Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 9

Exegesis to fill a slow afternoon

I suspect I'm the only person in the world who cares to check up on these things, but that doesn't stop me boldly foraging through the mists of archived history. To wit:

• On 12 October 2005, EE Guy (talk · contribs) adds a brief note about the "Mathematical Center for Riemannian Cosmology", supposedly established in Latvia.
• The next day, Ze miguel (talk · contribs) appends the sentence, "However, in this case, no claim was made of an affiliation with an official University."

Oops. No claims were made, indeed, except by Igor Bogdanov in two distinct French Usenet groups. Details now included in the article. Quite an understandable mistake, to be sure, since it took me half an hour of bilingual Googling to find the original statements. Anville 19:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I am not interested in the affair, neither am I a specialist in the field of cosmology. But happening to have gone through this page, I would like to make a comment. First, I agree with the remarks made above. Second, the article has not a neutral tone enough for it to be taken as seriously as it pretends to prove the brothers' incompetence and spiteful hoax. It is too close, in a neutral opinion point of vue, to the vendicative litigant of the dispute. Especially, no article in wikipedia should give the impression of casting opprobrium on anyone! It is not admissible for an encyclopedia. Guillaume A. Paris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.226.178.249 (talk) 10:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protection

It's been more than a month since the last sockpuppet attack (last reversion). Maybe now is a good time to try un-semi-protecting the article, just to test the waters? Anville 18:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Freakofnurture and I are discussing this here. Maybe it will happen, and maybe it won't. Meh. Anville 16:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the sockpuppet theater is still staging the Tragedy of Classical and Quantum Gravity for our entertainment (diff and diff). I guess un-semi-protection was a little premature. So it goes. Anville 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Request the notice at the top of the page have the link to "sock puppet" be changed so it doesn't redirect. 68.39.174.238 05:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Done – Gurch 09:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant aside?

I have removed the following paragraph from the section "Reflections upon the peer-review system":

On 27 March 2006, E. Capelas de Oliveira and Waldyr A. Rodriguez, Jr. submitted a comment to the arXiv preprint server, claiming that an earlier paper, "On Some Contradictory Computations in Multi-Dimensional Mathematics" by L. A. V. Carvalho, is "a potpourri of nonsense". According to Rodriguez and de Oliveira, the "proofs" in the earlier paper are trivial errors based on nothing more than misunderstandings of calculus concepts. (For example, Carvalho's deductions included the puzzling assertion, "multi-variable mathematics is inconsistent with arithmetic (1 = 0) and also auto-contradictory as calculus is part of this theory".) Author and philosopher of mathematics David Corfield posted a blog entry the next day, asking if this event constituted "another Bogdanoff affair".

Sorry, but I don't see what this has to do with the Bogdanov affair, aside from one mention of it. If I'm utterly mistaken and this is relevant, by all means revert. Phiwum 19:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think this is relevant, since it illustrates the way the scientific community uses the term "Bogdanov affair". OK, so it's not a great big fuss, but it is indicative of the long-term fallout. Anville 19:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Just my two cents, that I think the paragraph on the Carvalho issue should be left out of the article. The balance in the present article is a joy to see, but I kept waiting for the punch line in the Carvalho paragraph and did not find one. If The way the scientific community uses the term Bogdanov affair is an important subject, it would need broader evidence than one blog posting from David Corfield. The Carvalho thing, if it is notable, could be in its own article, or in a different article, with a link from this one. The Bogdanovs did not work with or influence LAV Carvalho, after all, and the work is unrelated. EdJohnston 21:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ed and I seem to agree that this blog posting isn't really worth mentioning. Consequently, I will revert the text for now. But if others agree with you on its importance, I would be happy to defer. I am not aiming for a revert war, after all. Phiwum 01:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. It is hardly a major matter any way you slice it; although I might prefer to err on the side of inclusiveness (you'll never know what tomorrow's scholars will need to find!) I can certainly grasp your point. Best wishes, Anville 16:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I have read the archived discussions on Talk:Bogdanov Affair, and I have one comment - that people whose mamaloshen isn't English sound rather funny sometimes when carpetbagging their arguments onto English Wikipedia. Also, it appears to me, judging from the article AND the argument, that the Bogdanovs appeared not to be in their Ph.D. program for the knowledge or the research, but rather for the status it conferred on them, a bragging point to support them on their television show, and much of their time was spent mainly on writing a document that contained the right jargon without actually saying anything or showing any research on their part. Admittedly, this is a POV, and I have no wish to be an affair participant; nonetheless, as someone in a Ph.D. program myself (although in urban planning and public policy, NOT physics), I couldn't help but notice the controversy over two brothers' doctoral theses and journal articles. If there was any advice I could give to the brothers, it would be this: Head out. Do some research. Find a way to inform people of new knowledge, and back it up with evidence from original research on your part. Allow people to come in and look at your research - let it stand for itself, sans credentials. Nonetheless, as participants in the Affair are forbidden from editing this article or talk page, and further blabbermouthing may render me an inadvertent participant, I will shut up now. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I admit that my blabbermouthing has gone on further just right now (see below). Nonetheless, I am not a participant and don't intend to be one. I am concerned now about the usage of information in the Archives of this talk page as a source for the article, as well as the article's history, because both have become valuable as primary sources of information about the affair, having discussion and conduct within from the participants themselves. How do we NPOV and review this information? — Rickyrab | Talk 17:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

"Topological origin of inertia" paper

"Whatever the orientation, the plane of oscillation of Foucault's pendulum is necessarily aligned with the initial singularity marking the origin of physical space." - I found both of the in-article explanations of this rather unsatisfying. Isn't this just a way of saying "no matter how you point it, the 'triangle' which is created by the swinging of the pendulum is, by necessity, aligned with the point at the top of the pendulum, from which the motion 'spreads'"?

I'm a new editor to Wikipedia and hardly stepped in physics (as the above 'translation' should betray) - just a native English speaker. --Action Jackson IV 18:17, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what this assertion means, but I'm pretty sure this assertion can be read in Umberto Eco's "Pendule de Foucault." Weird stuff.Kromsson (talk) 21:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

External sources

How did this article become entangled with the item it speaks about? RaccoonFox • Talk • Stalk 19:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, the subjects of the article were editing the article about them, until the request for arbitration banned them from it. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:24, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen this question raised before. Maybe we should ask the ArbCom for a plainer statement of the facts? Anville 16:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Is the article going to carry that notice indefinitely, or only for some period of time? --Delirium 04:27, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

It'll carry that notice until the people involved stop trying to mess with it. That might be a few months from now, it might be years. It was briefly unprotected last fall, more than a year after the ArbCom decision, and then re-protected. (see Anville's comments, above, at Semi-protection)--Aervanath 05:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Diaspora?

BTW, I changed the section heading "Diaspora of dispute" to "The dispute spreads". It's the same meaning, but more accessible. (Unfortunately, less poetic, but Wikipedia is not a poetry reading. :) --Aervanath 05:57, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a problem we'll have to fix some day. (-: Anville 17:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on their last paper

The article currently states "The Bogdanovs have not, at the time of writing, published any scientific paper since 2003..." This sentence is problematic since it is not immediately clear when we mean by "at the time of writing". Wikipedia articles can be editted continuously and it is a laborious process to check the history to see when someone added that statement. Also, the article may be used in other forms such as mirrors and printed versions that do not retain the full edit history. This statement should be replaced with something like "As of February 2007, the Bagdonovs have not published any scientific paper since 2003..." Any objections to this? Johntex\^talk 22:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Brothers included in Arbcom case?

Regarding the Arbitration committee ruling, this article currently asserts "This decision, which excluded the Bogdanovs themselves along with several supporters and a few vocal opponents, went into effect on 11 November 2005." I have read the ArbCom ruling and I don't see any supportfor this claim. To the contrary, the ArbCom decision covers all parties involved in the affair. Can anyone justify keeping this statement? Johntex\^talk 22:10, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Can't we remove the tag from the artice?

I know the tag on the article was prescribed by the arbcom, but it is so ugly. Andries 22:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I added an image of a padlock to the tag, both on the article and on the talk page. Hope that relieves the ugliness a bit. I also recommend changing the color. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text of the arbcom decision re: the tag:

Notice

2) A notice shall be placed at the top of the article Bogdanov Affair which links to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Regarding The Bogdanov Affair which briefly explains that the Wikipedia article has, in part, been conflated with the external event, the Bogdanov Affair, due to participation in editing of the article by participants in the event. The notice shall include an apology for our inability to control this phenomenon and a warning that any editor which is determined to be a participant in the external event may be subject to being banned from editing.

   Passed 5-1

It says nothing about background shading or images. I take that to mean such alterations are allowable. — Rickyrab | Talk 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

CQG statement

I don't want to sound harsh about this, and I really don't have the time to argue about it these days. I'd just like to say that when a flotilla of sockpuppets keeps editing an article to hammer desperately at one slim point, one has to wonder what sort of ax is being ground. And when the stance those sockpuppets take is nonsensical in and of itself, one has to ask just why it matters so much. On top of it all, when the modification demanded by the sockpuppet flotilla removes verifiable citations to mainstream publications — I'm thinking about The New York Times, Die Zeit, Nature and The Chronicle of Higher Education — the act then verges on vandalism, per Wikipedia policy.

But hey, I'm tired of this business and committed to deadlines elsewhere, so it's somebody else's problem now. Anville 18:23, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't shoot

I'm going to edit this article for grammer. As I have less than one hundred edits I thought it best to assert that I am not a sock puppet: I edit under my given name of Richard Daly. Please contact me if there are any questions regarding my identity. --Richard Daly 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Some Thoughts about Wikipedia Rules and Notable Events Occurring on Wikipedia Itself

Under WP:NOT, Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is not supposed to be a primary or secondary source. However, when an affair occurs and part of the involvement occurs on Wikipedia, and the affair becomes notable, then Wikipedia has no choice but to be a primary or secondary source, which is, I suspect, a major reason for the ban on Bogdanov Affairists from editing. Nonetheless, the damage has already occurred, and the fact remains that part of the affair has already happened on Wikipedia and is documented on this talk page's archives (and the edit history of both the archive and article). Thus, it ought to be permissible to use the archives and page history as sources of illumination into what the affair was all about.

However, there is a problem with this: When one pieces together information concerning the Affair from primary or secondary research, one may be conducting original research! This violates WP:NOR! Furthermore, any biases might get pounced upon as participation in this affair. This is the very problem with this article: editing it is problematic, deleting it is problematic (because the public has a right to know), and keeping it is also problematic (because then people will want to edit the page to add information, and alteration of slight points can be unwittingly POV, thus generating conflicts and inadvertently drawing more people and editors into the affair). Some people may come across an edit that has been repeated several times by sockpuppets and think it has some validity, and thus revert (or restore) an older argument, and get blocked as a "sockpuppet". On the other hand, someone who is a sockpuppet might make numerous valid edits before turning to the Bogdanov page. Great discretion must be used in taking care of the Bogdanov page: while I approve of edits based on the Archives of this talk page and the article history, they must be carefully researched and documented, and the point of view must be neutral. It may be tricky, but it can be done.

None of what I said shall be construed as a position on the Bogdanov Affair itself (except for a brief mention on November 18 of last year, which I only rediscovered right now); what I said consisted of opinions about Wikipedia editing in general and the editing of this article in particular. — Rickyrab | Talk 17:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

When I was expanding this article last year, I didn't include anything about people's behavior on Wikipedia itself until I found verifiable sources talking about it elsewhere (mentions in French weekly magazines, for example). I would be happiest if we could stick to this strategy. Citing the ArbCom decision seems grey-area to me; as Titoxd (talk · contribs) said on FAC, the best thing to do is cite it as we would any other webpage, with retrieval date and all that. Deriving any information from the article history or Talk page archives sounds really illegitimate, even though it might illuminate "what the affair was all about".

At least, we shouldn't do that when editing this article itself, any more than we would use Talk page archives or page histories to determine a pattern of vandalism on any other article. For example, if a determined POV-pusher kept editing William Shakespeare to say that his plays were really written by Christopher Marlowe, we might well be justified in reverting these changes on sight based on the user's Talk-page rants and recognized history of sockpuppetry. In that case, there would be no particular reason to mention the POV-pusher's antics in the Shakespeare article itself, whereas here, the sockpuppet theater is a noteworthy epilogue to the Affair which the article describes.

What we really need is somebody to write this whole incident up in a scholarly publication which Wikipedia can then cite as it would any other journal article. I might try to do this, actually. If I do, I'll disqualify myself from editing this article, as an "external participant". Anville 00:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Cosmetic surgery

I am just curious: since some of the brothers' life story is mentioned in the article, would it be relevant to mention the enormous amounts of cosmetic surgery they've had? I mean, that has to be a story in and of itself -- from this: http://www.bogdanov.ch/Photos/Annees-90/IGB-Futurs.jpg to this: http://www.bogdanov.ch/Photos/Salon-Livre-Paris-05/SdL-05-12.jpg

I don't see any particular reason to discuss this in the article. Maybe a mention of cosmetic surgery belongs in the Michael Jackson article, but it seems a lot less relevant to this article. (And that second photo is simply bizarre! Looks manipulated to me, but maybe not.) Phiwum 12:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

There indeed exists an urban legend about the brothers having done some surgery, but this was never confirmed, and many people (including journalists) have been very, very, very mean and nasty with this. Actually, acromegalia seems to be an at least as plausible explanation as surgery. In any case, it has absolutely nothing to do with this article. Alain r 16:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

1)It's not an urban legend. The pictures are legitimate, and there are hundreds more (Google "Bogdanov plastic surgery"). One got a chin implant that literally makes him look like a caricature (his chin is now perfectly rectangular and extends a good 4" below his jawline) and the other got cheek implants that are so big his eyes are perpetually half-closed and his mouth perpetually half-open. They also both apparently got massive collagen lip injections, giving them Angelina Jolie's lips on a 60-year-old French man's face. 2)I agree it has nothing to do with this article and doesn't warrant inclusion. Bullzeye ^contribs 21:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Use of pseudonyms

I noticed that a while ago, NicholasTurnbull went through this article and stuck {{cn}} tags where they were required (diff). I tried to address these (diff), but there was one statement which I couldn't source properly:

In addition to a few articles in print, the Bogdanov affair has been discussed extensively in various newsgroups, webpages and blogs; the Bogdanov brothers have often participated in the discussions, both under their real names, and under several pseudonyms. (They later admitted using some of these pseudonyms, but physicists point to others which they claim to be Bogdanov noms de guerre, which have not been acknowledged.)

Though I knew I'd read something about this in the voluminous pages of online kerfluffling related to this Affair, I couldn't find a good source, so I deleted the sentence in bold (diff).

Today, I remembered where I'd seen Igor Bogdanov admit to using the "Roland Schwartz" pseudonym: on this very Talk page. This is not a particularly good source (I wouldn't restore the deleted sentence on these grounds) but at least it exists (diff).

Be seeing you. Anville 18:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Impressed

I haven't visited this article for some time now. It's come a long way, and I wanted to say that I'm impressed with the dogged determination of the editors to resist the surreal onslaught of sockpuppets over the years. In a former life, I was User:EE Guy who was banned from Wikipedia for trying to objectively edit this article. (Throwing the baby out with the bathwater: God bless the ArbCom and their infinite wisdom!) I made a couple of minor changes to the article: changed "University of Bourgogne" to "University of Burgundy" for consistency's sake, and added a couple of short English translations that were missing to two French blurbs.

Keep up the good work. (And please don't ban me ;)

Borky 13:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Broken link

The link "# (French) Comments on Grichka Bogdanov's unpublished preprint by Damien Calaque" is broken, the article can be found at this url : http://math.univ-lyon1.fr/~calaque/bogda/bogda.pdf . 81.64.153.216 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambox the warning box

Will the warning box at the top of the page be updated to use the new ambox template? ViperSnake151 00:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ChineseJournalOfPhysics.jpg

Image:ChineseJournalOfPhysics.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Course of action?

In the "Comparisons" section, it says:

Baez, one of the first to make the comparison, later retracted, saying that the brothers "have lost too much face for this to be a plausible course of action."

What "course of action" is he talking about? - dcljr (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

After Sokal's paper was printed, he immediately penned an open letter revealing his hoax and the purpose behind it. Baez was saying that even if the Bogdanovs wanted to try and wriggle out of the controversy by claiming a similar purpose, it's too late for them to do so because they've already spent time trying to defend it. Bullzeye ^contribs 21:28, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tighten it up

This article seems to me to be a little long, repetitive, and a bit of a mess. If some one has the time and patience I think this article could really use some tightening up and trimming down. Also I think the map of Hong Kong is totally unnecessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.188.67.28 (talk) 02:42, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to agree with the person above that the article has obvious - almost cut-and-paste repetitions in some points. Also, "brother's (background)" should be changed to "brothers'" in one of the subtitles. Definitely agree on the map too - someone please make a decision? Very interesting subject! --- Correction: actually, the final subsection "Brother's [sic] Background", really sounds like a total joke! Do the brothers really need a genealogy of royal standards (complete with sexual scandal)? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.153.237 (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Image caption

In this edit, I considerably trimmed the image caption. IMO the article does not need a detailed discussion of the Planck era and Big Bang cosmology, just a brief blurb on how the fraudulent work was related to the conventional theories. The extensive discussion was very intrusive and tangential to the page topic - if people want to know what is 'right' about the PE, they can click on that link.

My opinion (brusque that it may be above) is laid out mostly because the page appears rather contentious and I didn't search the talk page for a discussion of the lengthy caption. WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Why a map of Hong Kong? I see the issue re: the domain name, but surely that has nothing to do with the topography of the SAR? --Christofurio (talk) 05:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bogdanov affair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

There is good info and a picture, but the article is getting very long. An infobox and more links would be helpful. Green caterpillar 02:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:01, 2 May 2016 (UTC)