Talk:Bogdanov affair/Archive 8

720:

of spacetime' by G Bogdanov and I Bogdanov, Class. Quantum Grav. 18 4341-4372 (2001) As you might expect, a number of our readers have contacted us about this and it has been widely discussed online. Our position is this: Classical and Quantum Gravity endeavours to publish original research of the highest calibre on gravitational physics. It is one of the highest standard journals in its field and makes continuous effort to maintain and improve the quality of research communication. In common with many journals, we consult among a worldwide pool of over 1,000 referees asking two independent experts to review each paper. A third referee is selected if the first two disagree. 45% of submitted articles are rejected and almost all accepted articles are revised before publication. The paper 'Topological field theory of the initial singularity of spacetime' by G Bogdanov and I Bogdanov made it through this review process and was therefore published in the normal way. At present, there are 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 have passed this information on to the community and ask that if your colleagues enquire about this, you forward this e-mail on to them. Thank you for your help with this matter. Regards, 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

776:. The Institue of Physics owns many journals, their view on the affair may differ from that of the GQG editors. The second message was sent by Andrew Wray on behalf of the IoP, but was probably not written by him. It does not mean that Andrew Wray agreed with its content. Actually, it may very well because IoP did not quite agree with the initial CQG board message that it asked Mr Wray to distribute a slightly toned down message. Note that this second message does not say that the paper is "good" or "bad" (although the sentence "As you might expect, a number of our readers have contacted us about this and it has been widely discussed online" clearly suggests what the IoP thinks about it), it states the probably true fact that the peer-review process had been performed according to the usual rules, and that no withdrawal of the paper was planned. It is not a surprise that the IoP wanted to emphasize these two points. A bad peer-review for one of its journal might discredit the whole peer-review process the IoP imposes to the journals it owns. Moreover, probably most people would indeed agree that even though publishing this paper was a bad move, withdrawing it would be an even worse move. Not that the Bogdanov would not deserve it in some way, but because from an ethical point of view it would probably be considered as crossing the red line. 1390:(possibly as preprints) in 2000 or before). I got 11 papers, with a total of around 65 citations (I did not remove self citations, so the number must be closer to 50, I think). I as said, this is not much, since most of my papers were finished in 2000. These works were done with 10 collaborators. So basically, three years after having begun my PhD I was more or less part of the scientific community, with close collabotors, post-doctoral offers, several papers and a reasonnable number of citations. This is actually nothing more than what is expected from you after a three years PhD thesis (brilliant people have better stats, and are drafted (i.e. get a tenure-track or permanent position) earlier than I was). Since then, I have the impression that it has growed at a more or less steady rate of 100 to 150 citations per year (the number of paper increases but not the citation rate, since a paper citation lifetime is on average something like two years, see 725:

that time, by Baez et al) seemed to be satisfied with the first "offensive" versione that circulated everywhere, Andrew Wray and Herman Nicolaï decided that the second version could as well sleep for ever in a forgotten place. This is exactly how an illigitimate "image" slowly invades some reality. This is exactly why our "Topological Field Theory" CQG paper became "an affair". All of the Wikipedian editors can check the veracity of what is presented here. Without violating any interdiction or being suspected of "vandalism", I will modify this point on the article and insert the legitimate version at the place of the non official one. I hope I will not be reverted because of this change that every honest editor could understand. In a more general way, I hold other proofs likely to correct other deformations or mistakes that I would like produce in the future (if I am allowed to do it, of course). Thank you for your attention. Igor

1399:) cannot testify he was a collaborator since dead men don't talk (he died in 1998). Even if you give them an extra 5 years (i.e. 8 years after they had begun their PhD, in 1999), they still are in the same situation, with no papers, no obvious collaborator, and an extra advisor since the previous one had died (whether he had collaborated with him is a matter of faith since, again, dead men don't talk). If you give them an extra one year, then they are 9 years after the begining of their PhD (exactly as I am now), and they are still without known collaborators, nor any paper, one brother failed his defense, the other barely succeeded (don't ask me why). If you look at now, you are 15 years after the begining of their PhD, 29 years after (according to them, see 134:

here on Knowledge can be defined more or less as only that. It would be wrong of me to make assumptions on your work outside of Knowledge based solely on that, because I haven't read your papers (well, I have read abstracts and made cursory examinations of your famous Initial singularity paper, but that isn't enough to make a proper judgement). That said, I do think this is indicative that you would, both on Knowledge and in the scientific community at large, do well to take heed of Prof. Feynman's observation and to cultivate that absolute honesty of "bending over backwards" - specifically permitting those observations, and making them yourself, of those points that disagree with your theorem.

486:...this whole thing is. If I may jump in with some unasked for advice? Here's a tip: nobody -- NOBODY -- is gonna look at this article and say "Gee these Bogdanov brothers are the cat's pajamas! I mean, we are talking about some A-number-1 ace scientists here!" regardlass of what the B-Boys do. Nobody but a complete idiot, and idiots don't matter much. I mean, people can read between the lines. People can get the drift of somebody's case. So don't worry about it so much. It's not like the B-Boys are gonna get rehabilitated and rise to the Nobel Prize based on what's in this article. They are who they are. Chill y'all. My two cents. 141:, in that work he was capable of making his ideas understandable to a layman who does not have expertise in the field being taught; that is something else which I urge you to do, and to make your work available in a format that makes sense to those without your physics expertise. Then, nobody could impugn the bona fides of your work, since sound logical reasoning is generally clear regardless of the fields, and it would be possible for all of us comparative laymen to make sense of your work - and, if your work is as watertight to scrutiny as you consider it to be, that should be no problem. 1096:, then you have a form of matter with a constant (or slowly decreasing) energy density, whereas a comoving volume increases because of expansion, so that the product of two increases with time. In this case, you may say that "matter" (i.e., in this case, dark energy) is created within expanding space, although it is not very explicit because it is not the expansion that creates this form of matter, but the behaviour of this form of matter that makes its comoving energy increase with time. In the most extreme case, you may have some very exotic forms of energy whose energy density 1402:) André Lichnerowicz was aware of their "ideas"/"work". They are still without any known collaborators (I even checked with their last advisors that they never really worked with them), only 6 papers (4 of which are identical), for a total of 3 citations. Also, keep in mind that they do not present themselves to the general audience as modest PhD students, but they claim to have found the ultimate mystery of the origin of the universe (see, e.g., their book or the abstract of the "seminar" they give in the French chapter of the self-proclaimed high IQ society 1922:— où l'on substitue à un modèle de particules élémentaires un système de filaments très fins. Tels deux paons, ils publient, en fin d'ouvrage, les félicitations de scientifiques reconnus. David Fossé, dans la revue Ciel et Espace d'octobre, montre que ces citations, manipulées, constituaient, dans leur intégralité, des critiques sévères sur les textes Bogdanov. Pour faire le point sur le cosmos, mieux vaut suivre les cours de Gabriele Veneziano, professeur au Collège de France, ou se procurer les actes des conférences consacrées à la théorie des cordes. 780:

the paper is for people who work in the corresponding field. In some fields, the peer-review process becomes decreasingly important since papers are online before they are submitted: you no longer need a journal to make your work available. One can probably argue about this, but it certainly has several advantages. The fact that a paper is then published in a given journal is not much more than an estimate that the paper may be a good one, or, if you prefer it the other way round, an indicator of the average quality of what is published in this journal.

1242:, you clearly see that a controversial stuff can make people react, as long as there is anything good in it. I understand your point about the sentence you removed, but I find it useful to mention that a lot of experienced physicist all reached the same conclusion about the quality of their work (just keep in mind that some people's first guess was that it was a hoax), and that even the people who more or less supported them do not cite them (except in a blog entry — but presently science is not done in blog entries). 631:

this is rather unimportant (in my mind). What is important is what people work in the field think about it, and this is what has to be reported. This is even more true that the 1984 cited above may be outdated: I know several people who got a "très honorable avec félicitations du jury" mention, which is not mentioned here. When I got my PhD, the only two mnetions that were delivered by my university were "honorable" and "très honorable". Maybe each university has some freedom here.

1910:

des Américains Neil Turok, de l'université de Cambridge, et Paul Steinhardt, de Princeton, qui proposent un scénario assimilant notre Univers à une "brane", sorte de lamelle flottant près d'autres branes, dans un espace de dimensions supérieures à celui que nous connaissons. Les Bogdanov n'évoquent pas les dernières missions visant à collecter des informations sur les événements qui ont suivi le Big Bang. Ils citent à tort et à travers le programme

31: 1918:, indispensable pour détecter les signes des mini-irrégularités du rayonnement qui remplit l'Univers. Ce qui permettra de vérifier les hypothèses de Turok et Steinhardt. Surtout, les Bogdanov n'ont pas inventé les scénarios faisant intervenir un nombre de dimensions supérieures à quatre. Comme s'ils voulaient escamoter les débats qui agitent les astrophysiciens. Il est piquant que les jumeaux tentent si maladroitement de s'attaquer à la 4519:

involved. At the moment motivations and some events are pretty murky - partly because they *are* of course. However, I just read the NYT article, and it seems to flow better, and is a much more accessible - perhaps because a narrative news-style is better suited to this kind of topic than structured encyclopedise. Expecting a cohesive article given its history though, is I guess not being fair enough to editors involved. --

1116:, you may want to say that there is some matter creation by a gravitational field. For inflation this does not occur for the background inflationnary field, but for its perturbations, which experience some sort of "amplification" (an unfortunately misleading term, actually) during an accelerated phase of expansion. These perturbations are then converted into ordinary matter at the end of the inflationary era (see 1233:

the case of the Bogdanov, you may wonder how to deal with them, since they begun their PhD in 1991, waited more than 10 years before their first papers, keeping in mind that they have claimed that they were working on related issues as early as 1977 (so that your remark that people "who did work in 1982, and has had time for their popularity and credibility to grow for 24 years, 20 years" in fact

603:"Toutefois, les dispositions de ces arrêtés restent applicables aux candidats inscrits en vue de l'obtention de l'un de ces diplômes et ayant choisi, conformément aux dispositions transitoires prévues par l'arrêté du 5 juillet 1984 relatif aux études doctorales. de poursuivre la préparation de leurs travaux et de les soutenir dans les conditions prévues par les textes antérieurement en vigueur." 1229:

which is now one of the top-cited papers of the history of physics. This is an extreme example, because anybody in astrophysics who needs a value of a cosmological parameter for any reason will take what is quoted in the WMAP paper (and cite the paper). Still, any good paper in cosmology is extensively cited (a few tens if not a few hundreds citations within a small amount of years).

128:

disagree with it, as well as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem. When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else come out right, in addition.

1769:

gravity effects have to happen in order to avoid such variation of the metric signature. We do not consider the mechanism of these effects but the authors point of view is that such mechanism can not be based on any field-theoretical consideration. This pure quantum freezing of extra dimension is like to a trigger which has only two states: in one state the dynamic of G

1140:

been published, since 2002, they haven't had as much time to be cited as someone who did work in 1982, and has had time for their popularity and credibility to grow for 24 years, 20 years on the Boganovs. They probably are very uncited, but why not compare them to other graduates, first time published authors, who graduated in 2004. What is the average, etc?

1802:

happen in order to avoid such a variation of the metric signature. We do not consider the mechanism of these effects but the author's point of view is that such mechanism can not be based on any fieldtheoretical consideration. This pure quantum freezing of the extra dimension is similar to a trigger which has only two states: in one state the dynamic of G

730:

Steve Carlip was on that board and was the person to originally supply that other statement that is less flattering. is the "first" version a fabrication? did the Editorial Board officially change their mind about it? did they withdraw their decision that, in retrospect, your paper should not have been published in the Journal?

1348:

them. It is this type of misleading statement the comparison was. A more suitable comparison would have to be found, because it's the means, and the conclusion that the Bogdanovs' papers is the end. The end, however true, does not justify the means of the misleading comparison. Find a fair comparison and I have no problem.

1124:... if they are created one day) and are likely to be the seeds of the galaxies we observe today. Just to make sure : none of these topics have ever been addressed by the Bogdanov brothers. They are completely ignorant of such things, just as they are completely ignorant of more or less anything in physics. 1238:

1994. This is appalingly low. It also has to be noted that none of their four advisors nor their numerous thesis referees ever published something with them, nor even cited their work, which, as far as I know, is extremely uncommon if not unique. Also, when you consider controversial stuff, such as the

1602:

I freeze and block anyone who comes to Knowledge to begin editing this article right away and nothing else, in strict compliance with the policy edicted by the CAr. The fact that these people tend to always have the same view of the affair is something I leave to your sagacity. My personal opinion on

1281:

For example, would it be fair to suggest that a rookie sports player, just out of college, first year in whatever league they're in, is less of a player than a 10 year veteran because that veteran had won many more awards in that league than them? No. Would it be fair to say that the veteran scored

1232:

Now, how many papers/citations can you expect at the end of a thesis ? In principle it is something between 2 and 12 papers, some of which are expected to have a few citations. Usually papers are published during the last year of the PhD, so their citation number is low at the time of the defense. In

1100:

as space expands. In this case, you face the very counter intuitive run-away situation where the faster space expands, the faster the energy density increases. In this case (and in this case only), one may reach the extreme situation where the average energy density may become bigger than the binding

719:

Subject: Classical and Quantum Gravity Comments: To: SLAPAM-L@lists.yale.edu Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" I'm writing on behalf of the Institute of Physics in response to a recent discussion on this list re the following paper: 'Topological field theory of the initial singularity

704:

As you can see, the so called "official statement" which circulated on SPR and elsewhere was only -as we said here some time ago- " a briefing note for CQG Editorial Board members, who were receiving enquiries from colleagues and the media. The "official" text that was clearly released in the public

678:

This "statement" was presented by Baez as an "official document" issued by CQG editorial board around november 1st 2002. In fact, as we wrote many times, it originally was merely an internal discussion which became "official" because it was presented and "seen" as such by many readers. Here are the

630:

The lowest mention may or may not be "honorable", but as a matter of fact "honorable" mention is only given to poor thesis (according to the committee point of view), and this is precisely why it was given in that case (I checked this with the brother's last advisors). In fact what the law says about

625:

I know well the circumstances in which Bogdanoff passed their theses at the University of Bourgogne. Taking into account their celebrity (and to avoid discussions), it was decided to allow a "discrete" passing grade to them (Honourable) and not at all "the lowest passing grade" (passable). Insofar as

509:

In Francophone universities, the procedure is roughly the same, however, the term applied to a study associated with masters work is referred to as a "mémoire," and one associated with doctoral work is referred to as a "thèse." Either work can be awarded a "mention d'honneur" (excellence) as a result

390:

I agree with the assertion that the theses and articles were not intended as hoaxes. a hoax is meant as a joke. the Bogdanoffs' publications were not submitted as such, they were a means to an end, that is getting PH D's. If the theses and publications were indeed spurious (an opinion I tend to agree

133:

With respect, and with no hard feelings on my part, you appear to be trying to do the exact opposite of this - trying to suppress the facts that disagree with your theory by removing them from the article, and questioning the motives and expertise of those who highlight them. Ultimately, your actions

1882:

Some sockpuppets complained about some possible errors in the previous caption (I do not remember which). In order to insure that they would not complain anymore I added a bigger and more detailed caption. With the present caption, there is at least something interesting in the article. Also, if you

1773:

is switched on in another one is switched off. One can say that such quantum dynamic which can be realized only in the Planck region is a non-differentiable dynamic. The examples of such hypothesized non-differentiable dynamic can be above-mentioned freezing of extra dimensions, the change of metric

1214:

about their work). So it does have some relevance to mention that the people who criticized them had some expertise in the way research is done in physics. Should they have been criticized only by people who had never published any paper, the situation may have been different, but it is not the case

1209:

As a matter of fact, the Bogdanov systematically replied to any criticism "This guy is not expert in our field". But if you look at the Bogdanov published papers and citation list, their "field", whatever it is, does not exist at all, because first, they have published an incredibly small number of

1183:

I'm no longer sure any comparison by citations would be fair, as I don't imagine that it would be too large of a field, and that article clearly states that comparing by citations may not be accurate for small fields, and I would imagine with some of the radical claims made by the two that the field

729:

Igor, as far as i can tell, you still may not edit the article (or this space, but if i had anything to say about it, i would not proscribe that). i am reverting your edit to the article until it can be verified by recipients that this is the actual email promulgated by the Editorial Board of CQG.

724:

It is clear that this version is almost the opposite of the "known" one. The text above protects CQG's referees, the quality of their work and the papers they allow to be published. This was a clear and legitimate reaction of the editorial board. Unfortunatly, since the community (represented, at

291:

The "HKU" section is a complete mess in this article. First, Hong Kong University and Hong Kong University of Science and Technology are completely different institutions, and this article seems to contribute to this confusion. (It's like the difference between University of Massachussetts and MIT).

144:

In summary, I do think you would do well to reflect what you are actually doing against this benchmark, and to accept that the issues extend far beyond Knowledge; just because we have an open editing community here does not mean that Knowledge is in error by not agreeing with your viewpoint. Feynman

127:

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be given, if you know them. You must do the best you can--if you know anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong--to explain it. If you make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then you must also put down all the facts that

110:

and one of the most influential theoretical physicists of the 20th century. My knowledge of physics is only that of an academic minor in computational physics; I have long admired Feynman for his ability to distil very complex and wordy subjects into understandable, plain terms that make sense to an

4044:

It is not because a false information is quoted in a newspaper that it suddenly turns into a real one.The New York Times quoted the CQG email on the only basis of its publication,a few days earlyer, on John Baez website.Is it a good reason to qualify it as a good and sound source?Certainely not.The

1801:

Thus the analysis of the classical dynamic of the metric signature for the super thin and super long gravitational flux tube shows that there is a region where this quantity changes too quickly from the quantum gravity viewpoint. This leads to the fact that some pure quantum gravity effects have to

1606:

As for my formation, I fear that your wild guesses about my modest person are stretching too far as well; I happen to be a physicist, though I am not specialised in cosmology (and have never suggested that I was). Though I am flattered that you should appreciate my drawings, I certainly do claim to

1576:

I'm kinda surprised Rama freezes everyone who slightly diverges from his views of the article as a "sock P." of the brothers. I am not. And probably King Vegita is also not a sock P. Perhaps Rama should apply some physics training in order to understand correctly some edits. One thing to be a "pro"

1515:

is fine. For example, we could say that those who have critiqued their paper as a hoax had such and such an accomplishment, and serves such a post at such a university. But we don't then say that the brothers only have such and such credentials, because that would be making that unfair comparison.

1514:

Well, can we make it mention their accomplishments without comparing them to the brothers? My only problem, and one that I will stand firm on, is that it is an unfair and misleading comparison. If we can give the information without comparing the two, or compare the brothers on a fair basis, that

1299:

A comparison of people in a similar situation is necessary. If the field is cosmology, then it would be fair to compare them to others who published their first papers within a year or so of them. However, it is not fair to compare them to others who have been published several times years before

1263:

My argument is in no way that they are credible, only that it is unfair to compare them with others who have had much more time to be cited. If the statement were to instead argue that it is unusual for a paper to be so rarely cited, that would be fair. But to claim that people who have had years

1139:

The prior comparison of "This figure is extremely low when evaluated against the number of citations made to papers written by other physicists who have given critical evaluations of the Bogdanovs work." is not a proper comparison as it is highly misleading. The Boganovs are new to people who have

1084:

If you consider ordinary matter, then it is diluted by expansion an there is no net creation of matter in the universe today : the number of nucleons (say) within a volume determined by distant galaxies is more or less constant (if one neglects proper motions and matter-antimatter interactions). Of

898:

Well, see, the original Bogdanov Affair and this article were emitted from the same source at the same time, so their quantum states must be described together even though the two are cyberspatially separated. Measuring the polarization of this article would affect the probabilities with which the

816:

The reference to Sokal affair is wrong. The article states that the Sokal affair was to prove the shortcomings of peer-reviewing processes in theoretical physics, which is totally wrong. If I remember and understand correctly, the Sokal paper was poking fun at new liberal journals which publish any

783:

So, regarding the Knowledge article, if you really want the IoP statement to be included, you can do it (provided its origin is confirmed), but you should not remove the previous CQG statement, since its authenticity was confirmed. These two are certainly not two versions of a single statement, but

595:

I am sorry, but Ze Miguel comment in connection with the PHD mentions is not only approximate: it is false. The law of April 27, 2002 does not apply to the theses of Bogdanoff. The regulations which apply to the delivery of a doctorate depend only on the date on which the registration in thesis was

191:

As I said on your talk page, Fred, at the moment, semi protection is stopping anons from posting to semi protected pages, but it's doing nothing to newly created accounts, so it won't help here for now. However, brion has been informed. I bet it's fixed by the end of the day. I'd keep the tags here

119:

It's a kind of scientific integrity, a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of utter honesty--a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if you're doing an experiment, you should report everything that you think might make it invalid--not only what you think is right about

1909:

Contrairement à leurs affirmations, Igor et Grichka Bogdanov ne sont pas les premiers à proposer un modèle d'Univers décrivant ce qui aurait pu exister avant le Big Bang. C'est l'un des principaux sujets de recherche des physiciens et des astrophysiciens ces dix dernières années. Ainsi les travaux

779:

In any case, maybe people who do not work in science do not understand this well, but the important point is not the referee reports or the fact that a given paper is published in this or that journal. The important thing is what the scientific community thinks about a paper, and how inspirational

4486:

On your second point, we could at least flesh out the "origin of the controversy" section with more background material. One problem is that the Brothers B. have much bigger exposure in French-language media; on Planet Anglophone, they're really only notable in connection with this controversy.

1237:

apply to the Bogdanov). Whichever way you evaluate them, they are at the bottom of the list (at least when I compare them to my own stuff or my colleagues' who work in cosmology) : no paper at the time of their first defense, first paper published 8 years after the expected end of their thesis in

1004:

also receiving the same low passing grade of "honorable", one that is seldom given, as told to New York Times science reporter Dennis Overbye by Bogdanov Ph.D. advisor Dr. Daniel Sternheimer. In justifying the conferring of doctoral degrees to the Bogdanovs, Dr. Sternheimer told the Times, "These

671:

On January 10 / 2006, I sent an email to Nicholas Turnbull saying, in part : "I would like to correct with your help some critical errors or deformations without being suspected by some editors to rearrange the truth in our favour." Further in the mail, I presented some salient proofs regarding

1347:

people died of similar deaths in the USA, it is misleading because there are so many more people in the USA. Though the USA has more gun deaths per capita, Moore exagerates it by not giving the information per capita, but in raw numbers of which the United States was the most populous nation of

1228:

Regarding your other question (citation stats), it is true that it varies significantly from one field to another. But actually, cosmology is a very hot topic, and good papers are extensively cited. The most striking example is the first release of the WMAP data, which was published in 2003, and

354:

at Bwithh's talk page and intended to revert it but got distracted by another (really nasty) issue. i also don't want to be seen as editing the article very much, since the Bogdanov camp sees me as such a biased editor and i considered this change to be small potatoes. go ahead and fix it, Ze,

4518:

Post from fr.sci.physique looks citable to me (with caveats), though I'm beginning to think that some serious rearranging is needed. On the biog subject, I see the sense in keeping all in one article (here), but think more than the current two lines is needed to get any idea of the 'characters'

1806:

is switched on, and in another is switched off. Such a quantum dynamic, which can be realized only in the Planck region, is a non-differentiable dynamic. Examples of such a hypothesized non-differentiable dynamic are the above mentioned freezing of the extra dimensions, the change of the metric

1680:

I find the nature of these citations interesting. "Space-time metric and the KMS condition at the Planck scale" has one citation, in "Problem of constructing discrete and finite quantum theory" (2002) by Felix M. Lev, which is cited three times (all three papers also written by Felix M. Lev).

947:

Well, not if he edits it from a subject-header link. I guess the worst-case scenario (participant in the external event stumbles on the article not knowing about the arbcom decision, edits it, gets banned without fair warning) is pretty unlikely by now, but still I can see that the notice had a

4619:

Sorry for the response delay, was on holiday. Additions look good to me, I might try and poke the wording a bit if I get inspired. On the citations front for the current Living Goalposts, I'd say the ball is firmly in the back of the net - until sueage panic kicks again at any rate. References

1768:

Thus we can say that the analysis of the classical dynamic of the metric signature for the super-thin and super-long gravitational flux tube shows that there is a region where this quantity changes too much quickly from the quantum gravity viewpoint. It leads to the fact that some pure quantum

1626:

does not condone the insinuation that I "freezes everyone who slightly diverges from views". Anyhow, this is no the case. I am far too busy to spend my time watching every other edit for compliance to my alleged opinions; I have a very simple criterion to use (number of edits), and I would be

1389:

OK, so I compared to my own stuff. I would say that regarding publication and citation rate, I am in the average of the cosmology community. I defended in the last days of december 2000, so it is quite easy to spot papers that cited mine before my defense (I took all those that were published

634:

In France "honorable" mention is nothing more than an acknowledgement of the fact that the student spent some time doing a PhD (which the brothers probably did). It does not say that good results were obained. In fact it does say the contrary: it says that the student is not considered by the

1707:

Yu.N. Babaev, Gravitational field in discrete compact space, Dirac monopole and the nature of gravitational forces, preprint, Inst. Nucl. Res. Acad. Sci. USSR 0481 (1986); D. McGoveran and H.P. Noyes, Foundations of a Discrete Physics, SLAC-PUB-4526 (1989); S. Majid and H. Ruegg, Phys. Lett.

1063:

Simply put, soon after the beginning of the Universe, space was loaded with an enormous density of pure energy, which converted to matter - anti-matter, back to energy, and so on; hence the notion of "temperature" of the Universe (density of energy in space), the various "eras" of sub-aotmic

606:

In English: "However, the provisions of these decrees remain applicable to the candidates registered for obtaining one of these diplomas and having chosen, in accordance with the transitional provisions envisaged by the decree of 5 July 1984 relating to the doctoral studies to continue the

610:

It is clear. Grichka passed his thesis in 1999. Igor in 2002. They started their thesis in 1991, long before the "new doctorate" mentionned by Ze Miguel (27 april 2002). Therefore, as the law stipulates, the only legal text that applies to the Bogdanoff thesis is the text of July 5,1984

1184:

is small. And it seems that we could only compare it to others in the field, so someone who is cited on papers on the dynamics of a black hole wouldn't be comparable to the Bodganov's discussing the creation of the Universe. There is a lot of other damning evidence so far though.

936:

I commented out the giant notice at the top of the article warning editors that they may be mistaken for sockpuppets. How long has the damn thing been up there? The Arbcom case closed about four months ago. Anyone who tries to edit the article will still see it in the edit box.

1394:

if you are really interested). If you compare with the brothers, three years after they had begun their PhD (1991 + 3 = 1994), they had been fired from their first university, they had to find a new advisor, they had not published anything, and their only claimed collaborator

515:

However, this article suggests that "mention honourable", when awarded by a university, is the lowest possible passing grade. One or the other is clearly wrong; I do not know which. If anyone would be so good as to explain this to me, I would be most grateful. Best regards,

1210:

papers (not more than 5 at the beginning of the affair, three of which which were identical up to the typos), and second, these papers were not cited at all at that time (they are still not cited, which the Bogdanov explain by saying that the affair gave everybody a bad

4552:

example to express all the necessary caveats. Maybe we could say something like, "The thesis reports, which the Bogdanovs themselves have quoted to support their claims of good intentions, etc." After re-reading the NYT piece, I second you on that point, too. (The

559:

The mention "very honourable", which is the standard mention delivered in most cases, deals with a thesis presentation accepted with minor remarks, at least one publication (or it's equivalent in certain disciplines), an original scientific result, with a good oral

626:

it was the text of 1984 which applied to the theses of Bogdanoff, the jury knew perfectly that the "Honourable" ranking was not the lowest one (which was indeed "passable"). Consequently what is written in this article is absolutely false and I will correctet it.

569:

The mention "honourable" corresponds to a thesis which presents notable imperfections; even if it was accepted by two thesis reporters and the responsible person for the establishment , it causes objections or important remarks and has no publication of

849:

please. . . . Ah, I see, under "Origin of the affair", when it talks about Max Niedermaier—but in that sentence, the phrase "written to prove shortcomings in the peer-review system of theoretical physics" refers to the Bogdanovs' "work", not Sokal's.

4402:

Those paras are less jarring now, and read better. On the two remaining citeneeded tags, do I understand right in that they come from Bogdanov reports? In which case, I think the general citing-questionable-reports rule applies. Rather than writing

111:

undergrad. The recent discourse on this article and talk page reminded me of an excellent lecture he gave at the Caltech announcement address in 1974 entitled "Cargo Cult Science" . I think the following quotations apply exceptionally well here:

447:

on 22:41, 31 December 2005 (UTC), I am unprotecting this article and talk page. Since I am not a party to this article in any way, I will keep track of it for a few weeks and will re-protect it if the problems start again. Hope things work out.

549:

The mention "very honourable with congratulations of the jury" is an exceptional distinction, for an exceptionnally successful work (gloating reports, quality publications, brilliant defense, unanimous opinion of the jury in a secret ballot

1739:

Other people are probably better qualified than I to judge whether these papers are in fact the good survey of the field Lev claims them to be. In passing, I note that section 1.2 of Lev's paper expresses a sentiment explicitly based upon

1699:

That's it! No specifics taken from the work cited. Nowhere does Lev make use of details from these papers; he spends the rest of his article working up "an approach where quantum theory is based on Galois fields." Footnote 18 reads in

4090:

has left is a two-word catchphrase for the flakiness of the peer review system, a system which just about everybody acknowledges needs fixing to some extent. You know what it means when the only place this battle is being fought is

581:

article are correct: "very honourable with congratulations of the jury" and "honourable" are rarely attributed, but for different reasons. Other French universities have similar explanations, but this one is more detailed. HTH. --

4457:

Those are good suggestions. The first "citation needed" tag concerns the thesis reports, for which the only source are the B. brothers themselves. (They were probably posted to sci.physics.research at some point. Aha! See,

230:

as a remedy in any case where there are lots of socks concentrating on one or several articles. Whack a mole is a terrible waste of time. Protection can be lifted at any time to test the situation but it is probably permanent.

4027: 877:

I'm intrigued by the claim that the article has become "entangled with the external event", but not intrigued enough to read through the many archives here, and I didn't really see anything about it on the arbitration page.

1744:'s famous line, "God made the integers; all the rest is the work of Man." Lev's attitude is, in my estimation, somewhere between philosophically naïve and wildly off-base, but that's only tangential to the issue at hand. 4714:

come from Baez's website — hmmm, the plot thickens. Furthermore, each of these acts of sockpuppet theater remove thoroughly cited material from multiple mainstream, well-regarded news organizations. This is considered

1064:

particles which rythm the early instants of the Universe, and the puzzle about matter -- where is all the missing anti-matter gone ? So yes, you can say that space created matter, probably more that say that it did not.

120:

it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and things you thought of that you've eliminated by some other experiment, and how they worked--to make sure the other fellow can tell they have been eliminated.

4308:, a nonsense English-English translation, when the cite (secondary report, not the book) provides French - in questions of translation accuracy it's surely manditory to provide the exact wording, in both languages. -- 542:

Concerning mentions, the reference text (law of April 27 2002), only indicates: "Admission implicates attribution of one of the following mentions: honourable, very honourable, very honourable with congratulations".

621:

In English: "the admission or the adjournment is pronounced after deliberation of the jury. The admission can induce the attribution of one of the following mentions: passable, honourable or very honourable."

861:

I tried to straighten out those sentences in the "Origin" section, just to avoid the chance of confusion. Also, I nixed the "Fan sites" under External Links; hopefully no one will be too upset about this.

1059:

Things like "Learn physics or don't interfer with facts.Wikibee is right.Galaxies were not "created" by space.Ask around you before reverting to a ridiculous sentence" make no sense, as far as I can say.

4318:

Finally, a reply from a voice that's not inside my own head! (-; Now that you've raised the point, I was able to find the original source for the latter part of that paragraph. According to Fossé's

672:

these errors and I was asking Nicholas to correct the article. Unfortunatly, Nicholas did not react to my message and I have to intervene myself on this page in order to modify the following point.

4381:

not sockpuppets) would object to clipping both of those statements and moving them over here to Talk pending better information? The thesis reports are mildly pro-Bog, while the statement about the

1438:

There you go, put that as the comparison. The average person in the field will recieve 100 citations per year, and after (x) years, the Bogdanovs only recieved 6. That would be a fair comparison.

1409:). So the problem is that they claim they are physicist, which obviously is not the case. They did try very hard, and maybe they even convinced themselves that they has succeeded, but they failed. 4487:(Were a separate article on I. and G. created, I could see it posted quickly to AfD, with the consensus being "Merge to Bogdanov Affair".) One could begin, I suppose, by translating chunks from 4306:"It's certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups", was translated as "It is completely certain that you have obtained new worthwhile results on quantum groups" 1101:

energy of any objet (in fact this occurs within a finite amount of time), so that any object will ultimately be torn apart by expansion. For this reason, such an hypothetical event is called a

705:

domain sounds quite different but was never known (because it was kept more or less secret by the californian physicists whose interest was to promote the "negative" version of Nov.1 instead.

1663:

The brothers wrote 6 articles, and one unpublished preprint. The SPIRES database gives 0 citations for 4 of these articles, 1 citation for one of them, and two citations for the last one (see

618:"L'admission ou l'ajournement est prononcé après délibération du jury. L'admission peut donner lieu à l'attribution de l'une des mentions suivantes : passable, honorable ou très honorable." 2863: 1477:. But the part you removed was about the people who first criticized the brothers and/or thought they had made a hoax. These people had credentials, which the brothers tried to deny. 881:(I'm assuming that "entangled" means more than merely that persons involved in the affair are editing the article; that's a commonplace. To me "entangled" suggests causality in the 4411:

so the reader has an inline-prose option of making a judgement for themselves. What the thesis reports say seems important, as for that matter, is how the Bogdanovs represent them.

367:

and we need to look into and deal with Fuzheado's concern regarding HKU vs. HKUST. we'll probably have to look at the NYTimes and other news/mag articles and see what they say.

4123:

Take care of the remaining "citation needed" tag. (None of the news media accessible via Google or Lexis-Nexis has any updates on this; the best source is still Baez's website.)

1089:, then there is matter creation within a comoving volume such that the matter density remains constant as the comoving volume increases (so that the product of both increases). 1857:

They are born in 1948 and began their TV shows in 1978. They almost completely stopped in the 90's (because they were busy trying to do physics...) and came back in 2002.

4469:-B. user — if I read the history right, he entered the debate to counter the B. boosters and then didn't follow the "don't feed the trolls" wisdom of Internet philosophy. 2857: 4045:

only good,verifiable and sound source is the one that was directly published by CQG's editorial board on the Physics Astronomy and Mathematics bulletin. Zoohar et al.

596:

made. In the case of the Bogdanoff brothers, it was in 1991. Therefore, the regulation that applies in their case is the law of 23 novembre 1988. Here is the law text (

1942:" This translates as "The taste for science must be acquired very young, before figures, formulas or the Bogdanov brothers come to pervert it." Funny, funny stuff! 401:

and if all the "truth" (whatever that is) were known, perhaps con game is the best category to describe this. but as best as we all can tell, the Bogdanovs actually

241:

Good idea. I blocked LaurenceR today because the ban was extended to talk pages and his account is older than 4 days. Otherwise, yep, SP is probably the best way. --

4156: 258:

The block for users involved in the external event has been extended to talk pages, per the arbcom. So LaurenceR was just blocked indefinitely. Just a heads up. --

1692:

The state of the art of the investigations involving discrete or noncommutative space-time coordinates can be found, for example, in Ref. and references therein.

771: 1585:

Having over 500 edits in completely unrelated articles, including building some articles from the ground up, I would hope I wouldn't be considered a sock puppet.

1749:

On to the second paper, "Topological field theory of the initial singularity of space-time." This one has two citations, both by Vladimir Dzhunushaliev of the

4662:

doubt this is the most time-critical piece of writing out here in Wiki-land. As for the wording, poke all you'd like. I hope you had a pleasant holiday.

817:

garbage without properly seeking advice or review from scientists; it's not poking fun at science or process of science itself. Can someone look into this?

717:

Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 10:38:46 +0000 Reply-To: andrew.wray@iop.org Sender: "Archive of slapam-l (PAMnet)" <PAMNET@LISTSERV.ND.EDU: -->

1002:, it is not about the Bogdanov brothers. I am quite sure their papers where just an hoax, but still cannot understand the reasons for the following lines 784:

two different statements. In my opinion, the IoP statement does not bring much to the affair since the IoP does not explicitely comment the paper itself.

638:

So if one really wants to improve this minor point of the text, it should be stated that the "honorable" mention is extremely low and very rarely given.

4099:

again? In the kindest possible way, I urge the puppet gallery to wake up and get on with their lives. This behavior is beyond disruptive: it's just

2887: 1391: 4698:

get it from Baez's website, but from Greg Kuperberg via sci.physics.research. I note that none of them has complained about the referee reports for

5009: 2869: 696:

One can see the original and official text issued by Andrew Wray and H. Nicolaï of CGQ on November 11 2002, in response to the charges of hoax!!!

1966:

meaning that it's as verifiable as any damn thing in the Knowledge. I also wonder which of these users are sockpuppets and which are meatpuppets:

3038: 2875: 2747: 2689: 4432:

seems to currently redirect here (probably useful from an organisation perspective, though they must count as 'notable'), it seems from what is

998:

I know this article has been subjected to arbitration etc, anyway I want to give my opinion and purpose some changes. The article is about the

3734: 3444: 3096: 2980: 2048: 4749:

would rule these out even if they weren't being pushed by sockpuppets, but that's a debate for a different day. In the meantime, here is the

4077:" is deeply amusing. Do the vandals contradict themselves? Very well, they contradict themselves. They are large: they contain multitudes! 3966: 3270: 2851: 1282:

more career goals or points or runs than the rookie? No. However, it would be fair to note that other rookies score better on the average.

4777: 4206:

because they had been "doctored" by the Bogdanovs. CatharineV, one of the partisans banned by the ArbCom, has excerpts from these reports

4120:

Trace the three "thesis reports" to their source and provide proper footnotes, URLs, etc. Ensure that they have been correctly translated.

3908: 3850: 3792: 3618: 3212: 3154: 2922: 2631: 2574: 1990: 1911: 1940:

Le goût de la science doit s'acquérir très jeune avant que les chiffres, les formules ou les frères Bogdanov viennent pervertir tout cela.

795:

I forgot: it is unsurprising to note that when Igor put the IoP statement above, he crucially truncated it by removing the IoP signature.

1005:

guys worked for 10 years without pay. They have the right to have their work recognized with a diploma, which is nothing much these days.

4951: 4893: 3560: 3502: 3386: 3328: 2805: 2516: 2459: 2399: 2341: 2283: 2225: 2167: 2109: 4835: 3676: 1081:

Stating that space "creates" matter is something that can be either right, ambiguous, misleading, or wrong, depending on the context.

841:

in order to demonstrate the risk of postmodernist academics accepting scientific validation without adequate evaluation." Emphasize

5003: 1152:

Searching for a fairer comparison, I came across "However, the citation count can be assessed only several years after publication"

4198:

Trying to track those thesis reports to their original lair is a real pain. The only website where anyone claimed they existed is

405:

what they wrote as a valid and salient physical cosmology. if that is true, they're not even con artists, but cranks or quacks or

4325:, Woit's original phrase "It's certainly possible that you have some new worthwhile results on quantum groups" was translated as " 3032: 2741: 2683: 3728: 3438: 3090: 2974: 2042: 86: 4086:

The more I deal with this tripe, the more I reflect upon how totally the world of science has moved past it. The only ripple

1794:) has been cited twice, both times by O. B. Zaslavskii. Because I'm a nice fellow, I'll provide the critical text once again. 635:

committee as brilliant enough to remain in this field of research. This is true in physics, and probably in many other fields.

4279:

implies that the French media have covered the legal dispute to some extent, but I haven't been able to find any specifics.

4061: 3960: 3264: 904: 774: 709: 699: 81: 69: 64: 59: 922:

Why did you add one critic more against the Bogdanoff Brothers whereas you removed several sites rather positive for them ?

899:

Bogdanov Affair will be polarized, even though the two are at opposite ends of cyberspace. Of course, one cannot use this

4771: 3902: 3844: 3786: 3612: 3206: 3148: 2916: 2625: 2568: 1984: 391:

with on the basis of the caliber of some of the critics), the Bogdanoff case would more properly be qualified as a con. --

4548:

I think I agree with you on the fr.sci.physique post; we should be able to cook up some phrasing along the lines of your

1781:

The Bogdanoff paper is footnote 3. Note that once again the citing article makes no real use of the Bogdanoff "results".

4945: 4887: 3554: 3496: 3380: 3322: 2799: 2510: 2453: 2393: 2335: 2277: 2219: 2161: 2103: 1883:

compare the caption with the brothers' claims, you easily see that they do not really know what they are talking about.

1071:

will say about this; I aknowledge that I hold a mere master in particle physics, while he is a specialist in cosmology.

1685:

doesn't show that this paper ever appeared in a journal. The passage which cites the Bogdanoff paper reads as follows:

1044:

Just a note—I think you mean "gratuitous attack" rather than "free attack"; the latter doesn't mean much in English. --

4829: 3670: 750: 469:

Yep. I was just coming back here to do that myself. At least people can't see they were given the opportunity. Best,--

4144:

Include Urs Schreiber's "very accurate" summary, or an executive summary thereof. We might as well discuss a little

413:

or pseudophysics or, if you want to allow for some possibility that they will someday be vindicated, the category is

4221:

we see quotations from Porrati, Jackiw and Verbaarchot added by Igor Bogdanov himself, without a supporting URL. (

708:

Here is the integral version of November 11. As you can see, it reads very different from the previous version :

4333:" (bold emphasis mine). Later in the article, Majid is quoted as calling the French version of his thesis report " 1750: 1682: 524: 164: 38: 675:

Here are some interesting things that we disclose here about the famous "CQG Official Statement" published here.

212:

If it is, this would probably be the only place it would be. It's an alternative to constantly blocking people. --

5033: 4137: 682:

First, here is a link towards an article of the bulletin of the "Physics-Astronomy-Mathematics division of SLA"

227: 178: 5015: 4746: 4031: 3062: 2771: 2713: 1664: 376:

All sources that I was able to find only mention HKUST. PS: Damn, this place has become so quiet, lately :) --

333: 1847:

How old are they ? Have they really been TV presenters for a "few decades", which must be more than two ? --

4337:"; Fossé's phrasing at the bottom of page 55 indicates (pretty strongly to me, anyway) that the English word 1903: 5021: 3758: 3468: 3120: 3044: 3004: 2753: 2695: 2072: 818: 607:

preparation of their work and to support them under the conditions envisaged by the texts before in force."

337: 293: 107: 4997: 4489: 325: 4407:

and citing the Shakespeare play, which implies the editor believes Shakey did his research, you can write

3990: 3740: 3450: 3294: 3102: 3050: 2986: 2759: 2701: 2677: 2054: 1667: 1109: 1086: 329: 3432: 2968: 1872:

The picture caption is very long. Is there the need for the detail about the big bang in this article? --

102:

As individuals who have studied the fields of physics, you will undoubtedly be familiar with the work of

4801: 3972: 3932: 3874: 3816: 3746: 3642: 3456: 3276: 3236: 3178: 3108: 2992: 2946: 2655: 2598: 2060: 2014: 1761:, Dzhunushaliev and Myrzakulov) has no citations. Again, I copy the paragraph which makes the citation: 1323: 1031: 517: 155: 4765: 4465:.) I stuck the second "citation needed" tag on a statement which had been inserted, originally, by an 4462: 4019: 3200: 2562: 1978: 1396: 683: 4881: 3374: 2447: 2271: 1623: 1590: 1548: 1441: 1365: 1193: 1160: 1143: 885:

direction; that is, that the article is somehow influencing ongoing events related to the Bogdanovs.)

4975: 4917: 4823: 4783: 4433: 3978: 3914: 3856: 3798: 3624: 3584: 3526: 3410: 3352: 3282: 3218: 3160: 3026: 2928: 2829: 2735: 2637: 2580: 2540: 2483: 2423: 2365: 2307: 2249: 2191: 2133: 1996: 938: 900: 470: 449: 47: 17: 4360:

OK, see how those paragraphs read now. I think my latest revision represents a small improvement.

1593: 773:. Then, on Nov, 11th, the Institue of Physics (which owns the CQG journal) issued another statement 4957: 4899: 4859: 4789: 4716: 4178: 3920: 3862: 3804: 3722: 3700: 3630: 3566: 3508: 3392: 3334: 3224: 3166: 3084: 2934: 2811: 2643: 2586: 2522: 2465: 2405: 2347: 2289: 2231: 2173: 2115: 2036: 2002: 1823:

with no more notice given than a basic acknowledgment of their existence. This little exercise is

1754: 1403: 770:

These two messages are different. The first one was issued by the Editorial Board on November, 1st

4963: 4905: 4841: 3954: 3682: 3572: 3514: 3398: 3340: 3258: 2817: 2528: 2471: 2411: 2353: 2295: 2237: 2179: 2121: 1239: 923: 612: 300: 103: 4203: 1117: 740: 4436:

that a bio section would be useful. Bit hard to see where they're coming from at the moment. --

1121: 691: 4847: 4622: 4520: 4437: 4309: 4023: 3896: 3838: 3780: 3688: 3606: 3142: 2910: 2619: 1962:

statement? The version we quote which they say can't be verified was, in fact, quoted by the

444: 4939: 4583: 4429: 3548: 3490: 3316: 2793: 2504: 2387: 2329: 2213: 2155: 2097: 1786:

Dzhunushaliev's 2004 paper "Pure quantum freezing of the 5th dimension" (Int. J. Mod. Phys.

1653: 1113: 1026: 487: 459: 351: 259: 242: 232: 213: 193: 182: 4694:

To all the anon IPs/sockpuppets/meatpuppets complaining about the CQG e-mail, note that we

4319: 1720:

187 (1995); L. Susskind, hep-th/0101029; M. R. Douglas and N.A. Nekrasov, Rev. Mod. Phys.,

1153: 3664: 1915: 1757:. The more recent, "5D Kaluza-Klein gravity: Singularuty and freezing of 5th dimension" ( 1474: 967: 744: 710:

http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211&L=pamnet&T=0&F=&S=&P=3647

700:

http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0211&L=pamnet&T=0&F=&S=&P=3647

4292:. Para-three contains various direct quotes that don't appear in the cited post, and has 4199: 1173: 2845: 1581:) another one to be a good editor in physics. If you disagree you can always email me. 1407: 739:

for everyone's info (particularly admins), i believe the latest sock-puppet for Igor is

4288:

While there's a todo list around, there are a couple of paragraphs I had trouble with,

4235: 1873: 1045: 949: 889: 652: 583: 427: 377: 341: 271: 204: 5052: 4723: 4666: 4625: 4590: 4523: 4497: 4440: 4389: 4364: 4353: 4312: 4283: 4258: 4192: 4171: 4106: 4056:'s fact checkers. Truth is truth, to the end of reckoning. . . and in these parts, a 4038: 4009: 1948: 1887: 1876: 1861: 1851: 1836: 1673: 1657: 1631: 1611: 1551: 1481: 1444: 1413: 1368: 1246: 1196: 1163: 1146: 1128: 1075: 1048: 1038: 985: 952: 941: 926: 911: 892: 866: 854: 821: 799: 790: 757: 734: 655: 642: 586: 527: 490: 473: 464: 452: 430: 421: 395: 380: 371: 359: 344: 303: 280: 264: 247: 235: 218: 207: 198: 185: 167: 4425: 4301: 1919: 1824: 1400: 1318: 410: 392: 296: 5049: 4720: 4663: 4587: 4494: 4386: 4374: 4361: 4350: 4280: 4255: 4211: 4189: 4168: 4160:étonnamment plus pauvre que notre essai ici. Je peux vous donner quelque chose en 4103: 4035: 4006: 1945: 1884: 1858: 1833: 1670: 1578: 1478: 1410: 1300:

them who have had time to improve vastly and had more time to accumulate citations.

1243: 1125: 1068: 971: 908: 863: 851: 828: 796: 787: 639: 597: 578: 501: 414: 277: 116:

But there is one feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.

1914:

américain, sans en décrire le fonctionnement. Par contre, ils oublient la mission

4349:

That paragraph certainly needs cleanup and at least one more footnote, I agree.

4331:

que vous avez obtenu des résultats nouveaux et utiles dans les groupes quantiques

4057: 1848: 1649: 1093: 837: 426:

I agree with r-b j, they actually believe themselves to be great scientists. --

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4207: 4297: 903:

to transmit information faster than light, but it is still a good example of "

832: 4254:

Sigh. Exegesis always starts out so much fun and then decays into tedium.

4151:

Someday, remove the semiprotection and see if the puppet gallery comes back.

1927:

I particularly like the characterization of the brothers as "two peacocks".

1741: 1628: 1608: 1072: 982: 978: 317:

the article should remain categorized as a scandal - see previous discussion

1622:

PS: most of this reply adresses the first, unsigned comment. I assume that

1317:

You could compare the type of misleading information to the information in

1019:..."honorable", that is the lowest grade for passing the PhD examination... 534: 4582:

On a related note, how much do you think needs to be fixed to address the

4409:

The last words of Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's play were 'Et tu Brute?'

1716:

90 (1995); S. Doplicher, K. Fredenhagen and J. Roberts, Comm. Math. Phys.

4740: 4268: 4154:

Et puis, qui veut traduire cet article en français? On trouve l'article

1712:

348 (1994); J. Lukierski, H. Ruegg and W.J. Zakrzewski, Annals of Phys.,

970:- The Bogdanovs themselves try to put it "right". Currently protected. -- 754: 731: 418: 406: 368: 356: 4377:

for either of the two "citations needed" tags. How many people (I said

688:

One finds, in reference n° 13 of the references quoted by the author :

270:"And in my ears there is a silence like the sound of angel voices..." — 95:

An open letter to the Bogdanov brothers - Feynman and Cargo Cult Science

1958:

I am curious: will the puppet theatre ever get tired of rewriting the

1102: 981:: Page is now semi-protected, and probably needs review at this point. 4052:

It's not the Knowledge's job to "explain" how statements got past the

835:

published a deliberately fraudulent article in the humanities journal

510:

of the decision by the examination committee, although these are rare.

1791: 1758: 888:

So could we have a brief summary somewhere of this "entanglement"? --

409:

or whatever you want to call it. then the best term would simply be

1934:(8 October 2004), in which Samuel Uguen has some kind words for the 1013:

attack against the brothers, more than an additional info about the

684:

http://www.sla.org/division/dpam/pam-bulletin/vol30/no3/physics.html

4991: 4335:

une traduction non autorisée et en partie inventée par les Bogdanov

148:

Thank you, and I wish you all the best of luck in your endeavours.

3020: 2729: 2671: 827:

Where does the article say this? At the bottom, it says that the

4620:

section is very nicely presented too (though darn < ref /: -->

313:

I disagree with the categorization modification that took place:

3716: 3426: 3078: 2962: 2030: 1930:

Oh, and this one is short and sweet. It comes from a review in

1264:

longer were cited much more often would be an unfair comparison.

3948: 3252: 4759: 3890: 3832: 3774: 3600: 3194: 3136: 2904: 2613: 2556: 1972: 613:

http://guilde.jeunes-chercheurs.org/Textes/Doct/A840705-2.html

203:

I'm not sure this new policy should be used on talk pages. --

25: 4933: 4875: 3542: 3484: 3368: 3310: 2787: 2498: 2441: 2381: 2323: 2265: 2207: 2149: 2091: 1728:

181 (2002); G. Bogdanoff and I. Bogdanoff, Annals of Phys.,

1331:

people died last year of gun related deaths in Germany, and

692:

http://listserv.nd.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A1=ind0211&L=pamnet#11

292:

Does anyone have any other sources for this part other than

4817: 3658: 1327:. While it is completely accurate to say, as he did, that 137:

Taking another series of Feynman's lectures as an example,

4745:

Now the issue is over "censored web sites". In my view,

1666:). The preprint does not have any citation as well (see 5039: 5027: 4981: 4969: 4923: 4911: 4865: 4853: 4807: 4795: 4737:

the CQG-related sockpuppetry into a brave new world of

4289: 4276: 4272: 4247: 4243: 4231: 4222: 4218: 4185: 4181: 4134:(which, as we all know, should really have been titled 3996: 3984: 3938: 3926: 3880: 3868: 3822: 3810: 3764: 3752: 3706: 3694: 3648: 3636: 3590: 3578: 3532: 3520: 3474: 3462: 3416: 3404: 3358: 3346: 3300: 3288: 3242: 3230: 3184: 3172: 3126: 3114: 3068: 3056: 3010: 2998: 2952: 2940: 2893: 2881: 2835: 2823: 2777: 2765: 2719: 2707: 2661: 2649: 2604: 2592: 2546: 2534: 2489: 2477: 2429: 2417: 2371: 2359: 2313: 2301: 2255: 2243: 2197: 2185: 2139: 2127: 2078: 2066: 2020: 2008: 4621:

scatterage everywhere is ugly when you hit edit...) --

1644:

The article claims their papers were cited 3 times in

1085:

course, if you consider superticious theories such as

718:

From: Andrew Wray <andrew.wray@iop.org: -->

651:

I have updated the text, thanks for your remarks. --

320:

the published papers were never intended to be hoaxes

4405:

The last words of Julius Caesar were 'Et tu Brute?'

4373:

By this point, I am quite pessimistic about getting

4294:

the word "interesting" was translated as "important"

1607:

have some experience with the scientific community.

1579:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Rama/Sexuality_drawings

4225:, a few days earlier, is where Kounnas comes in.) 4164:mais ça, ce n'est pas la chose la plus désirable. 4188:. They obviously haven't gone away yet. . . . 4157:Polémique autour des travaux des frères Bogdanov 598:http://www.andes.asso.fr/GUIDE/annexe/node11.php 458:Actually I'm going to reprotect it. Too soon. -- 1017:. I purpose to change it with (something like) 1898:The following comes from the 1 November 2004 1819:In all cases, the Bogdanoff papers are cited 932:Unnecessary message at the top of the article 8: 1938:educational festival. He starts by saying, " 1724:977 (2001); G. Amelino-Camelia, Phys. Lett. 1108:Finally, if you have in mind a process like 226:The Arbitration Committee will probably use 181:here both on the article and the talk page. 4557:article may also be useful in this regard.) 145:is an excellent lead to take in your work. 139:QED: The Strange Theory of Light and Matter 4095:Do you think this scam will ever make the 1067:Of course, I look forward to hearing what 4230:Condensed versions of three reports were 1627:foolish not to use this to save my time. 1827:, of course, but I find it illuminating. 1774:signature and may be other phenomena , . 1603:the matter is quite out of the question. 1092:Now, if you have in mind something like 535:http://www.inapg.fr/abies/soutenance.htm 324:If new categories are to be added, then 1648:, is that right? How can that be true? 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 1577:in sexuality drawings (User : Rama 1343:people in Britain, and so on... and 4586:tag at the top of this Talk page? 2086:Kirsht and the anagram fellowship: 1902:, p. 107 No. 330, by Jean Audouze: 364:OK, reverting to previous category. 4341:was translated as the French word 1473:Actually, this is already done in 24: 1807:signature, or other phenomena , . 1475:Follow ups to the Bogdanovs' work 254:This has not been mentioned so... 4290:#3 and #4 of 'Media involvement' 4232:first put in their current place 4126:Incorporate a bit more from the 1751:Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University 901:cyberwiki-quantical entanglement 29: 4704:Czechoslovak Journal of Physics 4493:over on the French Wikipédia. 4202:, but those have been deleted, 4130:article into the discussion of 831:transpired when "the physicist 4700:Classical and Quantum Gravity, 4667:22:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 4626:22:12, 13 September 2006 (UTC) 4385:lawsuit is I guess anti-Bog. 4246:was temporarily included, and 4060:cannot be second-guessed with 443:In response to a request from 1: 4555:Chronicle of Higher Education 994:It is just about the "Affair" 974:17:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC) 577:So both this article and the 482:Enough to make a cat laugh... 431:09:45, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 422:04:21, 31 December 2005 (UTC) 396:19:33, 30 December 2005 (UTC) 381:14:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC) 372:01:06, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 360:01:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC) 345:21:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) 304:23:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC) 281:19:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC) 265:12:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 248:14:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 236:14:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC) 219:14:28, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 208:14:21, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 199:12:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 186:12:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 168:01:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC) 4747:the External Links guideline 1172:More interesting info here: 800:18:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 791:18:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 758:16:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 735:16:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC) 656:15:11, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 643:14:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC) 5053:18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC) 2846:The reason for my block is: 1571: 1021:The current version sounds 587:09:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 528:06:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC) 491:10:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 474:14:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC) 465:03:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 453:00:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC) 5068: 4724:19:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 4708:Chinese Journal of Physics 4591:15:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC) 4524:00:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC) 4498:01:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC) 4441:23:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC) 4390:21:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 4365:18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 4354:18:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 4313:08:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC) 4267:getting sued was added by 4184:the article, a sockpuppet 4177:OK, less than a day after 4138:Affreuse Kablooie Spatiale 1129:16:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC) 1076:17:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC) 1049:23:17, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 1039:22:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC) 986:12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC) 927:11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC) 912:13:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) 893:23:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 106:, the architect of modern 4733:It appears we have moved 4490:Igor et Grishka Bogdanoff 4284:19:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC) 4259:20:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC) 4193:14:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC) 4172:16:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC) 4107:17:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC) 4039:23:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 4010:22:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC) 953:18:48, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 942:18:38, 2 April 2006 (UTC) 905:arbitration at a distance 867:17:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 855:17:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC) 822:00:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC) 679:proofs of what we claim. 228:Knowledge:Semi-protection 179:Knowledge:Semi-protection 1949:16:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC) 1888:16:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC) 1877:18:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 1862:13:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC) 1852:08:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC) 1837:00:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC) 1674:14:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 1658:12:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC) 1654:talk to me - I'll listen 1009:It seems to me this is a 533:Quickly translated from 340:could be considered. -- 334:Category:Quantum gravity 4093:in a Knowledge article? 1632:10:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1612:09:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1594:16:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1552:17:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1482:12:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC) 1445:17:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1414:10:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1369:04:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC) 1247:23:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1197:16:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1164:16:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC) 1147:17:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC) 977:Note from PNA reformer 753:). just a "heads up". 108:quantum electrodynamics 1339:people in Russia, and 1335:people in Canada, and 1110:black hole evaporation 1087:steady-state cosmology 338:Category:Pseudophysics 330:Category:String theory 4424:A separate issue, as 4248:quite quickly removed 4200:this location at CERN 4186:came along to muck it 4148:while we're here, no? 1894:Found via Lexis-Nexis 1324:Bowling for Columbine 847:postmodern academics, 355:however you see fit. 326:Category:Protoscience 42:of past discussions. 4687:CQG, encore une fois 4263:The statement about 4028:zapped by the ArbCom 4026:and was accordingly 496:"Mention Honourable" 439:Unprotecting article 99:Dear Drs. Bogdanov, 18:Talk:Bogdanov affair 4327:Il est tout à fait 4088:l'affaire Bogdanoff 4032:User:213.237.21.242 1936:Griffons la science 1755:Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan 1404:Mensa International 1135:Comparison deletion 4210:, but, er. . . . 1920:théorie des cordes 1572:Rama's assumptions 1397:André Lichnerowicz 1240:ekpyrotic universe 843:humanities journal 104:Richard P. Feynman 4751:dramatis personae 4302:fr:wikt:important 4277:This edit summary 4132:Avant le Big Bang 4062:original research 4058:verifiable source 4020:User:213.237.21.6 1825:Original Research 1037: 819:Temporary account 151:Yours sincerely, 92: 91: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5059: 5048:Be seeing you. 5044: 5043: 5010:deleted contribs 4994: 4986: 4985: 4952:deleted contribs 4936: 4928: 4927: 4894:deleted contribs 4878: 4870: 4869: 4836:deleted contribs 4820: 4812: 4811: 4778:deleted contribs 4762: 4430:Grichka Bogdanov 4375:reliable sources 4304:? Para-four has 4001: 4000: 3967:deleted contribs 3951: 3943: 3942: 3909:deleted contribs 3893: 3885: 3884: 3851:deleted contribs 3835: 3827: 3826: 3793:deleted contribs 3777: 3769: 3768: 3735:deleted contribs 3719: 3711: 3710: 3677:deleted contribs 3661: 3653: 3652: 3619:deleted contribs 3603: 3595: 3594: 3561:deleted contribs 3545: 3537: 3536: 3503:deleted contribs 3487: 3479: 3478: 3445:deleted contribs 3429: 3421: 3420: 3387:deleted contribs 3371: 3363: 3362: 3329:deleted contribs 3313: 3305: 3304: 3271:deleted contribs 3255: 3247: 3246: 3213:deleted contribs 3197: 3189: 3188: 3155:deleted contribs 3139: 3131: 3130: 3097:deleted contribs 3081: 3073: 3072: 3039:deleted contribs 3023: 3015: 3014: 2981:deleted contribs 2965: 2957: 2956: 2923:deleted contribs 2907: 2898: 2897: 2864:deleted contribs 2848: 2840: 2839: 2806:deleted contribs 2790: 2782: 2781: 2748:deleted contribs 2732: 2724: 2723: 2690:deleted contribs 2674: 2666: 2665: 2632:deleted contribs 2616: 2609: 2608: 2575:deleted contribs 2559: 2551: 2550: 2517:deleted contribs 2501: 2494: 2493: 2460:deleted contribs 2444: 2434: 2433: 2400:deleted contribs 2384: 2376: 2375: 2342:deleted contribs 2326: 2318: 2317: 2284:deleted contribs 2268: 2260: 2259: 2226:deleted contribs 2210: 2202: 2201: 2168:deleted contribs 2152: 2144: 2143: 2110:deleted contribs 2094: 2083: 2082: 2049:deleted contribs 2033: 2025: 2024: 1991:deleted contribs 1975: 1114:cosmic inflation 1034: 1029: 962:From PNA/Physics 873:"Entangled" how? 328:(which includes 161: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5067: 5066: 5062: 5061: 5060: 5058: 5057: 5056: 4995: 4990: 4989: 4937: 4932: 4931: 4879: 4874: 4873: 4821: 4816: 4815: 4763: 4758: 4757: 4731: 4689: 4658:No worries! I 4117: 4030:, came back as 3952: 3947: 3946: 3894: 3889: 3888: 3836: 3831: 3830: 3778: 3773: 3772: 3720: 3715: 3714: 3662: 3657: 3656: 3604: 3599: 3598: 3546: 3541: 3540: 3488: 3483: 3482: 3430: 3425: 3424: 3372: 3367: 3366: 3314: 3309: 3308: 3256: 3251: 3250: 3198: 3193: 3192: 3140: 3135: 3134: 3082: 3077: 3076: 3024: 3019: 3018: 2966: 2961: 2960: 2908: 2903: 2902: 2849: 2844: 2843: 2791: 2786: 2785: 2733: 2728: 2727: 2675: 2670: 2669: 2617: 2612: 2611: 2560: 2555: 2554: 2502: 2497: 2496: 2445: 2440: 2439: 2385: 2380: 2379: 2327: 2322: 2321: 2269: 2264: 2263: 2211: 2206: 2205: 2153: 2148: 2147: 2095: 2090: 2089: 2034: 2029: 2028: 1976: 1971: 1970: 1964:New York Times, 1956: 1916:Planck-Surveyor 1896: 1870: 1845: 1814:Sound familiar? 1805: 1772: 1642: 1574: 1137: 1057: 1032: 1000:Bogdanov Affair 996: 968:Bogdanov Affair 964: 934: 920: 875: 814: 721: 669: 498: 484: 441: 311: 289: 256: 175: 173:Semi-protection 156: 97: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5065: 5063: 5046: 5045: 4987: 4929: 4871: 4813: 4730: 4727: 4688: 4685: 4684: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4680: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4676: 4675: 4674: 4673: 4672: 4671: 4670: 4669: 4641: 4640: 4639: 4638: 4637: 4636: 4635: 4634: 4633: 4632: 4631: 4630: 4629: 4628: 4604: 4603: 4602: 4601: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4593: 4569: 4568: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4563: 4562: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4558: 4535: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4530: 4529: 4528: 4527: 4526: 4507: 4506: 4505: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4477: 4476: 4475: 4474: 4473: 4472: 4471: 4470: 4448: 4447: 4446: 4445: 4444: 4443: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4414: 4413: 4412: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4383:Ciel et Espace 4368: 4367: 4357: 4356: 4346: 4345: 4321:Ciel et Espace 4298:wikt:important 4265:Ciel et Espace 4252: 4251: 4240: 4239: 4227: 4226: 4214:and all that. 4196: 4195: 4179:Freakofnurture 4166: 4165: 4152: 4149: 4142: 4128:Ciel et Espace 4124: 4121: 4116: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4097:New York Times 4081: 4080: 4079: 4078: 4068: 4067: 4066: 4065: 4054:New York Times 4047: 4046: 4018:who edited as 4003: 4002: 3944: 3886: 3828: 3770: 3712: 3654: 3596: 3538: 3480: 3422: 3364: 3306: 3248: 3190: 3132: 3074: 3016: 2958: 2900: 2841: 2783: 2725: 2667: 2552: 2437: 2436: 2435: 2377: 2319: 2261: 2203: 2145: 2084: 2026: 1955: 1952: 1925: 1924: 1895: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1885:Alain Riazuelo 1869: 1866: 1865: 1864: 1859:Alain Riazuelo 1844: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1829: 1828: 1816: 1815: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1803: 1796: 1795: 1783: 1782: 1778: 1777: 1776: 1775: 1770: 1763: 1762: 1746: 1745: 1736: 1735: 1734: 1733: 1702: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1687: 1686: 1683:Google Scholar 1677: 1676: 1671:Alain Riazuelo 1641: 1638: 1637: 1636: 1635: 1634: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1604: 1597: 1596: 1587: 1586: 1573: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1521: 1520: 1519: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1493: 1492: 1491: 1490: 1489: 1488: 1487: 1486: 1485: 1484: 1479:Alain Riazuelo 1458: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1439: 1425: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1411:Alain Riazuelo 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1374: 1373: 1372: 1371: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1284: 1283: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1265: 1254: 1253: 1252: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1244:Alain Riazuelo 1230: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1202: 1201: 1200: 1199: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1185: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1175: 1167: 1166: 1157: 1156: 1136: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1126:Alain Riazuelo 1106: 1090: 1082: 1056: 1055:Space / matter 1053: 1052: 1051: 995: 992: 991: 990: 989: 988: 963: 960: 958: 956: 955: 933: 930: 919: 916: 915: 914: 874: 871: 870: 869: 858: 857: 813: 810: 809: 808: 807: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 797:Alain Riazuelo 788:Alain Riazuelo 785: 781: 777: 763: 762: 761: 760: 723: 716: 714: 668: 665: 663: 661: 660: 659: 658: 646: 645: 640:Alain Riazuelo 636: 632: 592: 590: 589: 574: 573: 572: 571: 564: 563: 562: 561: 554: 553: 552: 551: 544: 543: 539: 538: 513: 512: 497: 494: 483: 480: 479: 478: 477: 476: 440: 437: 436: 435: 434: 433: 388: 387: 386: 385: 384: 383: 365: 322: 321: 318: 310: 309:Categorization 307: 288: 285: 284: 283: 274: 272:Dorothy Parker 255: 252: 251: 250: 224: 223: 222: 221: 201: 174: 171: 131: 130: 123: 122: 96: 93: 90: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5064: 5055: 5054: 5051: 5041: 5038: 5035: 5032: 5029: 5026: 5023: 5020: 5017: 5016:nuke contribs 5014: 5011: 5008: 5005: 5002: 4999: 4993: 4988: 4983: 4980: 4977: 4974: 4971: 4968: 4965: 4962: 4959: 4958:nuke contribs 4956: 4953: 4950: 4947: 4944: 4941: 4935: 4930: 4925: 4922: 4919: 4916: 4913: 4910: 4907: 4904: 4901: 4900:nuke contribs 4898: 4895: 4892: 4889: 4886: 4883: 4877: 4872: 4867: 4864: 4861: 4858: 4855: 4852: 4849: 4846: 4843: 4842:nuke contribs 4840: 4837: 4834: 4831: 4828: 4825: 4819: 4814: 4809: 4806: 4803: 4800: 4797: 4794: 4791: 4788: 4785: 4784:nuke contribs 4782: 4779: 4776: 4773: 4770: 4767: 4761: 4756: 4755: 4754: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4742: 4736: 4728: 4726: 4725: 4722: 4718: 4713: 4709: 4705: 4701: 4697: 4693: 4686: 4668: 4665: 4661: 4657: 4656: 4655: 4654: 4653: 4652: 4651: 4650: 4649: 4648: 4647: 4646: 4645: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4627: 4624: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4610: 4609: 4608: 4607: 4606: 4605: 4592: 4589: 4585: 4581: 4580: 4579: 4578: 4577: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4573: 4572: 4571: 4570: 4556: 4551: 4547: 4546: 4545: 4544: 4543: 4542: 4541: 4540: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4536: 4525: 4522: 4517: 4516: 4515: 4514: 4513: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4509: 4508: 4499: 4496: 4492: 4491: 4485: 4484: 4483: 4482: 4481: 4480: 4479: 4478: 4468: 4464: 4461: 4456: 4455: 4454: 4453: 4452: 4451: 4450: 4449: 4442: 4439: 4435: 4431: 4427: 4426:Igor Bogdanov 4423: 4422: 4421: 4420: 4419: 4418: 4410: 4406: 4401: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4396: 4391: 4388: 4384: 4380: 4376: 4372: 4371: 4370: 4369: 4366: 4363: 4359: 4358: 4355: 4352: 4348: 4347: 4344: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4330: 4324: 4322: 4317: 4316: 4315: 4314: 4311: 4307: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4291: 4286: 4285: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4266: 4261: 4260: 4257: 4249: 4245: 4242: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4228: 4224: 4220: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4201: 4194: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4180: 4176: 4175: 4174: 4173: 4170: 4163: 4159: 4158: 4153: 4150: 4147: 4143: 4140: 4139: 4133: 4129: 4125: 4122: 4119: 4118: 4114: 4108: 4105: 4102: 4098: 4094: 4089: 4085: 4084: 4083: 4082: 4076: 4073:Your use of " 4072: 4071: 4070: 4069: 4063: 4059: 4055: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4048: 4043: 4042: 4041: 4040: 4037: 4033: 4029: 4025: 4022:and later as 4021: 4017: 4012: 4011: 4008: 3998: 3995: 3992: 3989: 3986: 3983: 3980: 3977: 3974: 3973:nuke contribs 3971: 3968: 3965: 3962: 3959: 3956: 3950: 3945: 3940: 3937: 3934: 3931: 3928: 3925: 3922: 3919: 3916: 3915:nuke contribs 3913: 3910: 3907: 3904: 3901: 3898: 3892: 3887: 3882: 3879: 3876: 3873: 3870: 3867: 3864: 3861: 3858: 3857:nuke contribs 3855: 3852: 3849: 3846: 3843: 3840: 3834: 3829: 3824: 3821: 3818: 3815: 3812: 3809: 3806: 3803: 3800: 3799:nuke contribs 3797: 3794: 3791: 3788: 3785: 3782: 3776: 3771: 3766: 3763: 3760: 3757: 3754: 3751: 3748: 3745: 3742: 3741:nuke contribs 3739: 3736: 3733: 3730: 3727: 3724: 3718: 3713: 3708: 3705: 3702: 3699: 3696: 3693: 3690: 3687: 3684: 3683:nuke contribs 3681: 3678: 3675: 3672: 3669: 3666: 3660: 3655: 3650: 3647: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3635: 3632: 3629: 3626: 3625:nuke contribs 3623: 3620: 3617: 3614: 3611: 3608: 3602: 3597: 3592: 3589: 3586: 3583: 3580: 3577: 3574: 3571: 3568: 3567:nuke contribs 3565: 3562: 3559: 3556: 3553: 3550: 3544: 3539: 3534: 3531: 3528: 3525: 3522: 3519: 3516: 3513: 3510: 3509:nuke contribs 3507: 3504: 3501: 3498: 3495: 3492: 3486: 3481: 3476: 3473: 3470: 3467: 3464: 3461: 3458: 3455: 3452: 3451:nuke contribs 3449: 3446: 3443: 3440: 3437: 3434: 3428: 3423: 3418: 3415: 3412: 3409: 3406: 3403: 3400: 3397: 3394: 3393:nuke contribs 3391: 3388: 3385: 3382: 3379: 3376: 3370: 3365: 3360: 3357: 3354: 3351: 3348: 3345: 3342: 3339: 3336: 3335:nuke contribs 3333: 3330: 3327: 3324: 3321: 3318: 3312: 3307: 3302: 3299: 3296: 3293: 3290: 3287: 3284: 3281: 3278: 3277:nuke contribs 3275: 3272: 3269: 3266: 3263: 3260: 3254: 3249: 3244: 3241: 3238: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3226: 3223: 3220: 3219:nuke contribs 3217: 3214: 3211: 3208: 3205: 3202: 3196: 3191: 3186: 3183: 3180: 3177: 3174: 3171: 3168: 3165: 3162: 3161:nuke contribs 3159: 3156: 3153: 3150: 3147: 3144: 3138: 3133: 3128: 3125: 3122: 3119: 3116: 3113: 3110: 3107: 3104: 3103:nuke contribs 3101: 3098: 3095: 3092: 3089: 3086: 3080: 3075: 3070: 3067: 3064: 3061: 3058: 3055: 3052: 3049: 3046: 3045:nuke contribs 3043: 3040: 3037: 3034: 3031: 3028: 3022: 3017: 3012: 3009: 3006: 3003: 3000: 2997: 2994: 2991: 2988: 2987:nuke contribs 2985: 2982: 2979: 2976: 2973: 2970: 2964: 2959: 2954: 2951: 2948: 2945: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2933: 2930: 2929:nuke contribs 2927: 2924: 2921: 2918: 2915: 2912: 2906: 2901: 2899:(hmmm. . . .) 2895: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2883: 2880: 2877: 2874: 2871: 2870:nuke contribs 2868: 2865: 2862: 2859: 2856: 2853: 2847: 2842: 2837: 2834: 2831: 2828: 2825: 2822: 2819: 2816: 2813: 2812:nuke contribs 2810: 2807: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2789: 2784: 2779: 2776: 2773: 2770: 2767: 2764: 2761: 2758: 2755: 2754:nuke contribs 2752: 2749: 2746: 2743: 2740: 2737: 2731: 2726: 2721: 2718: 2715: 2712: 2709: 2706: 2703: 2700: 2697: 2696:nuke contribs 2694: 2691: 2688: 2685: 2682: 2679: 2673: 2668: 2663: 2660: 2657: 2654: 2651: 2648: 2645: 2642: 2639: 2638:nuke contribs 2636: 2633: 2630: 2627: 2624: 2621: 2615: 2606: 2603: 2600: 2597: 2594: 2591: 2588: 2585: 2582: 2581:nuke contribs 2579: 2576: 2573: 2570: 2567: 2564: 2558: 2553: 2548: 2545: 2542: 2539: 2536: 2533: 2530: 2527: 2524: 2523:nuke contribs 2521: 2518: 2515: 2512: 2509: 2506: 2500: 2491: 2488: 2485: 2482: 2479: 2476: 2473: 2470: 2467: 2466:nuke contribs 2464: 2461: 2458: 2455: 2452: 2449: 2443: 2438: 2431: 2428: 2425: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2413: 2410: 2407: 2406:nuke contribs 2404: 2401: 2398: 2395: 2392: 2389: 2383: 2378: 2373: 2370: 2367: 2364: 2361: 2358: 2355: 2352: 2349: 2348:nuke contribs 2346: 2343: 2340: 2337: 2334: 2331: 2325: 2320: 2315: 2312: 2309: 2306: 2303: 2300: 2297: 2294: 2291: 2290:nuke contribs 2288: 2285: 2282: 2279: 2276: 2273: 2267: 2262: 2257: 2254: 2251: 2248: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2232:nuke contribs 2230: 2227: 2224: 2221: 2218: 2215: 2209: 2204: 2199: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2187: 2184: 2181: 2178: 2175: 2174:nuke contribs 2172: 2169: 2166: 2163: 2160: 2157: 2151: 2146: 2141: 2138: 2135: 2132: 2129: 2126: 2123: 2120: 2117: 2116:nuke contribs 2114: 2111: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2099: 2093: 2088: 2087: 2085: 2080: 2077: 2074: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2059: 2056: 2055:nuke contribs 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2041: 2038: 2032: 2027: 2022: 2019: 2016: 2013: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2001: 1998: 1997:nuke contribs 1995: 1992: 1989: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1974: 1969: 1968: 1967: 1965: 1961: 1953: 1951: 1950: 1947: 1943: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1932:Le Télégramme 1928: 1923: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1907: 1906: 1905: 1904: 1901: 1893: 1889: 1886: 1881: 1880: 1879: 1878: 1875: 1867: 1863: 1860: 1856: 1855: 1854: 1853: 1850: 1842: 1838: 1835: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1817: 1813: 1812: 1800: 1799: 1798: 1797: 1793: 1792:gr-qc/0409060 1789: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1779: 1767: 1766: 1765: 1764: 1760: 1759:gr-qc/0508046 1756: 1752: 1748: 1747: 1743: 1738: 1737: 1731: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1711: 1706: 1705: 1704: 1703: 1698: 1697: 1691: 1690: 1689: 1688: 1684: 1679: 1678: 1675: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1647: 1639: 1633: 1630: 1625: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1618: 1613: 1610: 1605: 1601: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1595: 1592: 1589: 1588: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1580: 1553: 1550: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1501: 1500: 1499: 1498: 1483: 1480: 1476: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1469: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1460: 1459: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1434: 1433: 1432: 1431: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1426: 1415: 1412: 1408: 1405: 1401: 1398: 1393: 1388: 1387: 1386: 1385: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1370: 1367: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1346: 1342: 1338: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1320: 1319:Michael Moore 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1312: 1311: 1310: 1309: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1280: 1279: 1278: 1277: 1276: 1275: 1274: 1273: 1262: 1261: 1260: 1259: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1248: 1245: 1241: 1236: 1231: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1213: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1198: 1195: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1174: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1165: 1162: 1159: 1158: 1154: 1151: 1150: 1149: 1148: 1145: 1141: 1134: 1130: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1115: 1111: 1107: 1104: 1099: 1095: 1091: 1088: 1083: 1080: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1074: 1070: 1065: 1061: 1054: 1050: 1047: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1035: 1028: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1007: 1006: 1001: 993: 987: 984: 980: 976: 975: 973: 969: 966: 965: 961: 959: 954: 951: 946: 945: 944: 943: 940: 931: 929: 928: 925: 917: 913: 910: 906: 902: 897: 896: 895: 894: 891: 886: 884: 879: 872: 868: 865: 860: 859: 856: 853: 848: 844: 840: 839: 834: 830: 826: 825: 824: 823: 820: 811: 801: 798: 794: 793: 792: 789: 786: 782: 778: 775: 772: 769: 768: 767: 766: 765: 764: 759: 756: 752: 749: 746: 742: 738: 737: 736: 733: 728: 727: 726: 715: 712: 711: 706: 702: 701: 697: 694: 693: 689: 686: 685: 680: 676: 673: 667:CQG STATEMENT 666: 664: 657: 654: 650: 649: 648: 647: 644: 641: 637: 633: 629: 628: 627: 623: 619: 616: 614: 608: 604: 601: 599: 593: 588: 585: 580: 576: 575: 568: 567: 566: 565: 560:presentation. 558: 557: 556: 555: 548: 547: 546: 545: 541: 540: 536: 532: 531: 530: 529: 526: 522: 521: 511: 507: 506: 505: 503: 495: 493: 492: 489: 481: 475: 472: 468: 467: 466: 463: 462: 457: 456: 455: 454: 451: 446: 438: 432: 429: 425: 424: 423: 420: 416: 412: 411:pseudoscience 408: 404: 400: 399: 398: 397: 394: 382: 379: 375: 374: 373: 370: 366: 363: 362: 361: 358: 353: 349: 348: 347: 346: 343: 339: 335: 331: 327: 319: 316: 315: 314: 308: 306: 305: 302: 298: 294: 287:HKU and HKUST 286: 282: 279: 276:Best wishes, 275: 273: 269: 268: 267: 266: 263: 262: 253: 249: 246: 245: 240: 239: 238: 237: 234: 229: 220: 217: 216: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 200: 197: 196: 190: 189: 188: 187: 184: 180: 172: 170: 169: 166: 162: 160: 152: 149: 146: 142: 140: 135: 129: 125: 124: 121: 117: 114: 113: 112: 109: 105: 100: 94: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5047: 5036: 5030: 5024: 5018: 5012: 5006: 5000: 4978: 4972: 4966: 4960: 4954: 4948: 4942: 4920: 4914: 4908: 4902: 4896: 4890: 4884: 4862: 4856: 4850: 4844: 4838: 4832: 4826: 4804: 4798: 4792: 4786: 4780: 4774: 4768: 4750: 4738: 4734: 4732: 4711: 4707: 4703: 4699: 4695: 4691: 4690: 4659: 4623:zippedmartin 4554: 4550:Et tu, Brute 4549: 4521:zippedmartin 4488: 4466: 4459: 4438:zippedmartin 4408: 4404: 4382: 4378: 4342: 4338: 4334: 4328: 4326: 4320: 4310:zippedmartin 4305: 4293: 4287: 4264: 4262: 4253: 4197: 4167: 4161: 4155: 4145: 4135: 4131: 4127: 4100: 4096: 4092: 4087: 4074: 4053: 4015: 4014:Oh yes, and 4013: 4004: 3993: 3987: 3981: 3975: 3969: 3963: 3957: 3935: 3929: 3923: 3917: 3911: 3905: 3899: 3877: 3871: 3865: 3859: 3853: 3847: 3841: 3819: 3813: 3807: 3801: 3795: 3789: 3783: 3761: 3755: 3749: 3743: 3737: 3731: 3725: 3703: 3697: 3691: 3685: 3679: 3673: 3667: 3645: 3639: 3633: 3627: 3621: 3615: 3609: 3587: 3581: 3575: 3569: 3563: 3557: 3551: 3529: 3523: 3517: 3511: 3505: 3499: 3493: 3471: 3465: 3459: 3453: 3447: 3441: 3435: 3413: 3407: 3401: 3395: 3389: 3383: 3377: 3355: 3349: 3343: 3337: 3331: 3325: 3319: 3297: 3291: 3285: 3279: 3273: 3267: 3261: 3239: 3233: 3227: 3221: 3215: 3209: 3203: 3181: 3175: 3169: 3163: 3157: 3151: 3145: 3123: 3117: 3111: 3105: 3099: 3093: 3087: 3065: 3059: 3053: 3047: 3041: 3035: 3029: 3007: 3001: 2995: 2989: 2983: 2977: 2971: 2949: 2943: 2937: 2931: 2925: 2919: 2913: 2890: 2884: 2878: 2872: 2866: 2860: 2854: 2832: 2826: 2820: 2814: 2808: 2802: 2796: 2774: 2768: 2762: 2756: 2750: 2744: 2738: 2716: 2710: 2704: 2698: 2692: 2686: 2680: 2658: 2652: 2646: 2640: 2634: 2628: 2622: 2601: 2595: 2589: 2583: 2577: 2571: 2565: 2543: 2537: 2531: 2525: 2519: 2513: 2507: 2486: 2480: 2474: 2468: 2462: 2456: 2450: 2426: 2420: 2414: 2408: 2402: 2396: 2390: 2368: 2362: 2356: 2350: 2344: 2338: 2332: 2310: 2304: 2298: 2292: 2286: 2280: 2274: 2252: 2246: 2240: 2234: 2228: 2222: 2216: 2194: 2188: 2182: 2176: 2170: 2164: 2158: 2136: 2130: 2124: 2118: 2112: 2106: 2100: 2075: 2069: 2063: 2057: 2051: 2045: 2039: 2017: 2011: 2005: 1999: 1993: 1987: 1981: 1963: 1959: 1957: 1944: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1929: 1926: 1908: 1899: 1897: 1871: 1846: 1820: 1787: 1729: 1725: 1721: 1717: 1713: 1709: 1646:seven papers 1645: 1643: 1575: 1344: 1340: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1322: 1234: 1211: 1142: 1138: 1097: 1069:User:Alain r 1066: 1062: 1058: 1022: 1018: 1014: 1010: 1008: 1003: 999: 997: 957: 939:Sam Blanning 935: 921: 887: 882: 880: 876: 846: 842: 836: 829:Sokal Affair 815: 812:Introduction 747: 722: 713: 707: 703: 698: 695: 690: 687: 681: 677: 674: 670: 662: 624: 620: 617: 609: 605: 602: 594: 591: 579:Dissertation 519: 514: 508: 502:Dissertation 499: 485: 460: 445:Glenzierfoot 442: 415:protoscience 402: 389: 323: 312: 290: 260: 257: 243: 225: 214: 194: 176: 158: 153: 150: 147: 143: 138: 136: 132: 126: 118: 115: 101: 98: 75: 43: 37: 4992:JohhnySmith 4739:théâtre de 4339:interesting 4204:purportedly 4182:unprotected 4034:. Golly. 1832:Cordially, 1821:en passant, 1155:. Telling. 1094:dark energy 1027:gala.martin 948:purpose. -- 838:Social Text 488:Herostratus 461:Woohookitty 261:Woohookitty 244:Woohookitty 233:Fred Bauder 215:Woohookitty 195:Woohookitty 192:for now. -- 183:Fred Bauder 36:This is an 5034:block user 5028:filter log 4976:block user 4970:filter log 4918:block user 4912:filter log 4860:block user 4854:filter log 4802:block user 4796:filter log 4434:said above 4343:important. 4296:- is that 4162:franglais, 3991:block user 3985:filter log 3933:block user 3927:filter log 3875:block user 3869:filter log 3817:block user 3811:filter log 3759:block user 3753:filter log 3701:block user 3695:filter log 3643:block user 3637:filter log 3585:block user 3579:filter log 3527:block user 3521:filter log 3469:block user 3463:filter log 3411:block user 3405:filter log 3353:block user 3347:filter log 3295:block user 3289:filter log 3237:block user 3231:filter log 3179:block user 3173:filter log 3121:block user 3115:filter log 3063:block user 3057:filter log 3021:Wikeymouse 3005:block user 2999:filter log 2947:block user 2941:filter log 2888:block user 2882:filter log 2830:block user 2824:filter log 2772:block user 2766:filter log 2730:Piltdown 1 2714:block user 2708:filter log 2672:Lock Hobbs 2656:block user 2650:filter log 2599:block user 2593:filter log 2541:block user 2535:filter log 2484:block user 2478:filter log 2424:block user 2418:filter log 2366:block user 2360:filter log 2308:block user 2302:filter log 2250:block user 2244:filter log 2192:block user 2186:filter log 2134:block user 2128:filter log 2073:block user 2067:filter log 2015:block user 2009:filter log 1732:90 (2002). 1640:3/7 < 1 1118:preheating 833:Alan Sokal 471:Alabamaboy 450:Alabamaboy 87:Archive 10 5040:block log 4982:block log 4924:block log 4866:block log 4808:block log 4729:Progress! 4717:vandalism 4584:WP:LIVING 4236:Ze miguel 3997:block log 3939:block log 3881:block log 3823:block log 3765:block log 3717:Don Evans 3707:block log 3649:block log 3591:block log 3533:block log 3475:block log 3427:Benford R 3417:block log 3359:block log 3301:block log 3243:block log 3185:block log 3127:block log 3079:Wheepedia 3069:block log 3011:block log 2963:S.Redneck 2953:block log 2894:block log 2836:block log 2778:block log 2720:block log 2662:block log 2605:block log 2547:block log 2490:block log 2430:block log 2372:block log 2314:block log 2256:block log 2198:block log 2140:block log 2079:block log 2031:Marchezin 2021:block log 1954:CQG redux 1874:Robdurbar 1742:Kronecker 1321:'s film, 1122:reheating 1098:increases 1046:Trovatore 979:User:Alba 950:Trovatore 890:Trovatore 653:Ze miguel 584:Ze miguel 428:Ze miguel 378:Ze miguel 350:i left a 342:Ze miguel 205:Ze miguel 82:Archive 9 76:Archive 8 70:Archive 7 65:Archive 6 60:Archive 5 5004:contribs 4946:contribs 4888:contribs 4830:contribs 4772:contribs 4753:so far: 4741:faux-nez 4706:and the 4660:strongly 4244:A fourth 4136:Avant l' 4024:User:XAL 3961:contribs 3949:Bogdanov 3903:contribs 3845:contribs 3787:contribs 3729:contribs 3671:contribs 3613:contribs 3555:contribs 3497:contribs 3439:contribs 3381:contribs 3323:contribs 3265:contribs 3253:Bandwich 3207:contribs 3149:contribs 3091:contribs 3033:contribs 2975:contribs 2917:contribs 2858:contribs 2800:contribs 2742:contribs 2684:contribs 2626:contribs 2569:contribs 2511:contribs 2454:contribs 2394:contribs 2336:contribs 2278:contribs 2220:contribs 2162:contribs 2104:contribs 2043:contribs 1985:contribs 1212:a priori 751:contribs 570:quality. 520:Turnbull 518:Nicholas 407:crackpot 393:Svartalf 297:Fuzheado 177:Testing 159:Turnbull 157:Nicholas 5050:Anville 4760:Vanoyek 4721:Anville 4664:Anville 4588:Anville 4495:Anville 4387:Anville 4379:people, 4362:Anville 4351:Anville 4329:certain 4323:article 4281:Anville 4256:Anville 4190:Anville 4169:Anville 4146:physics 4104:Anville 4036:Anville 4016:Sophie, 4007:Anville 4005:Whew. 3891:Davis K 3833:Mortens 3775:Drashje 3601:G.Nolan 3195:Nestour 3137:Wikband 2905:Machorn 2614:Nuradin 2557:Nuredin 1973:Maneson 1946:Anville 1868:Caption 1834:Anville 1103:Big Rip 1025:to me. 972:Pjacobi 909:Anville 864:Anville 852:Anville 448:Best,-- 403:believe 278:Anville 39:archive 4934:Mugens 4876:Prolis 4735:beyond 4710:which 4075:et al. 3543:Wickee 3485:Wikfly 3369:Bertin 3311:Arbcom 2788:W.Avis 2499:Zoohar 2442:Zohaar 2382:Kirthz 2324:Kihrtz 2266:Kirhtz 2208:Khirzt 2150:Kirzht 2092:Kirsht 1849:Beardo 1790:1293, 1650:Zyxoas 1023:forced 1015:Affair 924:Silasi 918:NPOV ? 525:(talk) 165:(talk) 4818:Falet 4696:don't 4692:Ahem. 4460:e.g., 4212:WP:RS 4115:To do 3659:Neoxx 1726:B528, 1710:B334, 1700:full, 1215:here. 1112:, or 1033:what? 883:other 755:r b-j 741:Govin 732:r b-j 600:) : 550:vote) 500:From 419:r b-j 369:r b-j 357:r b-j 336:) or 295:? -- 16:< 5022:logs 4998:talk 4964:logs 4940:talk 4906:logs 4882:talk 4848:logs 4824:talk 4790:logs 4766:talk 4702:the 4467:anti 4463:here 4428:and 4273:here 4223:Here 4219:Here 4208:here 4101:sad. 3979:logs 3955:talk 3921:logs 3897:talk 3863:logs 3839:talk 3805:logs 3781:talk 3747:logs 3723:talk 3689:logs 3665:talk 3631:logs 3607:talk 3573:logs 3549:talk 3515:logs 3491:talk 3457:logs 3433:talk 3399:logs 3375:talk 3341:logs 3317:talk 3283:logs 3259:talk 3225:logs 3201:talk 3167:logs 3143:talk 3109:logs 3085:talk 3051:logs 3027:talk 2993:logs 2969:talk 2935:logs 2911:talk 2876:logs 2852:talk 2818:logs 2794:talk 2760:logs 2736:talk 2702:logs 2678:talk 2644:logs 2620:talk 2610:and 2587:logs 2563:talk 2529:logs 2505:talk 2495:and 2472:logs 2448:talk 2412:logs 2388:talk 2354:logs 2330:talk 2296:logs 2272:talk 2238:logs 2214:talk 2180:logs 2156:talk 2122:logs 2098:talk 2061:logs 2037:talk 2003:logs 1979:talk 1912:Wmap 1900:Lire 1788:D14: 1730:296, 1718:172, 1629:Rama 1609:Rama 1392:here 1235:does 1120:and 1073:Rama 1011:free 983:Alba 907:." 845:and 745:talk 615:) : 352:note 332:and 301:Talk 4719:. 4300:or 4275:. 4269:YBM 4234:by 1960:CQG 1843:Age 1753:in 1714:243 1669:). 4712:do 4271:, 4141:). 1804:55 1771:55 1722:73 1656:) 1624:KV 1591:KV 1549:KV 1442:KV 1406:, 1366:KV 1194:KV 1161:KV 1144:KV 937:-- 523:| 516:-- 504:: 417:. 299:| 163:| 154:-- 5042:) 5037:· 5031:· 5025:· 5019:· 5013:· 5007:· 5001:· 4996:( 4984:) 4979:· 4973:· 4967:· 4961:· 4955:· 4949:· 4943:· 4938:( 4926:) 4921:· 4915:· 4909:· 4903:· 4897:· 4891:· 4885:· 4880:( 4868:) 4863:· 4857:· 4851:· 4845:· 4839:· 4833:· 4827:· 4822:( 4810:) 4805:· 4799:· 4793:· 4787:· 4781:· 4775:· 4769:· 4764:( 4743:! 4250:. 4238:. 4064:. 3999:) 3994:· 3988:· 3982:· 3976:· 3970:· 3964:· 3958:· 3953:( 3941:) 3936:· 3930:· 3924:· 3918:· 3912:· 3906:· 3900:· 3895:( 3883:) 3878:· 3872:· 3866:· 3860:· 3854:· 3848:· 3842:· 3837:( 3825:) 3820:· 3814:· 3808:· 3802:· 3796:· 3790:· 3784:· 3779:( 3767:) 3762:· 3756:· 3750:· 3744:· 3738:· 3732:· 3726:· 3721:( 3709:) 3704:· 3698:· 3692:· 3686:· 3680:· 3674:· 3668:· 3663:( 3651:) 3646:· 3640:· 3634:· 3628:· 3622:· 3616:· 3610:· 3605:( 3593:) 3588:· 3582:· 3576:· 3570:· 3564:· 3558:· 3552:· 3547:( 3535:) 3530:· 3524:· 3518:· 3512:· 3506:· 3500:· 3494:· 3489:( 3477:) 3472:· 3466:· 3460:· 3454:· 3448:· 3442:· 3436:· 3431:( 3419:) 3414:· 3408:· 3402:· 3396:· 3390:· 3384:· 3378:· 3373:( 3361:) 3356:· 3350:· 3344:· 3338:· 3332:· 3326:· 3320:· 3315:( 3303:) 3298:· 3292:· 3286:· 3280:· 3274:· 3268:· 3262:· 3257:( 3245:) 3240:· 3234:· 3228:· 3222:· 3216:· 3210:· 3204:· 3199:( 3187:) 3182:· 3176:· 3170:· 3164:· 3158:· 3152:· 3146:· 3141:( 3129:) 3124:· 3118:· 3112:· 3106:· 3100:· 3094:· 3088:· 3083:( 3071:) 3066:· 3060:· 3054:· 3048:· 3042:· 3036:· 3030:· 3025:( 3013:) 3008:· 3002:· 2996:· 2990:· 2984:· 2978:· 2972:· 2967:( 2955:) 2950:· 2944:· 2938:· 2932:· 2926:· 2920:· 2914:· 2909:( 2896:) 2891:· 2885:· 2879:· 2873:· 2867:· 2861:· 2855:· 2850:( 2838:) 2833:· 2827:· 2821:· 2815:· 2809:· 2803:· 2797:· 2792:( 2780:) 2775:· 2769:· 2763:· 2757:· 2751:· 2745:· 2739:· 2734:( 2722:) 2717:· 2711:· 2705:· 2699:· 2693:· 2687:· 2681:· 2676:( 2664:) 2659:· 2653:· 2647:· 2641:· 2635:· 2629:· 2623:· 2618:( 2607:) 2602:· 2596:· 2590:· 2584:· 2578:· 2572:· 2566:· 2561:( 2549:) 2544:· 2538:· 2532:· 2526:· 2520:· 2514:· 2508:· 2503:( 2492:) 2487:· 2481:· 2475:· 2469:· 2463:· 2457:· 2451:· 2446:( 2432:) 2427:· 2421:· 2415:· 2409:· 2403:· 2397:· 2391:· 2386:( 2374:) 2369:· 2363:· 2357:· 2351:· 2345:· 2339:· 2333:· 2328:( 2316:) 2311:· 2305:· 2299:· 2293:· 2287:· 2281:· 2275:· 2270:( 2258:) 2253:· 2247:· 2241:· 2235:· 2229:· 2223:· 2217:· 2212:( 2200:) 2195:· 2189:· 2183:· 2177:· 2171:· 2165:· 2159:· 2154:( 2142:) 2137:· 2131:· 2125:· 2119:· 2113:· 2107:· 2101:· 2096:( 2081:) 2076:· 2070:· 2064:· 2058:· 2052:· 2046:· 2040:· 2035:( 2023:) 2018:· 2012:· 2006:· 2000:· 1994:· 1988:· 1982:· 1977:( 1652:( 1395:( 1345:x 1341:d 1337:c 1333:b 1329:a 1105:. 1036:) 1030:( 748:· 743:( 611:( 537:: 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index