Talk:Shahriar Afshar

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: CAUTION: Afshar as Wikieditor

message: 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)
replies: text: Wrong.  Inventors of theories often lack perspective on their theories' validity and importance. --Michael C. Price talk 07:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikipedia policy and Afshar as an editor

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: (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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  . Consider it a bit like Galileo vs. the Catholic Church.  --Richard (talk) 06:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  It seems he is humble to disclose information about his background by making excuses like privacy issues. His highest degree is a B.Sc , 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the BSc info.  I have suspected something like that for quite awhile. --Michael C. Price talk 08:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Biography, not ad for experiment

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  It seems he is humble to disclose information about his background by making excuses like privacy issues. His highest degree is a B.Sc , 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)
replies: text: Thanks for the BSc info.  I have suspected something like that for quite awhile. --Michael C. Price talk 08:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title: Year of Birth

message: 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)
thread_title:  Bet against Higgs at [[LHC]] 

message: Is anybosy familiar with Ashfar's Inertia papers, or IRIMS? Only reliable sources please.Sfsupro (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Damn, I must be dreaming, you've just lost it :) LOLSfsupro (talk) 08:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you find any link about IRIMS that doesn't mention Afshar? --Michael C. Price talk 08:21, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inertia paper 

message: 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)
replies: text: No.  Keep. My test is always, is it interesting. And it is. -- cheers, Michael C. Price talk 06:48, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Non-encyclopedic information for deletion 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Misleading phrasing 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Higg's boson wager