Talk:Afshar experiment/Archive 11

I agree with Drezet. I think the paragraph on decoherence belongs elsewhere - for example - here in the talk page - where it can interact with what Price otherwise calls "gunk" (which I'll take to mean his own contributions). While decoherence could very well provide a way of making complementarity redundant it does not mean other ways of addressing complementarity (ie. Afshar's) therfore "needs" to address decoherence. Afshar's experiment is specifically about what Bohr said (it's there to be seen in Afshar's paper). That does not mean it is necessarily about what Bohr 'meant' - that's another (albeit related) story/debate. And so too is decoherence. - Carl Looper.

By this logic we should remove all reference to complementarity from the article. Is that what you mean? The logic is false anyway, since if we have a scheme (putatively decoherence) that resolves all complementarity issues then any experiment that claims to violate complementarity needs to address how it handles that resolution. This is generically true: if I claim to have an antigravity machine then I would need to address the claim that general relatively is incompatible with antigravity, and a statement about this problem would be appropriate. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Why not put a link in the page on decoherence to Afshar's experiment? That seems like the more appropriate connection. Complimentarity (not decoherence) is what Afshar's experiment is about, ie. Bohr's conception of it - or at least a particular reading of Bohr's complementarity. It is not about decoherence. The point I'm trying to make is that if decoherence is to be included in the criticque list then the onus is on decoherence to address (point to) Afshar's experiment - until such time I don't see why it should be the other way around. CARL LOOPER

Now Bohr's Principle of Complimentarity is precisely that - a "principle". It is an "idea", mathematically expressible, but, like math, neither correct nor incorrect. It was conceived in the days when science could still be called "natural philosophy" without causing consternation and anguish. But in physics (a subcategory of natural philosophy) an "idea" can be deemed (sic) correct through criteria - eg. if we can read the physical world as demonstrating the idea we can deem the idea 'correct'. This is purely a formality. In physics we want ideas to be 'correct' or 'incorrect' rather than "philosophical" or ambiguous. But that is just a function of the way in which physics is defined. It has nothing to do with the ideas. It's to do with how those ideas are categorised (physics, literature, art, etc.) Can complementarity be categorised as an idea for physics. Well yes. In relation to physics the idea can be deemed correct. The natural (physical) world can be shown to demonstrate the idea. If it can't be shown to demonstrate the idea it can be deemed incorrect. It gets moved into another category - if only temporarily. For example, without dark matter, the universe can't be read as demonstrating Newton's theory of gravity. Newton's theory of gravity can therefore be deemed incorrect - ie. it has to be modified to include the concept (sic) of dark matter. Only the modified idea can be deemed correct. Newton's idea can't. But if and when we discover dark matter we can redeem Newton's theory of gravity, ie. as correct. Again this has nothing to do with the idea as such. Just how it is categorised. And in relation to relativity, well it too, insofar as it closely resembles Newtonian gravity, is technically incorrect. Because both fail to include the concept of dark matter. While dark matter remains dark (ie. unfound) relativity is wrong. About 20% wrong. The universe does not demonstrate what relativity says it should. But where is the onus on addressing this issue? On those who invented "dark matter"? On those looking for it? Or those who say relativity is correct? I'd say the onus is on those who say relativity is correct. And they would probably agree. They are the one's who are probably out there organising the search for dark matter. Because only if dark matter can be found does relativity become "correct" again. I should add that until the universe was discovered to be expanding at an accelerated rate, relativity was, for a few years, effectively 97% "wrong". Where does our faith in relativity come from? Obviously not the universe itself. For even when the (known) universe disagreed with relativity we held onto it. Why? That's something that physics, without philosophy, is incapable of addressing. But I can - we hold onto it because it's a good idea. That's the simple answer. CARL LOOPER.

I don't see how we could get to "removing all reference to complementarity..." from the idea that references to quantum decoherence do not belong here. This article is about an experiement who's objective is complementarity, not decoherence. If it were an experiment concerning decoherence, then decoherence would be relevant. Although if decoherence does away (theoretically) with the need for complementarity, then it could be viewed that this experiment actually gives support to decoherence (but I am Mr. Naive round these parts). It sounds to me like some people are motivated to play down the importance of this experiment by any means, rather than actually just report the experiement and its key issues. To my limited brain power decoherence does not belong in the Critiques section. That decoherence might render the the experiment redundant is only a theory after all. So I'm taking it out. Dndn1011 16:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why some people are getting so steamed up over the decoherence text: all it says is that the issue has to be addressed. Does anyone disagree with that? Pretending that decoherence and complementarity are separate issues is not very sensible. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Does being "steamed up" somehow make the arguments incorrect? I agree Michael. They are not separate issues but the way in which encyclopedias are constructed requires a division of knowledge - somewhat artificially, it is true. I mean why not include everything on the page? Why not include, for example, the hardcore philosophical context? For me that is far more relevant than what is currently there but I'm not complaining since that discussion can be carried out here or elsewhere. But why include decoherence? It is only related by virtue of the fact that all branches of physics are inter-related in one way or another. But each aspect of physics has a focus and Afshar's experiment has a focus - which does not appear to include (rightly or wrongly) decoherence. That's what focusing is all about - exclusion of information. I mean, to speak flippantly, why doesn't decoherence address the price of fish in China? Or Afshar's experiment? Because it's focus is elsewhere. Should we add Afshar's experiement to the list of criticisms that decoherence possesses? No, because Afshar's experiment does not address decoherence. CARL LOOPER.

Decoherence merits mentions not because it is just another field of physics but because it has relevance to any interpretation of quantum mechanics, as indeed does complementarity. Until you realise that we are not going to make much progress.--Michael C. Price ^talk 02:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Decoherency is a very worthwhile subject. I totally agree. But in what way can it be read as a critcque of Afshar's experiment? That's the context in which it's written. Under critcques. But I can't find any critcique of Afshar's experiment under decoherency or even in what is written. The line which says decoherence makes complimentarity irrelevant - how does this ammount to a criticism of Afshar's experiment? Perhaps you just need to rewrite it - to clarify how decoherency constitutes a "criticism" of Afshar's experiment. If not - why is it there? Even a child can see the text, as written, constitutes a very poor example of criticism. Until you understand this I'm not sure we're going to make much progress :) But look. I don't want to shut up debate on the subject. On the contrary I want more debate. Not less. So explain yourself. Or is that too hard for you? Remember, you're the one accusing others of failing to address issues. Why don't you address some issues yourself. In particular this one. CARL LOOPER.

Rewriting for clarity is a positive suggestion. What step is the unclearest? I deliberately keep the piece short, with the link to decoherence there for the inquiring reader. Added a couple more links for clarity. Hope it helps. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:50, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The unclearest step is it's placement under criticism. The links do not help. They just take one to a discussion of decoherence where there is no critical commentary on Afshar's experiment - just generic material on decoherence. Ho hum. For someone who appears relatively intelligent and thoughtful it is surprising you are unable to do better. CL

Michael C. Price : you reverted the edits stating "Restored lost decoherence text -- take it to the talk page before deleting, where the irrelevance is not demonstrated" when indeed I had already taken it to the talk page. You appear to have ignored the voices of others as well as mine, and also have reverted without actually answering my points. It appears to me that the coherence issue is staying because Michael C. Price says so. It also appears somewhat hypocritical of Michael C. Price to state "take it to the talk page" when he himself reverts edits without doing so. Dndn1011 18:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you took it to the talk page but, as I said, you did not demonstrate decoherence's irrelevance, hence I restored the text. The discussion was not concluded then, as is not now. Decoherence provides a framework for understanding complementarity, hence it should shed light on Afshar's experiment. Ergo it is not irrelevant. If you wish to make changes that stick, I suggest you do not start by deleting a chunk until some sort of consensus emerges here. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

But does it belong under "criticism". In a spirit of reconciliation perhaps we should include a heading called "relevant theorys" and include it there. Or if not, in a spirit of irreconciliation, perhaps we should include a heading called "One of Michael Price's favourite theorys" and put it there. CARL LOOPER.

They are not "my" theories -- look at the sources. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Who said they were? One of my favourite theorys is Derrida's theory of deconstruction. Just because I like it doesn't make it my theory? Of course, you still haven't adressed the main point - is the text on "decoherence" criticism? CARL LOOER

• Michael, let's see ONE reference that says Boh'r Principle of Complemetarity in Welcher weg experiments is superceed (or nullified) by decoherence. As long as decoherence cannot explain the collapse of the wavefunction in our universe, it has nothing to say about the subject of my experiment. I suggest you remove the ref. to decoherence unless you provide the reference I ask for above.-- Prof. Afshar 20:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

If you understood decoherence you would know that it is all about explaining the collapse of the wavefunction. And I can find plenty of refs for that claim (have a look at the refs at decoherence). --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand decoherence. I also understand how it "explains" the wave function collapse. But that's not the point. The point is how decoherence can ALSO function as criticism of Afshar's exeperiment. But yes. No doubt you will throw the burden of proof onto someone else - but who? Who supports this? Currently - only you - so the burden of proof is on you Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

You say it is not the point, Afshar says it is. Therefore Wikipedia should present both sides of the issue and let the reader decide. That's what the article does. --Michael C. Price ^talk 22:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Afshar is only one person - and his debate with you need not be the same as my debate with you - unless you think we're all just one person (ie. you are paranoid). If Afshar wishes to engage you in a discussion on decoherence then I'm sure you will be delighted. After all, your "criticsim" is that Afshar needs to address decoherence - and if he does do this, then you're criticism no longer holds. So it should be removed. CL.

Why you should think I imagine that everybody else is one person is beyond me but, leaving that aside, yes I would be delighted to see decoherence addressed in the article. Even more to see the issue resolved (i.e. addressed in a verifiable, reputable source). --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. If you know how to archive this page I look forward to following the debate. In the meantime you still need to remove decoherence passage from the article as it will now be inappropriate on two fronts: both untrue (since Afshar is to address decoherence) and weak criticism. CARL LOOPER.

Afraid not. The statement is still true -- decoherence needs addressing -- which is distinct from whether or not decoherence has been addressed (which it hasn't). Whether or not it is a weak or strong criticism is a matter of understanding and / or opinion. --Michael C. Price ^talk 03:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok. So if Afshar addresses decoherence then you will remove the passage? I'll believe that when I see it. Re. weak criticism. Yes, it is a matter of opinion/understanding. Very true. But how do we solve it? I can keep rubbishing your critique to the cows come in and you can keep defending it on the basis that everyone elses criticism is just pov or non-understanding. We need some criteria here. What do you suggest? How do we decide whether it should be there or not? A vote? I'd prefer a debate before that happened. At least we'd get the opportunity to understand what you're on about. But so far nothing. My argument is that you have no argument. Just a pretend one constructed from a few links to generic principles and some "logical" leap to the "criticism" that Afshar should therfore address such. Which, by the way, has nothing whatsoever to do with decoherence at all - just your insistence (POV) that Afshar should address such. If your real argument is that decoherence demonstrates a criticism of Afshar's experiment then where is THAT argument? NOWHERE. Zilch. Zero. Absent. Unimplemented. Your criticism, as it stands is LAZY. And if you want to follow Wikipedia guidlines (which I don't) then feel free to publish your criticism in a peer reviewed journal and then put a link to it in the article. Here is a title to get you started: Why Afshar should address Decoherency. CARL LOOPER.

One way to resolve the issue is for you actually explain why you think the decoherence argument is irrelevant instead of just stating it without explanation. The relevance is quite simple: complementary is a device to explain the "mystery" of wavefunction collapse (why photons collapse to form interference patterns in the double slit experiment for example -- according to Feynman the "only mystery" of quantum mechanics). Decoherence explains collapse and it can account for all the weird and wonderful quantum effects. What does this say about complementary in the Afshar experiment? Perhaps that is not the appropriate tool for analysing the situation and probably, as quite a few other editors have noted, that Afshar's definition of complementary is flawed. That's why the issue of decoherence needs addressing (indeed others have suggested on this talk page that the entire article be rewritten from a decoherence perspective).--Michael C. Price ^talk 09:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Writing a critique of the Afshar experiment from a decoherence point of view is a very good idea. Why don't you write such? I have no issue with that at all. In the meantime your pathetic passage fails to do anything like that, or point to anything else that does. And even when you try a simple demo of relevance you end up asking yourself if decoherence is the appropriate tool - well maybe it isn't - so why don't you work that out first before imagining it might be. Perhaps Afshar's definition of complementarity is flawed - well why don't you have think about that for a little bit and put together a critique along those lines. Until some sort of decoherence critique exists there isn't anything for Afshar to necessarily address. If you want him to address general decoherence I hardly think the article is the right context for "asking" him. And you ask the question: - what does decoherency say about complementarity in the Afshar Experiment. Currently nothing. So get to work. Mr Price. CARL LOOPER

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page, I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him. Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper, which says a lot about himself. I shall have to be blunt, I see. Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity. There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery? The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. --Michael C. Price ^talk 20:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Michael, I'm speechless! Thank you kindly for your highly intelligent and relevant response above. I don't know how much more graciously you would react once you see the paper published. Congratulations, simply superb...-- Prof. Afshar 21:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Michael's brilliant elucidation of decoherency is a wonder to behold. CL

Since you have such problems following the subject and can't engage on the talk page I shall expand the critique section. I have tried to be concise, polite and subtle in the critique section: clearly a waste of time. --Michael C. Price ^talk 23:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have trouble following your clear, polite and concise diatribes on Afshar. But I do look forward to a clear, polite and concise critique of the experiment. And you'll find I'll be far more supportive if and when that occurs. CL.

Mr looper asked me to explain the relevance of decoherence on the talk page,

Did I – where?

I complied and all we get is more ignorant abuse from him.

happy to do so.

Posing a Socratic question is interpreted as a sign of stupidity by Mr Looper,

Mr Price stupid? Gosh. Where did I articulate that interpretation?

which says a lot about himself.

You wish.

I shall have to be blunt, I see.

Please do.

Afshar does not understand complementarity and Afshar's experiment does not violate complementarity.

Ok. That’s’ a good start. A nice provocative introduction to ...

There are no peer-review sources that support Afshar's claims. Afshar demonstrates a failure to grasp undergraduate physics (e.g. conservation of momentum). Afshar presents us with an unending stream of errors: he can't even get his facts straight about what he has previously said on the talk page and his weblogs, has paranoid delusions about other people tryig to block inclusion of references into the article (references that don't actually support Afshar's claims of overthrowing complementariry (e.g. O'Hara's article)), along with pretending (at times) that he only contributes to the talk page and never the article. Afshar consistently misrepresents or fails to understand sources that contradict his claim (e.g. his claims of "intermediate levels of interference visibility"), at the same time as abusing anyone who offers a scientific objection to his experiment. MP.

... Micahel Price's scientific objections.

Why is Mr Looper so opposed to a bit of balance in an article that peddles such unsourced, pseudoscientific quackery?

Who says I'm opposed to balance? But I am opposed to empty accusations of "peudoscientific quackery".

The only reason why more people don't speak against Afshar's interpretation of QM here -- apart from the fact that it is so stupid as to hardly merit a response -- is that they get frustrated at his obdurate stupidity and refusal to address issues and leave (have a look back at the entire history of the talk page, if you don't believe me). MP

Oh. So the reason you can’t put two sentences together in defense of a decoherence argument is Afshar’s fault?

I appreciate that is may be difficult for some people, such as Mr Looper, to grasp the relevance of decoherence to the issue, but is not really my problem. MP

Firstly – what is the ”issue” and secondly, whether or not I see the relevance is not my issue. My issue is whether or not your passage on decoherence can be regarded as criticism of the Afshar experiment. CARL LOOPER

Claiming that I "can’t put two sentences together in defense of a decoherence argument" speaks volumes for your lack of objectivity and/or reading ability. It also says that further dialogue would be a waste of time. BTW I find it quite amusing to see the way you are blundering around on the main article's page. Clearly you have no idea of Wiki writing guidelines or no intention, as you have declared, of following them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 11:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the only one contributing there so you might like to rethink the "blundering" theory. I notice someone has re-edited it to remove your name and what was otherwise the ridiculous statement you had there. They seem to have replaced it with an equally ridiculous statement. I might just have a browse through the history and see if they've left their name. Some people think they can just write anything and if it conformns to Wikipedia guidelines well - gosh - it must be okay. CL.

Ah, so it was Michael Price. Who would have thought. Not happy being in the spotlight are we? Prefer your pseudo-critical sentence to look as if it's some self-evident truth rather than Michael Price's opinion. You think removing your name changes that? CL.

Still blundering around, I notice. --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Michael. Blundering it might be, and I'll accept that criticism. I might also suggest that guidlines are for those who require guidance, (as indeed I might) but clearly not those wishing to mask an otherwise obvious point of view argument. My edits were clarification of fact which was precisely the point - to reveal the emptiness behind the lines of your argument and to demonstrate the unsuitablility of your (sic) argument being there at all. As I've suggested in the past, if you would like a debate, have it here. I am more than happy to hear elaboration of your argument beyond the contraints of "main article" guidlines. As I'm sure others might be as well. And I will try to refrain from abusing your attempts at such on the assumption that you will stay on the subject and not vector off into theorys about Afshar the person, or re-try a silent debate in the main article. As I've indicated in the past, you will find a better side of my disposition if you try this alternative approach to criticism. CL.

Significance of refraction?

An interesting point about this experiment is the use of a lens. Lenses work through refraction which is easy to explain in the wave model of light, given the observed effect of light slowing down in a non-vacuum. However it is not clear in any way to me how a particle can be refracted. This can be viewed as another demonstration of wave-paricle duality just as interesting as the double slit experiment I think. Perhaps this provides an instance where the 'path' of the photon is entirely predictable (it always follows the same path given the same initial vector) and yet it simultaneously exhibits behavior as a wave and a particle at the same time... indeed at the same moment (the moment of impact on the surface of the denser medium) and at the same place (the location of the point of impact). Everything about the behavior of the photon can be deduced (if not actually measured). It is even possible knowing the time of detection to know exactly when the photon was created, in retrospect. I am probably being naieve in some way, but is this not significant? Dndn1011 12:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Being naive is not a bad way to approach things. But it's a bad way to end things. Carl Looper.

Cool, however the statement is not helping be any less naive. Although at least I know how to spell naive now. Dndn1011 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Unbalanced

By rights, if we are to have explicitly detailed critisim of the experiement and its interpretation, rather than just external references, then some equal amount of Afhsar's rebuttals should also be present. Additionally the whole section makes it appear as if the entire world is against Afshar, and he alone believes in his experiement and his interpretation of it. This is for me clearly biased. We even have a list of named individuals, which creates the danger of this article becoming a petition against Afhsar. Of course if it is actually true that Afshar stands alone then that would be a different matter. However unless this can be verified it is dangerous to list all of the world and it's mother as being against Afshar and have some half hearted external references to his rebuttles. Dndn1011 16:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the situation is that Afshar is pretty much alone, amongst professional physicists, in his interpretation of the experiment, which is why it has not been published in any peer-reviewed journals. Posing a couple of points in the critique section doesn't, IMO, make the article unbalanced. I refer to the analogy I mentioned above: suppose the article was about a putative anti-gravity device - wouldn't you expect to see some mention of the problems this poses for the mainstream view? Most articles making controversial claims have some critique section for balance. If you can find any sources that support Afshar's position then by all means mention them. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You think? Opinions have no place in wikipedia. And it is not just a couple of points but a long list of references of people who object to the interpetation of the experiement. This is not appropriate, it is enough to state the general critisims without taking it to the point where it could almost be called OR on the subject of "People who think that Afshar is wrong". The article should merely report what it is, what it shows and what interpretations exist. It is not the place here to have those interpretations weighed in the balance. Wikipedia is not meant to arbitrate on philosophical issues. It is meant to present facts in an unbiased manner. It should help people make up their own minds. As for not being published in any peer-reviewed journals, there can be many reasons for this that have nothing to do with the vailidity of a point of view.Dndn1011 19:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but not being published in a peer-reviewed journal (or not) is relevant to how Wikipedia reports a topic and is something that should be reported itself. What should not happen is for someone to write up their own experiment on Wikipedia. --Michael C. Price ^talk 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I have started a debate on the topic of judging articles by their content, not their authors. This is in my opinion the most important aspect of the philosophy of wikipedia. See Wikipedia talk:Autobiography. Additionally being published in a journal may have relevance but it does not mean that an experiment not published in a peer-reviewed journal should not be presented in wikipedia. Note no one is complaining about the mention of the lack of such publication at this time. You are tiresome because you actually ignore points people raise and bang on about the same old point of view. Dndn1011 09:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

No, I am tiresome because I insist on balance and the presentation of rational scientific critiques, in response to fuzzy, unsourced pseudoscientific claims. As for ignoring points, I note that no one has responded to the antigravity analogy. And BTW I do not say that a claim is not fit for presentation on Wikipedia because it hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed journal: just that we are entitled to be especially sceptical of such claims. --Michael C. Price ^talk 09:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Skepticism has no place in wikipedia. Only facts, presented in a balanced way. As for your anti-gravity example, you said:

if I claim to have an antigravity machine then I would need to address the claim that general relatively is incompatible with antigravity, and a statement about this problem would be appropriate.

Actually if you conducted an experiment that proved you had an antigravity machine, it would not be necsessary to address the issue of conflict with general relativity. General Relativity is after all only a theory. That's the way science works. The article's purpose is not to cast doubt on the experiment or claim that it is the next big thing, but to present it. Your bias is quite clear to me, and to be honest I have no vested interest one way or the other. But I am pretty anal about fairness and clarity and all that stuff. Dndn1011 10:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You miss the point. The antigravity example is about the unverified claim that someone has such a device: and we are entitled be sceptical about unverified claims that fly in the face of accepted theories. Obviously if the antigravity device demonstrably worked then GR would have to be amended -- but this is irrelevant since that is not the case here. No one disputes the empirical results of Afshar's experiment (that the lenses focus the electron image down to two points) since they are in accord with the Schrodinger equation -- what is disputed is his interpretation of the results and in particular the relevance to complementarity.--Michael C. Price ^talk 12:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed and so it is enough to state that there is an ongoing debate on the matter. There is no need to try and settle it in the article. Also, you state "that is not the case here", but that is just an opinion. It does not matter if you feel you have the evidence to justify that opinion, a detailed argument against Afshar researched by you is probably breaking the OR rule (which is policy not a guideline). Like I have said elsewhere, the article should merely present the bare issues, not delve into them. I would suggest that you put your bit of research into why Afhsar is wrong on your own web page and place a link to that on the article. This would be an acceptable compromise, I feel Dndn1011 19:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

As I've said before the critiques provided are sourced as well (or better) than the rest of the article. And I'll also repeat that the issue is not "settled" in the article. --Michael C. Price ^talk 21:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)