Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:13, 24 July 2008

	Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	Cold fusion has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 16, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted January 6, 2006 Featured article review Demoted June 3, 2006 Peer review Reviewed June 7, 2006 Good article nominee Listed July 19, 2006 Good article reassessment Delisted December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Not listed May 28, 2008 Good article nominee Listed Current status: Former featured article, current good article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

The Cold fusion article was the subject of formal mediation from the Mediation Committee in 2008. Please visit its talk page before making significant changes.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cold fusion article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48Auto-archiving period: 25 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48

This page has archives. Sections older than 25 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Some fixes

Hi everybody!

I came back to cold fusion to see how it went. It looks like the article is much improved. There were a few problems that I saw and fixed:

1. References to how many reports/experiments/groups etc. made claims are irrelevant to the encyclopedia and bog the reader down in needless details. Also they can be construed as soapboxing. I reworded those statements or sometimes removed them as all they served to do was to make a Project Steve point (meaningless).
2. Some of the wording was a bit over-the-top with respect to the reports of transmutation, excess heat, and fusion products. I tried to reword these statements to be as neutral as possible.
3. Sometimes the experimental results were reported in excessive detail for reasons that I can only surmise. It looked like soapboxing to me, but in any case I think my version is more concise and readable.
4. Sometimes the experimental results were worded as if the results had actually occurred. Of course, with a controversial topic like this, we cannot do that. I tried to attribute where possible.
5. There was some repetition in prose. Oftentimes those statements were throwaway or soapboxing anyway. I either got rid of both offending instances or changed one and deleted the other.
6. I added some categories. One that some people may object to is "pathological science". Note that just because we categorize a subject with a certain category does not mean that Misplaced Pages endorses that category. It's just that we have reliable sources which have called cold fusion a "pathological science" and so it is appropriate to put it under that category.

Here's the diff:

ScienceApologist (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

1. On the contrary, such counts of reports/experiments are relevant to the debate, and should be included, especially on a phenomenom that many people think has never been replicated. There are other examples of such counts in wikipedia: global warming ("These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least thirty scientific societies and academies of science"). Many articles also say "large number", "many", ..., but we found during mediation that these are subjective words and we couldn't agree on which one to use, so it's better to give the count themselves. Also, the counts come from the quoted sources : if they found it useful to count them, why shouldn't we ? Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

In a word, "no". The "counts" are irrelevant and problematic no matter where they show. We don't need to say "large number" or "many". We can simply say multiple or single as the case may be. Three is just as bad as sixty. We aren't writing a citation analysis after all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Please provide support to your view from a wikipedia policy or guideline. We have to choose between "Reports say that...", "Many reports say that", and "200 reports say that". The latter is the most informative. Again, such numbers have been picked up by reviews published in peer-reviewed journals. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, it's simply a matter of summary style. The enumeration of reports is a constantly changing point. How do you decide what is a report worthy of including in the list? Should we count the number of articles in nature? Should we count reports that were rejected in high-impact journals but accepted in low-impact journals? These arguments are simply not worth having. Leave it un-enumerated and we have no issue. Otherwise, we should go through the list one-by-one and decide if their really "legitimate" reports (something I do not believe will be fruitful). ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Summary style means representing secondary sources faithfully. If those secondary sources do state a count of articles, we should include them too. Making the count ourselves, as you imply we are doing, is original research, and would not be acceptable. This is not what we are doing here. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Let's go on mediation if this cannot be agreed. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You are choosing to believe the count of one particular cold fusion proponent. That's not verifiable in a controversial subject like this. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The way to address such issues is to properly attribute the sentence to the researcher. This is what we do. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

We should stick to facts rather than attributed opinions. See WP:SUBSTANTIATE. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

3.The reason they were included was to inform the reader on significant aspects of the results. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

"Significant" to whom? I say that we include the stuff that is clearly significant to everybody. The rest we should let fall by the wayside till it is picked up by outside sources.

Many of the statements come from secondary, peer-reviewed, reputable sources, not primary sources. Therefore, they clearly meet your criteria of 'being picked up by outside sources". Pcarbonn (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, you have to consider WP:REDFLAG. The things I removed were mentioned by advocates as obvious evidence. They are not mentioned by sources that are independently reviewing the evidence. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirements for "independent reviews" in any wikipedia policies. Your argument has no validity. What counts is whether the sources are reliable and secondary. They are in this case. I'm ready to go in mediation on those points if needed. Let me know if you would accept it. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, there is. WP:FRINGE#Independent sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

4.Agreed. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

5.OK to avoid the repetition. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

6.Please provide a recent source that cold fusion is clearly an example of pathological science. On the contrary, there are many recent sources indicating that this is a valid field of enquiry, such as the DOE. This question was already debated here: I suggest you take a look at it. Here is what the guidelines for categorisation say: "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories.". This is clearly not the case here. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You miss the point. We have sources that say that cold fusion has been described as a pathological science. That is good enough. Please read WP:PSCI for more. Also note the principle of least astonishment in WP:MoS and WP:NAME. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:47, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

You have not yet provided a source for pathological science. Please do. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I could not find any reference to 'least astonishment' in WP:MoS and WP:NAME. Please clarify. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

The "principle of least astonishment" is explained in the guide to writing better articles, WP:MOSBETTER#Principle of least astonishment.--Gimme danger (talk) 23:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What I remember is an article from a sociologist of science discussing CF as an example of pathological science. Of course as a sociologist he was not classifying CF himself but using it to illustrate how such a category is thrown up in the process of Science as a discursive practice. When we discussed it before the consensus was that an article from the sociology of science was not relevant to the article. But the question could be reexamined. As someone who is much more au fait with soc of science than with science itself, I don't mind having another look at the article and seeing what it yields for this page. In the meantime, please let us not war over cats and see also. It is the most tiresome kind of warring because it can never be resolved by reference to sources. Let's include path. sci. in mainspace or not at all. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's meant by the last sentence there. But in any case, I'd certainly include cold fusion in the category "physics", i mean, is has to do with studying natural physical processes, doesn't it? I mean, it's certainly not "Biology". And it's not politics or religion. It's physics. That should be embarrassingly obvious. Kevin Baas 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe that itsmejudith said that "pathological science" should be clearly demonstrated in the body of the article (which it isn't), or should not be added as a category. I fully agree. Pcarbonn (talk) 23:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

From the CF article, "As of 2007, the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." As SA has pointed out, WP:PSCI refers to an arbitration committee case in which it was decided that "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." Given this arbcom case and this recent statement from a reliable source, we should place this topic in the Pseudoscience category. I don't know if there are analogous guidelines for the pathological science category. --Noren (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The phrase "the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme" does not imply that said field is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". (Although the converse may be true.) See Pseudoscience#Identifying_pseudoscience. Thus, the cited arbcom ruling is not applicable. Kevin Baas 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. As already explained in the archived discussion mentionned earlier, "not saying P" is not the same as "saying not P". Pcarbonn (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

We have sources that state explicitly that many scientists, for better or worse, regarded it as pathological science. That is in the article right now! ScienceApologist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The article says that many scientists view cold fusion with skepticism. This is not the same as saying that it is pathological science. You are confusing skepticism and rejection. Please let's be true to our sources. We can't call something "pathological science" if there is no source for it. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be thinking of "Indicators of failed information epidemics in the scientific journal literature: A publication analysis of Polywater and Cold Nuclear Fusion", E. Ackermann, Scientometrics 66, 451-466 (2006), which examines the publication histories of Polywater and Cold Fusion as examples of failed information explosions. It includes what is, in essence, a post-mortem analysis of the phenomenon of CF publication in mainstream scientific literature. --Noren (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Please provide a quote from this source that explicitly presents cold fusion as pathological science. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

A premature post-mortem it seems, given recent developments, but I guess the author is entitled to his own opinion. Kevin Baas 15:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I wasn't thinking of the Ackermann paper, which also looks to be a possible source. It was actually a book: Bart Simon, Undead Science: Science Studies and the Afterlife of Cold Fusion. There is a link to its Google Books page in Archive 14 of this talk page. I haven't got the whole book. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:33, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The Simon book does assume that it is carrying out a postmortem, and it is definitely premature, since it references few developments after 1990. The sociologist author does seem to have a physics background since his method was participant observation and he obtained a job in a laboratory. But his academic interest is really only in the sociology debates - Bruno Latour, Actor-Network Theory, social constructionism versus realism - that sort of thing. It probably doesn't matter for his argument that science went in a different direction after he finished his research. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Whether it is "premature" or not is irrelevant. The references to mainstream articles (such as those in Physics Today or Science Daily periodicals) reference this kind of thinking. Therefore we invoke WP:CBALL and wait for the big bad establishment to decide that they were wrong. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I am talking about a sociology book. We talked a while ago whether it was any good as a reference at all. The consensus then was not, but I now wish us to consider whether it might be possible to get some useful information from this book and another paper (Ackermann), which is also about CF as an example of how Science is/isn't conducted and not about the substantive findings of the science. The Simon book leaves off its description at about 1990. It is definitely no good as a source for how CF is regarded now but may be useful for how it was regarded in the 1980s. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The people who study pseudoscience in the context of social networks are sociologists and therefore are qualified as reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I thought it was implicit in my post above. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of reproducibility section biased

The lack of reproducibility section is biased. It basically is an attempt to make it sound like this is less of a problem than it really is, when it is the heart of the problem. It doesn't state that many independent attempts to reproduce the experimental results have failed historically, the reason for its rejection by mainstream science, and it tries to "John" it away by saying that that because the mechanism is unknown, it failed for some unknown reason. This is unacceptable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

TitaniumDragon, feel free to add any sourced material to correct the alleged bias. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I extended the sentence describing the issues that the reviewers had with the submitted material with information from 2004 DoE. --Noren (talk) 01:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "It doesn't state that many independent attempts to reproduce the experimental results have failed historically, the reason for its rejection by mainstream science," I thought it did. Hell, that's what the entire section is about, isn't it?

"and it tries to "John" it away by saying that that because the mechanism is unknown, it failed for some unknown reason" - If you read this italicized text carefully you'll see that it's basically a truism - you can't reliably reproduce something unless you know the mechanism behind it (i.e. the neccessary and sufficient conditions). this is just reality at work - it holds true for all things, science or not. The mechanism for polywater was not known for a while and thus the phenomena could not be reliably reproduced. As soon as the mechanism was found, it could be reliably reproduced with ease. Now for cold fusion, the mechanism could just be a mis-calibrated calorimeter or other experimental error. And then as soon as everyone mis-calibrates their calorimeter the same, they'll all get the same results. But that's not the case right now because we don't know the cause (whether it be present or absent in an experiment). So you see, the cause of the mysterious phenomena is irrelevant -- the statement holds true regardless. One might even say it's a tautology. When the mechanism for something is unknown, the cause of it's "failure" or "success" is, by implication, also unknown. Now if the article gave the contrary impression, that would be cause for concern. Kevin Baas 15:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

And from what I recall this material is attributed per WP:NPOV and it serves to provides neccessary WP:BALANCE. But like P said, feel free to add sourced material to correct the alleged bias. Kevin Baas 16:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

scientific method

Having dealt with electroplating issues such as Hydrogen Embrittlement (similar to the effect desired here, HE is unpredictable in practice), there has been little mention in literature of electrode configuration and environment. Although Electroplating is considered an old industrial technology, getting the product wanted is sometimes more of an art than science. One inch by .25 inch? Read the literature critically. The DOE morons refer to equal distribution of He3 and H3 using ballistic deuterons, yet Jones' muon induced fusion is by tunneling between two H2/H3 nuclei brought together for very short periods of time (half life of muon 2.2 msec gives several hundred fusions, less reaction inefficiencies). Tunneling of one nucleon would promote equilibria favoring lowest energy (total nuclear binding energy), likeliest proton transfer D + T > He4 + n in muon reaction. Discount two nucleon tunneling as less likely. With D + D, He3 is more favorable. Does anyone think it is odd that instead of acid solution that would promote hydrogen activity, that the "successes" are using strongly alkaline solution? And specifically Lithium Hydroxide? The higher overvoltage in alkaline solution would promote deposition/diffusion of Lithium. "The absorption cross section of deuterium for 2200-m/sec neutrons has been related to that of boron by intercomparison with lithium. A value of 0.57±0.01 millibarn for deuterium, based on a measured value of 755 barns for boron, has been obtained" The neutron absorption cross section of Lithium6 (and Boron-10 = 5333 barns; reports of improved "success" with Boron contamination) may point to something other than D+D reaction. By the way a link to Palladium Hydride should be in the wiki. Shjacks45 (talk) 10:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Better version

I have reverted to a better version . My arguments, above, for why this is a better version have not been substantively refuted. I find Pcarbonn's edit summariey "per talk" to be relatively misleading. It is also clear now that

ScienceApologist (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, we disagree. The normal way to resolve this is mediation. I'm ready to go for it. Would you accept it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept it if you find a mediator who can answer Filll's AGF challenge questions to my satisfaction. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Pls clarify what is "Filll's AGF challenge questions". Pcarbonn (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, I looked at the diff and i don't understand why you insist that your version is better. The only arguments i recall you making are regarding putting numbers of experiments in there. I really don't see why you think this is such a big deal. I don't see how it's "special pleading" - the numbers can be just as damning as they can be supportive, so putting them in doesn't support a POV - they are objective. But that's not a big issue for me, anyways; i could go either way and for the sake of compromise i'll agree to leaving them out. But that's the only arguments i've seen you make. I haven't seen anything that justifies removing "In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance." - which is very significant and very important. Also, I don't see any justification for removing "Arata and Zhang said that, in one typical run, they observed excess heat power averaging 80 watts and output heat energy equal to 1.8 times input energy over 12 days.", which is also interesting and important. That ain't no calorimetry error. Now if we are going to present the POV the observed excess hear is due to calorimetry errors -- which we are -- we must, in accordance w/WP:NPOV, balance it with an existing counter-point. Preferably something that gives the reader some objective measurement so that they can have a better sense of what's being debated. What better to do this than an example of a typical run from reputable scientists? Also, "say is" -> "believe to be" seems to be an introduction of weasel-wording to me. "Say is" is direct, objective, factual, and attributed. "believe to be" is indirect, subjective, and speculative. So there are at least three different ways in which the previous version is better than the one you're proposing. Kevin Baas 18:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The enumeration is essentially original resesarch and not factual (you have to make a lot of evaluative considerations to come up with those numbers and they aren't reliably vetted). They are very far from objective in a controversial article like this. The claim that the isotopic ratios differ from natural ratios does not source any attempt to characterize the significance or the confidence level on this claim: in fact the claim itself is suspect due to low-number statistics. You might think it is very significant and very important due to you conflict of interest, Kevin, but there is no outside evaluator who has said as much. The excess heat measurements are just excessively detailed and needlessly pedantic. There is no attempt to characterize how "typical" the run is nor is their any way for the reader to evaluate the numerical claims. Ain't no calorimetry error is your opinion, it's not one that can be imposed on Misplaced Pages. In other words, the counterpoint can be something along the lines of "Cold fusion believers think that they have calibrated their calorimeters well, but critics disagree." But simply making this controversial "measurement" statement is problematic and not necessarily believable since replication is, as always, the key in this article. Finally the "say is" point is wrong: they actually don't "say" that. They do imply that they believe it. So I've dispatched your "three different ways". Thanks for playing. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, I beg to disagree with many, if not most, of the statements you make.

• "The enumeration is essentially original resesarch and not factual". It would be if we, as editors, came with them. Instead, they come from reliable, secondary sources, which we should represent properly. If we don't mention these enumerations, we are not presenting the secondary sources properly. This argument apply to most of your following statements too, such as "The excess heat measurements are just excessively detailed and needlessly pedantic. ". If reliable sources choose to make those statements, who are we to judge ?
• "Replication is, as always, the key in this article". Wrong. The 1989 DOE clearly said it wasn't. Please read the section on reproducibility.
• "the 'say is' point is wrong: they actually don't 'say' that". As far as I know, this is not true. Please be specific if we missed something, and we'll correct it. Or would you prefer to use "they wrote" ?

By the way, you have not yet produced a source that says cold fusion is an example of "pathological science", with those exact words.

Pcarbonn (talk) 20:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Sheer number of published studies is irrelevant except in context of a statement that CF research continues to be conducted. I will not categorically state that it would always be improper, but the removed instances seemed of rhetorical rather than encyclopedic value. We should also be careful not to make this a wikinews article reporting every new paper and minor fluctuation in the field.

Also, Huizenga (1992) establishes the relevance of pathological in at least a sociohistorical context. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Browne (1989) might also be supplemented with this Morrison (1991), which states "Cold Fusion is best explained as an example of Pathological Science." - Eldereft (cont.) 21:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, I disagree to delete the number of published studies, and I ask that you accept mediation on this issue. Misplaced Pages should present both cases of a controversy, and the disputed statements are important according to the proponents.

The sources for pathological sources that you propose are more than 15 years old. It certainly was considered pathological science back then, and these sources are included in the article. If it were still considered so, how come that there is no such recent references ? No editors have found a post-2000 source yet. All post-2000 references talk of skepticism, not rejection. Therefore, the pseudoscience tag is not justified anymore. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because proponents on talk pages think something is important and others disagree with them does not oblige us to accommodate them. We describe controversies as they are reliably and verifiably extant in sources: not on Misplaced Pages talk pages. As far as I've seen, I cannot find any notice of the numbering of studies by anyone except a cold fusion proponent. Thus, it is a point which has received no outside notice and is not therefore worthy of inclusion on a page that isn't pandering to cf dreamers. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

To SA: The numbers (not "enumeration" - you misused that word) come from external sources and therefore are not original research. The numbers are factual and reliably vetted insofar as they satisfy WP:VERIFY (remember, wikipedia is not about "Truth", it's about verifiability).

As regards isotopic ratios - whether or not the confidence levels are measured and evaluated in any paper is academic and last i checked, not part of WP:CITE or any other policy for that matter, and last i checked, not a single figure from a skeptic notes any confidence levels, but i don't see you saying we shouldn't include any of their material on that account -- looks like a double standard to me - and one that, if it were applied consistently, would turn this (and many other wikipedia articles) into a stub very quickly.

Now assuming that i have a conflict of interest is a show of bad faith, in addition to being an ad hominem circumstantial fallacy based on an unsupported assumption.

And "...there is no outside evaluator who has said as much." is false on it's face: where do you the information came from? From outside evaluators. Ones that said it was significant. And they're certainly not alone. Any competent physicist will tell you that. I would go so far as to say that it qualifies as common knowledge, if not common sense.

Yes, "Ain't no calorimetry error is opinion". I thought I had made that obvious. But thanks for pointing that out to anyone who might have missed it. My point was that the example of the amount (and duration) of excess heat observed constitutes a counter-weight to the opinion that it was a calorimetry error, thus fulfilling the requirement for WP:BALANCE. My point was that the fulfillment of this requirement is what makes the example (or an equivalent) essential. The word "typical" was taken (I believe) directly from the paper cited. Said cited paper provides a way for the reader to evaluate the numerical claims. You hypothetical statement "Cold fusion believers think that they have calibrated their calorimeters well, but critics disagree.", as you mention, would have issues with it. What stands out in it to me is "cold fusion believes think.." and "...critics disagree" could be worded better, and it could benefit from more specific information than simply pointing out that there's a disagreement somewhere.

I don't have the time to look at if they "say" or not, nor do I really care all that much about that part. But in any case I would appreciate a less derogatory tone than "Thanks for playing". And I hope you can see that there are valid issues with some of the changes that you propose. Kevin Baas 15:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The cold fusion proponents here are engaging in article ownership, disruptive editing and tendentious practices. I will not engage with such nonsense. Plenty of people have pointed out the problems with their versions, but they put their heads in the sand. Sorry, it's clear that it's a waste of time to deal with these people and I don't think that this is worthwhile. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Mediation

Pace Seicer's edit summary, the reason SA didn't participation in the (excellent) mediation may have been that he was banned. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

SA agreed to mediation, but was not blocked for the entire duration. There were numerous, small blocks for various infractions, though. Or is this related to a topic ban? (Sorry, I don't keep up on SA's activities so I may be out of the loop a bit here.) seicer | talk | contribs 14:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

You can see the log of his blocks here. I don't think that the has been blocked for a long period of time, even specifically on the cold fusion topic. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you use the same tactics that were used against Fleischmann and Pons. In March 1990, D. Lindley, editor at Nature, wrote: "All cold fusion theories can be demolished one way or another, but it takes some effort.... Would a measure of unrestrained mockery, even a little unqualified vituperation have speeded cold fusion's demise?" (Lindley, D., The Embarrassment of Cold Fusion. Nature (London), 1990. 344: p. 375). This is a parody of the scientific method. You may be an apologist, but not of Science. Science has never needed such tactics, and never will. Truth will prevail, sooner or later, and your side is not helped by your behavior. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Herein lies the problem. Misplaced Pages is not the place to right great wrongs. You are trying to use Misplaced Pages for that purpose. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

SA - the only wrong Pcarbonn is trying to correct is your behaviour, and Pc is using the most direct method, by bringing it up in the talk page where it occurred. Don't hide behind a WP principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.6.212 (talk) 23:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

New Energy Times reported that mediation does work :) A short blurb but pretty cool nevertheless (caught this on SA's talk page). seicer | talk | contribs 13:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It's generally good to get attention for Misplaced Pages in the press, but I don't think we should be happy about this article. It's not a good thing that Pcarbonn is publishing criticisms of his opponents here---justified or not, it probably tends to de-level the playing field, as it may intimidate SA or others who may argue with PC.

Even more disturbing is PC's published celebration of his success in causing this article to frame cold fusion as "a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science." It is especially revealing that he considers this success "a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of ... " because it lays bare an extreme conflict of interest in his editing here. Editors here need to be interested in reaching an accurate, neutral portrayal of the topic, not in advancing their own agendas. Gnixon (talk) 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree totally. Thank you Gnixon. This was beginning to feel like I was in some sort of alternative reality Misplaced Pages talk page. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer - I note that Pcarbonn has specifically thanked you, the supposed mediator, for helping him to win "the battle for cold fusion". I don't agree that that is "pretty cool". Cardamon (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't know who the author was, but now knowing that (I hardly keep up on the drama that is Cold Fusion), I am remaining neutral on this subject. SA's on one fringe, PC is on the other, and there are very few in the middle. seicer | talk | contribs 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're not planning to make any more edits pushing a credulous point of view, such as this one? --Noren (talk) 05:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And that was a result of incivil tactics that were brought up at WQA. Edit warring is never acceptable, no matter who is at fault; and violating 3RR will result in the page being reverted and the user blocked. That was the case there, if I'm not mistaken. seicer | talk | contribs 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Seicer. A lot of folks were duped. What's really funny is that an article published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics called "Heretical Science - Beyond the boundaries of pathological science" actually mentions the New Energy Times as unreliable! (Edit note: it's possible they're not the exact same publication, COI still applies). Pcarbonn shouldn't have been been bragging, especially by some weird coincidence at this exact point in time. I had just used that source on a totally different article and a spark of recognition came when I saw his link on SA's talk page. There's an uncanny six degrees of separation on fringe topics. --Nealparr 05:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seicer - I would say that SA's opinion about Cold Fusion is pretty in the middle of the mainstream scientific opinion, and not at any sort of fringe. Cardamon (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

And others have disagreed. There is very few in the middle of this, unfortunately. seicer | talk | contribs 15:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that we are talking again about the article, not about editors. Editors should be judged on their edits, not their intent. I have always played by the wikipedia rules. I have never been blocked. I have always supported my edits with appropriate sources. If I have conducted a battle with the help of others, it is against the promotion of unsourced opinions, or incivility, or both, on wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Extraneous lead sentence

I think this sentence:

It stated that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival academic journals.

should be cut from the lead. It's a long sentence, and I don't think it adds enough to the two other sentences about the 2004 DOE report to justify keeping it in the lead. In addition to generally cluttering the lead, I think it distracts from the more notable aspects of the report, which were that it did not recommend focused funding and that it recommended certain lines of research. I suggest moving the sentence to later in the article. Gnixon (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

It is unwieldy. I think the point of the statement is that Cold Fusion proponents have been notoriously unsuccessful at getting their work accepted by major peer review journals or normal grant-funding processes. This point ought to appear somewhere. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the point of the statement was to encourage CF researchers to pursue their research through normal channels, which could have a number of positive outcomes. I also think the words of the statement were chosen very deliberately, with concerns for political sensitivity, and it would probably be a mistake for our article to interpret them favorably or unfavorably---better to quote the statement in full if we consider it an essential part of the DOE report, but not in the lead. Gnixon (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is long and doesn't add very much information. As Gnixon states, it's quite a neutral sentence so it doesn't really serve to provide much balance (on either side). In the context of the intro that sentence reads like a lacuna; after reading it, I think, "well that was a waste" - and that's after re-reading it because the first time I read it I though I wasn't paying attention and missed something. Kevin Baas 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Article ownership issues at cold fusion

cross posted to WP:FTN

Hi all.

Currently there are a number of editors at Talk:Cold fusion actively working for New Energy Times to try to get our Misplaced Pages article to conform to a position that treats the subject with more favor than mainstream secondary sources give it. They are writing articles about editing Misplaced Pages and publishing them on-line, glowingly praising themselves for getting the article into such a state.

Now the article is protected right now by an administrator who sees the issue as a contest of equals (which it manifestly is not, but I digress). The current version up I think is better than previous versions, but there are some issues.

1. CF-advocates want to remove the pseudoscience category even though that is how it is generally considered.
2. CF-advocates are interested in repeating the claims of various CF researchers as fact and are willing to go into some detail to do it. For example, they want to include an enumeration of all the "successful" cold fusion experiments. Of course, we do not have any secondary sources confirming the analysis of how many experiments were successful, only the articles and books written by CF-proponents. What's more confirmation bias means that we cannot easily characterize how meaningful such enumerations are.
3. CF-advocates want to include "evidence" that has not been independently verified. For example, there is one experiment where a researcher used a mass spectrometer to determine the isotopic abundance of certain atoms. He reported a "non-natural isotopic ratio" that neither characterized its significance nor the confidence level to which this is accurate. No one else has reproduced his results. Nevertheless, the CF-advocates think that this "amazing result" needs to be reported in our Misplaced Pages article. WP:CBALL does not seem to phase them.

There are more issues, but this gives a decent overview. Basically, there are a number of users asserting ownership over an article which needs to be carefully vetted lest we mislead the reader into thinking there is more to Cold Fusion than meets the mainstream eye.

Thanks in advance.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a tricky article because it covers a very recent, very controversial branch of research that critics essentially regard as bad science. Hence it is difficult to find secondary sources that are up-to-date on the subject---I'm not aware of any. Under these circumstances, it's difficult to figure out how to represent the general opinion of the scientific community. The occasional publications that might be considered to represent the broader community are considered out of date by proponents of the rapidly-evolving field, which responds to any criticism on a much faster timescale than notable bodies release any new commentary. I frankly don't know how to handle the situation. I'm sure it doesn't help to have LENR proponents explicitly working for a favorable presentation of the field, although I appreciate their valuable help in identifying and interpreting relevant sources. Gnixon (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they do a wonderful job of identifying sources for their positions. However, the issue is that when the mainstream doesn't take notice of the positions, Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to go to great lengths to get that information out to the public. In fact, just the opposite: we are under the obligation as explicated at WP:FRINGE to make sure that ideas that are not subject to critical review are not unduly discussed. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about cold fusion, so even new research that may not merit weight at, say, Fusion, may be notable here. It should be possible to describe significant new research without implying that it has affected the mainstream opinion. Gnixon (talk) 15:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Also, all sources are potentially valuable, and we should be glad when they are brought to our attention. If someone is only finding sources supporting his side, it would obviously be useful for someone else to find other relevant sources. Gnixon (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

New research should be included when it is noticed by people who aren't cold fusion advocates. That's the sense of WP:FRINGE and that's how we should go about writing an article. There is no problem when things are brought to our attention. The problem comes in when people insist that every source brought to our attention deserves inclusion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE seems to apply more to stuff like Face on Mars, as I mentioned below. I agree not every source necessarily deserves inclusion. Gnixon (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Fringe also definitely applies here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "New research should be included when it is noticed by people who aren't cold fusion advocates." I believe WP:NOTABLE, WP:VERIFY, WP:CITE, and other relevant policy pages cover the topic pretty well. And I'd hate to see this article degrade into something completely useless to the reader simply because someone decided that only stuff that everybody already knows should be in the article.

And I know that's not what you're suggesting - I don't mean to be making a dishonest argument (via fallacy of the excluded middle and straw man). Just to point out that it's more complex than that, and we should strive to be neutral, balanced, accurate, and informative, in the "sense" of an encyclopedia, and that we should take care not to over-interpret guidelines one way or another, but to make sure that our work is strictly within the literal meaning and faithful to the intent of policy (esp. core: WP:NPOV, WP:VERIFY & WP:OR). And by so doing create an article that gives the reader a broad and current overview of the subject along w/its more significant details and references for further research - and an article that beats the socks off of Britannica's in breadth, depth, and quality of writing. ;-) Kevin Baas 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Requested edit

The page is locked, or I would remove it myself, but I request that an admin remove the "New Energy Times book index Extensive index of books on cold fusion", "Recent papers on cold fusion listed on New Energy Times", and "A student's guide to Cold Fusion: a technical introduction to the field by Edmund Storms" from the "Further reading" section immediately. It's highly inappropriate to link to one's own site or be self-promotional in Misplaced Pages articles.

Also, there are almost 10 citations in this article from New Energy Times. I'd like to review those for appropriateness as well. In the "Further developments (1989-2004)" section, it is listed in the line "A few periodicals emerged in the 1990s that covered developments in cold fusion and related new energy sciences (Fusion Facts, Cold Fusion Magazine, Infinite Energy Magazine, and New Energy Times)." I want that reviewed for appropriateness as well.

I'm having trouble finding anything that establishes the periodical's importance, notability, or reliability, and the fact that editors from New Energy Times are demonstrably here editing, this may be at least a WP:COI issue and at worse a WP:EL#ADV issue.

Nothing in CiteSeer either.

At the New Energy Times website's "About" page, in the "Founder" section, it reads:

"He, or New Energy Times have been quoted in, or have contributed photographs for Misplaced Pages, Chemical & Engineering News, Chemistry World, Intute, Nature, Current Science." ( my emphasis)

No kidding.

From the Mission Statement:

"Its primary focus is the subject of low energy nuclear reactions, part of the field of condensed matter nuclear science historically known as 'cold fusion.' New Energy Institute seeks to advance the development and application of clean energy, accessible and affordable for everyone."

Sounds like advocacy to me.

I am deeply concerned about the influence of New Energy Times on this article. Even the image we use Image:Spawar1stGenCFCell.JPG was produced by the founder of New Energy Times, Steven B. Krivit (User:Stevenkrivit), who was here between 2004 and 2007 with very pro-cold fusion points of view.

User:Pcarbonn currently writes for the New Energy Times and recently posted on ScienceApologist's page "You are famous !" with a link to this article at New Energy Times, written by him, which says:

"I'm pleased to report that the revised page, resulting from the mediation process, presents the topic as a continuing controversy, not as an example of pathological science. This is a major step forward in the recognition of the new field of condensed matter nuclear science and low-energy nuclear reaction research."

and...

"I hope that the revised Misplaced Pages article will help put a stop to the epidemic of pathological disbelief and that it will help raise the interest of scientists so that prominent scientific journals won't be able to reject articles on the topic "because it does not interest our readers."

That's absolutely advocacy.

All of this from one place, New Energy Times. That periodical, with an undetermined reliability and notability that seems to have an unhealthy interest in Misplaced Pages, is all over this article. The spam has got to go. And the rest needs to be seriously checked. --Nealparr 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Concurred. If we have consensus, somebody please place an {{editprotected}} tag to attract the notice of an uninvolved administrator (or maybe we have some already dropping in, in which case go for it). - Eldereft (cont.) 19:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Some violations of WikiPhilosophy

Misplaced Pages is a place that stifles the free-thought and creativity of new ideas. To that end, there are a number of statements made by the CF-proponents here which I submit are problematic:

1. Misplaced Pages should present both cases of a controversy, and the disputed statements are important according to the proponents. This sentiment flies in the face of WP:NPOV: especially the WP:WEIGHT clause. Like it or not, cold fusion proponents are on the fringe, and while it is obvious that there work deserves mention in the encyclopedia, their perspectives need to be appropriately described as being as marginalized as they are in the research academic world. Looking at this as a "sides" issue tends to make people think that there is some sort of "contest of equals" going on here. There isn't. Cold fusion proponents are not equal to the detractors; the detractors have the upper hand and we need to make sure our article gets this across.
2. The sources for pathological sources that you propose are more than 15 years old. It certainly was considered pathological science back then, and these sources are included in the article. If it were still considered so, how come that there is no such recent references ? This is a debate technique which has no place at Misplaced Pages. The fact is that Cold Fusion had a lot more attention in 1991 than it does today. While CF-proponents think their project has progressed, there is no indication of outside sources that believe likewise. The DOE report indicated that they didn't see much progress, and just because you get two sessions at professional conferences doesn't mean that your subject material is being taken more seriously. No, in fact, the issue is that no one in the mainstream pays attention to the cold fusion junk anymore and that is why we don't have more "modern sources". Most of physics/chemistry consider the matter to be sufficiently settled to not deserve comment.
3. My point was that the example of the amount (and duration) of excess heat observed constitutes a counter-weight to the opinion that it was a calorimetry error, thus fulfilling the requirement for WP:BALANCE. I get the impression that the writer of this chestnut didn't actually read the wikiessay he is referring to, but no matter: this point is incredibly problematic from the standpoint of a mainstream encyclopedia. Our job is not to make sure that we "counter-weight" mainstream derision with the excitement of the CF-advocates. Our job is to write an encyclopedia article that is poperly WP:WEIGHTed to the mainstream understanding of the subject. Imposing opinions masquerading as fact is highly problematic and must be avoided.
4. i don't see you saying we shouldn't include any of their material on that account -- looks like a double standard to me - and one that, if it were applied consistently, would turn this (and many other wikipedia articles) into a stub very quickly. There IS a double standard on Misplaced Pages. It's called WP:REDFLAG. The mainstream gets a pass for their skeptical sources because their claims are no extraordinary. CF-claims are. They need to be exposed to more scrutiny and only the best sources can be used and only the points that are best supported by the preponderance of the evidence can be discussed in articles. It's not fair, but that's the way Misplaced Pages works. There are other Wikis where you can write all about cold fusion to your heart's content without having to worry about whether you are stepping over the line with respect to WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:SYNTH, etc. Not here.
5. Truth will prevail, sooner or later, and your side is not helped by your behavior. This is more evidence that the CF-proponents view this article as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Problematic. We need to write an article that presents cold fusion as it is considered by the mainstream. We welcome the inclusion of claims from the CF-proponents inasmuch as they clarify their position on the subject, but Misplaced Pages articles on fringe topics like this are not to be written as a parity of sides. In fact, the sides DO NOT have parity in this instance. Cold fusion is derided, not taken seriously, and generally ignored in the mainstream. These are all facts that even the CF-proponents agree to. Yet they seem to think that simply writing the article with these facts as the framework is problematic for their on-going battle to gain acceptance for their CF-beliefs. Misplaced Pages is manifestly not the place to engage in such activity.

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't think it's a good thing for proponents to advocate a favorable presentation of Cold Fusion, I also think the pendulum can swing too far in the other direction. We do not need to debunk cold fusion, nor do we need to make sure the article presents it as bad science, even if that is the opinion of mainstream science and I'm not saying whether it is. Representing the published responses of notable scientific bodies should be sufficient. We should strive for, and be able to achieve, an article that both proponents and critics of LENR will concede is accurate and unbiased. Gnixon (talk) 15:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You are right. Debunking is right out simply because it should not be necessary if we are conservative in our approach to content inclusion. If we take WP:REDFLAG seriously, then there will be nothing we need to debunk because only the best sources will be used in the article. We also don't need to label it excessively as "bad science" or whatever, but we do need to mention that most people in the know consider it to be "bad" science. Keeping the pseudoscience category is one way to do this. I'm not sure if your last sentence is feasible. However, we can all dream dreams. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You may sa-a-e-ay I'm a dreamer... but I'm not sure I'd agree.  :) Attributing "redflag" sources to CF proponents makes it possible to represent research considered significant by proponents without misleading the reader. Likewise, we should represent the opinion that CF is bad science iff it can be attributed to a notable source---otherwise we're engaging in OR and synthesis. It may be frustrating here that scientists generally don't publish opinions they discuss freely in the coffee room, but that's part of the profession. We have to be sure the article attributes all opinions to notable sources, although clearly our collective understanding of the sources will influence our subjective editorial choices. Gnixon (talk) 16:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is far more research that is considered "significant" by the proponents than we have time to include here. What we should do is look for sources that are considered significant by those who are not proponents. WP:SOAP is useful to think about. We have a guideline for how to cover marginal stuff like this. It's high time we started using it. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't represent a reasonable sample of what proponents consider significant. We can do that without engaging in or allowing soapboxing. WP:FRINGE apparently applies more to stuff like Face on Mars than to this article. Gnixon (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The key word there is "reasonable". Part of the problem is that the proponents are advocating for things like an enumeration of the positive results, pointless recountings of the claimed numerical measurements of excess heat, and discussion of amazing new isotopes. The problem is, none of these points have been vetted by outside sources nor are the strictly verifiable in the global sense. They are attributable, but the cherry-picking is being done in a way to skew the summary in favor of cold fusion proponents (because those are the things that they are most excited about). And WP:FRINGE DEFINITELY applies to this article. We cannot even begin to discuss if you disagree. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that WP:FRINGE offers useful advice for this page. Gnixon (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Then I'm not convinced it's worthwhile discussing things with you. This is a fringe subject. I encourage you to start a request for comment if you are convinced that the community would think otherwise. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, you keep dreaming. This is not a fringe subject, nor a pathological science subject until you have a recent source to support that view. On the contrary, most sources support the opposite view, such as the 2004 DOE which encouraged agencies to support further research. I suggest you start a request for comment yourself if you disagree. Misplaced Pages is here to inform, not to spread rumors and hearsay like the one you support. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:FRINGE in its current form doesn't apply well to this subject, but neither did the 2004 DOE report "encourage" agencies to support further LENR research. It recommended that agencies consider proposals for well-designed experiments on specific, relevant topics, in the context of not recommending a focused research program. The most relevant Misplaced Pages policy for these recent discussions, by a longshot, is WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. Gnixon (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Broken link

I'd fix this myself, but the article isn't editable (at least by me) at the moment.

The link to the 2004 DOE report is broken. Since that's a rather important source, that should be fixed. A link that currently works is:

www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/DOEreportofth.pdf

SarahLawrence Scott (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, we should fix that when the page is unprotected. Gnixon (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to that site, though. They aren't trustworthy. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on. Any link that goes directly to the original pdf is fine. Gnixon (talk) 18:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. That site has been caught altering certain documents or providing commentary inappropriately. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

You're seriously afraid that the site will modify the DOE pdf?? I find that hard to believe. Gnixon (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

All I have to say is WP:RTFA. We've discussed the problems with this site before. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

A specific link would be a lot more helpful, and WP:RTA would have worked just as well. Gnixon (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I cannot seem to find it on the DOE site anymore, but Mr. Peabody still has a copy. This seems like a reasonable candidate to be uploaded to wikisource, yes? I am presuming that it is public domain. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist said that LENR-CANR.org is not trustworthy. Could some one explain to me why Physics World is using it as a source ? Or Wired (see the second link of the last paragraph here) ? What evidence is there that it is not reliable as a source ? Pcarbonn (talk) 21:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Use in Physics World's blog or Wired is neither here nor there. We are talking about whether it is OK as a convenience link. SA has challenged its appropriateness even as a convenience link on the grounds that it may have 1) provided inappropriate commentary and/or 2) interfered with the content. 1) can be verified in this case and if there is no commentary I don't think it is relevant whether there is commentary about other papers 2) I agree with Gnixon that it is unlikely they would have altered the pdf. I hope we will continue to be very aware of the potential for copyright violation, since there was a recent misunderstanding about the copyright status of journal articles. On the RTFA comment - the archives to this page are extremely long and no-one can be expected to remember what is in them. Nor should we have to re-read the whole lot every time we post. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

In December 2007, Guy reported that this site has in the past inserted editorial content into what sounds like the very pdf we are discussing. The discussion was repeated in April. So, yes, the possibility that www.lenr-canr.org would modify the pdf is a real concern. Linking to a site with copyright violations may also be an issue here. I think we should try to find the pdf at a more trustworthy site. Cardamon (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that copyright violation is an issue for other papers, but not for this one. While it is true that LENR-CANR.org had introduced an editorial in the DOE report, it was clearly stated as such, and it has the full rights to do so. So, this is not as sign that the site is not trustworthy. Other reputable sources do consider it trustworthy, as stated above. A challenge to that trustworthiness would require sources of equivalent parity. Let's build wikipedia on facts, not opinions. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn - In principle, anyone using a link at the LENR-CANR site can edit the link to see what else was on the site, and gain access to the copyright violations. But, would this link http://web.archive.org/web/20070114122346/http://www.science.doe.gov/Sub/Newsroom/News_Releases/DOE-SC/2004/low_energy/CF_Final_120104.pdf from the Wayback machine work for you? (Thanks to Elderft for the idea, but for some reason the link s/he provided doesn't work for me) If so, we should probably ask Seicer to put it in; waiting for the protection to expire on July 19 seems too long a wait. Cardamon (talk) 07:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the wayback machine did not work for me yesterday, but works today. Let's see if it is reliable. Why don't we link to here ? We already use New Energy Times for other quotations. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

This time I'm glad to have been referred back to the earlier discussion because it has the solution. We just cite the DOE report. It's simply not necessary to have a web link to everything. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it very convenient to have a web link, if possible, so I would be for including one in this case. Given the discussion, I prefer linking to an archive of the DOE website. Gnixon (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that either. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The link to the archive seems to work reliably now. Would an admin be kind enough to correct the broken link of the "U.S. Department of Energy (2004)" entry in the article page ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the link to Hagelstein 2004 is also broken. It should be replaced by the link to the archive. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC: Is this topic fringe?

Does the fringe theory guideline apply to this topic?

This topic is not fringe, but an area of exploratory science recognized by the 2004 DOE, the most notable source on the topic. This is extensively documented in our article.

Nonetheless, the Fringe guideline provides helpful advise, such as the parity of sources: a consequence of this guideline is that, if a panel recognized cold fusion as a valid area of exploratory research, as the DOE did, it would take another panel to say it is pseudoscience before we would present it as such. If 2 reviews of the field published in scientific peer-reviewed journals have presented cold fusion as demonstrated, we would need other such scientific reviews, this time unfavorable, to present cold fusion as bad science. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a total revisionist history you've adopted, Pierre. The 2004 DOE report reaffirmed the opinions of early reports that there was not much to cold fusion suggestions. If it wasn't fringe, it would have received recognition and funding. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Note that the guideline WP:FRINGE uses the example of Face on Mars as a "fringe theory." I think cold fusion is qualitatively different, given that a group of researchers has continued funded research for about two decades. The DOE hasn't seen a need to conduct two separate reviews on Face on Mars research. Gnixon (talk) 20:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Face on Mars is a good example of pseudoscience, not really a good example of a far out fringe topic within regular science. And anyway, it's the "Face on Mars" not the "LGM's Nuclear Fusion Reactor on Mars" :) Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well I wasn't the one who put it at the top of WP:FRINGE!  :) Anyway, after looking over the guideline in more detail, I think it does apply to this article, and does offer useful advice. However, I think we should be careful in applying it. Cold fusion and "low energy nuclear research" are not the same thing as Time Cube. Gnixon (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study." - Eldereft (cont.) 22:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. The 2006 Discover Magazine references and the 2007 Wired Magazine reference indicate that mainstream scientists think cold fusion is "bogus," a "fiasco," and/or "discredited." Also, no academic physics department in the US is studying cold fusion in any serious way. Also, no pro-cold fusion data has been published in a major physics journal. In fact, CF is labeled as fringe science by wikipedia itself. Note that the 2004 DOE panel did not indicate that CF was not fringe; it simply said that the techniques had improved and that using better techniques would be nice. It is totally possible for something to be a valid topic for exploratory research and fringe science at the same time. So where does that leave us? Each editor should look at the article and ask, would a casual reader of this article think that cold fusion is a fringe science topic? If the answer is no, then we have not been doing our job. By the way, does anyone else think that Pierre looks like Imre Lakatos? Remember: AGF! 209.253.120.158 (talk) 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. Prior to reading this article, I might have said yes. It is a minority, controversial position without doubt, but on Misplaced Pages, people feel like fringe allows them to create attack pages. The work by the US Navy (ref), the Indian gov't (ref), and others, e.g. Osaka University (ref), show that while is a minority position, it is not without scientific interest and (disputed) evidence. There are reportedly many articles in journals by physicists with positive results. When you have a number of prestigious physicists (Nobel Laureate Schwinger and Mallove; likely others) arguing for cold fusion and claiming fraud, and 3000+ papers in physics journals, nearly 500 positive research results (note), a layman cannot say that cold fusion is fringe per se. I'm concerned that giving someone an inch here might let them feel like they can go a mile. Cold fusion seems fringe to the public, and mainstream scientists, most of whom haven't researched its developments, will no doubt call it fringe, but it appears to be rather what Imre Lakatos would call a competing research program. Neutrally state what has been found, what hasn't, what concerns exist, ect. Even in 1989 the DOE stated that "it was not possible to state categorically that cold fusion has been convincingly either proved or disproved." The lead looks OK, but I'm not sure what "new physics" is. II 00:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You could as well mention Brian Josephson, Nobel Prize in 1973. Here is a video of a recent talk where he says that Fleischmann and Pons should receive the Nobel prize. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Being researched by the Navy/Government and receiving kudos by a Nobel Prize laureate are not guarantees of "non-fringeness". Didn't the U.S. miliarty engage in psychic research at some point, for example? And even Nobel Prize winners such as Linus Pauling had some fringey ideas late in their careers. --Itub (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The term "new physics" usually refers to concepts which lie outside the currently validated laws of physics. So if one could not find an explanation for, in this case, cold fusion using accepted theories then it would constitute new physics, or new laws of physics. This is not necessarily bad; the scientists at the LHC expect/hope to find new physics in that experiment. But I would stress that the LHC is qualitatively different then this case since the conditions involved (namely very high energy per particle) have never been studied before. In contrast, cold fusion is claimed to take place under conditions that are well-studied already (low energies per nucleon). Joshua Davis (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. 3000+ papers in physics journals, nearly 500 positive research results. Vufors (talk) 15:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, utterly, per these observations . --Nealparr 03:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are utterly mistaken. The article you mention talk of "New Energy News". This has nothing to do with "New Energy Times". Pcarbonn (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

:::Oversight on the author's part. They're the same, same publishing organization, same topic, etc. --Nealparr 06:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC) Remarkably similar, but might not be the same. The other stuff applies. Specifically what applies is that in your article for the New Energy News, you said it is currently an unrecognized field and that prominent scientific journals reject articles on the topic. I concur. That also happens to be the definition of WP:FRINGE. --Nealparr 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. "Examples include ... ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus ..." - it is clear that cold fusion has not gained scientific consensus, which is the standard the policy requires (though proponents do purport it to be scientific.)--Noren (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:Fringe is not a policy, but a guideline. It does not require anything, it only gives advises. The requirements for articles are clearly stated in the only 3 policies of neutrality, verifiability, and no original research. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. And moreover, I'd say that the article (as currently written) does a very good overall job of following that guideline. :-) --Steve (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I should mention that I concur with that. I didn't see any redflags while skimming it. All the important key points of WP:FRINGE, presenting majority and minority views as such, seem to be here. --Nealparr 06:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes it comes under the guideline because the guideline takes a broad definition. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. I can only give anecdotal evidence that every physicist that I've ever talked to about the subject (not insubstantial number since I am a working physicist) have considered it bogus. That doesn't mean that they are right, but it certainly implies that it is not mainstream. But let me say that I'm not complaining about the article itself since I haven't looked at it carefully; I'm just answering the question at hand. Joshua Davis (talk) 23:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. Insofar as it pertains to WP:FRINGE guidelines. Quoting: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study. Examples include conspiracy theories, ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus, esoteric claims about medicine, novel re-interpretations of history and so forth. Some of the theories addressed here may in a stricter sense be hypotheses, conjectures, or speculations." Kevin Baas 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes. It's definitely currently outside the realm of a "prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study". As such, the guideline is applicable. — Scientizzle 22:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes - There seems to be a misunderstanding that just because there is ongoing research or publications that something is automatically "scientific". We know that the Soviet government invested in ESP research, which shoots way past fringe into pseudoscience. This did nothing to legitimize this idea into the realm of science. In the case of cold fusion, until such time that substantial evidence comes forward to give a chance of this occurring, it remains fringe. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes - WP:FRINGE seems appropriate. Ronnotel (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes For the reasons stated above, in particular Kevin Baas. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof, even if they eventually turn out to be correct and become merely ordinary. TStein (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, but only due to the scope and approach There are two sides to the cold fusion issue. The serious-scientific side is based on journal research and examines how fusion could take place under different energy situations from the canonical 'hot' fusion. There have been plenty of journal articles published on the subject, and it is considered mainstream science, just as serious scientific tests are mainstream science. On the other hand, there is also the pseudoscience using "cold fusion" as a buzzword similar to "free energy" which is not accepted by mainstream science. This article is a fringe theory in mainstream science, but is not pseudoscience. HatlessAtless (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Should the article be placed in the category of "pseudoscience"

;Note: This is not a properly filed Request for comment. Until it is filed as such, the opinions below should be considered in isolation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceApologist (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 July 2008

This question has been debated many times in the past, but it seems that this question is not settled yet.

• No. Guidelines for categorisation say: "An article should normally possess all the referenced information necessary to demonstrate that it belongs in each of its categories.". As far as I know, among all the recent sources on cold fusion, none presents cold fusion as "pseudoscience", using that exact word. Why should wikipedia call it so ? Also, we should be wary of original research: we cannot combine 2 reliable sources in a new deductive reasoning to support the "pseudoscience" categorisation, unless that specific reasoning has been presented in a relevant article. So, we cannot say "it is pseudoscience because it satisfies one (of the many) definition of pseudoscience". Pcarbonn (talk) 07:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, though Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Some general guidelines indicates that the subcategory Category:Pseudophysics is to be preferred. Even postulating a sudden reversal by the physics community regarding recent investigations, the article covers a history that is well-described in reliable sources by the term. The purpose of this article is to inform not promote. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification and expansion: This case is problematic, as cold fusion grew out of the scientific community rather than invading or mimicking it. Let us suppose for a moment that the body of research since 2004 is somehow fundamentally different from that dismissed by the DOE panel and that physicists everywhere suddenly change their minds and state in reliable publications that it all makes sense now. In that case, we would have two halves to this article - one part for the old discredited (yes, discredited - this fiasco represents more than just another observation which failed to pan out in more rigorous experiments) work, and one part for the shiny new work. Of course, a more likely outcome for my little scenario would be splitting the article along those lines to avoid this problem, but bear with me here. People surfing Pseudophysics would legitimately expect to find an article on the history and impact of the discredited part listed; this work is not merely "obsolete" or "superseded", it cut to the heart of the scientific community with lies and pathological failure to perform due diligence. The fact that this fanciful article would also treat science would be irrelevant; c.f. boron, which is in Category:Neutron poisons despite the fact that the dominant isotope has a poor neutron cross section. In the case which actually obtains, wherein the CF community has not managed to separate itself from its origins, the case for categorization is even more clear cut; until mainstream reliable sources indicate a shift in attitude from regarding modern CF work as just more of the same old same old, such a separation should not be reported here. I will not claim policy-wonk status, and remain open to rebuttal of this line of reasoning. - Eldereft (cont.) 09:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Haven't you missed what the 2004 DOE said ? "Evaluations by the reviewers ranged from: 1) evidence for excess power is compelling, to 2) there is no convincing evidence that excess power is produced when integrated over the life of an experiment. The reviewers were split approximately evenly on this topic." "When asked about evidence of low energy nuclear reactions, twelve of the eighteen members of the 2004 DOE panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing", and one was entirely convinced."

Would you call this "dismissed by the DOE" ? Would you see these statements as compatible with pseudoscience ? Please look at the evidence honestly. (I would agree that, if the article is split, the history one would be categorized in pseudophysics. Without a split, it would be misleading.) Pcarbonn (talk) 09:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The 2004 DOE report says "The preponderance of the reviewers' evaluations indicated that Charge Element 2, the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions, is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented. One reviewer believed that the occurrence was demonstrated, and several reviewers did not address the question." That sounds pretty consistent with "fringe science" to me. I think the term psuedoscience is not as well defined, so it is not clear whether that label is correct. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. Following the ArbCom decision that established four useful categories it is clear that cold fusion does not fall into the category "obvious pseudoscience". It is either "questionable science" or an "alternative theoretical formulation". It is very unhelpful to use categorisation to make points that cannot be made in mainspace due to a shortage of sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I believe you are referring to this decision of the Arbitration Committee. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. Follow the sources, of course, but they probably reflect "Questionable science" from WP:PSCI, as in some critics may allege that it is pseudoscience, and the article may contain information to that effect, but the topic should not be characterized as such. --Nealparr 20:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. It has generally been considered pseudoscience by reputable sources outside of the Cold Fusion community of believers. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
• Yes. Per Arbcom, "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.". Per Biberian 2007 from the article's references, "...the scientific community does not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." It is clear that the scientific community generally considers this pseudoscience. --Noren (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

As has been said before, this is a non sequitur and Original research. This source does not say : "the scientific community says the field is pseudoscience". It just says that it remains uncommitted and skeptical. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

• No. By the way, it might be best to move the "Most scientists are skeptical..." to the first paragraph, where it will be more easily noticed. The lead is well-balanced, but the criticism starts at the third paragraph. Some may be concerned that fast readers might miss the criticism; in addition, "pathological science" does not imply for the lay reader dubious science. Just throwing that out there. II 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No. Cold fusion is pathological science or fringe science, not pseudoscience. --Itub (talk) 15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No. per WP:Category. Kevin Baas 15:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No. It has generally been considered science (good or bad is not the question as both are covered) with reputable sources.Vufors (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No. I agree with Itub, it's somewhere in the realm of fringe science, pathological science, and mediocre science. Calling it pseudoscience seems a bit off the mark to me. After all, you can open up any issue of PRL, and you'll see people proposing stupid theories that contradict known physical principles, doing poorly-controlled experiments, and misinterpreting their experimental results. --Steve (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
• No - I see a difference between the utterly ludicrous and something that can be studied under the legitimate scientific methods. LonelyBeacon (talk) 06:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• No, I don't think so. There are certainly pseudoscientific aspects of the entirety of the field: many non-scientists and scammers are heavily involved in "research" and promotion, conspiracy theories abound, media releases prior to peer review & replication, etc. But while the periphery is packed with the dregs of anti-science, the core of the issue involves distinctly scientific questions ideas that, have been, and continue to be, addressed by relevant professionals and organizations. Relatedly, I'm surprised there's nothing regarding Sonoluminescence on this page; even if the results have yet to be independently replicated and aren't aimed at cheap energy, it seems relevant as there have been a few real publication with secondary coverage. — Scientizzle 16:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• No - The quantity and quality of the published reports, as well as the qualifications of the individuals pursing this work, establish this topic well beyond the boundary of 'pseudoscience'. Ronnotel (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
• No At the time of the announcement by Fleischmann-Pons it could have been labelled safely as such, but ever since there has been too much sound science and too little pseudoscientifics claims by proponents. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
• Just a comment The way this article projects cold fusion, it does sound like pseudoscience, but I have another issue, that's not what I had heard and read about cold fusion. From what I know cold fusion is a type of nuclear fusion that occurs at temperature lower than usual (usual being 1 million celcius or kelvin)— something like 100 000 celcius, one to two orders of magnitude lower, but not at "room temperature" as described in the article. Why this is attractive is because usual temperatures and the rate at which fusion reactions occur make them very violent, and the energy produced cannot be harnessed for productive purposes like electricity production. Hence, these reactions are also known as thermonuclear—initiating the fusion reaction by increasing temperature (achieved by a fission reaction). But, if the same reaction could be achieved at somewhat lower temperature and the rate of reaction could be slowed down, it can be "tamed" to extract useful heat, and more importantly in a closed reactor. How this could be achieved is not known, but may be through the use of adsorption surfaces like platinum, etc. And, this concept was to be employed to make fusion reactors. Do correct my misunderstanding. —KetanPanchal 07:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Status of other disputed edits ?

In his recent edits , ScienceApologist has removed contents, such as the counts of successful experiments, that were present in the Good Article version, or even in the version resulting from mediation (in which he accepted to participate). These versions are the result of efforts from many editors, after much discussion. His edits have been disputed to the point where the page was finally blocked.

Following the discussion above on Pseudoscience, could ScienceApologist tell us if he still wants his edits to be accepted, and for what reasons ? Pcarbonn (talk) 20:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above on pseudoscience makes it clear that adding Category:Fringe science is a good compromise. The rest of my edits I have explained above and should still stand as soon as protection ends. Thanks. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Listing it as fringe science is fine with me. I have given my arguments against the other edits here. I welcome the input of other editors, in particular on whether the article should include these disputed counts and details of experiments. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never thought that a count of experiments added anything useful. Unless that exact count is found in a good secondary source it is OR. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to include a count done by someone who wasn't a cold fusion researcher. I haven't seen such a count. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that such a count could be useful in indicating the size of the field, but it shouldn't be presented in a way that's intended to imply the results have convinced the mainstream. I would prefer a slight change to the first version in the diff above, where it would go, "Although more than 200 ..., the reports have been met with skepticism by...." If it's not disputed that those results have been published properly, I don't think it violates the spirit of WP:OR to present a count. Gnixon (talk) 21:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the number 200 isn't adequately verified. Why enumerate at all in this case? ScienceApologist (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The 200 count comes from Storms' book, a secondary source published by a reputable publisher, and is thus not Original Research. Would this statement from Wired be a possible compromise ? "Presenters at the MIT event estimated that 3,000 published studies from scientists around the world have contributed to the growing canon of evidence suggesting that small but promising amounts of energy can be generated using the infamous tabletop apparatus." Pcarbonn (talk) 11:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No, no, no. Edmund Storms is a reliable source for what Cold Fusion proponents believe. He is not an outside authority and just because he got the book published by a reputable publisher doesn't mean the publisher reviewed his opinions or techniques for obtaining this number. The issue with the wired.com article is it is again parroting the claims of cf proponents. Let's find someone who isn't a cf-proponent characterizing the number. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not a correct interpretation of policy, SA. A book from a major scientific publisher is deemed reliable as to facts unless it is contradicted by another source of similar standing. If we do not adhere to such standards then we will have no encyclopedia. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Consider the source is the MOST important rule when you are writing a reference work. Storms is obviously an author who is very dedicated to his cause of promoting the research of cf proponents, but he is hardly the independent source that we need for verification. Just because the publisher is reputable doesn't mean that we can ignore who wrote the book. There is no "ranking" going on here as you are trying to do. I pointed this out on WP:FTN as well. The publisher just lets us know that the book is of a certain quality. It doesn't tell us that it is sacrosanct. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The policy you refer to, WP:FTN, says: "WP:NPOV, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." Since cold fusion is not pseudoscience, it deserves fair representation. The best way to do that is to refer to its proponents, with proper attribution. If you think that proper attribution is not there, I propose to fix it, not to remove their statements. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Just because we're required to follow WP:NPOV does not mean that cold fusion proponents get free reign to include whatever they think is important in the article. No, we have to have some standard of objectivity. My only request is that we include substantiated facts rather than the promotionalist opinions of proponents. Storms may think his list of 200 is substantiated, but we all know that what qualifies as a "good", "independent", "reviewed", etc. can vary wildly. Since the DOE report did not recommend funding a cold fusion enterprise in spite of being made aware of the supposed plethora of reports of cold fusion, I'm not convinced that providing a number invented out of whole cloth by Ed Storms is appropriate in the least. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need a standard of objectivity, we just need sources and no OR. Let's hear what others think. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Generally speaking, our "standard of objectivity" is wikipedia policy & guidelines. So we have that. We do need sources and no OR, which we have in this case. I imagine the paper including the counts has references to the papers counted - thus if a person says "there are 10 apples, see." and shows you all ten apples, when someone then shouts out "you can't trust him, because there's no way to verify that there are in fact ten apples, and after all, his name is sam!", it strains credulity. Point being, the count is clearly verified. Perhaps attribution/wording and balance could be improved upon, per suggestions above. But as I've said before, I personally don't have a strong opinion either way on whether the count should stay/go. Kevin Baas 15:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummh, not much feedback from others... I still insist that enumeration and details of experiments be included, possibly with improved attribution. The reason is that enumeration are cited prominently in sources such as Wired (2nd paragraph) or Hubler (in abstracts). What do we do ? Pcarbonn (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to lean more towards keeping them in. They're small and unobtrusive and give the reader a sense of what's been done. (Though it seems to me that "As of 2008, there are over..." should be "As of 2008, there have been over...".) What we should do instead (IMO) is focus on adding skeptical reviews to provide balance, as discussed below. (Though yes, improving the attribution is always good.) Kevin Baas 16:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Consensus on removing "Further reading" links to New Energy Times?

As I mentioned here, "Further reading" links to New Energy Times are self-promotional. There's citation links as well, but for now I'm mostly concerned about having the "further reading" links removed (we can come back to the others later). In order to have them removed while the page is locked, there needs to be consensus. In other words, is there consensus? --Nealparr 00:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with this. I've tried many times in the past to remove those links. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there's even a question. I'm no expert on the subject, but I find it very difficult to believe that New Energy Times is the end-all further reading source on this topic, that it's particularly notable considering it doesn't show up in citation searches, or why links to the website's list of books needs to be there when the books themselves can be listed instead. There's no reason they need to be there, even if there weren't editors associated with New Energy Times involved in this page. Pcarbonn, if you could agree, that would be helpful. --Nealparr 00:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There are 5 other links to New Energy Times in the article, so removing these is not exactly censorship. They do suggest the field has more respectibility than is really justified, so let's just do it. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There isn't consensus for removing New Energy Times from "Further reading", as the following thread by Gathall shows. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why would anyone suggest removing the most comprehensive and up to date listing of pro and con cold fusion books on the Internet form the "Further reading" section of the Misplaced Pages Cold Fusion article? What is the justification for removing the link to the New Energy Times book index from "Further reading" section of this article? This is the most accurate listing of further reading on the cold fusion topic out there, and it is not totally biased towards the pro side. The editors of New Energy Times have made an effort to also list the books that attack cold fusion (some of them quite harshly), so it's not fair to attack their objectivity. At the very least, the New Energy Times book index should be kept in the "Further reading" section of this article. Rock nj (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

(merged sections to avoid repetition) --Nealparr 14:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep further reading as is.

There's no point declaring further reading links self promotional since almost 80% of the further reading links on most wiki pages would fall to the same claim.
The point of the further reading category of links is to flag that the links posted in the bulk of the text and references are not the sum total of papers on the subject. If sites with dozens or hundreds of papers, other links and data can't be included in the Wiki then the illusion is created that there are only a few papers. Given the volume of work done since 1989 is so large it is reasonable that the hub sites like New Energy Times should be included under the further reading category so people can look beyond the claims and counter claims and hunt down the papers one by one. I can think of more further reading links that could be added, I.e. The condensed matter section of the journal Fusion Technology from 1989 to the end of the century has over a hundred papers that I know of. If we have to skip the hub web sites like Mr Krivit's then the problem is that we will have to cite a dozen journals by name, date and number.
We must also consider the historical implications. If Cold Fusion is confirmed and the Wiki site has a major error locked in, then Misplaced Pages will suffer accordingly. I know that does not matter to the hard line sceptics but it should matter to the rest of us and to the management of Misplaced Pages. Cold fusion can't be disproved; we have replicated peer reviewed work. It can only be ignored or proven. The prudent place to stand in is the place of the informed optimist not the willingly ignorant. It is also prudent to send readers seeking more information on the sites archiving the data. The sites condemning cold fusion have not said anything new since 2005. Gathall (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why New Energy Times? Why not some other site? WP:EL#ADV is a concern because spamming is not appropriate and there are editors from New Energy Times currently editing this article. We don't want people coming here to advance their position, promote their website, or anything like that because it ultimately makes Misplaced Pages unreliable. I'm a person who knows almost nothing at all about cold fusion and I don't even want to read this article because I have no idea what's reliable and what isn't. I'm sorry, but this sort of thing ticks me off more than anything else at Misplaced Pages because the majority of editors are trying to build a reliable reference. When you can't trust the reliability of the project, it makes all the time one spends here seem kind of pointless. It's a no brainer. Whether New Energy Times is reliable on the subject or not, they don't need to be in the further reading. Books belong there. --Nealparr 09:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing us back to policy Neal. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that most cold fusion research is reported in scientific papers and field reports, not books. The most current "further reading" information in this field is on the web on websites like New Energy Times, not in stale books. Misplaced Pages is a web-based encyclopedia, so why not feature website references for further reading, as much legitimate information sharing in fast changing scientific fields has transitioned to the web (away from books) in recent years.

While a number of different websites have been the premier source for "further reading" information about cold fusion over the years, there's no doubt that the two websites that are currently the most up to date on this topic are New Energy Times and LENR-CANR.org. These websites provide someone interested in learning more about cold fusion (which is why they came to the Misplaced Pages page in the first place) a majority of the current and up to date information available about the topic. They also provide a detailed list of both pro and con cold fusion related books (more detailed than a Misplaced Pages page) that a person can utilize to research this field and the merits of cold fusion even further.

I am in favor of keeping New Energy Times in further reading and adding LENR-CANR.org to further reading, so a person interested in learning more about cold fusion can easily access the most current and comprehensive information about the topic available on the Internet. At the very least, the New Energy Times book index should be kept as a reference to cold fusion books. Rock nj (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I did not add the link to New Energy Times in the "further reading" section, and there was no self-promotion. Kevin Baas did here, in the draft of the mediated version. This was later copied by Seicer to the main article here. Misplaced Pages will not gain in quality by falsely attacking editors, removing reliable sources on baseless grounds, and by not checking the facts. As stated earlier, New Energy Times has been cited by Wired in reference to cold fusion, among others, giving it enough notability for inclusion in wikipedia. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

If any one of you has never "advanced a position" on wikipedia, let him be the first to throw a stone at me. I have just advanced the position that cold fusion is not pseudoscience, just as others have advanced the position that it is fringe science. Luckily, wikipedia has plenty of checks and balances which makes articles reliable despite the variety of intent of editors. I can tell you that I have met opposition, as I have stated in the NET article. There is no reason to think that this cold fusion article is not reliable, although it can always be improved, obviously. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you please go back further. Baas's edit from April 2008 isn't when it was added because it's even in the April 2005 version. I didn't say you added it. I said New Energy Times people don't need to be posting self-promotional links. Are you saying you've never self-referenced here? I'm not attacking your position on cold fusion. I don't know enough about cold fusion to make a judgment on that. But surely you must realize that there's a problem with self-sourcing, self-promotion, etc. because that alone makes it unreliable. How would one conclude reliability honestly if it's rigged? I've been to your website. Wired, and this small list does not make NET the authoritative end-all of further reading on the topic where there's 4 out of 6 links to them in the further reading section. As Rock nj pointed out, LENR-CANR.org is comprehensive, and this list looks more comprehensive than anything at NET. Why isn't that link here? Is it because NET is here editing and they aren't? As an outsider who came here because of your comments in NET, how am I to know, honestly? If this is an unaccepted, often criticized topic, where's the balancing links? Surely you must see that there is a problem. --Nealparr 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So you are attacking NET without evidence to back it up ? Surely you must see that there is a problem. How could I do self-reference, if I have no involvement with NET except for a paper that I was invited to write after the fact ? And now you are suggesting to add LENR-CANR.org ?? It has been attacked in the past by you know who, that's why it's not included. How do you know that the article is reliable ? Because it has been written and checked by many people during mediation and after, and that it has been promoted to good article status. As far as I know, this has not been challenged. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Questioning, my friend, is not an attack. Asking to remove links when there's a clear conflict of interest is not an attack. An interest in a topic does not preclude one from participating. Acting in a inappropriate manner because of conflicting interest is precluded. If you simply had an interest in the topic, there'd be no problem. Heck, writing about the topic doesn't necessarily indicate a problem. Advocating that your website be included is a problematic conflict of interests. If LENR-CANR.org is not included because SA attacked it, and NET is included because it's disproportionately defended... what am I missing here that makes this even a question? Honestly, in good faith, what am I missing? --Nealparr 15:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the flaming. I believe I gave an adequate, satisfying answer. As I said, I did not add the link, and NET is not my website at all. Even if I had proposed the link to other editors and if I had an interest in NET, it would be perfectly OK per wikipedia policy. Let me know if you need more information. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Why such a tizzy over New Energy Times link? Because of claims that it is "self promotional?" From what I can tell NET doesn't focus just on "cold fusion" issues. It focuses on a plethora of alternative energy issues.

I often come to Wiki in order to seek out the "further reading" links. I see nothing wrong or dangerous with letting the reader decide what they wish to follow up on. I'm not interested in having some alleged expert (an expert that may or may not have all that much knowledge of the controversial subject) do the "editing" for me. Orionworks (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Misplaced Pages is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We have standards. We're not a dumpster. You may not want "experts" to tell you anything, but as far as this encyclopedia is concerned, editors are the ones that dictate content: not readers. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The implication that NET is an "indiscriminate collection of information." The implication is that Wiki is above the standards of information published in NET. The implication is that NET uses Wiki as a "dumpster" to dump it alleged propaganda. Where's the objectivity in such opinions? Leave the NET links in. I think Wiki will survive the scandal. 130.47.34.2 (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC) orionworks

SA, exactly which wikipedia standard do you see violated here ? Several editors have said that NET and LENR-CANR are the most informed website on the subject. They have been used by Physics.org and Wired. What exactly is wrong with these sites ? That they come from proponents ? That's not a good reason, since cold fusion deserves a fair representation, according to wikipedia policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

SA, Misplaced Pages should not be censored so much that it becomes a pack of lies.Ron Marshall (talk) 16:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I want outside opinion on this. I think that's a reasonable request. --Nealparr 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The issue always seems to be about an attempt to suppress experimental evidence. Cold Fusion was trashed by the political method, not the scientific method. The scientific method depends on experimental results. If the current experimental results were known in May, 1989 Cold Fusion would not have been trashed. What we have now is a defacto censorship enforced by social conformity. An admin type once told me that Misplaced Pages was all about consensus. If Misplaced Pages existed in the middle ages it would report that the world is flat. If Misplaced Pages is going to hold onto this mind set, it should put the flat earth analogy as a warning on all of its scientific articles. Or if Misplaced Pages cannot handle scientific controversy in a fair and truthful manner it should stop publishing articles on scientific controversy.Ron Marshall (talk) 16:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

While I don't agree with your comparison with the flat world theory, I share your concern with censorship. Censorship can come in contradiction with the Arbitration Committee's decision on significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. A similar edit war to the one we had here is brewing over the hydrino theory : just as the physics establishment did not like to be challenged by chemists with a jar, they don't like to be challenged by a physician, Mills, who pretends to be a physicist. Yet, recently, another physics theoretician, Bourgoin, independently wrote a paper based on conventional physics and published in a peer reviewed paper that supports the possibility of hydrino states, of exactly the same energy level as the one proposed by the physician. To me, this publication from a reliable scientific source shows that the hydrino concept is a scientific controversy, not pseudoscience anymore. Yet, the physics establishment and the general press will continue for some time to call it so and to ridicule it. What should wikipedia say ? The undecided view from the few reliable experts in the field, or the simplistic view of the ignorant establishment or the press ? Should it be close to the scientific researchers in the field, or to the general public ? If it is considered pseudoscience, policies say that it could be censored, if not, it should be represented fairly. What are the criteria to distinguish the two ? I see a lot of commonality with the issues we have faced here. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Compromise?

Maybe a compromise could be:

New Energy Times, a website dedicated to cold-fusion research, has compiled lists of books and recent papers about cold fusion.

It provides balance by making clear the biases of that source. Just as the Intelligent design page links to pro-ID resources, and Ouija board links to resources that take the ouija board seriously, likewise it's reasonable for a page on cold fusion to have a link to a primarily pro-cold-fusion book or paper index, as long as the link is not portrayed as being unbiased when it is, clearly, biased. Everyone, both actual scientists and cold-fusion advocates, would benefit from knowing where to find a comprehensive list of recent sympathetic cold-fusion publications. The link seems the best of its kind, so I don't think it should be removed solely based on the self-promotional motivations of its original inclusion. --Steve (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with that if it's one single link, not four links (like in the current article), and the section is balanced with at least one other reliable source for the opinion that cold fusion isn't worth pursuing for each link that is pro-pursuing, per WP:EL#Avoid undue weight on particular points of view. Also, the "further reading" should be changed to "external links" per standard practice. "Further reading" sections are almost always lists of notable books on the subject, not external links to websites. --Nealparr 16:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nealparr, The External links idea is a good one. But why do you need "at least one other reliable source for the opinion that cold fusion isn't worth pursuing for each link that is pro-pursuing". Are all Misplaced Pages articles formatted this way? If I visit the nuclear fusion website, will there be anti-nuke websites listed under the External links section? If you can find an anti-cold fusion website, then by all means post it under External links, but I do not see anything in the Misplaced Pages policy or format that says this is necessary? This could be taken to an extreme in many case, as many things are controversial at some level or another. Rock nj (talk) 19:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Nuclear fusion is well established and relatively uncontroversial. Note the balancing of links on Nuclear weapons#External links and Nuclear power#External links. Not all Misplaced Pages articles with multiple points of view have balancing of external links, but they should (that's the point of policies and guidelines, "best practices"). A better question than "why?" when there's a guideline that explains why is "why not?" --Nealparr 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You say: "the section is balanced with at least one other reliable source for the opinion that cold fusion isn't worth pursuing for each link that is pro-pursuing". Feel free to add what you find. Many editors have tried, but found nothing. I agree with the compromise proposed by Steve. I'm fine with reducing the number of links to NET, if that helps. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I find it very hard to believe that with the number of people who use it as an example of "pathological science", not one person would be a reliable source for his or her own opinion. Robert L. Park isn't reliable for his own opinion?

In fact, according to the SFGate, " the world's leading debunker of tabletop fusion". And yet, I couldn't find Park anywhere in this article except an obscure reference to his book in the bibliography. Nothing about him in the main text.

Heck, just last year he was criticizing both cold fusion and Misplaced Pages on the exact same page! He doesn't count as someone reliable enough to express that view, his own view? --Nealparr 17:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, feel free to add anything of value from Bob Park. We could also include what he said last year: "Bob Park, at the University of Maryland, US, concedes that 'there are some curious reports - not cold fusion, but people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions'. " (source). That's not inconsistent with what he wrote in the reference you gave. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You're familiar with the history of this article. Was he ever included? If not, why? --Nealparr 18:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I recall him being mentionned in a page on the cold fusion controversy (see archive), written in good part by Jed Rothwell of LENR-CANR.org. This was quickly deleted from wikipedia, as you could imagine. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think when the page is unlocked, there should be some text added about Robert Park to the criticism section. Back to the original point, if the further reading section is changed to "external links", and the NET four links are reduced to one, that's a good immediate fix. --Nealparr 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding texts from Park, as long as the pro-CF side of his arguments can also be presented (if they are not already). Pcarbonn (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

So, how's the consensus for fixing the further reading section? --Nealparr 19:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like we are making progress, except that Robert Park hasn't made any pro-CF arguments or statements. A vague, noncommittal, possibly condescending, comment which includes the phrase "not cold fusion" clearly doesn't count, and does not merit inclusion in the article. When he makes a clearer statement supporting cold fusion, we can certainly discuss that. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 20:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not very pleased with the continued POV-pushing pursued by Pierre "pro-CF side of his arguments" makes it seem like we have to always accomodate a pro/anti dichotomy. What we should do is simply describe the fact that cold fusion is looked on with derision until it is no longer looked on with derision. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

No. We need to publish the opinion of experts in the field as published in reliable sources. The DOE did not look at cold fusion with derision. Until you find a published source from experts to support your statements, they cannot be used to steer the editing. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

What I meant is that, if we quote Bob Park saying that Fleischmann and Pons are incompetent scientists, for example, we should also include their strong credentials as scientists. Is that unreasonable ? Pcarbonn (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, if we believe that the opinions of Bob Park are necessary to the article, then we should just include the opinions of Bob Park. It is not our business to provide counter or supporting evidence to his opinions. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Is that your idea of writing from a neutral point of view, as policy requires ? Of presenting unorthodox scientific subject in a fair way, as policy requires ? Pcarbonn (talk) 14:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Comments removed

This is to let participants in this discussion know that some comments made earlier today have been permanently removed from this page. That is because one of them included the name and postal address of an editor. I reverted to an earlier version of the talk page and an admin (who responded to a request I made on the WP:helpdesk made the removal permanent). Sorry if this has interfered with the discussion but I thought it was really important to keep to the rule that we don't post our real-life addresses. Itsmejudith (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Citations to New Energy Times

Moving on from the "further reading" section and onto citations...

• What's up with the "cited by Krivit" appearing twice? Why not cite the original paper? Had Krivit not published to New Energy Times, it'd be WP:OR. Since it's published to his e-zine it's WP:SELFPUB. That accounts for two of the links to NET in the bibliography that don't need to be there because they're actually second-hand citations.

• This citation to NET is questionable because it is likewise WP:SELFPUB and most of it is an excerpt from an article published elsewhere in Infinite Energy Magazine and it's only used to support a statement already supported by two other references. There's no reason for it to be there at all.

• This citation is to Current Science, not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there. Especially since it's also here

• Same thing: This citation is to Current Science, not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there. Especially since it's also here

• This citation is to "Lecture given at the Nobel Laureates’ meeting", not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there. Especially since it's also here

• This citation is to the Boston Herald, not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there, partly because of obvious copyright issues, and because it can be cited normally without a link.

• The other two links listed in the Bibliography by Krivit, Steven B. aren't even citations used in the article, so they don't need to be there either.

In short, I didn't find one link that needs to be there at all. Why? Because New Energy Times didn't produce anything used in this article. They are either copies of papers available elsewhere, or not used in the article. Even Krivit's articles are published in Current Science, not New Energy Times.

All of them need to go. There's no justification for any of them. If this is not evidence of (perhaps good faith) linkspam, I don't know what is. --Nealparr 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Policies asks to say "where you found the citation". That's why NET is cited. I agree it is better to cite the end paper if it can be found. If it was not done, it was out of convenience, not for selfpub, as stated many times already. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, NET have the best credentials in the sites following the topic, as evidenced by their referencing by Wired, among others. Hence a preference to use it for sources here. LENR-CANR.org has issues with the respect of copyright. In any case, I do support your effort to verify content with the original sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

We can sort these out one by one. There are 9 links in the bibliography. Two of them are doubled up (Krivit 2007 & 2007b and 2008 & 2008b) and there only needs to be one each, so we can drop two right there. That leaves us 7. India Academcy of Sciences publishes the Current Science articles, no need to link to NET, so now we're down to 5. According to you, being linked to by Wired means you're a reliable source for documents. Well, in the same article where New Energy Times is linked, LENR-CANR.org is also linked (the "integrated an isotope of hydrogen" link) so there's no reason to preference NET over LENR-CANR on the linkage. Now we're down to 4. I'm sure we can both agree on the Boston Herald link. Down to 3. The MIT allegations of fraud statement are supported by two other references. The NET one does not need to be there at all. Down to 2.

If you'd like to keep those two because presumably that's where the information was found instead of in the original paper, I don't have a problem with that, because at least for those two there's a reason they're there. The other ones, there's no reason for them. --Nealparr 12:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, although your suggested edits will marginally improve the article, I don't really care. I fully trust that you'll do it all right. I just react when you suggest that I'm self-promoting something. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate that. After yours and Krivit's responses, I'm convinced there's no intentional self-promotion going on. You do understand that there is a potential for a conflict of interest (not interest, but conflicting interests), and sorting out all these links helps resolve that issue. Had there been no potential for a conflict of interest, 9 out of 90 refs (10% of the article, slightly higher on linkage because not all the refs are links) wouldn't normally be an issue. Because there's a potential, the bar on linkage got raised. I'm not trying to bust you guys. You've been very accomodating with my questioning. Just resolving an issue. --Nealparr 13:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. After all these years, I've got used to it... :-) Thank you for your effort to improve the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Response to "Nealparr's" suggestion to remove "Further reading" links to New Energy Times

July 8, 2008

Dear "Nealparr"

I saw that you recently posted the following message on Misplaced Pages, "I'm no expert on the subject, but I find it very difficult to believe that New Energy Times is the end-all further reading source on this topic..."

I understand that you are an IT professional; this is no secret, as you posted a link to your blogsite on your Talk Page.

For 17 years, I too was in IT. I programmed, setup and performed troubleshooting on LANS, WANS and infrastructure.

You make your living providing Web services, so I thought you might consider that the Web does indeed, create the possibilities for new, reliable sources of information to become available. "Cold fusion" is a stupid name...and as I say in my editorial on July 10, it may not even be fusion, anyway. I wish people on both sides of the argument would put their swords down and talk about it with civility.

I'm going to assume good faith on your part, that you are a "white hat," that you care about S&T and that you are merely surprised that an online resource could be so "unique." I'm going to hope that you might be open-minded enough to consider how cool the Web can be to shed light on a controversial topic like this. After all, isn't Misplaced Pages a "new media" resource too?

You will not find a lot of public cites for me or my organization's work at this time, that is true. However, I have earned respect from numerous journalists and several scientific publishers. Our work has been published or cited in or by The National (United Arab Emirates), Current Science, Great Falls Tribune, SF Weekly, American Chemical Society, Chemistry World, Chemical & Engineering News, Intute, Nature News, Ecoshock News, Wired, Telepolis, the UPI, and coming this fall, the Journal of Scientific Exploration and Oxford University Press.

If you want learn more about me, my work, or the field, just let me know, I'm happy to help. I think Misplaced Pages has great potential.

For the record, Carbonelle is not an editor for New Energy Times, he does not own maintain or represent it. He wrote an article on his experience with Misplaced Pages. He is (or was) a contributing writer for New Energy Times. This is not considered spam or self-promotion according to Misplaced Pages.

P.S. I'm not sure who suggested this "New Energy Times, a website dedicated to cold-fusion research, has compiled lists of books and recent papers about cold fusion," but it is significantly inaccurate.

If you need a brief description of our site, please use "Original reporting on leading-edge energy research and technologies." Please also note that we no longer call it "cold fusion," for many very good reasons. And note that we report on Fission (particularly Gen IV), Hydrino, MCF, ICF and AICF.

As far as Robert Park, "According to the SFGate, " the world's leading debunker of tabletop fusion," well, here's an update. He is now starting to acknowledge that "people may be seeing some unexpected low-energy nuclear reactions." (Chemistry World, 22 March, 2007)

Sincerely,

Steven B. Krivit
Editor, New Energy Times
StevenBKrivit (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to post that. It helps me to assume good faith. Let me state for the record that I have no bias towards you, your magazine, or the pro side of cold fusion. I am not an expert on this topic, or even the topic of general physics. I have no problem with online sources, I'm a code monkey after all : ) Heck, I love technological solutions to problems, so if the cold fusion thing pans out I would consider that yet another triumph of science and would consider the people that made it happen heroes who suffered on the bleeding edge. But that's just my view. Here at this article, on your website, and everywhere I've read, there's multiple contrasting views of cold fusion.

The problem, honestly, is that there's just too many links to your website. As much as it seems like you're a nice guy and knowlegeable, I hope you'll forgive me when I say I don't want to read your view of cold fusion. I want the complete, all views, wide range of sources, wide range of editors involved view (WP:NPOV) because that's the only way to "feel" like it's reliable, and something you can trust. Your site may be the most reliable in the field for the particular view your covering, but if there's a lot of links to your site, Misplaced Pages's article doesn't seem like it's a broad coverage of all the different views. It feels like "Misplaced Pages: Cold Fusion, brought to you by New Energy Times". That's what I'm hoping we can avoid, and it's an easy fix as I outlined above.

No hard feelings. In real life I'd buy you a beer. Here at Misplaced Pages, though, we have to meet a certain set of standards so that the Misplaced Pages article is considered a reliable, indepth, all notable views, coverage of the topic. --Nealparr 22:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true that there are a lot of sources for this article that could be considered one-sided, but the problem is that we don't even know if Cold Fusion/LENR could turn into a valid energy source ... no one does. When the world gets that figured out, then it will probably be time to go back and examine who was being less objective than whom. Until that happens, we really don't know, and it's probably just best to present all the relevant, well-researched material we've got; hopefully one of our readers will sort it all out some day.

When I made the suggestion a while back that this article might possibly be better off as two articles, this is exactly the kind of thing that I was trying to avoid. If each side succeeds in getting most of the sources of the other side thrown out on the grounds that they are biased, then you won't be left with much of an article. It is the opinion of virtually everyone in the Cold Fusion debate, pro and con, that the other side is "biased". I wish I had more time to help with this, but I am tied up with other WP projects at the moment. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

We have standards for source inclusion. The problem is that with WP:FRINGE subjects, there will always be more sources in favor of the subject than against it. However, the reliability of those who establish the topic as fringe are going to necessarily be higher than those that try to move the topic into a status that is not fringe. The place to try to do this is manifestly NOT Misplaced Pages. That's why Pierre's article is so concerning. That he is even attempting to make an article that will inspire the press/the public/the teeming millions to think "differently" about cold fusion than the status quo means that he is violating the fundamental premise of Misplaced Pages being an ultimately non-innovative reference work. The "bias" is not the reason to throw out reliable sources. Fringe accommodation is the reason. We should make the prose, sourcing, and listing of points at Misplaced Pages as hostile to cold fusion as the environment of an average scientific laboratory. We're not the place to right great wrongs. We're not the place to help future Einsteins and Galileos make their great discoveries. We're the place that presents the world as it is according to the preponderance of experts. The preponderance of experts look at cold fusion with skepticism. Misplaced Pages must explain that and not unduly provide sources that seek to dismantle this outlook, except inasmuch as such sources are acknowledged by the mainstream. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe the article does a very good job to say that "The preponderance of experts look at cold fusion with skepticism." On the other hand, it would be wrong to say that they reject it as pseudoscience, and we don't. "The average scientific laboratory" cannot be expert on all subjects. Furthermore, they don't publish on the topic in reliable sources: therefore there is no policy that says we must represent them. The policy says we should represent the views of experts in the field, as published in reliable sources. If there is a wrong to right, it is the denial of wikipedia policies. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nealparr, thanks for the "Wikibeer." Is there an official Wiki term? I'll take you up on it. I'm in the S.F. Bay Area, next time you're hitting the valley pubs.

I'm not sure what to say about all the links to NET...it's not my doing, of course. I just make some of the content on NET, and coordinate the production of the rest of it. I guess you Wiki code monkeys will figure out the best way to deal with that. I'm available to help, if I can, though I don't watch Wiki every day.

Every once in a while I will skip through the page to see if there are any blatant errors, and if so, I have and I will, point them out.

It might be helpful to let you know some of what I went through, for perspective.

Gene Mallove was the first "cold fusioneer" I met. That was - if memory serves me- Feb. 2000. To make a long story short, I met a whole lot more of these people in Aug. 2003. And I came to a place of acceptance (I dislike the terms "believer" and "skeptic") of a significant portion of the claims at that time. So I decided to write something about it.

I was confused about the extreme polarity of viewpoints: How could Mallove be correct, saying that there were already commercial devices and Park be correct, saying there was absolutely nothing valid about the science?

So I got my ducks in a row, got the best data that the "cold fusioneers" had to show and started dialing and e-mailing the critics. I spoke with Bob Park on the phone. I asked him to comment on the helium and heat measurements. He didn't know anything from the last 10 years, or something like that (this is all from my memory which is not nearly as reliable as my hard drive). I couldn't even engage in a knowledge-based challenge to Bob - he really wasn't up to speed. (He is now, but that is another story.) It seemed like his knowledge hadn't progressed since Huizenga's book So that phone call with Bob was kind of useless. I *really* wanted to hear some hard critique, not just some off-the-cuff wisecrack that he is so famous for. But it was a dead-end.

I contacted Nathan Lewis of Caltech...he e-mailed me back and said he didn't know anything about the field for at least a decade. I later met Nate at a science conference in Los Angeles. He was talking about the global energy scenario and solar. After his talk, I introduced myself and told him that there were still a few questions which I hadn't found answers to regarding his 1989 "cold fusion" work. I kid you not, he said he didn't talk about cold fusion anymore and he turned his back on me and walked away.

Steven Koonin was also someone I contacted early on. He told me that he had seen nothing new that convinced him it was worth paying attention to. Koonin was with Caltech then, he's now the chief scientist for BP (formerly British Petroleum.) I had the chance to meet Koonin too, in person at an APS meeting a few years ago. I asked him again if he wished to comment on current "cold fusion" research. Same answer.

I had an interesting exchange with Will Happer of Princeton (This was several years before I was invited by Michael Lemonick to speak there. Lemonick wrote the 1989 cover story for TIME.) Happer started out by saying he was following the field closely and that it was all still worthless (or words to that effect). So I asked him some questions about which current papers he had read...he couldn't name one....

I contacted Frank Close and had several e-mail exchanges with him. He gave me a lot of so-called reasons why he had not read any current literature in the field. I documented these in my 2004 book.

I contacted Walter Gratzer...despite the fact that he had negative things to say about "cold fusion" in his book, he told me that he really didn't know anything about the field - go figure. He advised me instead, to contact the "experts:" Koonin and Lewis. Bob Park had also encouraged me to contact "experts" Koonin and Lewis. I initiated contact with David Goodstein of Caltech, no response. I spoke with Moshe Gai of Yale. His response to me was nearly unprintable.

I contacted Alan Bard...he declined to engage with me. David Williams also had nothing to say or was unwilling to engage, I don't remember which. I know you don't know the field well, but all of these are *big names* in U.S. and U.K physics and they were the most outspoken critics of "cold fusion" in 1989. Now they are silent...

I also contacted Peter Zimmerman recently. He declined to speak with me.

Richard Garwin is one of the few men who was willing to speak with me about anything close to real scientific issues and I have been in contact with him now and then since 2003. It's true that he didn't seem very happy that I published a secret report of his (without his permission, but that's what's called a "leak") where he audited a cold fusion experiment at SRI that appeared to produce excess heat, but that's besides the point. Garwin has engaged with me and others, he has been willing to read papers. I had the chance to meet Garwin in person at an AAAS conference a year or two ago. If you search NET you'll learn more about this.

My colleagues Bruce Gellerman (NPR) and Sharon Weinberger (Wired, previous contributor to Washington Post Magazine) told me they had similar difficulties finding a prominent, knowledgeable scientist to speak critically - to provide the expected journalistic balance to their pieces on "cold fusion." They both told me that Garwin was *the only* one they were able to find to speak critically, on the record.

If you and your colleagues here on Wiki are having trouble finding prominent, knowledgeable skeptical POVs on the subject of "cold fusion" you may find it heartening to know that you, (Misplaced Pages), are not alone. It is a most peculiar situation. However, if anyone finds such credentialed critics, I'd love to connect with them. NET has no hesitation to include informed, critical commentary from prominent scientists.

Your willingness (as you have done) to allow yourself to be identified with your RL identity encourages me; I find this respectful and honorable. For that reason, I am willing to spend this time communicating with you.

My first book was written from the perspective of a fraction of what I know now about the science. Because the skeptics had more or less nothing to say, that book was largely the viewpoint of the "cold fusion" proponents. I did not know enough about the science at the time to personally be critical of what the proponents were telling me.

Times have changed. Even though I don't have a science degree and I'm not a scientist, being immersed in this full time for four years and part time for the four prior to that, I've learned a thing or two.

I now know not only LENR's strengths but also its weaknesses. Perhaps it's ironic: I've studied the history and the state-of-the-art such that I probably know more of it's weakness than most of the former science authority critics.

NET #29 will discuss one of these weakness later this week. And I'm not discussing it to be a hard*** on the LENR researchers, but I just have an intolerance for myths and misinformation. I don't think myths do them, or anyone else, any good.

Best regards,
StevenBKrivit (talk) 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

For ScienceApologist and Nealparr

When does WP:FRINGE become main stream? Does Misplaced Pages have a mechanism to transition a subject from fringe to mainstream? What’s the criteria? Journal publication; the disappearance of any criticism; Lectures; a Nobel prize; a public apology from the journal’s Nature and Science; or an Invention?
• Cold Fusion (I agree with Mr Krivit the term is and always was wrong) researchers have published thousands of the papers. Hundreds of paper in the very first year. There are only a few sceptic papers to cite. Today many Journals are starting to publish low energy nuclear reactions (just don’t call it cold fusion). Steve Krivit’s link to current papers is very useful there. And many journals are going digital now. Just because the some prominent journals in Britain and the USA are not up to speed does not prove anything. Look where Nature was on greenhouse ten years ago and you’ll see my point.
• The Critics have disappeared, gone silent, don’t want to discuss it, or died. One that I know of has jumped in and is doing work in the field. Second hand critics that 'don't want to read the papers' don't count in any other field why should they count here?
• Patents are blocked so even if you had a working cold fusion technology you can’t show and tell. Only when your able to file a globally accepted patent can you be safe. International treaties and the power of the US market means that patents out side the USA are likewise partly blocked. Even if you had an invention, you can’t ask them to come see it because 'its impossible' therefore they are free to refuse to go and check it out. Since 9/11 getting a sealed box through security at most government buildings is difficult.
• There are lectures now and in some countries like Japan there always have been lectures.
• I believe the Nobel committee has been contacted repeatedly.
• Public apologies are rare in major science journals even when their caught publishing obvious fraud like the Korean embryo work. Often the apology is in very small print in the ads section and never gets reported except by people like Steven Krivit.
The Wright brothers were once fringe. Life on Mars is very fringe but its not classed as that in Misplaced Pages. Metagenetics is still transition from junk DNA. It's so new there's no wiki page on it.
For several years, before 1983, High temperature superconductors and the Cooper pairs theory was fringe. It could not get peer review! Journal editors would not even pass papers to scientists to review. “Ceramics don’t conduct and could not therefore superconduct." Was the cry. The theory of superconductivity existing in the 1970-80’s worked perfectly. Eventually the researchers went out side the peer review system and announced a recipe and test. It worked and high temperature superconductivity went from fringe to main stream and won the Nobel prize. Note the wikipage on superconductors don’t even mention that there was any peer review problem!?!
I do believe that Nealparr’s point on Lenrcanr.org is valid but Neal do you know that links to it have been up there in the past and got deleted by the sceptics? And Lenrcanr is linked to from new energy times anyway. I agree with neal http://www.lenr-canr.org/ needs to be added to the further reading section.
Neal please take the time to read some papers, we are only fringe because a few DOE people in a committee said it was. The world has learned to disbelieve similar voices, vested interests, on greenhouse. Its gone from fringe to mainstream and yes there was a Noble prize in the process. A good accurate wikipedia page also helps in the transition.
Neutrality is only valid if there is a real dispute. I.E. those calling it fringe do the research, read the papers, show some signs of paying any attention to the data. Even the greenhouse sceptics do that! But the cold fusion sceptics don’t it seems. Read and learn and discover that there’s much more to nuclear reactions than squeezing D2 in together in a plasma. There’s Farnsworth–Hirsch fusors, Muons, Particle accelerators doing all kinds of reactions with all manner of branching ratios and strange or no nuclear ash. Do we even know what the minimum possible size for a 100MeV particle beam generator is? 30 nm, 50nm or 80nm? Its all very interesting and as far as I know that's the best science. Gathall (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Q: When does fringe science stop being fringe? A: When the data is impressive enough. Continental drift, oxide high-Tc superconductivity, CFC ozone destruction, and CO2 global warming were all fringe at some point, but when impressive data was shown, people changed their minds. In each case, the data was presented in peer-reviewed publications, and later peer-reviewed publications by other authors confirmed them. They didn't "go outside" the peer review system at all. For example, Bednorz and Muller knew that oxide high-Tc superconductivity was fringe, so they worked in secret and only published when they had excellent data to back up their hunches. They submitted their key paper (Z. Phyzik B 64, 189 (June 1986)) BEFORE publicly announcing a test. What "peer review problem" are you talking about?

So what is the lesson for this field? Tell all of the cold fusion researchers to get their articles published in Physical Review or similar journals. If they don't want to do that, they should apply for patents, do some convincing public demonstrations, or start selling working devices. That is how to change cold fusion from fringe science to mainstream science.

One more thing to remember: The best science is the science that is CORRECT! 209.253.120.158 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Most of what has been discussed by Gathall and 209 is entirely irrelevant here. Our job is not to judge the primary research. As for whatever swelling tide in favor of CF that Gathall seems to be describing, see WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article will reflect the mainstream opinion that LENR is demonstrated if and when that is the mainstream opinion---which at this point, it clearly isn't. We can of course say that many LENR researchers are convinced, and that some of the newest research is regarded by them as some of the most convincing, but the most recent notable review I'm aware of, the 2004 DOE report, reflected that the mainstream was not yet convinced. Gnixon (talk) 21:39, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Moving On with NPOV

The article is much improved over the last time it was reverted to the Aug 2004 version. The only way this article is going to be fair and honest is that it presents both the skeptic and experimenter point of view in adequate detail. The experimenters are using the scientific method, so looking for nuclear reactions in hydrogen-metal systems is science and not fringe science or any other of the terms that are basically just an insult. Misplaced Pages is supposed to be neutral point of view. Unless both sides are presented it is never going to be NPOV. The problem for years has been that many skeptics have tried to get away with presenting only the skeptics point of view. Skeptics should try to improve their POV or sources as presented in the article and stop trying to nit pick to death the experimenters POV or sources. It also needs to be recognized that the skeptic’s POV is almost static and the experimenter’s POV is dynamic, evolving with new experiments.Ron Marshall (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with representing the CF researchers' perspective without squashing it at every turn, but the fact that experimenters are trying to do good science doesn't falsify the fringe science label. Every source I've seen is consistent with the view that most scientists remain unconvinced that there are any "low energy nuclear reactions." We should be able to keep that clear without stepping on the throat of CF researchers. Gnixon (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The only critic I am currently aware of who has, IMO, sufficient recognition, expertise and is sufficiently informed to have an qualified alternative viewpoint on this subject is Kirk Shanahan at SRS. I will send a copy of this brief note to him and invite him to consider watching this page.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. Thanks Steve. I had already cited his critique, but it's even better if he can watch the page ! Pcarbonn (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

SK, what do you mean by "alternative viewpoint"? I'm sure it would be great to have an expert's help on the article, but I don't understand why it's necessary. Our task in writing the article is to summarize the preferably-secondary reliable sources on the subject, not to judge the experiments ourselves. If an expert showed up here and said "LENR is bogus" or "LENR is proven," we still wouldn't be able to reflect that in the article unless it could be reliably sourced. Gnixon (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize if I misunderstood the context, I admit I am not reading this whole thing closely. I saw that "Nealparr" wrote "I want outside opinion on this. I think that's a reasonable request." up above. I probably won't be checking back to this page for a while. If you have any questions, please PM me. Thanks

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. I think Neal just meant getting outside Misplaced Pages folk who haven't been involved in these discussions yet. Gnixon (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

To begin, I have only read bits and pieces of the main and Talk page here. I did however note Pcarbonn and Dank55 claiming early on that there are no skeptical positions to be found. This only demonstrates their lack of effort. My work is referenced in the main Wiki article. What isn't is my other two publications. Armed with this knowledge, one can go to Yahoo and do a searh on "Shanahan cold fusion" and come up with numerous hits. Most illustrate the ongoing debate between myself and Ed Storms. If one follows up on this, one will eventually be led to the nearly defunct Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion archives, where I again have numerous posts detailing standrard objections/explanations to just about every piece of evidence offered up as proof of CF. I even give leading references in the currently active phyicsworld blog on the issue.

Further, one could look back into the archives of this issue on Misplaced Pages and see my frustrated attempts to bring balance to the prior CF pages. All of my additions were reverted away. I had email discussions with the reverters, and came to the conclusion it was a hopeless cause to get them to relent and let the skeptical viewpoint be included. I also note that there was some sort of mediation regarding this article this year. Apparently, the principal cold fusion supporters were involved, but no skeptics like me. Clearly an unbiased approach. I suggest you all go back to those versions in your archives and cut out my comments from then and add them back in.

In summary, I have published three papers on a conventional explanation of apparent excess heat (which means no nuclear reactions are needed)in the scientific journal Thermochimica Acta. This was in 2002, 2005, and 2006, clearly 'new' news. This explanation boils down to an analytical method problem, and I see no evidence of excess heat. The specific criticism dealt with one calorimetric method, but the problem is generic to any type of calibrated method, which includes of course any other type of calorimetry. The third of these was a response to an attempt to rebutt my explanation. No answer to that has been presented, so the conclusion is that my rebuttal was sucessful and my explanation stands. Thus in order to claim true excess heat is present, one has to eliminate the 'conventional' explanation I present. That has not been done, therefore there is no clear claim to have observed true excess heat.

Once you accept that there is no excess heat, there only remains claims for various types of nuclear ash. I have commented _extensively_ on those 'CF' evidences in the Usenet newsgroup sci.physics.fusion (spf), and I find no body of evidence that can't be explained by bad analytical chemistry or trace contamination. That implies there is considerable work left to be done to substantiate a claim of a new low energy nuclear reaction occuring in any of the experimental set-ups that are promoted as 'proving' CF (or LENR, or CANR, or...) is real. Of course the CFers violently disagree, but they haven't been able to refute my points because they won't do the work required to do so. Simply saying I can't be right doesn't make it true.

I expect they will react strongly to my comments here, but I am not going to repeat the seemingly endless discussions that occurred in spf here. If some relevant technical point is raised I may respond. Otherwise I will not.

Kirk Shanahan Template:My opinions...noone else's Kirk shanahan (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for posting. Please, please do not respond to any technical point. We are not here to discuss the substantive issues. You have mentioned three papers and we can cite them in the article. If you would like to summarise them and make the sourced additions then that would be great. Otherwise someone else can do it and you can check that it has been done accurately. If you need a hand with the technical side of editing an article then anyone would be pleased to help. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad that Steven Krivit has contacted Shanahan, and that he has replied. I also welcome well-sourced addition to our article. It's a pity that we cannot use sci.physics.fusion as a source, but we can certainly use the other papers. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

"do not respond to any technical point" and "We are not here to discuss the substantive issues." I don't understand, you want to discuss non-technical, insubstantial issues? Not me.

"well-sourced addition"

I see my revisions of Mar. 2005 have been deleted.

My papers concerning why no true excess heat has ever been detected:

A Systematic Error in Mass Flow Calorimetry Demonstrated Kirk L. Shanahan Thermochimica Acta, 387(2) (2002) 95-110

Comments on "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co- deposition" Kirk L. Shanahan Thermochimica Acta, 428(1-2), (2005), 207

Reply to "Comments on papers by K. Shanahan that propose to explain anomalous heat generated by cold fusion", E. Storms, Thermochim. Acta, 2006 Kirk L. Shanahan Thermochimica Acta, 441 (2006) 210

Some papers by Clarke and Oliver illustrating that the CFers don't know how to exclude air from their apparati. This means He in-leakage will occur. That means any CFer publication must conclusively show the mass spec results come from an uncontaminated sample. None do, ergo, all CFer claims to have detected He are suspect.

Search for 3He and 4He in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production Clarke, W. Brian ; Oliver, Brian M. ; McKubre, Michael C. H. ; Tanzella, Francis L. ; Tripodi, Paolo Publication Date 2001 Sep 15 Fusion Science and Technology; Journal Volume: 40(2) (2001) 152-167

Response toComments on 'Search for He-3 and He-4 in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes I: A Negative Result' and 'Search for He-3 and He-4 in Arata-Style Palladium Cathodes II: Evidence for Tritium Production' Clarke, W B.; Oliver, Brian M. Publication Date 2003 Jan 01 Fusion Science and Technology ; VOL. 43(1) (2003) 135-136

Production of 4He in D2-LOADED palladium-carbon catalyst II CLARKE W. Brian; BOS Stanley J.; OLIVER Brian M.; Fusion Science and Technology 2003, vol. 43(2), 250-255

Response to Comments on Search for He-3 and 4He in Arata-style palladium cathodes II: Evidence for tritium production? Clarke, W B.; Oliver, Brian M. Publication Date 2002 Mar 01 Fusion Science and Technology; VOL. 41(2) (2002) 153-154

More are probably available from those authors.

'Isotopic anomalies' are claimed by SIMS, but the CFers don't interpret their SIMS data correctly. They ignore multi-atom ions, esp. hydrides. An example of where these species are detected:

International Journal of Mass Spectrometry Volume 189, Issues 2-3, 11 August 1999, Pages 173-179

Anomalous signal formation in secondary ion mass spectrometry of palladium

F. Okuyama, , a, M. Kanekob, S. Sendaa, Y. Katadaa and M. Tanemuraa

Received 9 June 1998; accepted 23 April 1999. Available online 4 August 1999.

Abstract Cesium ions bombarding a high-purity palladium (Pd) target are shown to sputter out negative ions incompatible with stable isotopes of Pd. These unusual ions possess a mass of (Pd + 1), and they may possibly arise from the Pd–H reaction occurring in the ion-bombarded area. It is also shown that dimers of Pd are emitted exclusively as negative ions, with positive dimers virtually undetectable. The process whereby the dimer emission occurs in such a selective manner is still unclear. --- The point of this paper is to illustrate that the mailstream science community knows about dimers, trimers, etc. Why don't the CFers?

I have no intention of editing the Wiki article again. If you all want a fair and unbiased article, you need to point out that all claims of CFers can be explained conventionally, and cite the refs above as answers. In your "Further Reading" you need to note there are 11 years (1995-2006) of extended technical discussions of the issues in the spf Newsgroup.

Kirk Shanahan {} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.33.240.30 (talk) 19:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent. Thanks for adding to the discussion, Kirk. Many of your sources definitely belong in this article. It is too bad that people have been removing them. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, people should not have removed them. For the record, I'm the one who has added them back, here (or at least the ones that were referred to elsewhere, i.e. with notability). Pcarbonn (talk) 07:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That's news to me. Agreed that this shouldn't have been removed. Kevin Baas 15:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Say what? I don't see any changes. The correct way to do it it to change the ref. to my work in the "Precision of Calorimetry" secion to a triple ref, and add the refs to the reference list. While you're at it, please correct my name in the one that is already there. Ed Storms did that in his Web page papers and it seems to have propagated to Wiki. You also should add a section to the 'Criticisms' subsection to deal with the bad analytical chemistry issues. These include: inability to correctly measure He concentrations (Oliver and Clarke refs.), inability to correctly interpret SIMS data which leads to erroneous claims of isotopic shifts, misassignment of XPS peaks from copper to praesodymium, and general unwillingness to track down sources of contamination as Scott Little did with the RIFEX kit (I have a pdf of his unpublished report detailing this that I could supply). Kirk Shanahan {} Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

The article cannot be changed for the moment because it is "protected". I just showed that I added some of your work recently. We would add your other references if it was not blocked because of a dispute. Please note that there are reliability requirements for the inclusion of sources on wikipedia: unpublished material cannot be included. Would you mind providing published sources for the critique of analytical chemistry issues in cold fusion ? Thanks in advance. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Because there are several critiques of calorimetry in cold fusion experiments, I would suggest to start a new article "calorimetry in cold fusion experiments". It would briefly explain the different types of calorimeters that are used, and then develop their critique. Any comments ? Pcarbonn (talk) 10:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Typically this is a canard to try discredit my conventional explanation of apparent excess heat. It goes kinda like this: 'Gee, there are a lot of calorimeter types. Shanahan only studied one type. We have others that don't show the problem he brings up.' That last conclusion is the false one of course. My analysis was conducted on data from one specific calorimeter yes, but the method is general, and applies to all the calorimeters in use by CFers (as long as they are calibrated that is). There IS a real chemical effect happening, which I like to refer to as the Fleischmann-Pons-Hawkins Effect, that leads to the calibration constant shifts, which in turn lead to apparent excess heat signals. The only impact of the calorimeter design is in how much wiggle room they allow for the calibration constant shift problem. Fully integrating calorimeters like Storms' mass flow one, or Seebeck types, are the best, they tend to minimize the problem. But it cannot be completely removed. (Note that this is consistent with one of Langmuir's characteristics of pathological science.) So as far as a new section in this article, I vote no, as it will just add unecessary technical detail. Have a page on electochemical calorimeters elsewhere if you like. Kirk Shanahan {} Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. We are not here to discredit any point of view, only to present them from a neutral point of view. We'll present your arguments, in proportion to the notability they've obtained. The 2004 DOE was evenly split on the evidence of excess heat, and that's what we'll represent in the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Of course the point of my comment in the subsequent section of this discussion is to note that it is likely had my work been included in the review, the split wouldn't have been so even. I do note that the one person I knew in the written part did know of my work independently, and included in his/her review comments that my work should be considered. Kirk Shanahan {} 192.33.240.30 (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now started an article on Calorimetry in cold fusion experiments. We'll link it from the cold fusion article once it is unprotected. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A little birdie and a mole

There are some real problems here. Notice how when the discussion started to turn against cf-proponents, a group of cf-proponents showed up seemingly out of nowhere? Why is that? Is someone alerting them to these discussions? The short answer is yes. Never mind how I know, let's just say there is a birdie and a mole who are sharing information with me. However, this is very problematic. Many cf-proponents seem to think that Misplaced Pages has the potential to open up a new front for them to get their ideas accepted without the headaches of academic peer-review and the scorn that has been heaped upon their ideas by the people who are so singularly obsessed with the idea that temperatures that correspond to lower than the activation energy of nuclear fusion reactions can somehow be environments conducive to nuclear fusion. Anyway, I think some administrator oversight is desperately needed here. The WP:COI and WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERT agendas are almost out-of-control to the point of absurdity.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear "ScienceApologist,"

If you think any Wikirules have been broken, you should definitely report them at once. By the way, many of the papers here http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/SelectedPapers.htm and here http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/PublishedPapers.htm have been peer-reviewed, as have many of the papers referenced in the July 10, 2008 issue of New Energy Times. I strongly encourage you to read my editorial; it has a lot to do with your concerns about the claim of fusion.

Best regards,

StevenBKrivit (talk) 00:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

For information, a notice of conflict of interest has been open a couple of days ago by ScienceApologist here. Should I open a COI notice because he is defending the views of the "average scientific laboratory", on the ground that he may be working in one of them ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

It won't get you anywhere. I have no vested interest one way or another as to how this subject is presented. You have stated in articles published elsewhere that you do. That's the difference. That's why you shouldn't be editing this article at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any incompatibility between the aim of Misplaced Pages, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and my aim, which is the same. I have demonstrated that in all my edits, for which I have provided the proper source, defending both the skeptical and proponent side of the issue by the way. That I have also other aims, which are not incompatible with wikipedia's as you suggest, is not relevant to the content dispute we have. On the other hand, I see a lot of issues with your behavior here. But I won't elaborate on them, because we should be talking about the article, not its editors. Pcarbonn (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

They are totally relevant because they cloud your view of what is "neutral" slanting it away from WP:REDFLAG consideration of bad sources. You appreciate cf-proponent sources too much and work to unduly include them in ways that defy WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The bad source in this case are the "average scientific laboratory", and the good source is the 2004 DOE Report. I'm afraid your view is slanted incorrectly. Your statements apply to you, not me. You depreciate cf-proponent sources too much and work to unduly exclude them in ways that defy WP:WEIGHT. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, when I heard of the 2004 review, I submitted some materials to a member of the DOE Office running the review. However those materials never made it into the review. I know this because I personally know two of the reviewers, one from the written part, one from the oral, and neither ever saw my stuff. I believe if my explanation had been presented to the review Committee, the conclusions would have been radically different, because the CF presenters gave the impression that there was no critics of the field except the outdated fanatics like Robert Park. So, I don't call the DOE 2004 Review a 'good' one, since critical information was not considered. Kirk Shanahan {} Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for this clarification. It is unfortunate that you were not heard. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

What ScienceApologist is talking about above is that subsequent to this article from two months ago and now this article, at a online magazine that claims "thousands of subscribers", and both articles essentially saying that a particular point of view needs to be protected at Misplaced Pages, one can't help but feel that the dice are loaded and we may not be getting an accurate view here since the deck is stacked.

I agree somewhat. This article is slanted quite a bit. There's a lot of talk about cf-proponent sources and cf-skeptic sources, expertise, etc., but let me give you an example that doesn't have anything to do with balancing sources and one that any layman can readily see. We have a section called "Fleischmann-Pons announcement" that goes on for 6 paragraphs in great detail about the project. That in itself isn't so bad except that it was almost universally rejected and its the original one that gave cold fusion a bad name, and when we get to reporting that, in "Reaction to the announcement", we're proportionately unbalanced.

Here we have a significantly shorter section. 5 shorter paragraphs. The first plays up how there was a rush to repeat -- because it was so awesome. The second briefly mentions accusations of fraud and then explains it away as hasty innocent mistake -- because it was so awesome. The third paragraph, no big deal, simple reporting of other attempts to duplicate -- because it was so awesome. The fourth paragraph (from a story arc standpoint) is the big climax with a standing ovation among OMG 7,000 chemists! $25 million bucks in funding! and an invitation from the President!

When we get to how it was actually received, the real impact it had, we have a brief fifth paragraph that tosses out vague references to sessions and reports and very little elaboration. No real content. The most telling example is that it says Nature published papers critical of cold fusion in July and November, but mentions nothing at all about the contents of those papers, what was said, what points they raised, anything. It's severly disproportional to the preceeding paragraphs that talk about how wonderful the announcement was in great detail. Mere mention of critical sources and tucking them away in footnotes is not really neutral, especially on this particular announcement. "Fleischmann-Pons", my understanding, is what gave cold fusion a bad name. It was heavily rejected, with prejudice. I know this from reading off-wiki articles, not from reading our article. It glosses over all that. --Nealparr 17:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems to my reading that you are right. I like the chronological approach, as it helps us to explain for readers either favourably or unfavourably predisposed to CF how and why it became such a controversial topic. Would you or someone be able to summarise the two Nature papers in a sentence or two each. By summarise I mean to produce something in the framework "X, Y and Z set up an experiment to .... . They concluded that there was no..... " It would be great to think that the article is fairly well structured and that incremental improvements will reach consensus and move it back to GA/FA. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bunch of edits I would be making if the article were not locked : ) I think even a layman can write something based on the summaries provided here and here . The APS session was written about in New York Times.. In our article it's reduced to sound bites, like "dead" "incompetence and delusion" "pathological science", which are fine because they show the extent of rejection, but they're also without the substance of the original article. When I read our article it comes off as grumblings of irrational old science unwilling to accept anything new (easy to dismiss). The NYTimes, however, reported very specific rational reasons why they rejected it (harder to dismiss).

Example, here it reads:

• Caltech described the Utah report as a result of "the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann."

That's not a detailed or accurate summary because there it reads:

• The most thoroughgoing of the attempts to validate the Pons-Fleischmann experiment was conducted at the California Institute of Technology.Using equipment far more sensitive than any available to the Utah group, Caltech failed to find any symptoms of fusion. The scientists found no emitted neutrons, gamma rays, tritium or helium, although the Utah group reported all these emissions at high levels. And all the cells consumed energy rather than produced it, the Caltech team said.

That's extremely notable stuff left out of our article. --Nealparr 20:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't look notable to me. the first example just shows that some guy in caltech is very opinionated and not afraid of publicly insulting people that they know little about. Big whoop. There are too many of those.

Now the second example is very rhetorical - to the point of being misleading. so it's a failed experiment - many experiments failed. that's nothing new and the article already mentions it. the quoted text just happens to have a lot of misleading spin on it that has no actual informational value. Why is it the "most thoroughgoing"? as of when? what does that even mean? what special value would that givn, were it true? What's the significance of using sensitive equipment? why would more sensitive equipment be needed if the excess heat measured by the utah group was already well beyond the sensitivity of their instruments? Kevin Baas 01:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And yes, I understand the irony in using rhetorical questions to expose rhetoric. Kevin Baas 02:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: The New York Times thinks it's notable and in our article we think it's notable because it's cited here, just not accurately represented. It's not a question of notability, it's a question of whether we're saying what the source is saying, and we're not. Our article leaves out the actual point of what NYT was saying, and leaves out what it felt was most notable. It's NYT that says it was the most thorough analysis. This is what I mean about feeling like the dice is loaded. If you can't even have a conversation about accurate representation of the sources, something's wrong. --Nealparr 02:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I'd be for replacing what it currently reads w/the part you suggested. I just which it were worded a little less rhetorically and more objectively. I agree that the article needs more balance in the direction of letting the reader know that the mainstream view is skeptical of CF. I just don't know how. This here that you suggest seems like a reasonable way to do it. (and FWIW, i've already done some considerable work on the article and I don't plan on doing much more anytime soon - i'm probably just going to sit back and give my two cents once in a while for a while.) Kevin Baas 02:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And I see that I was overly critical of the wording - for instance, the part on sensitivity is there to pre-empt the argument "well maybe their equipment just wasn't sensitive enough to pick any of it up." So whatever, I'll shutup now. Kevin Baas 02:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

It's OK. You don't have to agree with the sources or like the style they write in. Many sources won't be objective and some of them may be even be rhetorical. We're just here to accurately report what they said, no more and no less. If a reader wants to dismiss the source for whatever reason (oh, it's just those wacky Caltech guys! for example), that's not our thing. The reader just needs to be fully informed. That part is our responsibility. --Nealparr 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Back to this, I looked at where the "Caltech described..." content was and it's in a small section called "reaction to the announcement". replacting it with "The most thoroughgoing of the attempts..." would introduce two problems: 1. the content is not about a "reaction" (in the appropriate sense), it's about an experiment performed, and 2. the content would give undue weight to caltech, since no other university is given nearly that much space in that section. - indeed it would take up a substantial amount of space in the section for what had previously been one sentence, which roughly matches the weight given to everything else in the section. Kevin Baas 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with watchlists; I often turn up when there's a bunch of posts because, well, its on the top of my watchlist and that makes me come here. But yes, I agree that it is a problem that this page gives undue weight to CF being real, but I don't know that accusing CF people of meatpuppetry is the best way of solving it. If you DO have evidence of meatpuppetry and them canvassing, present the evidence such that we can deal with it. Simply accusing them of it without evidence will get us nowhere. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

While I say it's unintentional meatpuppetry, assuming good faith and having spoken with the publishers, I think it more than meets the definition of accidental meatpuppetry to have published to thousands of readers that an article you're working on at Misplaced Pages is in peril. From my perspective, let's just fix it (I make specific recommended changes). But I'll also say let's not pretend it's not broken either. --Nealparr 23:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I fully support the suggestion of Nealparr to improve our representation of the NYT article, and I thank him for doing it. The way to adjust the balance of the article is to add well-sourced, notable statements from skeptics. There is no justification to remove well-sourced, notable statements from the proponents. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused by the suspicion of meatpuppet. What's the point of a request for comment if it's not to get comments from others, Shanahan included. Since wikipedia is not a democracy, what is the issue ? I have no doubt that all editors above did talk freely, and not under the direction of anybody. (I have not recruited any editors, by the way). Pcarbonn (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Suspicions of meatpuppetry aside, the policy describes the harm of meatpuppetry despite Misplaced Pages not being a democracy. The one I think is relevant is the "to give the appearance of consensus", because that's not vote-related. Above when I asked is there a consensus to weed out links to NET, what I got was a few established editors commenting (who may or may not be readers or supporters of NET) and a couple of new editors and IP addresses saying "I don't see a problem". It's hard to judge that there's not a consensus when the dissenting voice may just be one voice, that of NET. As I said above, let's just focus on what's good and bad about the content with reasoned, policy based arguments, fix anything that needs fixing, leave anything that doesn't need fixing alone, and the problem that may or may not exist regarding meatpuppetry is resolved. Seems practical. --Nealparr 18:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds very reasonable to me. Thanks for the clarification. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Review Paper Clarification

I'm in the middle of writing a report and I just recalled that on the Wiki page, someone wrote that the Hubler paper was a review of the field. It is not.

Yes, the title of the paper is "Anomalous effects in hydrogen-charged palladium — A review." However this is overly-broad and could, by the omission of related and important research, inadvertently misrepresent the broader field of LENR research.

The abstract is more precise as to the scope of the paper: "summarize what has been reported about the production of excess heat in Pd cathodes charged with deuterium." To wit, no mention is made of helium, tritium, transmutation, charged particles, etc.

Thanks for everybody's good work here.
StevenBKrivit (talk) 19:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

New Scientist

Here is what New Scientist says about "13 things that do not make sense" : "After 16 years, is back". Pcarbonn (talk) 05:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Scientist isn't a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and several things in that article (tetraneutrons, for instance) have failed to be replicated. I wonder what that reminds me of... HM. In short, the article varies wildly in effects, from things which are well known but unexplained (Dark Energy) to homeopathy, and several of them (the Wow! signal, cold fusion and tetraneutrons) cannot be replicated, and several others are simply things which haven't been (the Pioneer anamoly). Mixing in things which are seen as legitimate with garbage is misleading, but very popular in stuff which popularizes such things. More to the point, they're talking about the 2004 DoE report, which, as noted by this article, is not exactly supportive of Cold Fusion as a real phenomenon. Titanium Dragon (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Worth noting, in another article they talk about "4. 2001, A more rigorous estimate of the "Drake equation" suggests that our galaxy may contain hundreds of thousands of life-bearing planets". Acting as though this is so is silly; as most people familiar with the equation know, many of the variables are completely unknown. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

And what is meant by "more rigorous estimate"? I would imagine estimating more of said unknown variables based on available data (however sparse) - if you use a reasonable probability model for the unknown variables, use the available empirical data to better estimate the parameters, and take an ensemble average, you get a good guess at the results - what one might call a "more rigorous estimate". Kevin Baas 14:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that the NS is not a peer-reviewed journal. It can emphatically not be used to source claims about whether CF is a real effect or not. The status of the magazine is as trade journal for scientists in the UK, carrying most of the job adverts for scientific posts. Trade journals can be good sources. I would say that this article - by no means the NS at its best - could perhaps be used as part of a balanced description of how CF is currently regarded in the scientific community. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be careful even with that approach. NewScientist has a tendency to lean towards a lunatic fringe at times. Jefffire (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added this link to show that cold fusion is an ongoing controversy. We should not present cold fusion as an issue that has been resolved, one way or another, and the NS article supports that view, just as the 2004 DOE does. We don't need to add the NS reference to the article, in my view. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

A doubt

The way this article projects cold fusion, it does sound like pseudoscience, but I have another issue, that's not what I had heard and read about cold fusion. From what I know cold fusion is a type of nuclear fusion that occurs at temperature lower than usual (usual being 1 million celcius or kelvin)— something like 100 000 celcius, one to two orders of magnitude lower, but not at "room temperature" as described in the article. Why this is attractive is because usual temperatures and the rate at which fusion reactions occur make them very violent, and the energy produced cannot be harnessed for productive purposes like electricity production. Hence, these reactions are also known as thermonuclear—initiating the fusion reaction by increasing temperature (achieved by a fission reaction). But, if the same reaction could be achieved at somewhat lower temperature and the rate of reaction could be slowed down, it can be "tamed" to extract useful heat, and more importantly in a closed reactor. How this could be achieved is not known, but may be through the use of adsorption surfaces like platinum, etc. And, this concept was to be employed to make fusion reactors. Do correct my misunderstanding. (I have posted the same message in the Request for comment above.) —KetanPanchal 07:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Arara and Zhang claim of 80 watts

The current article states that "Arata and Zhang said that, in one typical run, they observed excess heat power averaging 80 watts and output heat energy equal to 1.8 times input energy over 12 days." and gives as a reference a review paper. This is not appropriate for a major claim of the article since it should point directly to the key document. Here is the direct link to the paper identified by the review paper as including the 80 watts claim:.

However, the article should not include this claim at all for several reasons. Firstly, nowhere are values of "80 watts" or a "1.8" ratio reported in the Arata and Zhang paper. Secondly, the authors never claim that cold fusion is occurring in their equipment. Thirdly, the paper is very difficult to read and it is not clear what temperature increase is attributed to possible cold fusion effects. My best guess is that the (Tc-Ts) value mentioned at the bottom of page 108 is attributed to cold fusion effects. However, that seems strange since the authors state that it is only 0.3 degrees C, which is laughably small if that is intended to be a demonstration of cold fusion. Fourthly, the authors do not describe any attempts to measure expected fusion products (helium, tritium, gamma radiation, or neutron radiation). Dank55 has implied that installing a mass spectrometer to confirm fusion products is very easy, which implies that the absence of any detection efforts makes the paper's conclusions suspiciously incomplete.

As a side note, I want to point out that this paper demonstrates an important aspect of cold fusion research which has always troubled me: The authors do not describe any safety precautions to protect researchers from fusion-induced radiation. They imply that they are attempting to generate fusion, which means that it is irresponsible to do so without first installing radiation detectors and shielding. This could be important if later researchers tried to duplicate their results and were successful, since they could be injured by radiation. Any cold fusion experiment which does not have radiation detectors present is clearly irresponsible and "dysfunctional."

Of course, if I have analyzed the wrong paper here, please correct me. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 16:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed that claim and many of the other numerical claims which are not strictly verifiable since they must be attributed to specific reports by cold fusion researchers and are not independently verified (see WP:REDFLAG). These claims have been removed now three times. Please provide an independent source that is not associated with cold fusion which corroborates these claims before reinserting them. Thank you. Also, please refrain from using misleading edit summaries such as "per talk" which was used to justify reverting to a version of the article that used a lot of unsubstantiated cold fusion claims as statements of fact. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Each disputed point, one by one

See this diff.

Here are the points. Cheers. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversial nature

The first change adds a sentence which reports on the controversial nature of cold fusion. This is necessary to establish a context for the claims that are going to be documented.

Number of reports

The number of reports is not something that is strictly verifiable. A cold fusion proponents believes that this is the number of reports, but here's the key point: What qualifies as a valid report? Is it something reported in a journal? How do you decide what journal reports to include and what journal reports to ignore? Some of the reports are not published, it appears as well. It is obviously an opinion and not a fact as to how many reports were made, and I doubt we can establish a consensus on how to properly figure out a number. Barring that, just remove the number and let readers find out for themselves what they believe. Misplaced Pages should not be endorsing a number like "60" just because there is some cold fusion researcher who thinks that's a good number.

This is an important point. The current article states

"Over 3,000 cold fusion papers have been published including about 1,000 in peer-reviewed journals (see indices in further reading, below). In March 1995, Dr. Edmund Storms compiled a list of 21 papers and articles reporting excess heat published in peer reviewed journals such as Naturwissenschaften, European Physical Journal A, European Physical Journal C, Journal of Solid State Phenomena, Physical Review A, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, Japanese Journal of Applied Physics, and Journal of Fusion Energy."

There should be direct links to the values of 3,000 and 1,000 so readers do not need to scan through all of the further reading to see how they were determined. Also, considering the controversial nature of the field, the article should point directly to the source documents, not just list the names of the relevant journals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.120.158 (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT: wikipedia is not a collection of links. especially not thousands of them. Kevin Baas 18:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

True, but it is also not a place to make claims that cannot be directly verified. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Which might be relevant if we were talking about claims that could not be directly verified. Kevin Baas 02:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, we should try to reposition the claims so that a reader can more easily verify them. Using a number like 3000 or 1000 is very difficult to verify and since the source is suspect, we should perhaps aim for a more reasonable statement that can be verified without collecting 1000 links of varying quality. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is a verifiable, notable source for the statement "Proponents say that there are 3000 papers..." : Wired. Please note that we should not say "there are 3000 reports". Pcarbonn (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the Wired source --Enric Naval (talk) 12:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Focusing excessively on the Hubler review

As much as the Navy's research is exciting, Graham Hubler is hardly a neutral reporter on the subject of cold fusion. The article's previous version leans heavily on his "review" which is obviously slanted in one particular direction. A sentence that says "It says that most of the research groups have occasionally seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days, that observed excess heat events have not diminished in frequency or magnitude, and they have improved their methods." is excessive when we already report what Hubler claims "a third of the experiments reported excess heat." We haven't adequately attributed that point as an opinion, but at least it is just saying that it is a "report" rather than a measurement that has been independently verified. The other sentence is too detailed for us to be using per WP:WEIGHT.

Your interpretation of WP:weight is wrong. Here is what the ArbComm unanimously said about WP:Weight for significant alternative to scientific orthodoxies : "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." Fairly reporting on the Hubler review, as we do, is perfectly in line with this ruling. This also applies to most of the issues your raised below. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are unfairly reporting the Hubler review as a neutral source when it is, in fact, biased. You seem to think because you hold cold fusion reports in high regard that Misplaced Pages must hold these reports in high regard. In fact, Misplaced Pages must look at third party evaluations. Are there people outside of the cold fusion proponent community who take cold fusion seriously? Very few. We have plenty of mainstream reporting to that effect including wording from the 2004 DOE report which explicitly recognizes that this is the marginalized situation in which cold fusion research finds itself. Until you recognize that, there can be no constructive movement forward. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I totally disagree. Hubler's paper has everything of a reliable source, since it is published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Whether it is neutral or not does not matter, as long as it is reliable and we properly attribute it. What does a neutral source means in wikitalk anyway ? Nothing. Your argument only reflects your opinion, and is not based on any wikipedia policy. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist, have you ever written for the enemy ? I have. I suggest you should. This will help you understand wikipedia policies better. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Believe you me, if I was writing what I really thought of cold fusion, you would be very upset. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

C'mon, any of us could write your statement for you. Let me see .... pseudoscience, load of old rubbish, astrology, homeopathy, mumbo-jumbo, disgrace to science, appalling waste of public money, dumbing down, what future for science education, was this the country that got to the Moon .... Have I got any of it? You can still write for the enemy. Imagine you are doing a literature review for a paper on the subject. X set up this experiment, found this, didn't find that. Y set up another experiment, replicated X's method, but didn't find this, found that. Boring but necessary. Give it a go. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which would be rejected here as it would be somewhere between a synthesis of primary sources and a collection of trivia..... On wikipedia you need to find secondary sources that assess the relative importance of the studies and do that work for you. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand WP:SYNTH and WP:RELIABLE. They do not contradict Misplaced Pages:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Writing_for_the_.22enemy.22. Nor do they reject attributed opinion from a significant POV. Kevin Baas 18:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It depends what attitude we take to papers. In my mind they are secondary sources, but then I am always in a social science rather than a natural science frame of mind. Even if they are regarded as primary they can be cited alongside the reliable reviews of the literature that we have. Of course no one editing on this site would condone including "trivia". When we were discussing with Dr Shanahan we were talking as if we would cite his papers directly. Itsmejudith (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Yeah, in social science it's different. Clinical trials on medicine and laboratory experiments on physics normally count as primary sources. I have already seen this discussion on Talk:Homeopathy: there are so many contradictory clinical trials on that topic that choosing some of them over the rest is an exercise on OR, so you need to rely on reviews that tell you which studies are significant and which aren't, and why. Ídem here, how do we know that we are choosing the "right" papers, or that we are not missing an important replication (or lack of it)? Use WP:RELIABLE to find reliable reviews of studies on the field, please, and use the conclusions from the review and cite the studies and replications that the review considers significant. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Umh. I think that's what we are doing. Hubler's review is, well, a review. By the way, I have put less emphasis on it in the article, moving its summary to the "excess heat" section. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(note: I was talking of studies and reviews on general, not specifically about Hubler's source) --Enric Naval (talk) 20:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

50 excess power experiments

That cold fusion researchers claim 50 experiments is not a good point to include in our article. There was no third-party of review of this claim, and like the number 60 above there is unlikely to be any in the near future. So removed.

Arata and Zhang report on excess heat

See the above section for more on why this should be removed.

three independent studies

If cold fusion researchers say that there are independent studies, that's already suspect. Claiming "three" independent studies though begs the question of how the number was obtained (what qualifies as an "independent study"?) We need some outside vetting of this point: it's not sufficiently positioned as a questionable claim.

I presume the number was obtained via counting. I presume they can cite the studies, and everying can verify for themselves. I don't see how saying that the studies are independent makes things any more suspect - usually that's a good thing. And I think you should remember that what we put in the article needs to be verifiable, not true beyond faithless doubt. Our job is not to second guess and beg questions of everything said about a subject ("but is california really on the west coast? how do we know that for sure?") Kevin Baas 18:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to look at the studies individually and decide if they are editorially fit for us to cite. If we wouldn't cite them, we shouldn't cite someone else who is citing them. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. Kevin Baas 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No... that would be writing an encyclopedia using sources. There is a very big difference. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Either way would be writing an encyclopedia using sources. Kevin Baas 13:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Differing isotopic ratios

As far as I can tell, no one has been able to corroborate this point with any confidence. I want to see an independent review that the small number statistics that they quote are reliable. They did not do an error analysis and so regardless of whether cf proponents think this point is "important" it should not be included until verified by an outside expert.

You're making up unreasonable standards and applying them selectively. Kevin Baas 18:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have objections to other parts that you think do not rise to the standards that I'm outlining (and they're hardly "made up", they are all part-and-parcel to WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, WP:REDFLAG, etc.) then please let us know. However, snide wholesale rejection of my arguments like this is hardly constructive. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry you felt I was being snide. Or that you feel "You're making up unreasonable standards and applying them selectively." "wholesale rejection of arguments". It was only directed at one of your arguments, and thus the plural on "arguments" isn't appropriate. Likewise "wholesale" doesn't apply since there is only one argument under consideration here. "rejection" isn't quite correct either - rejection would be if i just merely ignored it, but i'm actually pointing out what's wrong with it. And there is nothing underhanded or indirect about what i said - it's straightforward and plain so i wouldn't call it "snide". And it is constructive because it helps determine the content of the article.

I think most everything in the article doesn't rise to the standards that you're proposing. (Or most everything in any wikipedia articles, for that matter.) But I don't have any objections to the rest of the article because, like I said, I think those standards are unreasonable.

And they have nothing to do with any of the policies you just linked to. If they did then I'd have a pretty big objection to that part of the policy. I imagine a whole lot of people would. And it would be removed pretty quickly on that account. Kevin Baas 02:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't apologize for my feelings. That itself is snide. You haven't really pointed anything out here, you've only made some vague accusation(s).

I admit that the article isn't up to the best of standards yet, but Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. We'll get there. If you think the standards I propose are unreasonable, I encourage you to ask around for third opinions. I am beginning to think that you may actually have some big problems with policies when it gets right down to it. It might help us all out if you tried to find out if that was the case or not. You're a bit too certain that it isn't the case. I'm thinking I have a bit more experience than you on such matters, however. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not about to compare experience - i don't think that would be productive. I am quite familiar with the policies and I don't have any problems with them - I like them, in fact. I do not know of any source on wikipedia, scientifc or not, that includes the confidence levels ("error analysis"). And I've certainly (esp. by that token) never seen anything rejected on account of not having them. And likewise I'm not aware of any attributed opinion on wikipedia "verified by an outside expert". And never seen any rejected for lack thereof. I am quite certain of all this, yes. It strikes me as obvious. And I don't see why one should need a third opinion on the obvious. Kevin Baas 13:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Check out Lambda-CDM model for an example of such reporting. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing that there aren't any papers cited that have confidence intervals in them. That would be a ridiculous claim to make and there'd be no point to it. You seem to be arguing that it's policy to reject any paper that doesn't have confidence intervals in them. Now if you can show me a paper that's been rejected on that account, that would be impressive. There might be a few, I don't know - there are a lot of different articles and a lot of different contributors - but it certainly doesn't show that all are - or should be - rejected - which is pretty much the position you're taking. If you can show me where in policy it states that papers that do not have confidence intervals in them should not be cited by wikipedia, that would prove what you are saying, and refute what I am saying. Kevin Baas 21:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When a paper claims to make some accounting of a measurement "beyond the background" but doesn't include a confidence level for the detection, that's a WP:REDFLAG: it's an extraordinary claim from a source that is not good enough to make the claim. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) WP:REDFLAG, quoted verbatim:

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim:

• surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources;
• reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended;
• claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or which would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living persons. This is especially true when proponents consider that there is a conspiracy to silence them.

Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included. Also be sure to adhere to other policies, such as the policy for biographies of living persons and the undue weight provision of Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view.

please point out the part in the policy, quoted verbatim above, that says measurements "beyond the background" that don't include a confidence level for the detection are red flags. Kevin Baas 17:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, I recall you taking precisely the opposite stance as you are taking now, but with the same goal of eliminating the content. I said to you "I haven't seen anything that justifies removing "In addition, the isotopic ratios of the observed elements differ from their natural isotopic ratio or natural abundance." - which is very significant and very important.", suggesting that it is highly unlikely for such isotopic ratios (and esp. for lanthanides) to occur by chance. To which you retorted, and I quote: "The claim that the isotopic ratios differ from natural ratios does not source any attempt to characterize the significance or the confidence level on this claim: in fact the claim itself is suspect due to low-number statistics. You might think it is very significant and very important due to you conflict of interest, Kevin, but there is no outside evaluator who has said as much." Now you are trying to argue that the claim that the isotopic ratios differ from natural ratios is an "Exceptional claim". Whereas before you were arguing that -- far from being extraordinary -- the claim was insignificant and unimportant. Kevin Baas 17:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty ignorant comment. I have made my views clear here, but unfortunately, amateurs who aren't very well versed in scientific methodology might not really understand what I'm saying. That seems to be the case here. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So if I am to understand what you are saying here,

• My comment is pretty ignorant
• I am an amateur and am not very well versed in scientific methodology (and you ostensibly are, for to be able to make such a judgement)
  • And therefore I am too stupid too understand what you're saying.

Did I get that right, or am not understanding what you're saying? Kevin Baas 19:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Analysis and rejection of observational error

This is a subjective point included in the article. Whether the authors were able to analyze the possibility or not is an opinion not a fact. Whether they adequately rejected it is as well. Per WP:NPOV, we exclude this sentence.

So what you're saying is:

• There is no way to objectively assess or test claims of observational error.
• Nonetheless, it is okay to make claims that the phenomena is the result thereof
  • Even if you actually have no idea whether this is true or not, and absolutly no evidence to support your claim
  • And it is important and verifiable enough and all that to put in this article
• But not that it is not
  • Even if you have carefully assessed this possibility hands-on and have evidence to support your claim.
  • And it is neither important enough nor verifiable enough nor whatever to put in this article
• and when someone claims that the phenomena is not the result of observational error, we should put that POV in the article,
• but we should not present the other,balancing POV, that there the phenomena is not the result of observational error
• in accordance w/WP:NPOV.

Forgive me if i'm a little off on the subtleties here, but I'm pretty sure I get the jist of it. Suffice it to say, I don't buy it. Kevin Baas 18:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

You are a little more than a "little off" on the subtleties. The point is that the opinions of whether the authors have adequately addressed possible counterarguments are irrelevant to the reporting of their finding. Negative results are not informative beyond the simple claim, "I think I'm right" which I'm pretty sure most readers believe anyway unless they're obsessed with unreliable narrators. You are free not to buy it, but I'm afraid Misplaced Pages is not a place to report promotionalism: it's the place to report notable, attributable opinions and substantiated facts. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

That sounds all non-sequitor to me; I don't see how it's related. In any case my point is that saying that the phenomena is due to observational errors is, to use your words precisely, "an opinion not a fact". And that opinion is in the article. I do not object to this - nobody is objecting to it. It is included because it is a major point of view and is relevant to the topic. We are also supposed to, per WP:NPOV, present opposing (significant) opinions, in balance. We are supposed to present all major POV's (attributed and described appropriately), and that is a major POV. Kevin Baas 03:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all, the existence of the "phenomena" is not a given, and secondly NPOV does not mean "balance". There is an issue of weight. Unfortunately, when one person makes one claim that is ignored by the rest of the scientific community, it is often the case that this one person's claim gets ignored by Misplaced Pages. It's not fair, but it's the way NPOV works. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The existence of a "phenomena" is a given. A phenomena is "an observable fact or event". And this article is about a fact or event that is, in fact, observable. Recently, in fact, it has been observed en masse by a large audience in a live presentation. As to what the cause of it is, that is debatable. It could be caused by "observational error", but it is nonetheless "observed" and thus "observable".

The old philosopher's notion that "Our senses deceive us." is put to rest whenever one encounters "phenomena". For with "phenomena", it is always our brain that does the deceiving! Our eyes simply report on the light that hits them, and our ears on the vibrations that strike them. Even magic tricks are phenomena -- it is the explanation for these phenomena that is the cause of error. Kevin Baas 14:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV does mean "Balance". read WP:NPOV, specifically the section labeled "balance". This and related policies clearly spell out the way wikipedia works. Kevin Baas 13:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Your contention that there is an observable fact or event is nice, but it is your own opinion and, frankly, origina research that you support because you seem committed to the cold fusion cause. Balance does not mean equal tit-for-tat argumentation. In fact, WP:WEIGHT specifically recommends against doing this. You need to take that to heart. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I am just re-iterating the definition of "phenomena". It is not original research. It is how the word is defined in the english dictionary. And it is how I use the word. So when I use the word "phenomena" I want you to understand that this is what I mean. I have no intention of putting my little explanation of what the word "phenomena" means in the article. That would be ridiculous. If anyone wants to know what it means, they can look it up. I just want you to understand what I mean when I use the word so that we understand each other.

And I don't see how the definition of a word like "phenomena" that has been around for ages has any thing to do with cold fusion, and I certainly have no idea how its meaning could support or refute a position - save of an argument over the interpretation of a sentence that uses the word.

Now if I wanted to I could make accusations that you are hell-bent on eradicating any thing that makes cold fusion seem like anything more than an embarrassment -- but I haven't because I don't think going around accusing people of trying to advance a position is really constructive. And I don't appreciate it when it's done to me.

Now i am quite familiar with wp:weight and if you take a look at my user page you'll see that i've written an essay condemning the "tit-for-tat" interpretation of "balance". what i am saying is that the content represents a significant viewpoint on the subject and as such is appropriate. Kevin Baas 21:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rule #1423: Anyone who references a dictionary in their argument at Misplaced Pages is generally not doing too well. I didn't criticize your use of the word "phenomena", I criticized your claim that there is a phenomenon we are actually documenting (with apologies to pluralistic interpretations of Immanuel Kant). It's constructive to let people know when their obvious bias is hampering their ability to be good encyclopedia editors. I'm just letting you know. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes I think you're just trying to irritate me. If people do not apply the same (or reasonably similiar) meanings to the words that they use, then they won't be able to communicate with each other effectively. (And assuming your rules are numbered contiguously starting at one, I would say you have a few too many of them.) Definitions of words usually become a topic when two or more people don't have a shared interpretation of a word, and one of those people attempts to bridge that gap so that the two can communicate better. Usually this is helpful and appreciated. (And incidentally, that's exactly what a dictionary is for.)

phenomenon

plural phenomena

1 an observable fact or event

2

a: an object or aspect known through the senses rather than by thought or intuition

b: a temporal or spatiotemporal object of sensory experience as distinguished from a noumenon

c: a fact or event of scientific interest susceptible to scientific description and explanation

3

a: a rare or significant fact or event

b: an exceptional, unusual, or abnormal person, thing, or occurrence

I have here attempted to dissolve communication problems between us. Twice, arguably thrice. Quite clearly and obviously. And in return you insult me. You are not only talking about my character instead of the content of the article, you are patronizing me and insulting me. And I don't appreciate it. Kevin Baas 16:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Might I politely suggest you take a wikibreak? You seem to be suffering here and I can't help you with your search for knowledge. You might want to take some physics classes in your time off. Just a friendly suggestion. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am suffering from you patronizing and insulting me after I repeatedly asked you politely to stop. That is the only thing I am suffering from. And that is the only problem I am having here on this page. Kevin Baas 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin, I sympathise with you. Be strong. Don't become intimitated. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Kevin belongs on this page. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility. Reporting this to WP:ANI. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason for people who don't understand basic concepts to be commenting on the ideas. It's actually fairly uncivil to those who do understand the concepts to promote ignorance. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Warning to editors: do NOT use cold fusion conference proceedings

Please do not use conference proceedings as sources -- especially not conference proceedings from LENR-CANR or cold fusion conferences. Conference proceedings are very rarely subject to any kind of editorial scrutinty nor peer review. There is no way to verify what the authors who present at scientific conferences are saying beyond the point that they said it. I have removed one reference to a conference proceeding already and will be looking through the article for more.

Thanks.

ScienceApologist (talk) 17:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, minus the "warning" and the SHOUTING. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem with that. Feel free to remove any if more are found. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

California

Do we need a source to say it's on the West Coast? (per Kevin, above) Yes, actually. Luckily, we can find books that tell us a whole load more (the population, economics, history....), that also mention its location. So also here, source for everything please. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Kevin may be referencing an actual problem that I discussed a while back in WT:NOR and the general consensus was that the issue was something of common sense: that is, if editors agree that something is obvious, it is obvious. To that end, I admit that there are some reasonable "extrapolations" that can be made from reliable sources which do not violate WP:SYNTH. Let's imagine that literally no text says that California is on the West Coast of the United States. We can still make the claim simply by referencing a map of the United States that indicates the West Coast and indicates California. Though the sentence, "California is on the West Coast" does not appear, this extrapolation can be verified by all but the most problematically illiterate. In some sense, this is a "synthesis" just as any paraphrase or any other synonymous point that isn't exactly the same as what the source says is a "synthesis". It's simply an allowed synthesis. Of course, this line-of-reasoning can be taken too far and abused. We cannot say simply because a source has said a particular fact is true that this fact is necessarily true or that all the reasonable facts that can be extrapolated from it are necessarily true. This is especially the case if it has been flagged as possibly biased. No, it is our job to substantiate this fact with impeccable sources (and extrapolations if editorially necessary) that are wholly uncontroversial. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

In my example above what i meant was that if we have a source saying that california is on the west coast, we don't choose not to put that in the article on account that we haven't all walked over to the west coast and seen it for ourselves. We take the source's word for it. I'm not saying we have blind faith in everything - we use WP:RELIABLE and all that other stuff, and a little common sense. What I meant to say is that we don't arbitrate what's fact or fiction. We just report on the major beliefs and opinions. As verified by their sources. Kevin Baas 03:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between a substantiated fact and an attributed opinion. This is a distinction we are empowered to utilize. ScienceApologist (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

When faced with the question of whether you should cite common knowledge, such as California is on the West Cost, consider how Misplaced Pages defines a "fact" as "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The sky is blue except when the sky is anything but blue. You don't need to cite something not seriously in dispute, such as the location of California. However, if it is seriously disputed, you should have the citations ready. California, Ohio is not on the West Coast.

The actual question above was whether we should say there were three independent studies if cold fusion researchers say that there were three independent studies. That's a question of the reliability of the researchers to say "independent", which is something in dispute. To that, you simply resolve the dispute. Did the researchers list the studies? Do they seem reasonably independent? Can we simply say "three studies" instead of "three independent studies"? In other words, do we have to take their word for it? ScienceApologist is right. Instead of attributing a potentially biased statement, we can instead substantiate. Instead of saying "X says there were three independent studies", we can list those studies as "X says there were three studies. Study one was conducted at such and such by so and so. Study two was conducted at such and such..." --Nealparr 04:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I lean towards presenting it as attributed opinion as it's a balancing rebuttle to skeptics. I would think that assessing the studies individually for "independence" would border on WP:OR. Kevin Baas 13:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that "balance" is somehow what we're aiming for. We aren't. We're aiming for proper WP:WEIGHT. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

We are calling the same thing two different things. "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." Kevin Baas 21:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR is making things up that are not sourced. Evaluating the reliability of sources that do exist is not OR. It's just WP:RS. I don't know if the source is reliable or not. Just explaining the difference. --Nealparr 16:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. -- WP:OR Kevin Baas 21:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages doesn't publish original analysis or synthesis. It also doesn't publish unreliable information. Are you suggesting that any evaluation of the reliability of sources is original research? If so, how does that translate to publishing original research? Geeze. If an editor can't determine the reliability of sources, most of Misplaced Pages's sourcing policies are moot. --Nealparr 00:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

No. That's not what we're talking about (as I understand it). We're talking about evaluating sources within sources. A double indirection or recursion if you will. I'm suggesting that evaluation of the reliability of the sources used in a source that in itself meets the criteria for inclusion is original research - it's the research that the author of the source did, except now we're doing it, which makes it our research, which makes it original research. Kevin Baas 00:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to give examples of what you're talking about, because I'm not sure we're on the same page or talking about the same things. Original research is all about not publishing things that aren't in sources. I don't think excluding things because they're not reliable (opposite of publishing), has anything to do with Misplaced Pages's original research policies. --Nealparr 02:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Example of what I'm talking about: In a section above titled "three independent studies", ScienceApologist wrote: "It would be better to look at the studies individually and decide if they are editorially fit for us to cite. If we wouldn't cite them, we shouldn't cite someone else who is citing them." Kevin Baas 14:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC) ScienceApologist (talk) 20:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is that although the sources we cite must meet certain standards depending on the context and how those sources are used in the article, the authors of those sources are free to cite whoever they like. Just as if a paper is published in a peer-reviewed journal, and some editor here has a problem with some of the peers that reviewed it (whether that problem is that they weren't one of the peers or that the peers didn't use wikipedia policies to evaluate the material, or what-have-you), that doesn't give us license to throw it out -- it was still published in a peer-reviewed journal. Kevin Baas 14:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Although we have to use wikipedia policies to evaluate the article that we write and the reliability of the sources we use, the authors who write those sources do not. And as we are not peers, we do not -- can not -- peer-review their work. Kevin Baas 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

...Though it has come to my attention that some of us here actually are peers. :-) Kevin Baas 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Intro to "evidence for cold fusion"

The introduction to the "Summary for evidence for cold fusion" has these three sentences-

"No experiment has unequivocally produced a particle emission spectrum matching that predicted by observations in nuclear science and high-energy physics. There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science but many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not require new physics. As of 2007, the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme."

All three sentences should be removed, first of all because they are not "evidence" for cold fusion. However, they wouldn't help the paper even if inserted elsewhere.

The first implies that particle emission spectrums have been produced in cold fusion experiments that are somewhat close to matching conventional nuclear science, which I do not believe is true.

The second has no supporting reference; also, the phrase "new physics" is so vague it is meaningless.

The third has the phrase "genuine scientific research theme" which is so vague it is meaningless; also it is redundant considering the labels of "pathological" and "fringe" elsewhere in the article.

Does anyone think these sentences should be kept in the article? If so, why? 209.253.120.158 (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes. As to any sentence not being evidence of c.f., that is perfectly fine. It would be very one-sided if every single sentence was evidence and no single sentence was lack of evidence or evidence against. The point of the section is to discuss c.f. matters related to/pertaining to evidence, not to be a collection of evidence. As I'm sure one can see by everything else in the section. the first sentence "No experiment has unequivocally produced a particle emission spectrum matching that predicted by..." points out a lack of evidence. although i agree that one really shouldn't expect a thermo-nuclear particle emission spectrum for what is clearly not a thermo-nuclear process. (That's kinda like shining green light on something and seeing that it reflects green, then shining blue light on it and being surprised that it doesn't reflect green.) Still, it's significant.

"There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science..." obviously quite significant, and undoubtedly true. Also material to "evidence" because for one to have evidence that supports a theory, one needs the theory. "...but many explanations have been proposed" quite true and significant. "...several of which do not require new physics". "new physics" is not vague and meaningless. it's meaning is quite definite and obvious. let me give you a few examples: Newton's law of gravity was at it's time "new physics", so was quantum physics, so was einstien's general and special theories of relativity. "new physics" means essentially a new mathematical equation describing the laws of physics. when the standard model of the atom changed, that was new physics. when a new particle is discovered which doesn't fit with the current model, that's new physics (or rather the resulting revised model is). when the different electron shells of an atom were discovered, that was new physics. piezo-electric, mangetostriction, antimatter, the Josephson effect... all new physics in their time. if it's physics and it's new, its new physics.

The phrase "genuine scientific research theme" was taken directly from the the cited source and does not mean the same thing as "pathological" or "fringe". It is essential to express the mainstream view of scientist in a verifiable manner. If anything is missing in this article, it's the sense of the mainstream perception of c.f. and this is coming from someone who has been called an advocate of c.f. by another editor.

So every sentence has a reason for being there and gives the reader important, significant, meaningful, relevant, and accurate information. Kevin Baas 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Though some of the sentences might fit better in another section. "There is still no satisfactory theory explaining condensed matter nuclear science but many explanations have been proposed, several of which do not require new physics." might fit better in a section on theory. "As of 2007, the scientific community did not acknowledge this field as a genuine scientific research theme." might fit better in a section on research and/or the (american) scientific community. and "No experiment has unequivocally produced a particle emission spectrum matching that predicted by observations in nuclear science and high-energy physics." might fit better in a section on nuclear products, criticisms, or comparisions with conventional thermo-nuclear physics/experiments. Kevin Baas 14:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Lists of researchers and publications

In the "Further developments (1989-2004)" section there is a list of publications and a list of researchers who have reported excess heat. All of the publications and researchers are missing links to supporting documents, which should not be allowed to continue. However, even if links were present, these lists should be removed because they don't contribute to the article. The evidence for and against cold fusion should be presented in the evidence sections, while the history sections should give quick overviews of the field's developments. Also, this presentation appears to be advocating the pro-CF side because it includes only pro-CF lists, which is not appropriate since this section should be a "news" section. Does anybody disagree? If so, why?

Also, can anyone point to supporting documents for the "1000 papers in peer-reviewed journals" claim or the Ed Storms "21 papers and articles" claim? If not, they should be removed also. 209.253.120.158 (talk) 22:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well I believe these are included in there because they are big names. The fact that any one of these scientists has done research in the field is notable in itself. One might ask: well who has really done research in the field? And at that we'd want to list the big names. Whether their research and experiments end up supporting the idea that there is an unexplained phenomena here (and hopeful help to explain it, in that case), or that it is merely observational error, is (hopefully; in an unbiased experiment) determined by nature, and not the scientists themselves. And nature, as we know, is indifferent to the whims of man's belief. So it's not really pro-CF or anti-CF to say that some well-known and respected scientists happened to be curious and investigated it. It is, however, notable. And material to the history. Kevin Baas 15:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with 209 on this one. It's looking a bit like someone is trying to give a snowjob list to make it appear like there's a huge group of people supporting cold fusion rather than a pathologically committed minority of fringe and pseudo-scientists. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Giuliano Preparata -- to name but one example -- , who made fundamental contributions to the construction of the Standard Model and advanced our understanding of interacting quantum fields, among other things, would appreciate being called "a pathologically committed minority of fringe and pseudo-scientists", but I must say, you do seem to have a knack for insulting people that you know nothing about. Kevin Baas 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a personal attack on me, Kevin. Keep it up and I'll report you. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's a personal attack to tell someone that they are making personal attacks, well then you just personally attacked me. You clearly insulted people who you clearly did not know. I just pointed it out. Maybe you consider that a virtue, I don't know. But it's what you did and I just pointed it that out and now you're getting salty at me like it was my fault. I just think you should really be more careful and do more research before you going around calling people names. That's all I'm saying. I don't think I'm being unreasonable.

Now things like "Keep it up and I'll report you. " are not the right way to handle things. If you're offended by something someone says, say what specifically offends you and why and why you think it's unfair. But if it's something fair like "You know, maybe you shouldn't call einstien a flake. I'm really not sure you have the credentials to back that up.", and you did call einstien a flake, than maybe you should take what was said into consideration rather than just being offended by it and attacking whoever said it. On the other hand, if someone really did say something that was directed at you and not your actions, and was just plain mean, and you've asked them to stop a few times and they just keep going, then you should report it. but don't say things like "Keep it up and I'll report you." to people who you're supposed to be treating as equals. Kevin Baas 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Giuliano Preparata has been dead since 2000. Your claim that SA's comment was an insult of him is absurd. SA clearly did not insult Giuliano Preparata, as Preparata is clearly not a member of the set of "people supporting cold fusion." You are being unreasonable. --Noren (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Preparata WAS a prominent member of "people supporting cold fusion" (see what Miley said). Does this invalidate all your logic ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Unreliable source

Cold fusion proponents are giving this website as a source for the claim that over 1000 peer-reviewed papers have been written on cold fusion. A brief search through that archive finds hundreds of papers published as conference proceedings transactions and thus are not peer reviewed. This is an obvious WP:REDFLAG. Please advise. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The author of that list say that it contains only papers. Furthermore, I could not find any conference proceedings in it. Could you elaborate ? Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For example:

Botta E, Calvo D; Conference Proceedings, Common Problems and Trends of Modern Physics, Folgaria, Italy, 1992, 331--340 "Results of cold fusion experiments on Ti/D22 and Pd/D2 systems with gas loading"

• • Experimental, Ti, Pd, gas loading, neutrons, res+

An improved neutron detector was designed, and some statistically significant neutrons observed, especially for the Ti case, but not as much at Pd.

ScienceApologist (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That's only one, not hundreds. Probably has slipped in somehow. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to do your own count, be my guest. I sampled 10 random articles and found three problems... one that was a conference proceeding and two that were from journals with lax peer-review standards. My extrapolation, obviously. I don't have time to read through all of them. Do you? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You found only one problem out of 1385 articles. The 2 "lax peer-review standards" is your opinion, and does not disprove the "1000 peer-reviewed papers" statement. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

You know, that page says "Journal papers" and mentions nothing about "peer-reviewed journals".... where does the "peer-reviewed" claim comes from?

And if search for "Gieryn", you will find that his entry consists on two books. I see that his books have been cited and reviewed on journals, but they are not a journal paper themselves.

I can also 265 entries whose journal is labelled "Fusion Technol.", which probably refers to "Fusion Science and Technology", which doesn't appear to peer-reviewed , as it only says "Technical Papers and Notes and Critical Reviews are reviewed for technical content", but it doesn't say who reviews it (I assume it's reviewed by the editors or by members of the society editing the journal? There is no link to apply for being a reviewer) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a lot of problems. Japanese Academy Transactions is listed too which is mainly conference proceedings for Japanese science conferences. This list is looking worse and worse. Perhaps we should remove it? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hagelstein et al. 2004 includes some references to "Proc. Japan Acad.", wich is "Proceedings of the Japan Academy" (search for latticequake on the list to find this reference). and, yeah, I picked this one because I find "latticequake" funny. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Dunno, how about this? Removing "peer-reviewed" and adding "conference proceedings" and maybe "books". But now the sentence does not make clear the difference between the 3,000 figure and the 1,000 figure :( Anyways, where the heck does the original 1,000 peer-reviewed claim come from on the first place? Is it a quote from somewhere or some editor just counted the studies on a list and added it??? --Enric Naval (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the site owner does not say explicitly "peer-reviewed journals", but he explicitly says that proceedings are excluded from it here (second bullet points). I could not find any "Japanese Academy Transactions" in Britz' list: please clarify. The count of article is at the top of {http://www.chem.au.dk/~db/fusion/Papers this page], so no need to count them. Your inference from "Fusion Science and Technology" is original research, and likely wrong: nothing says that these are the same journal. The 3,000 count includes proceedings, not the 1,000 count. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

and that most of the research groups have occasionally seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days.

There are a number of problems with this:

1. "Most occassionally for hours to days have seen" as any parameter observer will tell you, if most of a minority (in this case a third) of people occasionally see something, it's not exactly a strong detection.
2. 50-200% what about other numbers? Higher? Lower? Why is this range chosen? If a different range is chosen, is the higher affected? What about 0-50%? This is an editorial comment: not a measurement to take solace from.
3. "for hours to days" --> which is it and how much fluctuation occurs? Is it always at 50% and then spikes to 200%? Is it at a weighted average of 50% because it is normally at 0% and then spikes briefly over this period for 10000%? What's the integration time? How is the calibration of the calorimeter achieved?

Note that WP:REDFLAG is explicit that if there are problems with the source we should be careful in how we use it. This is not a careful use of this source.=

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This statement is sourced from a peer-reviewed journal. Your opinion on it is just that, an opinion. We are not here to pick the sentences that we like from an article, and reject the ones we don't like. Either the source is reliable, or it isn't: we don't have to judge the truth of every sentence, only to report the notable ones. The quoted statement is notable, being the second in the abstract. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Poorly vetted statements that propose remarkable advances can be excluded per WP:REDFLAG. That's what we're doing here. Don't worry, if it is truly an amazing point I'm sure you can find another source for the claim that isn't so equivocal. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG says : "Exceptional claims in Misplaced Pages require high-quality reliable sources". The statement here is "the reviewer says that...". This is not an exceptional claim, and it is provided by a reliable source. WP:Redflag would support the rejection of the more direct statement "most of the research groups have occasionally seen 50-200% excess heat for hours to days", but that's not what we are saying.

Please remember what the ArbComm unanimously said about WP:NPOV : "Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience." This would be incompatible with your understanding of WP:REDFLAG, because one could defend the view that any statement by the proponents deserve a red flag.

Also, the 2004 DOE panel had a fair share of reviewers that found the evidence of excess heat convincing : so, the claim here is not an exceptional claim, only a controversial one. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical Review C article

Here are the arguments to include Physical Review C in the list of journals that have published papers in cold fusion:

• cold fusion = Low energy nuclear reactions. The article concludes : "the fusion of two nuclei at very low energies are not only of central importance for stellar energy production and nucleosynthesis, but also provide new insights into reaction dynamics and nuclear structure."
• its author has published many papers on cold fusion
• he has presented resonant tunneling at the cold fusion session of the APS 2007

Pcarbonn (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This article should not be listed by wikipedia as supporting cold fusion.

-"Cold fusion" is not the same as "low energy nuclear reactions." According to wikipedia, cold fusion reactions are reported to occur at "ordinary temperatures and pressures." The article doesn't state anything about the temperatures and pressures relevant for their calculations.

-In other words, the article does not mention cold fusion at all. Keep in mind that the authors could easily have indicated that their calculations were relevant to cold fusion experiments, but chose not to.

-The abstract and the first paragraph indicate that the calculation is about deuterium-tritium interactions, not deuterium-deuterium interactions.

-Considering the immense difference between "cold fusion" energies and "stellar energy production and nucleosynthesis" energies, the phrase "very low energies" does not necessarily indicate that the authors are discussing cold fusion reactions at all.

-Whether the authors have presented other papers on cold fusion is totally irrelevant to whether this paper merits mention in this wikipedia article.

-Since this article is copyrighted by Physical Review C, a journal which does not post its articles for free, it may not be appropriate to link to newenergytimes.com in a way that points directly to an improperly posted article. I am not sure of wikipedia policy, but it doesn't seem right. Perhaps someone (Pierre?) should contact newenergytimes.com and suggest that they replace that link with "http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v61/i2/e024610" and replace other links where appropriate.

From "Misplaced Pages:Copyrights": "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Misplaced Pages and its editors." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.253.120.158 (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Here is what New Energy Times say at the top of the page: "In accordance with Title 17, Section 107, of the U.S. Code, (Fair Use) this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. New Energy Times has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of these papers; nor is New Energy Times endorsed or sponsored by the originator."

Maybe we need to check with a copyright specialist. Any idea of how we could do that ?

You have not addressed my argument that selective resonant tunneling has been presented to a cold fusion session at APS meeting. Any thoughts ? Pcarbonn (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is "selective resonant tunneling" and why would it be relevant to whether this article is mentioned in the cold fusion article? If it existed, whether it was presented to a non-peer-reviewed forum like an APS meeting is ridiculously irrelevant. Pierre, are you kidding???

Regarding the copyright issue, can you send a message about that? 209.253.120.158 (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"Selective resonant tunneling" is the subject of the Physical Review C article. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On closer look of the article, I see that it deals with energies in the KeV. I agree that it is not directly relevant to cold fusion.

Feel free to contact the editors of New Energy Times if you believe they infringe copyright. Pcarbonn (talk) 07:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

1. For example, fringe theories in science depart significantly from mainstream science.

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Good articles without topic parameter
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class physics articles
• High-importance physics articles
• GA-Class physics articles of High-importance
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists