Talk:Time travel

   A colleague (who didn't take the trouble to encourage constructive discussion by even saving -- for those who care who the colleague is or when they held forth -- the trouble of searching the edit history) did add to Time travel#Tourism in time the following comment markup (to which i've added meta-markup, on this talk page, trying to make the markup display in a more intuitively clear way here):

"This picture would explain why we haven't been over run [sic]

<!-- several people have tried to edit this, but note that it says "over run" rather than "overrun" in the original essay on Hawking's website, and direct quotes should match the original source so please don't change it -->

by tourists from the future."

   The colleague's concern for non-misrepresentation is praiseworthy, even tho the wording "have tried to edit" reeks too much of the Inquisition or the Klan, and the typographic travesty that is their solution may not even be appropriate for some critical edition of Hawking's works. Here -- leaving behind the pedants' concern about who (Hawking, an editor, a typesetter?) is responsible for the inappropriate internal space -- is an encyclopedia-appropriate version of the passage:

"This picture would explain why we haven't been [overrun] by tourists from the future."

It's literate, harmless, almost devoid of distraction, and not significantly better nor worse than

Stephen Hawking says that this picture would explain why our times haven't been overrun by "tourists from the future."{{cn|date=January 2015}}

--Jerzy•t 04:21 & 07:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Time machine (device) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 19:16, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello @William M. Connolley. I disagree with you massive edit. First, religious narratives ≠ myth in WP:Wikivoice. While Hindu mythology and Japanese legends are routinely referred to as mythological in academic literature, Abrahamic religious narratives especially ones drawn from scripture, we often describe these using neutral terms such as "religious tradition" etc. I am strongly opposed to collapsing them all into the "mythical" heading.

Second, The stories of Honi HaMe'agel, the Seven Sleepers (Aṣḥāb al-Kahf), and Uzair involve explicit temporal displacement spanning centuries from the figure's perspective. It is "forward-only time travel" via time suspension or dilation and hence, is highly relevant to the article's subject matter.

The previous structure had contextual and theological distinctions which is now blurred by the recent change. Abrahamic religions approach the article's subject matter with different theological framing(e.g., divine will, prophecy, metaphysical lessons), which I think, differs from Hindu or Buddhist mythologies.

I would urge you to self-rv for now. I'm ready to help revise or tighten any sections as needed. StarkReport (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

I renamed "Mythical time travel" to "In ancient fiction". Myth, legend, narratives can all be accommodated this away.

The change by William M. Connolley generally improved the article by removing redundant and marginally relevant content. The differences between religious traditions is not relevant to the topic of time travel. The general character of time suspension is not really in line with time travel. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. We don’t label Abrahamic religions such as Christianity and Islam as "ancient fiction" unless WP:RS sources explicitly do so. That is just your personal POV. Plus, collapsing all religions into a generic label erases important contextual and theological distinctions. Abrahamic religions engage with the concept of time through distinct theological lenses, which warrant their own framing within the broader topic of time travel.

I will therefore be renaming the section to "In religion." It's appropriate, neutral and concise.

P.S. If you want to remove the bit about the Japanese legend or perhaps the Raivata Kakudmi myth, I’m not necessarily opposed to that. StarkReport (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

I did not label any religions. This discussion concerns stories about long time sleeping.

On the other hand I don't see any difference between "In ancient fiction" and "In religion" so I'm fine with your edit. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Publisher ‏ : ‎ Basic Books Publication date ‏ : ‎ November 9, 2007 Language ‏ : ‎ English Print length ‏ : ‎ 239 pages ISBN-10 ‏ : ‎ 156858363X ISBN-13 ‏ : ‎ 978-1568583631 Item Weight ‏ : ‎ 7.2 ounces Dimensions ‏ : ‎ 5.5 x 0.6 x 8.25 inches Best Sellers Rank: #781,650 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

1. 164 in Relativity Physics (Books)
2. 550 in Scientist Biographies
3. 2,280 in History & Philosophy of Science (Books)

Customer Reviews: 4.5 4.5 out of 5 stars (269) 2601:282:1F21:186E:ED2A:AF7C:E6E1:C6BA (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Will the following link be accepted: Time Slips? תיל"ם (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, this is a YouTube video of a narrator describing an recollection by Carl Jung and a friend; they claimed to have seen mosaics in a church that did not exist but which match descriptions of mosaics in a church that had burnt down centuries ago.

Seem like this would be more suitable for Synchronicity or Time Slip. The video does not discuss travel but only recollections of an inaccessible past. Johnjbarton (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

The History section seems badly in need of an overhaul.

1. The origins of forward jumps in time lie in myth and legend; some in a religious context, others not. But this is not time travel as such (e.g. it does not meet the definition at the beginning of the article), and such examples should be presented as no more than precursors to the idea. The secular aspect is as significant as the religious.
2. In the section on Science fiction, the dream examples are not time travel as such, any more than long sleep is. A dream is not science fiction, it is just fiction - or, if it tuns out to be true, fantasy.
3. The Early time machines are a subset of science fiction, not a separate topic. The heading hierarchy should reflect this.
4. The modern equivalent of myth and legend is fantasy fiction; a Fantasy subtopic is missing. Notable are the dream stories noted above, including for example the unfinished time-travelling novels of JRR Tolliken, which literary commentators have discussed.

Does anybody have strong objections to an overhaul on these lines? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:02, 2 April 2026 (UTC)

Anything that reliable sources call "time travel" is suitable subject. "History" should cite historians or at least reliable meta commentators. Since fiction may or may not evolve, a topic like time-travel in fantasy need not be in History. I'm not answering you question but I hope this helps give a sense of what I would look for. give it a try! Johnjbarton (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2026 (UTC)