Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:04, 17 April 2014

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer 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, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: keep, 10 September 2012 (UTC), see discussion. keep, 30 October 2011 (UTC), see discussion.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Physics Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative views Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article and its editors are subject to Misplaced Pages general sanctions. See the description of the sanctions.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Energy Catalyzer 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, 23Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Featherston Popsci Article and Other Changes

I extended the quotes. An extended summary probably shouldn't be in the lead, but I couldn't see where else to put it. I'm sure someone will want to put in his last comment --

"If history is any guide, no such report would be issued. Rossi will reset the goalposts—the only thing he does with any consistency—and forestall his day of reckoning for another few months, and then another few months after that, until finally he disappears from the stage in a puff of smoke, taking his black box with him."

The report is, of course the Levi paper. And he has not yet disappeared in a puff of smoke: instead, he is generating some industrial heat (pun intended) Alanf777 (talk) 02:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And I have removed it, as self-evident spin. The lede has repeatedly been discussed, and major changes need consensus. As for Rossi, if he is generating anything other than yet more bullshit, provide the evidence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The present Featherstone "con" quote is a complete reverse spin, and a total misrepresentation of the article. It's in his first section, as a set-up for the second section, where he can't find anyone who will call him a con. I'm happy to put it somewhere else -- suggestion? Alanf777 (talk) 04:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I also see you undid my changes on "Typically during demonstrations the device was covered up." --- which again is misleading: the implication is that it's covered up to hide what's underneath, but actually it's to provide functional insulation. (The author apparently made that comment based on the Lewan video ... but multiple photos show them unwrapped at the end: in particular Lewan has the photo of the opened "fat-cat" which appears in the video) Alanf777 (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I removed that as blatant WP:OR - you don't get to decide what is significant in photos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

And the Lewan book? Alanf777 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Who is the publisher? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published. Alanf777 (talk) 05:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As has already been pointed out, Lewan's close involvement with Rossi makes him questionable as a source, and I see no reason why we should be publicising a self-published work with no prior evidence of significance. Has this been reviewed in any major publication? (incidentally, the link didn't work). AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Self-published or not, we seem to have a majority (multiple additions and deletions by one editor) in favor of including it. Lewan's involvement with testing the E-Cat (and the Defkalion Hyperion) is worth reading, as it gives the background of his quoted articles. (I added it first, as an external link without comment). Wiki rules allow a link to the subject's official site. I think the same applied to Lewan's book. 03:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

History section

Isn't it time for a history section to show how many years have passed without proof? 78.243.244.251 (talk) 06:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not without a source making that point, no. I think our readers can probably figure it out for themselves without us spoon-feeding it to them anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian parliamentary questions

User "AndyTheGrump" has erased my contribution to this page without serious motivation.

I have inserted the following lines related to official italian parliamentary question on A. Rossi E-catalyzer.

Please stop erasing important information on this subject!

Italian parliamentary questions have been presented after the publication of ArXiv report.

http://nextme.it/scienza/energia/5784-fusione-fredda-e-cat-interrogazione-parlamentare-scilipoti

http://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Sindisp&leg=17&id=702825

http://www.senato.it/japp/bgt/showdoc/frame.jsp?tipodoc=Sindisp&leg=17&id=704669

The link are to Realiable Sources: www.senato.it is an official site of Italian parliament!

Dagousset (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable (which is obviously true regarding official parliamentary records), it is whether the fact that questions have been asked in the Italian parliament is actually of real significance. I note that you provide no sources to suggest that such questions have been answered, which has to raise doubts. I'm not familiar with Italian parliamentary procedure, but in some other European parliaments at least, such 'questions' are frequently a formal procedure engaged in more to put something on the official record than in the expectation of any action being taken - and from what Google translate makes of the nextme.it source you cite, I don't see evidence that there is any expectation of action arising from this either. Indeed, since the nextme.it article dates from June last year, I think we can assume that nothing has happened, at least as yet. If something does, we can of course revise the article, but for now, I can't see any particular reason why this matter should merit inclusion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"I can't see any particular reason why this matter should merit inclusion"

This is just your opinion, and you know nothing of italian parliament procedures!

Who are you for erasing a reference (strictly related to the subject of this page) to official and registered acts of italian parliament ?

Dagousset (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, a not-very-notable representative from one of Italy's multitude of minor parties made on-the-record comments a couple of times, and then has pretty much been ignored since. ATG's interpretation seems to be on the mark; we don't attempt to report on and reproduce the entire contents of the Congressional Record or Hansard, either. Frankly, most of what politicians in any country say in their respective parliaments and congresses isn't terribly interesting or useful for an encyclopedia—and rather large chunks of it tends not to be true. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Dagousset, if you have evidence that these questions have any long-term significance (i.e. that they resulted in the Italian parliament actually doing something) please present it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Italian Government has NOT YET answered to many parliamentary questions on cold fusion. Italian government is obliged to give a WRITTEN answer or must explain the reason for not answering. Until now no explanation has been given. Italian parliamentary questions are registered official burocratic acts with a protocol number, not informal talks!

https://it.wikipedia.org/Interrogazione_parlamentare

"Il governo ha la facoltà di non rispondere alla singola interrogazione indicando però il motivo."

Dagousset (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that many things Italian parliamentarians do are "registered official burocratic acts". That doesn't mean that we have to include them all in Misplaced Pages articles. Please provide evidence that this particular instance of bureaucracy is of any more significance than the others. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

ALL registered official acts NOT, those STRICTLY RELATED to the subject of this page YES: It'not so difficult to understand!

93.146.2.73 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is an encyclopaedia, not an exhaustive record of every minor detail. There is clearly no consensus to include this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is NOT a minor detail. The consequence of this "minor detail" may potentially have important consequences on italian politics for energy!

Dagousset (talk) 18:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

It is a minor detail until you can provide evidence to the contrary. Questions get asked in parliaments all the time - Misplaced Pages is under no obligation to include them all in articles. Furthermore Misplaced Pages does not engage in crystal-ball gazing, and accordingly your speculations concerning 'potential consequences' are of no relevance to this discussion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGroup said:

"removed sentence re Italian parliamentary questions - if this hasn't been reported in secondary RS, it doesn't merit mention here"

":The issue isn't whether the sources are reliable (which is obviously true regarding official parliamentary records)"

very coherent statements!

It's up to you demonstrate that an official italian parliament question on e-cat is a "minor detail" for e-cat wikipedia page!

Dagousset (talk) 18:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

No it isn't. You have been reverted by two different contributors, and a third has supported the revert in this discussion. There is nothing whatsoever in Misplaced Pages policy that even remotely suggests that we have to include every trivial detail in articles - and your apparent failure to accept this is getting tiresome. You have two choices - either accept the consensus here, or if you prefer, ask for a wider community input via the Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment process. I'd very much recommend against the latter however, as it seems highly unlikely that you will get the result you want. I am going to again remove the material you have added, and if it is restored, I will report you for edit-warring against consensus, and ask that you be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is really boring. Someone asked a question and hasn't received an answer? I'm not sure why this is a thing. Can't we wait for the answer? Even then it may not be notable, but at least it would be a thing. Bhny (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, You insist to repeat your personal unjustified opinion saying that's Italian Parliament questions on ecat are minor details. You have no point. 93.146.2.73 (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages has policies. Including policy against edit-warring against consensus. Which I have just reported. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

wikipedia has also policy against vandalism. Erasing important informations related to the subject of the page without any real reason is plain vandalism.

93.146.2.73 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely and utterly wrong. I suggest that while you wait out the inevitable block that is coming for your edit-warring, you take the time to read up on Misplaced Pages policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Your actions mean only one thing: for some unknown reason a SINGLE ROW on the subject of italian parliament question on ECAT is very disturbing to somebody. The "inevitable block" if real should be plain and unjustified censorship.

Dagousset (talk) 20:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of us think this is boring and not notable. We delete because it is not interesting. Bhny (talk) 20:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Questions to parlament are not really notable. Anyone with a bit of political influence can make any question he desires. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Support removal of non notable content. If and when answers are given and/or if and when action results this may gain some notability. No indication of why these questions are important or significant has been given. Why would asking on record questions that have not been answered be encyclopedic? The burden for demonstrating the significance of content falls on those who seek to include the content. Consensus seems clear for not including this content. - - MrBill3 (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Purpose of an encyclopedia

This ought not need saying, but evidently it does. Will all editors please bear in mind that the purpose of an encyclopedia is to inform. This is of particular importance in the case of clearly significant content, such as historical reviews. Equally, arguments that would, if applied uniformly over the board, greatly diminish the value of wikipedia, should be applied only after the most careful consideration and consensus had been gained. Thank you for your consideration!
It might even be argued that the speedy deletion of a source by a cabal member actually demonstrates its importance -- if a reference were of minimal importance, aforementioned member would not go to the trouble of exerting himself in this way. --Brian Josephson (talk) 07:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a specific point relating to this article? If so please tell us what it is. Otherwise, please note that this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No doubt Mr. Josephson is upset that we didn't retain the link he inserted to a promotional website for a self-published book by a non-notable columnist...who has made extensive use of Mr. Josephson in his promotion, and who – I strongly suspect – gives substantial weight to Mr. Josephson's opinions in his book.

Why Mr. Josephson didn't just say so – instead of going off with undirected complaints about a "cabal" – is not clear. Of course, if I am mistaken and Mr. Josephson's comments aren't tied to the book and author that treat him so reverently, it would certainly be appropriate to hat this discussion as soapboxing unrelated to any specific article improvements. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

How perceptive you are, ToAT! Indeed that is exactly what I was referring to! But surely a book by a science and technology writer for a technology magazine linked to the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers, on a subject that he has covered for that magazine, would be considered a good source, by most people at least.
So, Mr. Lewan asked if he could include the review that I had written as a comment to a Nature article on the web page advertising his book: do you have a problem with that? And he hadn't even solicited the review -- I decided myself it was sufficiently notable that people should know about it, and included enough information to make it a mini-review. Again, do you have a problem with that?
And as for your fellow cabal member JzG ruling it out on the basis of self-publication after cogitating on the matter for fully 2 minutes, let me note the following:

• I'm sure Mr. Lewan would have had no problem finding a publisher for his book if he had wanted to take that route. But why go to all that trouble, if you have the resources to self-publish? And why let the publisher take a sizable slice of the profits as publishers do?
  
• In view of the above, self-publication can no longer be considered a sign of a book being not up to standard, and editing practice should now reflect that fact. --Brian Josephson (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It is wikipedia policy "self-published media, such as books, patents, ... are largely not acceptable as sources". If you want to change the policy you need to do it here- WP:SELFPUBLISH. As for this particular book, has it been reviewed anywhere? If it hasn't made any impact then referencing it here is just promotion. Bhny (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Change of policy is not required, only blind enforcement of it.--5.15.53.36 (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

"None so blind as those that will not see" --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

When we have credible evidence that this device is not the fraud it is generally considered to be, then we will put that in the article. Right now, we don't, so the article reflects the fact that the device is generally considered to be a fraud, and self-published books claiming the contrary are of no relevance in either case. Books on fringe claims are generally less reliable than the mainstream academic journals, because there are publishers who publish nonsense (the output of Lynne McTaggart, for example, is filed in the Science section in some bookshops!). So no thanks, we do not need laudatory books, especially self-published ones. Bring good quality mainstream peer-reviewed sources that show it works - and explain how - and then we can talk. It's not very complicated.

As an aside, the credentials of the author are irrelevant. There are people who have done super scientific work but who espouse completely ridiculous pseudoscientific notions. The appeal to authority is fallacious. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that fully 12 of the references in the article consist of articles by Mats Lewan himself. Had you not noticed that? Can the cabal please supply a good reason why a book by the same person, on exactly the same topic, should be suddenly be deemed unacceptable? This is a Kafkaesque situation! --Brian Josephson (talk) 09:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for flagging that, I will review them and remove them if justified. Lewan gives a strong impression of being a True Believer, which is fine for uncontroversial facts but much less so for claims that are rejected by most independent reviewers. Guy (Help!) 10:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And you give a remarkably strong impression of being a True Disbeliever (aka Denier) if I may say so. What is the harm done if they are all there in the article? --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a moon cheese denier, too. Being a skeptic does that for you. The good thing is, though, that the only thing that is needed to completely change my mind, is credible evidence of independently reproducible effect. And guess what? That's what we require for the article, too. It's not like this is the first time Misplaced Pages has been around this loop, the cold fusionists have engaged in long-term POV-pushing on cold fusion too, resulting in several of them being banned.

It really is very straightforward: if the world thinks a free energy type device is fraudulent, Misplaced Pages is firmly not the place to blaze the trail in promoting its legitimacy. When there are good quality independent sources showing that it works, and how, then we will cover that. In the mean time the consensus view is that this is a scam, and our default position in respect of extraordinary claims is precisely the correct one: they require extraordinary evidence. Not YouTube videos and self-published apologia.

This device, if it is as its proponents claim, will win them the Nobel prize. I personally think it's unlikely to happen because I have a friend who worked in Fleischmann's lab during the cold fusion debacle, and even he doesn't believe the cold fusionists' claims re catalysed fusion, but I suspend final judgment until the results are either properly published and independently reproduced, or he's jailed. Guy (Help!) 11:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is important to specify who is world who has the consensus view that E_Cat is fraudulent.--5.15.45.12 (talk) 20:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting back to the book. Most editors here try to act in good faith and a self-published fringe-science book about anything has almost no chance of being referenced in any article in wikipedia. This has nothing to do with cabals or cold fusion skepticism or free-energy suppression, we are just trying to make a good article. To make the case that this book should be included we would at the very least need to see reviews in reliable sources or some proof that this book is important. Bhny (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class physics articles
• Mid-importance physics articles
• Start-Class physics articles of Mid-importance
• Start-Class Skepticism articles
• Unknown-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• Start-Class Alternative views articles
• Low-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles
• Misplaced Pages articles under general sanctions