Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 23

message: Yes, the article is a mess and this debate is a mess too.  Someone needs to step in.  I have done so.  I have attempted a clean up and clarifcation of the aritcle up to the ongoing debate section.  Please, discuss changes here.  The aim is to make a good wikipedia article.  Leaving asside details and minor corrections (feel free of course to make minor changes, corrections , etc) I feel that we should sign off on the article up to the ongoing debate section. When we have concensus there, we can get to the difficut bit :)Dndn1011 14:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I have voted myself chairman 

message: If you want really to change something here first correct the introduction : complementarity has nothing to do with   the impossibility for observing wave and particle behavior at the same time as  written :  in reality any interference shows  both at the same time. Second you must change all the part concerning the debate which is i think useless confusing and senseless (a list of reference  is more than enough and we dont need quotation of texts: we are  not speaking  about the bible here ).  we must cool down danko (at 4 kelvin)  in order to stop his coming back every half day or less  (it will be better if he would  decide him self not to act against progress ). May be the other protagonists could follow this advice too: this page looks often like a forum about politics every one is speaking but nobody listen...  what for . The research of afshar are published this is a fact  all the other works (mine included) are in this context only proposals and should not become the center of the present discussion. Let  only describe the experiment and its aim  on the wikipedia page  this is the only fact ...
Drezet 15:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dear Everybosy,(i) the expierment "claims to have violated the" PC. It is important to point out exactly what is claimed in the Found. Phys. paper and correctly reflect it in the introduction, and then go on to discuss the controversy or the consensus in the community. (ii) The experimental results indeed VIOLATE the Greenberger-Yasin inequality (See section 5 of the Found. Phys. paper.) Again the claim is that there is a violation, and the experiment is not supportive of the inequality. (iii) Please kindly repost the warning tags on the page header. This article is so terribly messed up that even I cannot follow it. It may be better to revert back to earlier version, which has a proper intro, and warning tags. Tabish, please wait till you hear from the referees of the Journal to which you have submitted your paper as to the value of your ideas. Furthermore, discussing your OR here is against the Wiki policy. BTW/ Found. Phys. is a highly respected journal, and it would serve your aspirations better not to bash a journal with Nobel Laureate editors and authors. Best regards.-- Prof. Afshar 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Dear Tabish, I'd prefer the proper channels of peer-review. I cannot spend time here refuting every time OR claims are made. To do justice to your submission, one needs the graphics, equations and correct process of edited communication, for which peer-review system has been devised. This talk page is about the article's accuracy and ensuring OR is removed from it. It is not a bulletin board, weblog, or a forum, and I will not participate in lengthy technical discussion here with anyone. The past experiences with others have always led to more confusion and unfortunately in some cases to unjustified animosity. I'm tired of this farce called Wikipedia. Regards.-- Prof. Afshar 05:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are being unfair.  Wikiepedia is not a farce, it is educating people in a most wonderful way, not only to facts but to the process of establishing them.  It can be very frustrating, but ultimately the purpose for a science article such as this is to help people like me, who are not scientists, understand where science is at right now.  This article could be very clear and simple.  Detailed debate as you say belongs elsewhere.  Some people here are doing their best to battle with human nature and get the focus back where it belongs.  In the process of doing this many lessons are being learned by manny people including myself.  It is a shame if you do not realise the value of this and do not wish to participate, however you participation, although valued and helpful in communicating your own experiment, is not necessary. Dndn1011 11:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted Wikipedia is by and large a useful tool, however, it certainly lacks mechanisms to ensure protection of controversial topics from poison-pens etc. as the Seigenthaler affair demonstrated. I cannot count the number of insults I have suffered here, which are numerous and well-recorded in the archives. Wouldn't you feel upset after more than 2 years of "educating" you end up with none of your points acted upon and an article in a perpetual nose dive? -- Prof. Afshar 12:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I would, and I feel your pain.  I think there have been some very unwise postings here, and I think you have suffered a lot of abuse for basically just "doing you job".  It is an unfortunate aspect of human nature.  At least here it is all out in the open and recorded down.  I am making a new attempt to get the article on track because it appears that the various arguments have settled down... it seems many people are beginning to realise that this experiment is not so easy to dismiss.  We have witnessed the article become more and more inconsistent and messy and we have watched the various attempts to wriggle out of its conclusions and as a neutral party my conclusion is that the article should simply present the facts, the conlusions of the creator of the experiment (i.e. you) and the most clear and important counter arguments that stand up to scrutiny, that are actually countering any claims you make.  There is no room for bias, to weasle words, or OR. Once the article has been published in a peer reviewed journal, the quality and notability of counter arguments will need to be improved to match.  Right now there are a lot of statements in the article which I consider OR applications of notable viewpoints or simply there because of initial "shoot from the hip" reactions to earlier publications.  A great example of this is Bill Unruh's experiment which I consider to be completely irrelevant to this article because it is very clearly not the same experiment at all.  I knew this right at the start and wanted to remove it (perhaps I even did at one point) however certain people here kept insisting that it should stay and I have been trying to avoid an rv war.  I have been pragmatic, in short, putting my own opinions to one side a little out of respect to others.  It is a question of attempting to be a neutral editor.  It's hard.  But it is a great exercise in self discipline. Dndn1011 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your understanding and efforts to improve the article. OK, I'll give this another shot. I will spend ONLY 30 Min.s every day to address the questions you have raised below, and try to avoid technical details as much as I can. I would appreciate if other editors could kindly refrain from posting comments (in the section you have designated) until I post my response first. Then we can debate other editor's points of view. Hopefully, this will remedy the problem. Best regards. -- Prof. Afshar 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, I look forwrad to it. Dndn1011 15:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  need big changes

message: OK Good, thanks for not just reverting my changes.  Now we need a systematic approach to fix this article.  I ask that we keep one heading per point to address.  Please, lets avoid long winded interwoven discussions, we will get nowhere.  If you see something you don't like about the article, please create a section with a heading specifying the issue.  One section per issue.  In each section we can discuss and attempt to reach concensus.  In the absence of concensus I will attempt to reflect the majority view, but only as a means to achieving (hopefully) concensus.  I think it is clear that this topic is not clear cut and that there are many viewpoints.  Let's respect them all and attempt to create a concise article that usefully reflects current thinking.  To some extent this has been happening already so lets work together to achieve it fully. Dndn1011 23:06, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *So, please take note of my posting of 18:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *OK, I will do but this requires its own heading.  Sorry to be pedantic and all that... I will add one once I have read the posting and figured out what to call it.  Or alternatively just create your own new heading.  Ceratinly your claim that These errors are misrepresentations of the experiment are serious and should be taken seriously. Dndn1011 11:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organisation