Talk:Paris Herouni

No CMB? Removing unsupported claims
The article currently contains the following sentences: "The state of the art 50m radio-telescope antenna showed that there is no CMB present in the universe, thus big bang never happened. This is perfectly consistent with Penrose-Gurzadyan new theory that Big-Bang never happened and that the Universe oscillates infinitely." The source cited is an article in the Economist. Leaving aside for the moment the valid question of how much weight we should give the Economist as a reliable source for cosmology, the source doesn't say any such thing. In fact, it describes claims based on mining WMAP and Boomerang data to study the properties of the CMB. The article makes no mention of a 50-m ground-based telescope or any idea that the CMB doesn't exist. For that matter, it doesn't mention Paris Herouni. I'm removing the source as unrelated to the article, and these two sentences as implausible and unsupported. --Amble (talk) 01:44, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Further: the claims about the CMB come from Herouni's article "Measured parameters of large antenna of ROT-54/2.6 tell about absence of Big Bang." The link to the Economist seemed to be intended to tie this to the Penrose-Gurzadyan idea, which runs into a problem of WP:Synthesis.  We could consider restoring some mention of Herouni's own claims to have measured self-noise + sky lower than 2.7 K, but the problem is that we have only this one primary source.  I haven't been able to find any citations of this article (or even evidence that the NAS RA Reports are peer reviewed).  So about the most we can do is note that Herouni published such an article making such claims.  Even that would be questionable, since the one article we have is primarily a report on certain parameters of the telescope design, and doesn't really give enough information to evaluate the claims about CMB non-detection.  --Amble (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Paris Herouni. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100330072212/http://www.carahunge.com/herouni.html to http://www.carahunge.com/herouni.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140825152817/http://www.ansef.org/storage/articles/Profiles.pdf to http://www.ansef.org/storage/articles/Profiles.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality
The article is not neutral. A sources info on Herouni's other important research is deleted by an admin who WP:OWN article. This should be returned to article:
 * "Herouni also invented solar energy plant AREV  and solar cookers that catch direct sunlight with mirrors and use it to cook the food at 700 degrees.  "

Ruggles and Gonzales-Garsia are not criticizing Herouni as a scientist, so their opinions on Carahunge are useless in this article and depend to article on Carahunge. To balance their views we should include this info:
 * Different specialists (N. and Y. Bochkarevs, E. Parsamian ) and expeditions (Oxford University and the Royal Geographical Society, 2010) support the view that Caragunge was an important archaeoastronomical site. Two others, I. Simonia and B. Jijelava write that "The speciﬁc geometry of the complex probably points to it being of astronomical signiﬁcance".

Before that the article is one-sided. Isabekian (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * We don't have a policy of neutrality. You don't understand WP:NPOV - you don't have enough experience to understand it yet, and don't seem to have read it carefully. This is an encyclopedia and material needs to be encyclopedic. That means that for biographies much of the content needs to be sourced to independent sources meeting WP:RS discussing the content, not just mentioning it in part of a sentence. See also WP:UNDUE which is part of our NPOV policy..  Doug Weller  talk 07:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC


 * "Discussing", remember? The Solar Cern link is a very short blog page that just quotes him. I'm not sure what the Itogi journal is, but there's no author for the article so it doesn't appear to meet our criteria as a source. I see it says Heruni claims this is the oldest observatory on earth - this is a fringe claim not backed by mainstream academia, but in any case, the source doesn't seem to meet our criteria. The Mediamax source is a brief mention, patents aren't useful at all for meeting WP:UNDU. The others aren't about energy and in any case answer my points about your edit needing a rewrite to match the source and meet NPOV. Doug Weller  talk 11:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Itogi was considered one of the most influential Russian social and political journals . The name of author is there - Vasily Dyatlov. Isabekian (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is he? I couldn't find anything about him. Doug Weller  talk 20:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sociology and Political Sciences are vastly different disiplines than Astronomy and Archaeology. Being an expert in either Sociology or Political Sciences does not make a person an expert in either Astronomy or Archaeology. A person need only read up on Dr. Linus Pauling to understand how being a recognized expert in one branch of science fails miserably to guarantee that they equally understand and are an expert in another unrelated branch of science. An example is discussed in The Dark Side of Linus Pauling's Legacy. Either comments or papers in Itogi proves nothing about a person's expertise in Archaeoastronomy. Paul H. (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Two interesting publications are:
 * Megalithic complex ‘Zorats Karer’ (Carahunge) in Armenia: a Bronze Age-Iron Age necropolis.


 * and González-García, A.C., 2015. Carahunge-A Critical Assessment. Handbook of Archaeoastronomy and Ethnoastronomy, pp.1453-1460. Paul H. (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Paul H., I don’t want to disappoint you, but the article on Itogi is not cited for Archaeoastronomy expertise, it is confirming that Herouni invented and built a new solar plant (it is a social-economical fact unrelated you confirm it or not). Please next time before commenting something, read what you're going to comment. Anyways, thank you for your efforts. Isabekian (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly my point, expertise in building solar plant is completely meaningless in terms of whether or not he has any expertise in archaeoastronomy. As such, the article is totally meaningless in terms of validating what he has to say about megaliths and archaeoastronomy. Just because he Herouni invented and built a new solar plant is utterly meaningless in terms of his qualifications as a prehistorian involving megaliths and archaeoastronomy, e.g. Carahunge. Expertise as an engineer does not always translate into expertise in terms of unrelated scientific research as demonstrated by the numerous engineers who promote the scientific validity of Creation Science. What you need to provide papers by him and evaluations of them by knowlegable third parties about megaliths that are published in a peer-reviewed archaeological journal or more. If you want highlight his expertise as an engineer, you need to provide third party papers about why his solar plant is notably different form other solar power plants. Paul H. (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The solar plant is unrelated to Carahunge and Herouni's "expertise in archaeoastronomy", it is another (I think, more important) activity of Herouni. This article is a biography of a person. We should mention the main events and activities of his life. For such events like he invented something, or constructed something, or moved to a country, etc., any reliable source is enough. We have a lot of such sources - f.e. an article by Vahe Davtian, Russia's federal Gazeta.ru calls it "a unique solar plant". This is more than enough to mention that Herouni invented and constructed solar plant AREV. I'm not sure any time we mention a new solar plant we should write about notable differences (I think, it is a useless detail for a short bio), but anyways, here is a source: AREV-1 is a 100 kW solar power plant based on heat absorption of reflected sunbeams and rotating a compressor by the heated air to generate power . Worth to mention in his biography. Isabekian (talk) 12:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Any ideas? I suggest to add these phrases: and
 * "An overview of ancient astronomy in the Caucasus region briefly discussed Carahunge, citing a preliminary report of a recent survey as evidence that Carahunge indicated astronomical alignments to the Sun, Moon, and selected stars. The authors consider that Carahunge may have been a dual purpose site: a burial place for a significant person and a place for astronomically related ritual. "
 * "Herouni also invented solar energy plant AREV-1 which is a 100 kW solar power plant based on heat absorption of reflected sunbeams and rotating a compressor by the heated air to generate power ." Isabekian (talk) 07:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Summary of CMB Paper
I corrected the article to not misrepresent Harouni's CMB paper. The existing section summarized the paper as saying that Harouni measured the CMB at 2.6K, near to the usual temp of the CMB at that wavelength. However, that's exactly not what Harouni said in the cited paper. In case there's any way to misunderstand the paper, I opted to cite the section from the paper where the conclusion is reached. I also linked to the telecope's own page and the CMB. Pablo Mayrgundter (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2023 (UTC)