Did you forget that other scandal?

They call Pharyngula your "blog à grande audience", which is a very French way of saying that you get as many page views in a day as I do in half a year.

The article doesn't say anything shockingly new about the affair, but it does get the nub of the story quite correct:

Mais aujourd'hui, un mois après ce retrait, ce n'est plus aux auteurs, sérieusement décrédibilisés, que les blogueurs demandent des comptes: c'est à la revue.

That is,

But today, a month after this retreat, it is no longer the authors, seriously discredited, from whom the bloggers demand an accounting: it's from the journal.

A year in France didn't improve my Francophonic skills as much as one might expect — partly because all the other students preferred to practice their English on me — so the more I translate, the more glitches I will no doubt introduce.

My college French is less than fluent, but this sentence grabbed me: "La marque d'un puissant créateur, sans plus d'arguments ni de données?" As I read it, it says, "The sign of a powerful creator, without further discussion or data?"

I'm pretty sure that insisting on data shows a lack of faith in a powerful creator.

Excellent article. It explains clearly how the events unfolded and especially the fact that the central (still unanswered) question is how this article got past peer-review.

I read the earlier posts about this here on Pharyngula, but before reading this article, I hadn't realized that the plagiarism was discovered as a direct result of the Pharyngula coverage. Good to see credit being given where it's due!!! My favorite part, though, is the French spelling of "Minesotta".

#3:

"sans plus d'arguments ni de données" <-- I don't think that's data, I think that actuallyt means "without giving argument" or something similar... But as you perfectly translated the first half, I'm wondering if I'm wrong... it's been a while.

Getting back on topic...

"C'est alors que deux "policiers" (ou alors des vigiles avec des uniformes ressemblant de beaucoup à ceux de la police, j'ai pas eu le temps de voir leur badge), accompagnés du directeur du cinéma sont arrivés. La police nous a dit que PZ Myers était pas seulement interdit de visionnage du film, il était également interdit de cinéma tout court, et que s'il ne quittait pas immédiatement le batiment, il serait arrété pour trouble à l'ordre public et manifestation non autorisée." [source]

Expulsé!

Being almost totally illiterate in French, I was hoping that the phrase "puissant créateur" meant "pissant creator."

You can copy/paste the title of the article into GOOGLE and then just have it translate it for you. Or you copy paste this in:

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=http://www.rue89.co…

Sorry for that long link. Here's a shorter one. Google surprisingly translates it pretty well. A few errors, but I like to think of it as sounding like someone speaking with English as a second language:

http://tinyurl.com/2qh4ux

#4, actually it looks to me like they're saying that the plagarism was first discovered by someone else, but became widely known when Pharyngula covered it.

The portion concerning how the plagiarism was discovered:

Les internautes, au contraire, ont la langue bien pendue: deux heures après la mise en ligne de cette critique, l'un d'eux remarque que la différence de style entre les parties techniques et celles plus théologiques suggère un plagiat. Encore deux heures, et une première occurrence de plagiat est identifiée: un plein paragraphe, copié mot à mot.

Moins de 24 heures après la publication de l'analyse du professeur Myers, au terme d'une curée d'une redoutable exhaustivité, les commentateurs auront prouvé qu'au moins 20% de cet article de quinze pages est un collage de passages, tirés d'une demi-douzaine d'articles non crédités dans la liste de références.

Des courriers indignés sont envoyés aux auteurs de l'article et aux responsables de la revue, ainsi qu'aux victimes pillées par ces "copier-coller" intempestifs. Le lendemain, Proteomics annonce le retrait de l'article incriminé pour cause de "redondance substantielle de son contenu avec d'autres articles". Il n'apparaîtra donc pas dans la version papier.

Rough translation:

On the other hand, surfers of the Internet speak easily. Two hours after this critique had been put online, one of them remarked that the difference in style between the technical portions and the theological portions suggested a plagiarism. Another two hours, and the first instance of plagiarism had been identified: a whole paragraph, copied word-for-word.

Less than 24 hours after the publication of Prof. Myers's analysis, after a trial of formidable exhaustiveness, commenters showed that at least 20% of the fifteen-page article is a collection of passages stolen from a half-dozen articles not credited in the list of references.

Indignant letters were sent to the authors of the article and the managers of the journal, as well as the victims looted by these inappropriate "copy-and-paste" actions. The next day, Proteomics announced the withdrawal of the incriminated article due to "substantial overlap of the content of this article with previously published articles". Thus, it will not appear in the paper version.

I think I have to resort to the machine translation in the future. A french/english translation collision meant I didn't make it beyond "puissant créateur" before ROTL ("pissant creator"; I know, I know... I said it was a collision; don't blame me for a "poorly" evolved brain trying to juggle three languages, you have to expect some cracked eggs).

But first a bow for the magazine choice of illustration. "Ces't une article très magnifique", if you pardon my (too old) french.

Alright, French is my first language, so maybe for once I can contribute something truly useful to my favorite blog (no offense Phil!). I was actually considering translating the whole thing, but now I think it's unnecessary.

Overall, this article is quite good, and provides a thorough overview of the whole affair (which I happened to follow quite closely at the time). The first time I read it I thought it had one flaw, that it credited PZ with the discovery of the multiple instances of plagiarism; once I went back to those paragraphs I saw my mistake: the journalist has correctly stated that it was the Pharyngula community who had uncovered them.

Minnesota is mis-spelled, though. It's spelled the same way in French as in English.

I think that hand-translation to formal French writing style and then Google-translation back to English improved the crazy part of the Warda and Han paper.

I like the characterization of science's relation to creationism:

Car le système du "peer-review" constitue l'un des piliers des conventions académiques internationales, et les biologistes américains, pour beaucoup impliqués dans la réfutation des thèses créationnistes qui prospèrent aux Etats-Unis, comptent sur son intégrité pour maintenir une barrière hermétique entre la science et les théories métaphysiques comme l' Intelligent design , qui cache mal ses racines créationnistes.

And the system of "peer review" is one of the pillars of international academic conventions, and American biologists, many involved in the refutation of the arguments creationists that thrive in the United States, rely on his integrity to maintain a hermetic barrier between science and the metaphysical theories as' Intelligent design, which hides its roots evil creationists.

I like the question if "coquillette" (tiny, eggy, elbow pasta) is Pastafarian heresy, or acceptable dogma.

I think "qui cache mal ses racines créationnistes" is better translated as "which poorly hides its creationist roots."

My French is weak, but I can make out enough to agree that it seems to offer quite a good account.

Boy, PZ and the Pharynguloids are just being bathed in fame!

Mais aujourd'hui, un mois après ce retrait, . . .

But today, a month after this retreat, . . .

My French is a little rusty, but I think "retrait" here means "retraction", not "retreat".

Following CalGeorge's (#6) link
I see the following in the account of PZ's expulsion from expelled:

Dans le hall du cinéma, il y avait 4 jeunes hommes à l'allure militaire, porteurs de feuilles imprimées avec des photos, qui surveillaient la foule, clairement à la recherche de têtes.

Am I correct in understanding that they actually had staff with photos of people to kick out? I hadn't heard this from other accounts, and was instead under the impression that someone like Mathis must have personally spotted PZ. If I'm reading it right, why didn't they just e-mail folks they didn't want and tell them they were dis-invited? Everyone had to show ID anyhow.

It is really sad that the Proteomics webpage for the article still links to other papers with the following text:

Find other articles like this in Wiley InterScience

(emphasis mine)

And I know that PZ quite rightly has zero interest in suing, but this too caught my eye:

La police nous a dit que PZ Myers était pas seulement interdit de visionnage du film, il était également interdit de cinéma tout court, et que s'il ne quittait pas immédiatement le batiment, il serait arrété . . .

I assume that Mathis & co. only rented a single screen and that other movies were showing in the theater. If so, then while they were certainly within their rights to bar him from the private screening, it does not seem that they would have legal grounds to ban him from the theater altogether. If he wanted to buy a ticket and see another movie, it seems to me that it would be illegal to refuse him entry.

@rpennerYes, a very lively and funny discussion in the comments following a commenter's link to the FSM Wikipedia article thusly indoctrinating a whole new following for the FSM:

That the 'nouille' (noodle) is more spiritual than the 'coquillette.' But, no problem, because of transubstantiation, the nouille will be changed into a coquillette. Then the introduction of a 'pate a trois' (trinity of pastas)will only be resolved by the Inquisition Al Dente (this is where I laughed so hard I fell off my chair).

As I read it, it says, "The sign of a powerful creator, without further discussion or data?"

Correct.

one of them remarked that the difference in style between the technical portions and the theological portions suggested a plagiarism.

The more theological portions. And not "stolen" but "pulled". And the last paragraph (except for the last sentence) is in present, not past. Apart from that, the translation is perfect.

Am I correct in understanding that they actually had staff with photos of people to kick out?

That's what it says.

I'm surprised so many Pharyngula readers speak French. +1, me too.

Is French the second most popular language behind English here?

Well, my German is as bad as my French, which might be better than my Italian at this point. I can read an article and order a beer, but I'm not quite up to holding an intelligent conversation in any of them.

I promised a friend that I'd learn a little basic Dutch before I returned to the Netherlands, which I see is only a couple weeks off. I guess I'd better get busy . . .

Wow! Thanks for the link PZ, and thanks to y'all Pharyngulites for having a look at the paper. I think I'm blushing...
I tried hard to synthetize all the data on the story, and I'm going to correct the spelling of Minnesota right know.

Thank you, Fabienne. Good reporting.

Oh and @ jason #23 David Marjanović obviously speaks German too; I believe that was part of the case for his Mollification. And with a name like that, I'd be surprised if he didn't also speak Serbo-Croatian. (Ne govorim hrvatski dobro, but I can sing a few songs.)

Oui Fabienne, merci, c'est un bon exemple de journalisme 'solide' (ca nous change de ce qu'on trouve trop souvent en ligne de nos jours). / Thanks Fabienne, it's a good example of 'solid' journalism (unlike what we too often find on the 'net these days).

"Puissant Créteur?" Uh? What?

Ces't

D'oh la la! Merde a Dieu! I can do better: "C'est".

"Puissant Créteur?" Uh? What?

French for "Mighty Cretor".

My wife has a t-shirt in French that includes the phrase "travaux à l'aiquille". We translate that "neeblework".

I don't speak/read any French, and was pleasantly surprised of the quality of the Google translation. Remember how bad Babelfish was?

Language wise, I speak/read Danish, and as an extension of that I can understand Swedish and Norwegian. I can also read German, though I mangle it when I speak it. I can also read Dutch, though it takes some effort, and it's only partly understandable.

Excellent paper, as were most of the comments in the original pharyngula post.
Of course, there are french readers here!Bravo pour ce blog!
By the way, is the original pdf for the retracted paper still available somewhere? I would love to use it as a case study with my students.

Jason @#23 asked:

Is French the second most popular language behind English here?

Mais bien sûr! ;)

Still nothing on Warda & Han's other plagiarism in the Glycoconjugate Journal, too.

I could actually understand the passages from the original Warda/Han text after they'd been translated into French. The English was so abominable, it was hard to tell just how stupid it was. I suppose the plagiarised passages were a bit better?!

Just wondering if these guys plagiarised the weird parts of their 'theory' from The Wind In The Door. Anyone remember that one?

@MG #32 : Feel free to contact me, I got hold of the pdf.

Physicalist said (#26)

Ne govorim hrvatski dobro, but I can sing a few songs

Jerry Douglas would like a word with you.

;-)

I think I have to resort to the machine translation in the future. A french/english translation collision meant I didn't make it beyond "puissant créateur" before ROTL ("pissant creator"; I know, I know... I said it was a collision; don't blame me for a "poorly" evolved brain trying to juggle three languages, you have to expect some cracked eggs).

But first a bow for the magazine choice of illustration. "Ces't une article très magnifique", if you pardon my (too old) french.

As I read it, it says, "The sign of a powerful creator, without further discussion or data?"

Correct.

one of them remarked that the difference in style between the technical portions and the theological portions suggested a plagiarism.

The more theological portions. And not "stolen" but "pulled". And the last paragraph (except for the last sentence) is in present, not past. Apart from that, the translation is perfect.

Am I correct in understanding that they actually had staff with photos of people to kick out?

That's what it says.

Ces't

D'oh la la! Merde a Dieu! I can do better: "C'est".