This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bogdanov affair article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Bogdanov affair is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article candidate |
![]() | This article has been mentioned by a media organization:
|
Changes made in this edit:
I've kept the section links in the lead. There does not appear to be a project-wide rule or even guideline about this, and what little discussion there was about this article itself fizzled without arriving at anything like a consensus (it got a lot quieter after BKFIP was banned). Any way one slices it, I can't see either course of action making the page more than a little better or a little worse. Point: the links are redundant, because the table of contents is right there. Counterpoint: not everyone can see the TOC — whether or not it appears in mobile browsing is apparently pretty darn stochastic — and not everything enumerated in the TOC is mentioned in the lead, so further information is extra added value, not redundant. Counter-counterpoint: if we tried to address every oddity of mobile browsing, we might drown lead sections everywhere in overlinking. (Counter)3point: this article is long and almost intrinsically unwieldy, on a topic where the content can be organized in multiple ways, none much better than the others, so it's too unusual to set a precedent. Discuss, I guess, if desired?
Other concerns:
In places, the article perhaps indulges in inside baseball about old forum drama. However, it might not be more so than Woit's book, which mentions another pseudonym in addition to "Professor Yang".
This may be an unwarranted cheap shot on Woit's part: we can dig that newsgroup posting out of our own references, and it turns out that the brothers just repeated the mistake of the person they were replying to, who also said "domaine lituanien". Woit's chapter on l'affaire Bogdanov says very little about the content of the papers; our article, with its recounting of the "any plane contains a point" business and so forth, is much more detailed. But Woit's book is mostly about other things anyway.
A while back, I removed a comparison of the Bogdanov papers' citation count to that of the ekpyrotic universe proposal, on WP:SYNTH grounds. To my great surprise, I found a book which devoted a few pages to the Bogdanov affair and which tallied up their citations (up through 2007).
XOR'easter (talk) 12:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)