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

done —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.120.66 (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Doodle[edit]

IMHO the mention of Google Doodle is not significant, so it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.34.145.121 (talk) 00:33, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done (again). Wikipedia is for facts, not trivia about what a web site does to honor the subject. SJ2571 (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. With that said, a TON of people will now be frequenting this wiki because of the Google Doodle. Try to keep an eye on it if you can, and add information if possible. John 07:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it IS relevant that the world's search engine felt Dennis important enough to be honoured in this way. Why can't there be a "Been the subject of a Google Doodle" category? It would make very interesting and educational browsing. Johnalexwood (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is not the king of all life on Earth. Just because a search engine put him on their search page, doesn't make it encyclopedic material. An encyclopedia is just for the facts of the subjects it contains. SJ2571 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could go in a section titled "In Popular Culture" or something of the sort? I don't see how it hurts to put that in there. The more information the better, I say. Bradj47 (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double info[edit]

Everything is on the page twice and someone keeps reverting the changes when i make them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.84.88 (talk) 04:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake, it looked like someone was deleting the article on bit at a time. SeaphotoTalk 04:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Thank you to the last editor for removing "I am Dennis Gabor" and "bullshit" below it. Some idiots playing with wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.132.137.170 (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Award list[edit]

Everything in the award list is there about four times and they are sometimes complete and sometimes not.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.109.216 (talk) 06:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC) /Edit: Seems that someone has corrected this, while i was writing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.188.109.216 (talk) 06:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot of repeated info in the bullet points for awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.78.161 (talk) 06:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death[edit]

Someone should add his date of death, 8-Feb-1979, to the table that says when he was born —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.19.135 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Standells 13:42, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for semiprotection[edit]

I request the article be semi-protected because Google has mentioned Dennis Gabor and when users click on the doodle, it shows the Wikipedia article near the top, an easy target for vandalism. ELITE 3000 (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think it's OK, as long as people haven't vandalised it already. Seems they have and the article is semi-protected already. --Joshua Issac (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Dwks, 5 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}}

I think "He received numerous awards beside the Nobel Prize." should be changed to "He received numerous awards besides the Nobel Prize." (note 's' on "besides") to be grammatically correct, since Google's logo is about Dennis Gabor for today and this page could receive high traffic. Dwks (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dwks (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done --Joshua Issac (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mandydeth, 5 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} I think a picture should be added to the top section. I have uploaded one here: 250px

Mandydeth (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide the copyright information for this image? --87.123.75.91 (talk) 16:58, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done Yes, licensing info is needed before the picture can be added. Please add the license and re-request the edit. CTJF83 pride 17:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hungarian/British or British/Hungarian[edit]

Is there any objection to changing Dr. Gabor's nationality from British/Hungarian to Hungarian/British? He was Hungarian before he was British. Blake the bookbinder (talk) 17:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

British-Hungarian is more common than Hungarian-British, like Anglo-American, British Indian, etc. --Joshua Issac (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well Anglo-American sort of proves my point. 'Anglo' (England) describes where the person or idea originated, and 'American' is where it ended up, thus Anglo-American. The first part of the hyphenated phrase acts as an adjective modifying the second (see Japanese Australian, Finnish-Canadian and even British American) where the first word denotes where the person originated (What kind of Australian is he? He's a Japanese Australian). I suspect the problem with 'Hungarian-British' is that 'British' does not sound right to the English-speaking ear because 'British' can't be used as a noun like like 'American', 'Australian' and 'Canadian' can be. (The word 'Brit' sometimes informally fills this role - ie. 'He's a proper Brit' - but to say that Dr. Gabor was a Hungarian-Brit sounds a bit too informal for this use). However, when read in the light of the more commonly-used construction (ie. Japanese Australian, Finnish Canadian and British American), to write that Dr. Gabor was a British-Hungarian scientist is misleading (it indicates that he was a Brit who became a Hungarian). Since the only reasoning given is that British-Hungarian is 'more common' than Hungarian-British (an opinion about which I have my doubts since the term is not used on the page Hungarians in the United Kingdom but the terms 'Hungarian-British' and 'Hungarian/British' are), I'm changing Dr. Gabor's nationality modifiers to indicate the order in which he obtained them: he was born a Hungarian who later took up British citizenship. Blake the bookbinder (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the style for Gabor should generally be based on common usage in England. "hyphenated-Americans" are almost always "Fooish-Americans" or something similar. What are immigrants to England usually called by English writers? How are the same people usually referred to elsewhere in the Commonwealth or in North America? However, this issue could be mooted by dropping the hyphenation from the lead as contrary to our style. According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies), "The opening paragraph should have:... 3.Nationality and ethnicity – 1.In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen or national, or was a citizen when the person became notable." Since Gabor was a British citizen, achieved his notability after leaving Hungary, and all of his notable work was in England, he should be a "British electrical engineer..." His membership in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences was honorary. He is already identified as Hungarian by the bit about his birthname in the lead, by his birthplace in the infobox, and by the expanded information of his origin in the Biography section. Alternately, the lead could be expanded to something like this: "Dennis Gabor CBE, FRS (original Hungarian name: Gábor Dénes; 5 June 1900 – 8 February 1979) was a British electrical engineer and inventor. After completing his education and beginning his electronics research in Hungary, he left for England in 1933. He has been recognixed for his 1947 invention of holography, for which he received the 1971 Nobel Prize in Physics." It could also start with "...was a Hungarian-born British electrical engineer...", although that seems redundant. The Biography section could also be broken up into "Early life and education" and subsequent sections. --Hjal (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religion[edit]

I find it odd that Dennis Gabor is identified as a Jewish Electrical Engineer in the starting paragraph. It's not incorrect, but religious identity (unless strongly tied to position or achievements) is usually saved for the biography section. Any thoughts on this? AbbzAD (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2010 (UTC) AbbzAD[reply]

Exactly what I'm here to comment on. Is it a course in university? "Jewish electrical engineering?" they turn the lights off on sabbath? I don't think it belongs in the intro, really. You don't see phrases like "catholic football player" or "baptist musician" in other intros. The first and latest (all time), preceding and succeeding (gabor) physics N.P. winners don't have their religion stated there.190.16.130.233 (talk) 21:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I've removed it from the introduction, as it's already stated twice in the article. Please discuss here before reverting it. John 23:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Harkinsc, 8 June 2010[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} under "in popular culture," consider adding "In David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest, Hal suggests that 'Dennis Gabor may very well have been the Antichrist' (12)."

citation: Wallace, David Foster. "Infinite Jest." p. 12. New York: Little, Brown, and Co., 1996.

Harkinsc (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Pierce (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Not The Inventor Of Holograms[edit]

Actual holograms, as in science fiction, were invented. Not by this guy. I am trying to find who the inventor was, but Wikipedia is mislabeling holographs holograms, and thwarting my efforts. The two words do not mean the same thing. Calling a holograph a hologram is like calling a pentacle a pentagram. It's very common, but it's entirely incorrect.--174.19.244.195 (talk) 10:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dennis Gabor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:39, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dennis_Gabor&oldid=1194846158"