Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 5

message: DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
This archive page covers approximately the dates between 07 October 2005 and 12 October 2005.
Post replies to the main talk page,  copying or summarizing the section you are
replying to if necessary.
Please add new archivals to Talk:Bogdanov Affair/Archive06. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Ze miguel 22:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

message: To all editors using this page for discussion: It is my opinion that the tone, structure, and content of the debate currently taking place here on this talk page has somewhat strayed from discussion of article content, and has instead degenerated into ad hominem argument. I would like to remind all participants in this debate that this article talk page is for collaboration and discussion of matters specifically relating to the article content. It is not a forum for the debate of the merits, personalities, or opinions of those participating in this particular article subject. Please keep discussion on this page solely restricted to matters germane to article content, and I would like to remind all participants that Wikipedia policy expressly forbids personal attacks being made (see Wikipedia:No personal attacks) and it also requires all editors to be civil in their communications and actions (see Wikipedia:Civility). I would like to ask all concerned to please follow these policies. Thank you. Yours, --NicholasTurnbull 01:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is very kind of you to take care of this page size. Nevertheless there were at least three ongoing discussions, related to the article content, which are now buried in Archive4 : about the scientific merit of the thesis and papers initiated by a long scientific paper, about a third party check of cites proposal by Igor B., about the "Internet Discussion" section. I propose to move back significant parts of these discussions. --YBM 01:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: BTW, User:Igor B. have made a mess of this page at his last edit (he injecting the whole Archive4 before answering), I copy some (imho) relevant to the current content sections here. --YBM 02:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: My apologies for archiving active discussion; however, the tangled structure of the current debate made it rather impossible for me to determine what was currently being referred to and what wasn't, and there appeared to be a great deal of somewhat off-topic material on the page. Would you please possibly keep each discussion thread in its own individual section, to make this easier to deal with? The old page was incredibly long, and a great deal was, in my opinion, not germane to the article. Thank you. --NicholasTurnbull 02:54, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, I hope now that we could focus on points related to the article content. Keep the good work. --YBM 02:58, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note about the purpose of this page 

message: Dear Lubos, welcome on this page of discussion. It is really good to see you here.
you wrote : The gravitational instantons based on the topological action could indeed be an important part of a dual, "quantum foam" description of quantum gravity. Nevertheless, it is hard for me to agree with your statement that the Lagrangian "reduces" to the topological term. In the full Lagrangian, if written properly, there are also higher derivative terms that are expected to exceed the "R squared" topological term at ultrashort distances, near the big bang you study, much like the Einstein-Hilbert action, which you write among your terms of choice, wins at long distance scales. These terms appear even if you have 32 supercharges in supergravity, and they are the main reason why we normally believe that the usual geometric and topological intuition should not be trusted at subPlanckian distances. If you think that there are no E-H and higher-order non-topological terms in the action in your limit, you would have to give more evidence for this statement. In that case, it would indeed be an extraordinarily interesting observation. 
Indeed, it is perfectly true that in the general string context D = ... , the theory generally induces non-perturbative corrections and a coupling with higher derivative terms expected to exceed the R squared term. But here, the context in slightly different, since we consider the low-dimensionnal sector of the theory. Indeed, D=4 (and N=2). In four dimensions, the expansion of derivative terms can be limited in a natural way to the R squared term (see for instance Kounnas and al). This is also true in our Kaluza-Klein context (viewed here as the D=5 superposition of the D=4 Lorentzian + Euclidean gravitationnal theories). So, on the ultra-violet limit of the theory  (associated to the coupling constant g goes to zero) the Einstein term and the R squared term are exponentially supressed of the Lagrangian. Consequently, the only effective contribution on this 'topological limit' comes from the topological term RR dual. In this case of course, the time-like direction of the theory is compactified on the circle of radius zero (where we find the instanton sector, dual to the monopole sector of the 'superposed theory'). From this point of view, the ultra-violet limit (beta goes to zero) and the infra-red limit (Planck scale) represent two sectors of the same theory and can be seen as related by a duality relation of the T-duality type (which, in string theory, exchanges the scales of the theory). Then, in our approach, the so called 'zero-scale' (initial singularity given by the topological term) is dual to the 'physical scale', given by the Einstein term.
This is a brief hint and can be of course more detailed and referenced, if you wish.
Thank you again for your kind attention and your precious comments about our work.
Grichka B. 194.206.212.1 03:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  An answer to Lubos Motl 

message: Igor, I do not appreciate your constant reversal to a version which replaces basically all documented facts with appologetic and unverifiable statements. Either you formally challenge facts like insulting Charpak (and with good reasons), or you stop removing them. 
Furthermore, I had specifically required everybody to discuss and seek a reasonable middle term arrangement; I note that after I made the call, YBM managed to give this a try, and that noone cared to discuss his version with him on the talk page. 
Revert wars are bad because they get everybody nervous and angry, not because of some rule. Noone has a guaranteed right to three reverts, there is only one rule which spells Don't be a dick. Statements like "I stand to my position. Look at the talk page (and don't forget, YBM, that you have only 1 revert left" are enough to make me block the user so that he spends the next 24 hours in meditation in the hope that he gets enlightened and comes at peace with the universe. Rama 06:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the 3RR and Igor's version 

message: I have edited the page at the request of User:Pasboudin and User:Willy on Wheels. Please stop reverting my edits. --The three revert rule is silly 10:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Stop removing content and vandalizing pages. --JoanneB 10:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And so I see. And I've reverted it again, and will continue to do so. Please stop vandalizing. --JoanneB 12:14, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: So you like editing eh? So do we! --Oblivious 12:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Vrooom vrooom, here comes the permablockmobile... Rama 12:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Aaaah, it's so good to be unblocked ! I couldn't wait for having the pleasure of telling you : "Bye bye" ! 
Igor, Grichka, Catherine : GOOD LUCK with such people as YBM, r-b-j and above all Rama, as the latter has the power to reduce people to silence, if he doesn't like what they say. I see that YBM and him have become close friends, and that the first has become a kind of reference for the article, among others concerning the part "Internet discussions"...  YBM reverted my version after I was blocked, but instead of writing in the comments "rv Laurence67 version" he wrote "adding details related to Laurence67 version", and of course it worked : in spite of his promises to treat everybody in the same way ("Further reverts to the article will be treated just the same as this one was (page)"), Rama didn't do anything against him, on the contrary he encouraged to use YBM's version as a model ("To all, try to take YBM's version and include some of Igor's statements (page)") ... Besides, the whole part "About the 3RR and Igor's version" is a model of partiality and abuse of power : you'd think that it's a teacher who talks about his pet to the rest of the class, while insulting the wipping boy (reference to "Don't be a dick !") ! Pathetic...
 
And as Rama was so kind to suggest that some elements of my version (concerning the violence anti-Bogdanov) could be kept, I see that YBM put himself out to write about it, with Rama's full blessing. And the result... oh my God, I believe I'm going to vomit...
So, Rama, just to answer to what you wrote me on my personal talk page :
"I also hope, though that's not of your responsability, that you see that the "opposite side" (since apparently noone cares to think it otherwise) will have behaved properly in your temporary absence; note that I intend to to treat them no differently that you, as I have advertised several times before."
But you have just advertised, you haven't done what you "intended", and what I see now is exactly the opposite of a proper behavior : the article is completely anti-Bogdanov, as people who are here to criticize them know that they are protected by you. And I don't think it will get better...
OK, I leave this ridiculous farce, I will miss the parody of justice as well, what a pity...
 
Have good fun !
Laurence67 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bye bye, good luck, have fun

message: The Criticism section is much too large. The quotes should be trimmed down to one or the sentences, and links provided to the actual texts.
This is also true for the Implications for the peer-review system section.
Ze miguel 10:21, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section 

message: This unworthy paragraph has been bothering me for days:
For comparison, the publications of cosmologist Jean-Pierre Luminet were cited on SPIRES over 500 times, an average of 28 citations per paper. The publications of mathematical physicist John Baez were cited on SPIRES over 1200 times. The publications of cosmologist Alain Riazuelo were cited on SPIRES over 700 times. The publications of physicist Peter Woit were cited on SPIRES over 200 times. The publications of physicist Jacques Distler were cited on SPIRES over 2200 times, an average or more than 50 citations per publication.
Can we please pick up one and add an average. Either Carlip's statement of 2.3 or another one. 
CatherineV 11:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This paragraph is footnote fodder. I would recommend finding a general average (just making that average of the people cited here makes little sense), or possibly John Baez, since he was involved in the discussion with the Bogdanov (but I don't quite like one-sample or 5-sample statistics). Rama 11:49, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just removed most of that paragraph. Ze miguel 08:53, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About the Followups section

message: I just added this section, which is a major rewite of the Criticism section. I tried to organize the information, and accurately present both points of viez. You will note that there are more pro-Bogdanov views than anti. This version possibly allows for the removal of the Clean Up tag from the page. Comments about this are welcome.
PS: "God does not play dice with the Universe" is a way to say that Quantum Mechanics is an invalid theory. Ze miguel 23:27, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To me, anything that shortens the litany of quote, counter-quotes, counter-counter-quotes,... can't be completely bad. Rama 06:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reports and comments from scientists 

message: See title. Ze miguel 21:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving needed 

message: Here are again some precisions about my changes  (Igor)
I. ORIGIN OF THE AFFAIR
- I added the reason of the mention.  The precision about the "Honorable" mention given to Grichka  was made by  Sternheimer in a written statement; Here it is : http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm
- Suppression of "also honoralbe" I had no mention.  Sternheimer has explained why in the  same document   http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm       Contrarely to Grichka my thesis report does NOT bear any mention; I can send it to any neutral party who could check it immediately.
- Niedermaier's mail was not sent to "a frien" but to the physicist Ted Newman
II  IMPLICATIONS OF...
- I suppressed Motl's second comment.  As I wrote it does not correspond to his present way of thinking. 
III INTERNET DISCUSSIONS
I suppressed all the agressive  words.  And I also suppressed Charpak's mention. 
IV FOLLOW UP
I suppressed agressive words  (blunders,  etc)
Igor
:Here is my reply to these statements:
::I added the reason of the mention.
:Your statement by Sternheimer is misleading at best.  See these links:  and articles in the NY Times that quote Sternheimer.  It does not belong.
::Suppression of "also honoralbe" I had no mention.
:While your mention honorable may have been revoked (this is hardly worth bragging about), you and your brother wrote in an interview (after the supposed retraction of your mention honorable): 
::Igor defended successfully his thesis on June 8, 2002, getting also the "honorable" mark for reasons that it is not up to us to judge. 
:Please note that this date (8 June 2002) is after the date of retraction on Cather[ineV's personal Web site (25 Avril 2002)] http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm.
:I would love to hear your explanations of this.
::I suppressed Motl's second comment.  As I wrote it does not correspond to his present way of thinking.
:Until Prof. Motl states otherwise, there is no reason for a third party to state that "does not correspond to his present way of thinking."  Please note, for example, that you cropped the sentence following your quote from Motl: "I find it unlikely that these things will work."   Also note that you maintain another quote by Motl from the same post that, for some reason, you believe still corresponds to his present way of thinking.  Please explain how this can be.
::I also suppressed Charpak's mention.
:Again, just because you're ashamed of your actions doesn't mean it didn't happen or it's not relevant.  I'm sure Bill Clinton would love to remove all references to Monica Lewinsky.
:Again, please reconcile the mention honorable paradox above.
::--EE Guy 15:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Igor's Modifications Again 

message: All the reverts you have done were documented and explained  here above.  Let's discuss them one per one. 
1. The thesis mentions
Far before this "affair" was discussed on Usenet, Sternheimer issued a statement where he explained why the "rarely honorable mention" was attributed to Grichka http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm.  He specifically wrote that it was given to G. "for non scientific reasons"  (explaining the context of the defense in Polytechnique).  This statement is necessary to explain why  the "honorable" mention was given to a thesis that is obviously different from a simple "mediocre thesis". 
As far as I am concerned,  this mention was not given to me.  If you give me a private email  (you can contact me at igor.bogdanov@wanadoo.fr) I can send you the copies of the thesis reports : you will see that the Honorable mention is present on Grichka's but not on mine.  This is a fact and one cannot deny it. It is also explained in the document http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm by Sternheimer himself. 
Where did I say that Honorable mention was given to me?  to whom?  in what interview?   I would be very curious to know. Because I do not remember having said something that I know being false (unless the journalist put these words in my mouth).
About Charpak
I will never accept  to be considered as an "insultor". Why? because it is simply not true.  The Charpak episode was a very pecular accident that should not be taken as a representative image of who we are.  I have said that apologized for this mistake.  I have said that an encycolopedia is not having for mission to "blow on the fire".   
About Motl
You decided to add this sentence of Motl which was appropriate when you introduced it  (about 3 weeks ago)  but not as the article reads today.   In the meantime 2 events occured : 
1. The article contains more "negative" opinions
2. Motl himself  published another article (October 3) where he explains why our work may be of interest.
We have developped a private correspondance with Motl and we know what he really thinks.  The image given by certain of his phrases written in June is not consistent with what he considers today as representative.  Why do you want this phrase to be present?  It is not necessary for the general comprehension of the article. It is not coherent with Motl's present "state of mind". 
About insults in general
When people are commenting about our "insulting attitude"  it is giving a total false image of reality.  Go to the forums and count the number, the incredible high number of times we got insulted by people.  Why?  because we were "stars" from television  daring to pretend that they did something in science.  Is it a good reason to be treated the way we were?  How would you have reacted if after almost 10 years of pain and efforts all your work would have been ruined by an email which considered it as a "hoax"? 
In spite of this,  as recogized Peter Woit himself,  we never lost our control and remained calm.  You cannot consider the "YBM exchanges" as representatives of what we are. 
Foucault Pendulum
I am sorry but what you wrote about the F.Pendulum is not scientifically right.   In spite of what you say,  there is a problem with the behaviour of the Pendulum. This was at the origin of March's principle.  Therefore your comment does not stand. 
In a general way,  as I said many times,  I do not wish to enter into an endless explaination process.  I gave you some links and evidence.
Igor
:I replied to each of these points earlier, and here is the text of my reply repeated verbatim.  (Including the link to the interview that you requested, which was present in my previous post.)
:Here is my reply to these statements:
::I added the reason of the mention.
:Your statement by Sternheimer is misleading at best.  See these links:  and articles in the NY Times that quote Sternheimer.  It does not belong.
::Suppression of "also honoralbe" I had no mention.
:While your mention honorable may have been revoked (this is hardly worth bragging about), you and your brother wrote in an interview (after the supposed retraction of your mention honorable): 
::Igor defended successfully his thesis on June 8, 2002, getting also the "honorable" mark for reasons that it is not up to us to judge. 
:Please note that this date (8 June 2002) is after the date of retraction on Cather[ineV's personal Web site (25 Avril 2002)] http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm.
:I would love to hear your explanations of this.
Igor is honest enough to say he got no mention on his thesis and he suppresses it on the article. I don't understand why you insist about that point once again. –––– LLL
::I suppressed Motl's second comment.  As I wrote it does not correspond to his present way of thinking.
:Until Prof. Motl states otherwise, there is no reason for a third party to state that "does not correspond to his present way of thinking."  Please note, for example, that you cropped the sentence following your quote from Motl: "I find it unlikely that these things will work."   Also note that you maintain another quote by Motl from the same post that, for some reason, you believe still corresponds to his present way of thinking.  Please explain how this can be.
::I also suppressed Charpak's mention.
:Again, just because you're ashamed of your actions doesn't mean it didn't happen or it's not relevant.  I'm sure Bill Clinton would love to remove all references to Monica Lewinsky.
It is funny to see how unfair you can be, EE Guy. YBM keeps insulting Igor and other people for years. That's not mentioned in the article. Igor says something negative about Charpark ONE TIME and APOLOGIES and of course, it must be on your opinion mentioned in the article. –––– LLL
:Again, please reconcile the mention honorable paradox above.
::--EE Guy 17:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: About EE GUY reverts

message: Some new answers to EE Guy
::I added the reason of the mention.
:Your statement by Sternheimer is misleading at best.  See these links:  and articles in the NY Times that quote Sternheimer.  It does not belong.
This question of the mention was decided from the very day we decided to maintain the defense in Polytechnique.  Normally,  Grichka would have gotten "Très Honorable"  (as 99% of thesis).  But the context of his defense was such that he got "Honorable". This was decided several days before actual defense.  It was for political reasons and Sternheimer wrote it in his statement.  Who could be more qualified than the thesis advisor to comment on this? 
::Suppression of "also honoralbe" I had no mention.
:While your mention honorable may have been revoked (this is hardly worth bragging about), you and your brother wrote in an interview (after the supposed retraction of your mention honorable): 
We did not write anything.  I checked this interview : as you can see, it was totally written by an english speacker. The basic material was a phone interview and it is quite possible that a mistake was done in the transcription of it.   I am used to read some articles written about us where the journalist wrote things that were not part of what I could have said.  
In this case,  as I said,  I can send you  (ou whoever you choose)  my report of thesis : the mention is not written on it (as opposed to Grichka's).
::Igor defended successfully his thesis on June 8, 2002, getting also the "honorable" mark for reasons that it is not up to us to judge. 
:Please note that this date (8 June 2002) is after the date of retraction on Cather[ineV's personal Web site (25 Avril 2002)] http://users.skynet.be/catherinev/sternheimer.htm. :I would love to hear your explanations of this.
As I said,  I am not the author of the text that was published in this interview. Mistakes can happen.  In this case, it is likely that some error may have happen  (even on my side).  But that does not change the fact that my thesis report does not bear any mention. 
::I suppressed Motl's second comment.  As I wrote it does not correspond to his present way of thinking.
:Until Prof. Motl states otherwise, there is no reason for a third party to state that "does not correspond to his present way of thinking."  Please note, for example, that you cropped the sentence following your quote from Motl: "I find it unlikely that these things will work."   Also note that you maintain another quote by Motl from the same post that, for some reason, you believe still corresponds to his present way of thinking.  Please explain how this can be.
If you go to my first addition of Motl's second statement, you will see that the phrase  "I find it unlikely that these things will work."was present.  Someone else suppressed this phrase but it was not me.   I put the phrase   "I find it unlikely that these things will work." because I consider it as part of the scientific reasoning.  This exactly why I considered it important and why I still think it should stay in the quote. 
But as far as his first quote is concerned,  I do not think that it is appropriate.  We all agreed on a certain "balance" between "negative" and "positive" comments.  This extra negative post breacks this balance. 
::I also suppressed Charpak's mention.
:Again, just because you're ashamed of your actions doesn't mean it didn't happen or it's not relevant.  I'm sure Bill Clinton would love to remove all references to Monica Lewinsky.
It is quite possible. But please, compare what is comparable.   It is not that I am ashamed  : it is that it was said in a particular context (usenet anonymized discussions) as a response to all the attacks we were submitted to by YBM and his band.  At the limit,  this answer was even not directed to Charpak but to YBM and his friends.  If youi read it again you will see that Charpak was not the real issue of this discussion. 
:My "band" ? Am I suppose now to be a musician after having being a "computor specialist" ?
:BTW, this way to excuse himself to have insulted Charpak, under a pseudonym as any brave person would have done, is a very very good illustration of the kind of guy we are dealing with here. I'm not about to point out every lies in all this bunch above and after this comment (there are far too much, most have been refuted before, a lot have just been refuted in place, the whole make me sick, as could say Laurence67). Just remember when you read this that he, and his brother, have been several time convicted of fraud and forgery and are unable to write a single meaningfull sentence about mathematics and physics, even at the pregraduate level. --YBM 23:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EE Guy Redux