Talk:Shahriar Afshar

CAUTION: Afshar as Wikieditor

Afshar himself is being wiki-editor registered as User:Afshar and has sole contribution to the Afshar experiment article. In his editing practice he used sockpuppeting, and tried to unbalance the main article on Afshar experiment in any possible way. Danko Georgiev MD 09:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

That sounds an awful lot like a warning; should we be concerned that the subject of this article may edit on Wikipedia? I say no. Also, nice comment on your revision - "removing link to iranian yellow press, please quote english source in the English wikipedia". I would be careful using the term 'yellow press', even if justified in this case. Glass houses and such. HydroMagi 03:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Afshar, If you came to undo the edits, can you please tell us where to find your CV? There is nothing on your webpage, except a self written title Professor. Mehranshargh 06:19, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy and Afshar as an editor

It is not certain that User:Afshar is "the guy" who did the Afshar experiment. Maybe User:Afshar is just someone who is really interested in that experiment and took that screen name as a kind of Homage,

But it does raise an interesting issue: Wikipedia has a policy that articles may not contain "original research," right?

To me, a strict interpretation of that policy would mean that if Albert Einstein were still alive, he would be disqualified from editing an article about the theory of Special Relativity.

I experience some cognitive dissonance here.

Who better than Albert Einstein to edit that article?

But, rules are rules.

Right? Cyclopiano (talk) 07:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Inventors of theories often lack perspective on their theories' validity and importance. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Biography, not ad for experiment

I removed a lot of duplicated material that appears at Afshar experiment. This is a biography article, not the experiment article. The article lacks any details about Afshar the person and his career history. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC) Again I removed details about the experiment. This a bio page, not the experiment page. Yes, removing the material makes the page rather empty, but that problem is only masked by introducing material from another article. Hopefully the emptiness will spur someone to add real biographical data. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:23, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The details on the main page give context to Afshar and the experiment. Please stop removing it- if you think it shouldn't be there, consider getting a neutral third party to look at it. Otherwise it seems like pointy behavior. tedder (talk) 03:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(coming back to give rationale, at MichaelCPrice's request) If this was a featured article, it would have context behind the biography. As WP:BLPSTYLE says, "The article should document (..) what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject". Yes, the sentence in dispute could be written better than "which some suggest may challenge", but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the biography. tedder (talk) 04:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks a bit strange to have 9 references for non-bio material that appears on a linked page. It looks like the article is being padded out for no real reason. (I have just added some genuine biographical material.)--Michael C. Price ^talk 04:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Arguing against it because of too many references is kind of a weird argument- generally the argument is "not enough". It's also somewhat controversial information, so extra refs are a good thing. tedder (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

But that's my point. This many references to support a linked article? It looks weird, since they totally swamp the genuine material (of which there is very little).--Michael C. Price ^talk 04:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

So it's a seesaw- there are two ways to improve the content-to-references ratio: add content or remove references. The former is a much better approach. tedder (talk) 04:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Michael in principle (leave the details of the experiment to the article on the experiment). However, it's reasonable to have a sentence or even a paragraph about the experiment. So, let's leave it that way. I do agree with Michael that nine references is a lot. I'd be inclined to drop some of them unless additional sentences are added to the article so that the extra references are used to support them. Perhaps some of the stuff from New Scientist can be added here. [1] [2]. Consider it a bit like Galileo vs. the Catholic Church. --Richard (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

An IP battle was starting, reminescent of the many that we've seen over at the experiment's page. To stop this I have removed the references that relate purely to the debate over the experiment. Once again I can only urge people to add biopgrahical material to the article, and not to get sucked into the endless debate about the experiment itself. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:45, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Year of Birth

Admins, please take note: Subsequent to the breach of confidentiality issue, I have personally added the year of birth. There is no need for the exact DOB. --Afshar (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Some details of your academic career would be nice as well. Where you got your BSc/PhD and in what. That sort of stuff.--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems he is humble to disclose information about his background by making excuses like privacy issues. His highest degree is a B.Sc [3], however after the fuss he made in association with NewScientist, he was able to get fundings to work on the experiment with Eduardo Flores (Associate Professor at Rowan University). While at Harvard to discuss his experiment, he got a Harvard email address, and his later self-attributions to Harvard was based on that! Regarding the experiment, his main reference has been his blog and the Wikipedia page; his persistent to gain publicity is appreciable though. 24.80.100.63 (talk) 12:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the BSc info. I have suspected something like that for quite awhile. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The B.S. information was a very useful one. The credentials should be clearly stated in the biograph, because Afshar titled himself Professor elsewhere, on equal footing with other Ph.D.'s in Rowan University. Thus, I have incorporated the provided above reference and the academic degree in the main text. Danko Georgiev MD (talk) 05:50, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

IP battleground

As I feared, the bio page has now completely degenerated into an alternate page for the Afshar experiment. We now see such desparate attempts to push the experiment, which had previously been confined to the experiments's page, with ridiculous sentences "reminding" us that Foundations in Physics is peer reviewed and even that its editor is a nobel laureate. Jez!

Perhaps semi-protection is the only answer. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your definition of "completely degenerated" is different than mine. I'm not sure why you have such an axe to grind on this article. tedder (talk) 04:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "starting to degenerate" instead.

The only axe to grind I have is that I want to read about Afshar the man here, and not about his experiment, which I can read about at its own article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, if you look at the articles on Galileo and Isaac Newton, you will find that those articles spend quite a bit of time discussing their work at a high level. It is a false dichotomy to argue that this article must be only about the man and the article on the experiment only about the experiment. --Richard (talk) 05:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but the key point is "at a high level", and such discussions of the scientific issues are extensively hyperlinked, instead of being directly heavily referenced. This article also talks about the scientific issues at a high level. Stating that a particular journal was peer-reviewed was not high level, unnecessary and frankly rather over zealous (it wouldn't be an admissable reliable source if it weren't peer-reviewed, so why belabor the issue?). Even lower level was stating that one of journal editors was a Nobel laureate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Michael, I agree with you on the "editor is Nobel" statement- it was entirely unnecessary, among other things. However, it seems the objection to including a few lines about the experiment is that the article is short and that tends to look like undue weight. Would you object to the previous level of detail if the article was fully developed? tedder (talk) 06:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure -- I guess I would have to see the fully developed article to judge that, but it still would not be necessary to say that a citation is from a peer-reviewed journal, for example.

What I don't want to see happen is for the debate about the experiment to spill over here. To see why, have a look at the experiment's talk page's 30 (!) archives. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:58, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I urge the various IP editors to stop disrupting other articles and to log with real identities. Why do you find it necessary to hide yourselves? --Michael C. Price ^talk 10:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Part of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is the right of IPs to edit ("Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit.") tedder (talk) 12:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but they also have an obligation to talk when their edits are challenged and none have here, ever. --Michael C. Price ^talk 12:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets talk. It is very clear to Muslim editors that you Michael Price are behaving selectively agains a Muslim scientist. You only give reference to sources that are against Afshar and remove any sign of support for his ideas. Why? Also what gives you the right to judge who can or can not edit the articles? Just becuse you like Many Worlds Interpretation does not allow you to remove any criticism of it on the aricle. NPOV applies to everyone, including you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.132.47.9 (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I see. So now I'm anti-Muslim. I think your response says it all. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no whatsoever evidence that Afshar was attacked based on his religion. No scientist has ever brought this issue, instead everyone is concerned with Afshar's knowledge of quantum physics. I support Michael C. Price above, and I propose deletion of Afshar's complaint that he was attacked over his religion. Afshar must provide proof, and name who offended him. Otherwise, it is ill sourced propaganda. Danko Georgiev (talk) 07:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

NPOV must be followed by all

I am not Afshar. Everytime somone supports afshar you call them Afshar. I have physics PhD and I live in Azerbaijn. People like Micael Price are the one that started false accounts to slander him. I like him necause he stood up for himself and his religion. Here is a quote from a facebook forum: "In the Harvard forum back in 2003, people would sign up for the science forum rapidly. There were many fake accounts that were traced back to several conspiracy skeptics that tried to discredit Afshar. This was back in the fall of 2003, I do believe. He was slandered for his Iranian decent more so than his actual experiment. People were trying to say that these people were paid by another scientist. In 2006, Bush enforced a law that you can't post on fake accounts or something to that effect and Harvard (after 3+ years) deleted these accounts. It was a big deal." I know some people were fired. So Price, be careful not to destroy his or your own reputation here by libelous accusations, you are not anon.85.132.47.9 (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have never used an anon account. Unlike you, Mr 85.132.47.9 !!! Get it? --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

So what? Answer my question. It is you that keeps accusing Afshar from suckpopeting. You damage his reputation because people like me support him? I looked at your edit history on his pages and you did not even want his page to start and tried to delete it. Other editors sid that you are biased against Afshar. We are proud of a Muslim scientist that has made a big wave in the world. What is your problem with him? Be objetive that is all. Remove his ban and let him talk too85.132.47.9 (talk) 00:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

you did not even want his page to start and tried to delete it. Eh? What a load of rubbish. Diffs please.

And don't give me all this anti-Muslim bollocks. This is about science, not religion. You are one libelling others, not me. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bet against Higgs at LHC

Dear Prof. Afshar, a friendly reminder that if you are here to remove the Higgs bet you just announced on New Scientist website, I'm afraid it is too late. Once you put something on the web, it is public domain. I also have the screenshots of the New Scientist comments page as well as your e-mail to me verifying it was you who posted it online. Sorry, but I will revert the page back to its current state if you remove the sentence. Best of luck ;) Sfsupro (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Alma mater

Its says that Harvard is Afshar's alma mater, but this is not supported by the link given. Where did Afshar graduate from? And in what subject? Presumably physics, but we need a source for this. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

See my discussion on Alma Mater page. You can't go changing articles with OR in Wikipedia just to suit your argument Michael. I'm sure you know better. Webster's dfinition is absolutley clear. I know for a fact that Afshar is an Alumnus of the Harvard GSAS (Graduate School of Arts and Science) becuase he is a member of the alumni society as verfied by the LinkedIn groups section H. GSAS,LinkedIn H Alumni Group. They would not allow him to join without a post.harvard.edu e-mail address. So, without a doubt Harvard is his Alma Mater.Sfsupro (talk) 05:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Please don't assume bad faith. I changed Alma mater because it didn't fit with the dictionary definition given.

Being an alumnus is not the same as having graduated from somewhere. By your interpretation all previous institutions qualify as alma maters, but this is not how the term is used. Look at Steve Weinberg's infobox for example; his alma maters are where he got his batchelors degree and PhD, not a list of everywhere he has attended. The question remains where did Afshar get his degrees and what in? Until we know that we should leave the section blank. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter what you and I think about issues. Biographies of living persons are very sensitive material in Wikipedia due to the immediate and potentially harmful consequences of POV input, so everything needs to be done by the book. I don't assume bad faith Michael, but I must say, it is difficult to ignore your past altercations with the subject of this biography. Especially, when I see that you made the change in the Alma Mater article just before the chages you made in this article. That said, as long as you don't use OR, and keep NPOV, (like you do in most of the other important contributions you make to Wikipedia) we are cool.Sfsupro (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

You do seem to be assuming bad faith. What is the significance of my updating alma mater before here? I looked at it before commenting here, saw that it was incorrect, and changed it. End of story. And yes, I have a past history of altercations with people inserting OR or weasel words into this article. That is simply because here and Afshar experiment have been plagued with POV-pushers who often wilfuly refuse to understand how policy works. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

M I am simply asking you to avoid OR. No need to get angry with me K?Sfsupro (talk) 06:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Then don't using language like "You can't go changing articles with OR in Wikipedia just to suit your argument Michael. I'm sure you know better.". --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't if you don't do it. I am extending an olive branch here Michael, but please don't push me. ThanksSfsupro (talk) 07:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto, but you were the first to push. --Michael C. Price ^talk 07:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey man, have a great weekend. I need to sleepSfsupro (talk) 07:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess we're both tired. :-) Sleep well.--Michael C. Price ^talk 07:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

removed unsupported text "Alma mater = Harvard University Professional Profile at LinkedIn". Reason (1) LinkedIn profile says Afshar performed the experiment at Harvard, not that he graduated from Harvard. LinkedIn text says "Associate of the Physics Department, Harvard University, November 2003 – May 2004 (7 months)" For 7 months no University will confer degree, so it is impossible that Harvard University awarded Afshar's B.S. degree. If he graduated from Harvard Afshar would not miss to point out this clearly and even boast with the fact. Reason (2) to register in LinkedIn does not require institutional e-mail, I am registered with my gmail, and inside LinkedIn I can write whatever I like. There is no way that LinkedIn checks the truthness of the self-written content. It is possible that Afshar graduated in Iran or elsewhere in US, if someone can provide trustable source, then he/she can fill in the missing information. The evidence so far shows Afshar has B.S. and that's all that can be verified in the web. Danko Georgiev (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal of the "alma mater" - no evidence for it. If Afshar objects he can always create an on-line CV, which is normal practice with academics. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Inertia paper

Is anybosy familiar with Ashfar's Inertia papers, or IRIMS? Only reliable sources please.Sfsupro (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I googled on IRIMS it looks like a one-man band, which just promotes Afshar. The IRIMS site gives no other information, apart from about Afshar. Perhaps I'm being cynical, but I can't help noticing that the IRIMS photo lists the 3 people from right to left. That sounds a bits odd. Could it be that Afshar wanted his name to appear first? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Damn, I must be dreaming, you've just lost it :) LOLSfsupro (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you find any link about IRIMS that doesn't mention Afshar? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-encyclopedic information for deletion

More recently Afshar has been concentrating on his commercial interests, as President, CEO & CTO of Immerz Inc, a Cambridge MA startup, in the consumer electronics games field.[2] On November 18, 2009, on the eve of LHC`s launch, Afshar announced a wager against LHC being able to find the Higgs Boson in a New Scientist commentary, offering instead his proposed theory on the origin of inertia delineated in a 1999 paper.[10] -- this text is absolutely unencyclopedic. What does Afshar in his real life, is of no interest to anybody. It is absolutely irrelevant stuff important only from Afshar's perspective, but does not merit coverage in encyclopedia. I propose deletion of this text. Danko Georgiev (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Keep. My test is always, is it interesting. And it is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 06:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, if someone else decides to vote, my vote should be counted for deletion. Myself I will not remove this text. Danko Georgiev (talk) 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mike, I propose for a second time deletion of unencyclopaedic information about Afshar's bet against Higgs boson. This time I can refer to Wikipedia policy Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper and specifically "Wikipedia is not a diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events he is involved in are." I believe the issue with the Higgs boson is of limited interest to be mentioned here. Also, in a TV program BBC Horizon 2012 The Hunt for Higgs, it was announced that the issue will be answered by the end of 2012 and there is some preliminary evidence/hope that the Higgs boson mass is around 125 GeV. Afshar's alternative theory is not mentioned anywhere as notable alternative theory to the existence of Higgs boson, e.g. check the Higgs boson, so this bet is not encyclopaedic. Not to mention, that Afshar also announced bet of 100$ for disproving his violation of Bohr complementarity, but he has not yet paid any researcher these 100$. Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Misleading phrasing

The sentence "As of August 2011, Afshar's prediction on non-existence of Higgs Boson seems to be validated by continued failure of LHC to find the particle, promting other scientists to also suggest that "Higgs boson may be a mirage." is factually incorrect. The meaning as if scientists know Afshar's prediction and this prompts their reaction. The truth is that scientists think that Higgs might be mirage because of the negative LHC data, and it is quite evident from interviews and TV programs released by BBC that none of these researchers reporting on the Higgs has any idea who Afshar is. I propose deletion of this text because it is misleading. Danko Georgiev (talk) 12:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Higg's boson wager

I think Afshar should inform us who is going to receive the prize. By the way, in 2004 he announced another award for disproving his erroneous analysis of the Afshar experiment but Afshar does not seem to be eager to give away that award either. Danko Georgiev (talk) 09:33, 4 July 2012 (UTC)