Talk:Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car

Cleanup and PROD.

I tried my best to clean up this terrible article. The grammar was just awful and the crazy amount of peacock language had to be drastically cut back. Since this is a decidedly WP:FRINGE topic, I have removed all statements to the effect that this car actually works (which would imply that all of mainstream physics and chemistry is 100% wrong) - and dialled it back to statements that the car is "claimed" to do these things.

Sadly, the result is still a horrible article - and hence I've proposed it for deletion. SteveBaker (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Agha Waqar become a famous name in media car could run on water its needs to be prove but if some one want to know about Agha Waqar then its the best source to him. I recommend not to be delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.48.178.1 (talk) 19:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Keep 1st of all thanks for your efforts... well the points you raised are already discussed in various articles and it is not against the law of physics... Agha Wqar device is designed to produce hydrogen and oxygen, from water using electricity its callled water electrolysis... for more information you can read this article water electrolysis. Running a car with water as a fuel has always been a longed-for dream in the modern economy. Keeping in mind the increasing hike in the international oil prices people have been working on finding alternative sources of energy. Under these circumstances Agha Waqar Ahmed claims that he has succeeded in running a car with distilled water as a fuel is highly notable and so for his claim is successful because he already give his demonstration in front of notable people and media... Agha is not the first one to work on this kind of a project there are so many scientists from around the world have been working on such projests... and i think you might be forgetting many of them have a article on Wikipedia like Stanley Meyer and so many others... well i find that very difficult to accept your proposal yes you can tag it for betterment but not for deletion... Peace Out  Tariq.Imran  ^Talk 16:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

  This water kit of his has yet to be thoroughly examined by technical experts. These types of of claims are made regularly around the world, a day or two ago a guy from Karachi, claimed to have developed almost the same water kit, that Agha did, so we should not fall for these claims, unless verified by professionals. About inclusion of this article in Wikipedia, this invention has yet not been covered in detail by any source, so IMO it fails WP:GNG. This can be included once this invention is verified to be true or may be after it comes out to be a fraud, and gets significant coverage. --SMS ^Talk 17:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it's important to keep this article and clean it up. The article could be re-categorized as a notable event. I think it should be tagged as a developing story. Some independent sources are now starting to write critical articles. I plan on editing it in near future and adding several independent sources criticizing the claims of the inventor. Please also consider WP:RAPID. If that doesn't work then it could be merged with the main Water-fuelled car article. Anaverageguy (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

i'm also a bit busy in my real life so need some time to fix these issues. i still believe that article is acording to WP:WHYN & WP:NOTESAL & have enough required sources and notability to keep it...  Tariq.Imran  ^Talk 02:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem here is WP:RECENT. Sure, this thing is making a media splash right now...but who will be talking about it in a year, two years, ten years? The answer is that it will be completely forgotten - just as have almost all of the other claims for water fuelled cars (and especially those based on hydrolysis of water - which have been done to death). WP:RECENT says:

"Recentism is writing or editing without a long-term, historical view, thereby inflating the importance of a topic that has received recent public attention and possibly resulting in:

• Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens.
• Articles created on flimsy, transient merits."

This article is a poster-child for the evils of recentism.

The fact is that there is almost nothing substantive to say about this car. It can't work, it's just like a bazillion similar claims made in the past (not one of which has been shown to work - almost all of which have been proven to be fraudulant). We already have a section about it in Water-fuelled car - and if necessary that section can be modestly expanded to explain the media frenzy and any new facts that may come to light about it.

WP:WHYN says that "We require the existence of "reliable sources" so that we can be confident that we're not...perpetuating hoaxes", and that "Editors may decide that it is better for readers to present a narrow subject as part of a broader one" - which is precisely why I'm saying that our existing section in Water-fuelled car is more than enough to cover this only marginally useful topic.

As it stands, this article is incorrectly titled. It has almost nothing to say about the car that is different from all of the other water-fuelled car hoaxes. The correct title should be something like "Media events surrounding the announcement of Agha Waquar's water fuelled car"...but that too would be WP:AfD fodder.

I don't understand why you cite WP:NOTESAL. It just says stuff about list articles - which this is not.

We must step back from current events and stringently apply the WP:10YT: "In ten years will this addition still appear relevant?"...and the answer is a resounding "No!" just as it was "No" for Garrett, Klein, Genesis World Energy, Genepax, Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe, Daniel Dingel and most of the other water-fuelled car proponents. All of those people get a paragraph in Water-fuelled car - which is about what Agna Waquar deserves at this point. The sole exception is Stanley Meyer's car - which most certainly has passed WP:10YT and therefore has it's own article (Stanley Meyer's water fuel cell) because it continues to be talked about 20 years later.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Will this article be relevant in 10 years? Yes. It's important that this hoax be covered as it unfolds. There are too many conspiracy theorists who only go to one source to get their information. Some sane individuals can easily fall for such theories if there is no neutral Wikipedia article to cover the subject. Some of the Talk shows hosts are already leaning towards conspiracy theories of water fueled cars. I may be stereotyping here, but Pakistani people are generally prone to believing in conspiracy theories. I am working on the article on my computer. I am done half way through. I am going include a criticism section which will include all criticism he has received so far from various sources. I should be finished today or tomorrow. I have kept the tone very neutral and skeptical of his claims. Anaverageguy (talk) 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why would it still be relevant? Garrett, Klein, Genesis World Energy, Genepax, Thushara Priyamal Edirisinghe and Daniel Dingel are not longer relevant...and most of their "inventions" are almost identical to this one - they had similar amounts of publicity and were similarly lambasted and praised. This guy is absolutely no different - and pretty soon he'll have faded from everyone's memories - just like all of the others - except maybe Meyers. As for "covered as it unfolds"...you should definitely read WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. SteveBaker (talk) 20:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

FYI: The Agha Waqar Ahmad article is clearly doomed - not one positive !vote on the AfD request...and following my suggestion, most of the "Redirect" respondents are now suggesting a redirect to Water-fuelled car#Agha Waqar Ahmad on grounds that redirecting here is pointless because this article should also be deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not familiar with AfD voting system. Is there a link which describes it? Or does voicing my concern here counts? The paragraph in the main article does not cover all the facts necessary to asses his claims. I have already asked you to consider WP:RAPID. As for other inventors getting the same news coverage, I don't think they were endorsed by so called Scientists on national TV and government agencies. This story was also covered by NY Times. Which Wikipedia policy says that an American inventor, Stanley Meyers, gets special treatment? Agha's claims will be debunked, but he will always have conspiracy theorists' support. People still link Zia-ul-Haq's death to the American government of the time with no proof. So yes, it will be significantly brought up by the news and media in 10 years time with in it's country of origin. The article is pretty clumsy right now. I am ready to upload my work tonight in parts. Please read the new article before considering deletion. Anaverageguy (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Article re-written & notability issues

I have taken the time to re-write the entire article with WP:NPOV. I am removing the Deletion tag. The article was tagged because there was not much information in the original article. I have provided enough relevant facts which should qualify it as a notable event; since some of you have brought up WP:Notability and WP:Recentism. With the amount of hype this has received in the media there no doubt that it will be referred to in 10 years time within the country of origin. I also have no doubt that the subject will be Googled in the next few decades. Please also bear in mind that this article is not just documenting the perpetual motion machine itself but also the incompetent government officials who waste public money on nonsensical projects. Please also take a look at Recentism defended and please reach consensus before tagging again. Anaverageguy (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I am seeking consensus at WP:AfD where there are experts in the validity or otherwise of articles. SteveBaker (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

More Fluff from Agha Waqar's defenders

As of August 25 2012, two new sections were added to the article (Summary of criticism and Agha Waqar's response to criticism). There are at least four problems with this: First of all, there might be copyright issues with this as these exact writings can be found all over the internet forums and blogs; second, there are no sources given for most claims; third, the writing style is very poor and needs copy editing if it ends up staying there, and fourth, the only document cited for this new section is a self published source, which may not qualify as a reliable source. Can someone please either remove these sections or copy edit them. Anaverageguy (talk) 21:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone is looking for a yay or nay, I certainly am in favor of removing the two most recently added sections. They're very unorthodox compared to other wiki articles. The article is turning more in to "The debate over Agha's car" instead of just Agha's car" Sulfurboy (talk) 03:38, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to remove them soon. I was actually looking for the policies it violates, and copy the whole section here so there is no edit war. The only source that was presented (Agha Waqar's paper) was a self-published source, and not mainstream. It is not peer reviewed and does not contain any explanation of how the kit actually works. Anaverageguy (talk) 18:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

The two sections quoted below are problematic and I am deleting them as they completely violate no original research policy. Wikipedia is not an essay or a forum. The sources provided must be reliable and not questionable. The only source provided for the claims made below was a self published, non-peer reviewed paper and some University websites which were irrelevant to the claims of the inventor. Additionally, it's a copy and paste job from a questionable blog Anaverageguy (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

One most important thing that people haven't noticed that the negligence of Second LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS and acceptance of this so called water kits makes KIRCHOFF's second rule which is based upon law of thermodynamics to be neglected as well. As Kirchoff rule is a theory upon the parallel circuits hence the acceptance of Agha's water kits will mean that the circuits in our homes which also run on law of thermodynamics are all wrong. O man! you can deny the law but you can't deny the fact. Either Agha is true or either our home circuits are true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoaibshafique11 (talk • contribs) 06:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Tags added to front page

Not sure if it was because of the back and forth over deletion that it got missed, but there are multiple tags that need to be present on the front page. I took the time to read all that was addressed and know a few of you have spent much time trying to fix this page, but a myriad of improvements are still required in my opinion. I feel all these tags are self-explanatory, but if not, please respond and I will be happy to come back and give my reason. Sulfurboy (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, this article is truly a disaster area. The last two sections (Summary of Criticism and Agha Waqar's Answers to Criticism) are appallingly badly written, un-encyclopedic, unreferenced and WP:BLP-laden. I will delete them. SteveBaker (talk) 19:04, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Tags were removed very prematurely, a few auto edits is simply not enough. I don't even have to get more than a few lines down to see a myriad of small errors. There is no coherent topic, and very little context. Authors can't even decide what the article is about, example: article title is "water-fuelled" (which I'm pretty sure should actually be fueled not fulled) and then the first line calls it a water-kit. I didn't think I had to spell out the reason for the tags, but apparently I did. Please discuss why you think a tag should be removed here before doing so again or I'll have to assume it's spam.

Sulfurboy (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an FYI, I did not remove the tags, it was someone else but I can't find it in the edit logs. Tags were okay when the article had last two sections promoting the inventor. Those sections were removed. Not all the tags are applicable to the article. For example there is no close paraphrasing in the article, copy editing is also fine and it is not promoting the subject, at least that wasn't my intention when I wrote it. And would you tell me where the tone is not encyclopedic? The only tag that's somewhat applicable is the one for lacking a single coherent topic. I think as the time goes on, this will become another hoax, but we have to wait until the inventor is exposed. The lack of coherent topic tag can stay, but the other ones should go. Anaverageguy (talk) 02:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll remove the copyright tag. However, the article is still riddled with spelling, grammar and tense errors. Do you really think a sentence such as "His critics have pointed put that in order for the invention to work, it would have violate the second law of thermodynamics" doesn't need copy editing? There's a myriad other sentences that are just as bad, if not worse. There are some words that are capitalized that should not be or vice-versa. There is no consistency in the naming of water-kit, at times its called 'water-kit' other times it's called 'waterkit'; sometimes it's surrounded with quotation marks, other times it isn't.

The tone of the article lacks boldness, direction and context. Is the article about the water car? Is it about the criticism thereof? At times, the article seems to just be a criticism of Agha Waqar, not his 'invention'. On what are you trying to inform in this article? Further the article is entirely too conversational, this is feel based and hard to put in words, but it seems more like a retelling to a friend than an article.

The peacocking was applicable to both sides before the removal, but there is still talk up on behalf of the 'criticism' of the invention, and is bias. Example, "Pervez Hoodbhoy, a nuclear physicist, wrote in The Express Tribune that Ahmed's coverage in the media and endorsement by government authorities as well as scientists have exposed the ignorance and self delusion of such entities." The tone of this is borderline attack, as opposed to informative; not to mention yet another sentence in need of copy-editing.Sulfurboy (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This was inevitable...when something gets this public, people who are passionate about the topic (on either side) come out of nowhere and start editing Wikipedia. With all of these newbies on board (and especially those from a predominantly English-as-second-language country), poor quality editing is somewhat inevitable. Once all of the public interest and hot, passionate rhetoric dies down, I'll probably put it up for WP:AfD again. SteveBaker (talk) 13:02, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker, I know you don't like this article. You made it very clear when you tried to get it deleted, and exaggerated the facts during the discussion. But your sentiments do not change the fact that it's a notable subject and can stay on Wikipedia.

Sulfurboy, I have actually seen worse sentences on Wikipedia that would qualify as attacks; and when I tried to change them , I was told that they are verifiable and can stay. The sentences quoting the Scientists and critics are reporting what they said; so they have to be phrased that way, or it looks like writer's opinion. Nevertheless, I 'll make the minor changes that will improve the article. This article is still work in progress because no one has either proven or disproved that the kit works. So there needs to be a neutral tone as per WP:NPOV. That's why there are sections of criticism and approval. If this turns out to be a hoax (which it most likely will), then it will have a better direction from start to finish... over time the article will become more cohesive. The article will go from an article about the water-kit to an article about a notable hoax. That's when those parts about criticism and praise will make more sense. Anaverageguy (talk) 14:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Sections "Summary of Criticism" and "Response to Summary of Criticism"

I have twice removed these sections - and they've been replaced afterwards. You simply can't put a pile of horribly controversial material into a Wikipedia article without a shred of reliable sourcing. Your "Summary" is pure "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" - and lacks any "RELIABLE SOURCES" - which is also not allowed. Any experienced Wikipedia editor would similarly conclude - so simply replacing what I removed won't result in the material remaining in the article because someone else will come along and remove it instead. Every single controversial statement must come from some reliable external source document and appear in the article as a little blue number in square brackets linking to a reference at the bottom of the article. I appreciate your enthusiasm for getting science into the article - but this is not the way to do it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:20, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Agha waqar with criminal history

This News article http://www.thenews.com.pk/article-66294-The-interesting-story-of-Agha-Waqar proves it, please include — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.252.8 (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

good article

http://www.brecorder.com/general-news/172/1242718/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.178.199.217 (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits about "proof"

I've reverted a couple of edits that added information sourced to a YouTube video that was claimed as proof the invention worked. It doesn't sound like any independent observers or anything that might be charitably called that, just a dog and pony show from the inventor. The edits are using this to claim that all misconceptions were cleared and that the inventor in a genius. Suspect an edit war from the removal so started the section here to hopefully avoid it. I'd like the editors to show how it's a reliable source and how one test with no independent controls or observers can possibly be used to make the claims made. Ravensfire (talk) 17:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Youtube is definitely not a reliable source for anything along these lines. DMacks (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

A proposed revision

I recently worked on a revision of this page. I understand it is "fringe science" and my only intent was to present a neutral tone while we all await a decision about the page's future. I'm not very good at navigating just yet, so here is the url for the work I did. I hope it works. [1] I'm unsure why I can't find it in the history page for the article. I would be most grateful to have guidance to try to improve the work I did, even if it is to be deleted at some point and more than that, I am keen to learn how to improve my copy-editing for Wikipedia. Kind regards, Myrtle Myrtlegroggins (talk) 09:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Agha Waqar's water-fuelled car. 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/20120720083146/http://www.thenewspakistan.com/water-running-car-kit-launched-dr-ghulam-sarwar-launch-pakistan.php to http://www.thenewspakistan.com/water-running-car-kit-launched-dr-ghulam-sarwar-launch-pakistan.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

conclusion section is missing

What happened to him ? how did this finally end ? One person from his city mentions he got rich. can we get any verifiable source ? Pakistani editors please update. http://www.pakgamers.com/forums/f3/whatever-happened-agha-waqar-ahmed-256164/#post2779166 --DBigXray 12:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

"Perpetuation motion"

I don't care about this invention, whether it was a fraud or not, that's irrelevant. I do care about good science and engineering reporting.

It appears some people, across a series of topics, and, of course, out there in the real world, think "perpetuation motion" is some kind of required put down to any of these devices. A sort of skeptic mantra to keep repeating when, even if they don't work and are a fraud, when they simply could not "move perpetually".

Yes, I understand the 2nd law.

Firstly, I checked up and this device used petrol as an original/additional fuel. Secondly, it's an engine. It'll corrode, consume its active parts (electrodes), or it will wear out quickly.

I am sorry but someone's being dickish on this and "Do Not Be a Dick" is against the policies.

Lastly, whatever these devices are, however efficient they are or are not, they aren't classical "electrolysis", as anyone who knew what electrolysis is can confirm, and so if you are using the argument that they can't work on the basis of our understanding of the efficiency of classical electrolysis, then again you're doing bad science writing.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.69.144.160 (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• Please only add content that is supported with a reliable source, and do not forget to add that reliable source as a reference for your additions. --DBigXrayᗙ 03:21, 5 February 2019 (UTC)