Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 2

message: I believe CatherineV has a suggested replacement on the article.  YBM wants a couple of links added to it... I doubt there's a problem with that.  However, it seems as though the Bogdanoffs have not commented on the article yet.  Igor, what is your opinion on the article?
-- EE Guy
Dear EE Guy, 
I have no problem with the replacement of the article as suggest by Catherine V (including the links proposed by YBM).  I have just added a few little words that I underline in the following version : 
"During 1999-2002, popular French TV presenters Igor and Grichka Bogdanoff obtained two theses (one in mathematics, one in theoretical physics) from the University of Bourgogne. From this work, they published six papers in refereed physics and mathematics journals, including "Annals of Physics" and "Classical and Quantum Gravity." After reading the abstracts of both theses, French physicist Max Niedermaier considered them to be an incoherent stream of physics buzzwords, masquerading as pseudoscience under a layer of dense technical jargon, similar to the Sokal Affair. On 22 October 2002, Mr Niedermaier subsequently sent an email to this effect to various physicists. An eventual recipient of this email, the American physicist John Baez, created a discussion on Usenet (Science Physics Research) entitled, "Has physics been bitten by a Reverse Sokal Hoax?" This question immediately attracted worldwide attention, both in the physics community as well as the international popular press. Upon learning that the Bogdanoffs disputed that their work was a hoax, Mr Niedermaier issued a private and public apology to the Bogdanoffs on 24 October and the brothers have continued to defend their theories (which deal with quantum groups, KMS theory, and topological field theory in view to propose for the first time a theoretical model suitable for describe what occured before the BIg Bang). After passionate debates and discussions on the Internet, there is no clear consensus about the technical merits of the Bogdanoffs' work. Some claim it to be a hoax, others claim it to be sloppy work simply plagued by errors, while some theoretical-physics researchers think highly of their theories.
It should be emphasized that the Bogdanoffs adamantly defend their work as genuine. The general topic of "before the Big Bang" is a complicated field and their work purports to present forward-looking theories.
In 2004 they published a highly successful popular-science French-language book "Avant Le Big-Bang" ("Before the Big Bang"), based on a simplified version of their theses, where they presented their own approach amongst other cosmological models. In the framework of a short weekly television program, created by the Bogdanoffs in 2002, a 90-minute cosmology special broadcast went on the air on French channel France 2 in August 2004. Both the book and television show have been criticized for scientific inaccuracies, while others admire the Bogdanoffs' ability to bring the subjects of cosmology and relativity to a wider audience.
I think inserting "refereed" into the article is important... Good suggestion.  However, I would suggest rewording the second change: "... in view to propose for the first time a theoretical model suitable for describe what occured before the BIg Bang." In every research field that I have dabbled in, the phrase "for the first time" always causes an argument.  Could I therefore suggest "... to propose a novel theory for describing what occured before the Big Bang)."?
-- EE Guy
:if you insert "refereed" in the article, you have to add as well that most journals published public apologies to have published the papers. you have to add as well that the papers are almost identical, what is not considered as a fair practice. What they propose is not even a model since the math part is flawed and only linked to the so-called "physical" part by a weak metaphor (and some nonsense). "some theoretical-physics researchers think highly of their theories" does not apply to Motls' statement : first one physicist is not "some", and "think highly" is not accurate (just read his blog). They are many, many other problem with the last proposed version, I have no time at the moment to point out. --YBM 05:38, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Regarding "some theoretical-physics researchers think highly of their theories" does not apply to Motls' statement : first one physicist is not "some", perhaps we could rephrase as follows : "some scientists think highly of their theories" as the more neutral title would include other supporters such as Jadczyk or Petit (I'm afraid I don't know their fields of expertise and whether they are theoretical-physicists or not) ? CatherineV 09:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: # Are you guys ready for the article to be unprotected? 
#I've archived this page down to the section "Consensus?",  here's the archive link. Does anyone object? The move can easily be reverted, if desired. Bishonen | talk 02:14, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good idea about the archives. Now, about question n°1. When you say "unprotected", does it mean that the page is going to be completely unsupervised and open to all for further editing ? Experience has shown that we (ie all the people, on both sides, who have been involved in this affair for months) cannot be trusted when it comes to writing a common neutral text (beautiful oxymoron) when left to our own devices. I have a feeling it won't take long before this article becomes a favorite undisciplined playground once you, teachers, have left. Is there a wiki-procedure for this - surely this is not the first time this happens, is it ? CatherineV 09:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: A couple of questions

message: Tips on formatting posts:
#When replying to someone else, please indent your own post in such a way that it's distinguished from the other person's. One colon at the head of a paragraph indents one step, two colons indent two steps, etc.
#Please sign all your posts. Typing four tildes, ~~~~, will create a signature automagically. It works with IP numbers too, you don't have to be logged in to do it. (Although certainly this page would be easier to follow if everybody did create an account and use it.)
#If possible, try to avoid breaking up another person's posts with interleaved comments, as this breaks off parts of his/her post from the signature and can create confusion. But if you do need to interleave, please try to help the reader by indenting and signing all your paragraphs, as above. If nobody objects, I'll try to look in and format the dialogue now and then, as some newish users may find the code confusing. Bishonen | talk 07:29, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Tips for showing who's saying what on the page

message: Hi, CatherineV, thanks for your comment above about my proposed unprotection. Don't sell yourselves short! I see lots of constructive discussion on this page now. The article was protected because of edit warring, but it really shouldn't be kept protected. Open for editing by all is the wiki principle, and editing by consensus worked out on the talk page usually does work, even where the opposed opinions are as strong as here. Note that the basic wiki rule of NPOV doesn't mean the article is supposed to be something in between, it means that all POVs must be represented (and all of them neutrally reported) in it. It can take a while to get the hang of it. I'll keep a lookout for renewed edit warring, and you're very welcome to drop a note on my talk page (see the talk link in my sig) if you see a problem I can help with. If you think I'm part of the problem, there are 500 other admins here. The quickest way of getting help from an admin who's active and online is via #Wikipedia. Please note also that experienced non-admins can often help equally well; the only things they can't do is protect, unprotect and block, violent methods that shouldn't be resorted to in a hurry anyway. 
A contributor to the talk page who was being disruptive has been blocked for a week. She'll have a fair chance to take part when her block is released, but I won't hesitate to re-block quickly if the behavior is resumed. 
: Thank you for your answer ; I'll definitely keep you posted if need be. I've modified the article in keeping with the "consensus" text we wrote here. I don't know how to "wikify" it, though. CatherineV 18:23, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm unprotecting the article now

message: To revert more than three times in 24 hours is a blockable offense, see WP:3RR, but this rule does NOT mean it's OK to revert three times a day. The best way is not to revert at all. Edit  the other person's additions rather than revert them, and discuss your changes on Talk. Especially try to avoid reverting a revert. Please consider discussing a voluntary agreement to not revert more than once a day, compare WP:HEC. Bishonen | talk 17:00, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The 3 Revert Rule: everybody please read this

message: I am sorry I have to intervene again in this  debate  whose (I think)  only specialists of the field should take part.
:: why is it that you include yourself in this?  your objectivity is decidedly suspect, this article is about you and your brother.  your very credentials are decidedly suspect, that is what the article is about.
Here are my comments : 
1. About  CQG statement
"At a later time (2002), the editorial board of the journal Classical and Quantum Gravity issued a statement that said that the Bogdanoffs' submission "... made it through the review process even though, in retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this journal." One editor said that if the Bogdanoffs' paper had reached his desk, he would have immediately sent it back saying "The article is a potpourri of the buzzwords of modern physics, that is completely incoherent."
There are many problems with this comment : 
a)  It was not an "official statement" but an email sent to Greg Kupperberg and copied on internet. So it is wrong to quote it as an official statement. 
:: here is what they said.  the words are very clear and it was issued from the editorial board.  just because they are not flattering to you does not mean they are not there.
    Classical and Quantum Gravity and the paper "Topological theory of the
    initial singularity of spacetime" by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Class.
    Quant. Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001)
    
    A number of our readers have contacted us regarding the above paper
    and in response we have decided to issue the following statement.
    
    Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research
    of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is not possible for the
    Editorial Board to consider every article submitted and so, in common
    with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1000
    referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. Regrettably,
    despite the best efforts, the refereeing process cannot be 100% effective.
    Thus the paper "Topological theory of the initial singularity of spacetime"
    by G Bogdanoff and I Bogdanoff, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18
    4341-4372 (2001) made it through the review process even though, in
    retrospect, it does not meet the standards expected of articles in this
    journal.
    
    The journal's Editorial Board became aware of this situation already in
    April 2002. The paper was discussed extensively at the annual Editorial
    Board meeting in September 2002, and there was general agreement that
    it should not have been published. Since then several steps have been
    taken to further improve the peer review process in order to improve the
    quality assessment on articles submitted to the journal and reduce the
    likelihood that this could happen again. However, there are at this time
    no plans to withdraw the article. Rather, the journal publishes refereed
    Comments and Replies by readers and authors as a means to comment
    on and correct mistakes in published material.
    We are also grateful to our readers, contributors and reviewers for their
    vigilance and assistance both before and after publication.
    
    Dr Andrew Wray
    Senior Publisher
    Classical and Quantum Gravity
    Institute of Physics Publishing
    
    Professor Hermann Nicolai
    Honorary Editor
    Classical and Quantum Gravity
    Albert Einstein Institute
b) "At a later time..."  is misleading. Because this email was a direct consequence of Niedermaier Hoax. 
:: what "Niedermaier Hoax"?  he assumed (mistakenly since you continue to deny it) that you were perpetration a hoax.  when he realized that you're intention was not to expose shortfalls in the review process in the same way as Sokal, he withdrew that charge.  doesn't mean he agreed with any of your "physics".  in fact, 
c)  If this email should appear in the article, then there is no reason to avoid publishing the report of the referee. 
:: it's pretty long.  and it's the referee's compentence that is also called into question.  no one disputes that at least 2 referees accepted your paper in CQG, but the whole point of the scandel is that they did.
As a consequence the best solution would be to supress this so called "statement"
:: no.  it is there and it is fact.  you only want to suppress it because it is not flattering to you.
About  " very few physicists..." : 
"While very few theoretical physicists think positively of the merit of their theories."
This phrase is wrong.   On what concrete elements does the author qualifies the number of  "pro"  and  "anti"  bogdanoff? Did he manage to do a survey?  No, of course.  And I can say that the mathematicians or physicists who wrote an official statement about our work are certainely more numerous than the one who expressed their opinions on internet.  We got 15 official reports written by specialists in our field.  This number is superior a) in quality  (as an official statement against some vague and non motivated opinions in internet forums)  and b)  in quantity  (I count hardly ten (not motivated) opinions coming from real scientists although their field of expertise does not allow them to produce any real scientific opinion on our work. Last point,  the mathematicians or theoretical physicists  who officially  gave their opinion in written did not only think "positively"  but  "highly" of our theories.
::that is untrue.  they said that you may have had a couple or few good ideas.  the fact is, nontheless, there are only a couple or certainly less than 10 physicists of any standing that do not dismiss your publication as "gibberish" or (literally) "bullshit".  that is the fact, Igor, and you can not run away from it, even though you are desparately trying to obscure it.
It is written and (only if necessary) we can produce their reports. 
Therefore I will revert this phrase to its initial form. 
Igor
:: we should add Quackery to the list (but quackery is usually junk science applied to medicine). r b-j 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support the present version of the article. The fact that the Bogdanov are deeply delusional on their own "work" is not an issue. --YBM 17:36, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This report is indeed very intriguing... Verbaarshot was not a reporter of you thesis, why would have he written such a report ? --YBM 20:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What consensus? 

message: <Irrelevant character assassination under this heading moved to User talk:XAL by Bishonen | talk 08:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The psychological profile of a mirrored Sokal hoax 

message: There is no such vast conspiracy than a cooperation between Mister Voyer as representant of his postsituanistic communyty, and YBM, as his image outside, and 2 accolytes of his.
This has been describe above (see /Archive 1) and give all the details and references of the matter, including precedents in such a an infringement case with 2 other writers.
The scientific people you name didn't acted with the purpose of creating an embarassing situation for the Bogdanovs by using lies, as Igor has pointed out many times already, it is the way it happened and precise incidents at the very beginning who gave it its marks, but it is the very subversive abuse of those and creation of more by YBM, who maintained the illusion about an affair and an hoax situation long after it was, or should have been, forgotten.
I suggest that you accept not to blind yourself with only the aspect of the story that you can cope with, the pseudo scientifical one, for the gallery, and take the time to consider the other side who is so visible everywhere: th epresence of ybm and his misargumentation and subversive actions, for there is basically not much in the story to make such a commotion. So where did the explosion came from if the bomb was disamorced long ago and its scientific patron was blank?
From another bomb, placed there like inadvertently, almost as a victim of the first one, but this one was ladded, with hypocrisy, lies, ignorance, active misinformation, and an auto generating source of hate.
There is no scientific Hoax, and no scientifical errors to this story, only the denial of the existency of humans manipulations, and that madness and being easely talk into the worse case scenario are disease that scientists are not immune to. --XAL 18:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion continues here 2 

message: Hoax seems to be the category of contention.  The votes will end 7 days from now at 10:00am EST Sept 22nd.  Please place a Support, Oppose or Comment under each and any material to support your answer if you so choose.  Lets keep this NPOV and no personal attacks.  Even if you have made comments for or against, please do so again here. --Terry T | @ | C  14:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you're right.  I'll think about it, but, like Baez, now this affair is just so irritating that it makes my head hurt. The Bogus brothers will now just want to wear me down so that they can edit the article without impedance, but I (and others of good intent) have to be resolved to not let that happen. --r b-j 21:11, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vote: Consensus on Hoax Category 

message: Dear EE Guy:
Your lack of objectivity and of impartiality is so obvious that it is shocking to read the statement you made above!
You happen to mention my name, not my signature, which is interesting given the fact that you never gave your name.
It is also inherent to the discussion that you so enthousiastically preach for there, to adress me private insults when you do know, or at least should know, that all my, and Igor's, statements above, were answers to attacks made by this r-j-b and YBM, rjb having 2 sets of signatures by the way which make his accusations regarding socket puppets quite laughable.
How on earth did you managed to avoid mentioning those 2 users attacks and insults of very agravating art?
Do you have special glasses with filters for their allegations? In which case I would like to get a set of, it will spare me time and headaches!
How long have you think to go on with your objectivitys' pretenses, while obviously taking side for YBM and rbj, imagining you could walk free with it, and nobody will ever noticed?
How long are you going to deny the matter at hand? And that for exemple, to give a recent one, the reason why YBM denied the contains of the links I gave him as absolute proofs against his allegations, is that he is building on the assumption that no-one else on this page can read and understand french?
How can you condemn disputes based on personal dislikes, when you are yourself giving in to that game in your statement by blaming me alone for the situation at hand?
Am I the one using insults as "socket-puppets" as mean of argumentations? or am I the one trying to dismantle those pseudo arguments to clear the page from polluating objects?
You should know better, and if you did, you will also know that it is and has always been YBM's way to pollute and hinder any discussions in any forums he has been into, and that he did the absolute same thing on the french wiki page about the affair, that he vandalised, and was therefor confined to carry on with his bluring and vandalising job on the english page.
You are excused because you don't have been aware of those facts from before, and I hope that it will help you to master a better understanding of the seemingly absurd crap unfolding here before your eyes.Not at all whom you thought I was, --XAL 04:13, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This talk page is just crazy! I'm tempted to simply remove any personal attack and any contribution which isn't related to the question of how to advance this article. I'll start with archiving the current page to set a definite point when to start this policy enforcement. But I'd need some more volunteers to cover a 24/7 schedule. --Pjacobi 08:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Pjacobi, I don't know if you've seen   my report about this page on WP:ANI. I was trying to uphold basic wiki principles here until recently, but the stream of abuse directed at me by one particular user was starting to get to me. I may be back later, but for now I've walked away. Bishonen | talk 10:47, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've seen it. I was trying to avoid becoming actively involved here, but it is so horrific. --Pjacobi 15:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enough is Enough! 

message: Rbj's last post does not  allow any progress.    As it was written many times,  the "quotation game"  is not applicable to such an article (or any "encyclopaedic article" in fact). It is a simple conclusion. 
Therefore : 
:Point 1 should be suppressed
:Point 2 should be applied in order to place "pro" and "anti" bogdanoffs in perspective of the context of their opinions :   It is important to establish a distinction between "internet opinions"  (90% of anti bogdanoff opinions) versu!s "official opinions"  (99% of the "pro bogdanoff" opinions). --Igor
::Point 1 should be mentioned, but not as a quote, provided there is a verifiable reference. --Pjacobi 16:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rbj's last post does not  allow any progress