Talk:Cold fusion

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.

So now that we're finished with WP:GAN

...you can tell me what you really think :) Feel free to give yourselves a round of applause; I know something about the early years of this controversy, and at that time, it was completely impossible to get supporters and skeptics working together. You guys did a very good job during the mediation, and that carried through into the WP:GAN, although a lot of people didn't speak up, I expect out of exhaustion. Feel free to take a break. After a while, if people seem to be interested in putting more work into the article, we could look at regaining Featured article status. We also might look at separate articles for other takes on the controversy, such as the role of government, or what the 19-year history of this teaches us about science and scientists that we didn't want to know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Dank55. Your feedback on the article was very valuable. I wish we had found a serious critique of cold fusion. Apparently, there isn't. Except for general statement that "it is impossible". Pcarbonn (talk) 10:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, it was a pleasure. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 19:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

What I really think is that the article should not have the "Good Article" label because that implies it is one of the best 10 or so physics articles. If the label was "Very Important" or "Recently Evaluated" or something like that then I would vote yes. Maybe if the article had 4 months of stability I would be in favor, but PCarbonn wanted that stamp of approval quickly, so here we are.

Sorry, I have never asked for a quick stamp of approval. I still don't know why Dank55 gave the GA while acknowledging that there were still outstanding issues. ~~

I worry that the article has too many partisans and will not remain stable. I just don't trust the people who have been working on this article to be reasonable and civil, and that includes PCarbonn. He does a lot of good for the article, but his frequent POV-pushing more than cancels it out.

Please no personal, unjustified attacks. I'm ready to amend myself if and when I receive positive suggestions. Thanks. Pcarbonn (talk) 11:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Apart from the GA status issue, I am glad that Dan has been working on the article because I think it has improved a lot since he started. I, for one, will keep checking on the article; I don't plan to be "moving beyond the controversy" anytime soon. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 00:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Echoing the other comments here, thanks for the great effort Dan! seicer | talk | contribs 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

New proposal

Krivit and Pcarbonn and many other well-read people say that people who are not cold fusion proponents have been incredibly reluctant to get involved since 2004, to say anything one way or the other. You would think that, with all the supporters and skeptics over the years who have been angry (respectively, happy) that cold fusion has received so little support from government agencies and schools and scientific institutions, that someone would have been willing to say this in a reliable source since 2004, and back it up by showing that they had done a little investigation. To my surprise, I'm finding that Krivit and Pcarbonn are right: I'm finding absolutely nothing.

Here's the problem: UNDUE won't let us make the statement "Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism", which we all know to be true, and then follow that up with a long article that only gives sources that support exactly the opposite conclusion. We can "rebut, but not undercut". That is, we can't give the impression that we think that lots of scientists think X, but we think they're all idiots, because all the sources say Y. That's a real-world problem; that's not Wikipedia's problem. UNDUE gives us permission to split the article into a "pro" and a "con", which I'm thinking is the only thing left, and it wouldn't be much of a split: virtually the entire article is very useful for the "pro" position. I am personally disappointed in all the physicists who are willing to give negative opinions who aren't even willing to enter a lab with a running experiment and use films to measure for themselves whether energetic particles are being produced or not. How tough could it be to get the last image on the article page for themselves? But that's what we're stuck with; no one is willing to say yes or no, except for the supporters.

I propose that we dump this whole sorry problem of coming up with support for the "con" side on the physicists. Let's explain the problem to Wikipedia people who deal with mediation...maybe Seicer will help out again...and say that we are really having a problem with getting sources for one side of the issue, so we'd like to shift that argument over to nuclear physics or a link from that page. Let the physicists who want to support that side of things find their own sources; they'd be better at finding them, and at interpreting them. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

By "con" side, I mean the side that believes that all of the scientists who are reporting positive results either are lying or aren't competent in the proper disciplines or are using outdated equipment that can't support their conclusions or are just making honest mistakes. Skeptics have made all of these claims, many times. You can see how this is really a very bad fit with the AGF culture at Wikipedia. Even if we don't say these things explicitly, the implication in this article is clear. Now that I'm realizing just how little support there is in reliable sources since 2004 for any or all of these skeptical attitudes, I'm getting uncomfortable with leaving the implications hanging in the air. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:22, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan, please explain more about what you are proposing. Are you saying that this article, that you labeled as a "good article" a few weeks ago, needs a major change in its approach? One way to improve the balance of the article would be to include these 2006 Discover articles which provide a clear evidence from a reliable source that the field is still not respected by most scientists. [1] [2] Wouldn't that address your concerns? 209.253.120.198 (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The only relevant thing I could find in the first source was "The UCLA team was determined to avoid a repeat of the 1989 'cold fusion' fiasco that promised unlimited energy but delivered little besides unrepeatable results." This is what WP:V refers to as "I heard it somewhere": an author is writing about what he believes was in the minds of UCLA researchers who are frightened about what happened 16 years earlier; it has no reliable information on what's currently happening in the field. I'll repeat the entire second source you're giving, I don't see how it helps, but maybe there's more that I don't know about:

In 1989 Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann made front-page news when they announced that they had fused the nuclei of atoms in a jar of water—a process that normally requires the heat of an H-bomb. In theory, room-temperature, or "cold," fusion could provide cheap, nearly limitless energy. No replication of the experiment could pass muster with critics, and most researchers dismissed the work as bogus.

Still, a few physicists keep the field alive and kicking. "There's something in the neighborhood of 20 basic experiments out there these days that are of interest," says MIT physicist Peter Hagelstein. In 2004 he and a group of fellow die-hard researchers tried to persuade the Department of Energy to reevaluate fusion research. A review panel found the evidence thin but saw some justification for further focused investigation.

The scientists who continue to work in the field claim that their experiments show minute, unexplained outputs of energy. Within the year, Hagelstein says, he plans to begin conducting cold fusion research at MIT, an institution that once held a ceremonial wake in cold fusion's honor. He aims to show that novel physical processes can trigger fusion without a significant input of heat. Hagelstein insists that those beyond the inner circle don't know the whole story. "People working in the field believe cold fusion is real and that the issue is settled," he says.

- Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 21:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how verifiability is an issue at all with those articles. They are articles published in a respected, major magazine (circulation>800000 according to Business Week). The only place on the verifiability page the quote "heard it somewhere" is mentioned is in a quote by Jimmy Wales where he is describing unsourced statements in articles. In contrast, these articles serve as verifiable sources which support the statement ("Most scientists have met these results with skepticism.") which is in the "Recent Developments" section. We should simply add them right there as additional evidence. Look at my recent edit of the article and let me know what you think.

I understand that Dan and Pierre are concerned that giving weight to these two articles may be unwise since researchers and journalists may not be aware of developments in the field, especially developments since 2004. However, we should give the benefit of the doubt to established magazines like Discover and assume that their editors are reasonably aware of such things, and not dismiss them because they don't give evidence (quotes) for the reason for the low status of the cold fusion field. In other words, I disagree with the statement "it has no reliable information about what's currently happening in the field." Discover magazine has the reporter labor available to keep up to date; if they didn't comment on post-1989 cold fusion experiments, it seems most likely that they were simply not impressed. If we can include multiple links to New Energy Times, I certainly think including these links is fair. 209.253.120.198 (talk) 03:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The article wasn't about cold fusion, and it sounds like the writer isn't saying that the statement is true, but that Putterman believed it to be true, that that was Putterman's motivation, or am I reading it wrong? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question about passing the GA review: that's exactly what I'm saying, and I'm not happy about it either, which is why I've been giving Pierre a hard time. I wish these issues had come up during the weeks that I spent on the review, but they didn't. The lead wasn't changed to take a more pro-CF position until the day after I moved on to the next article to review. I can't just say to the proponents, "You can't say that", since what they're saying is true; the only power I have, any of us have, is to insist on balance, that if more is said on one side, that we make it clear what the other side is saying in response. Only...the other side isn't saying anything (that I can find), which boggles my mind, and gives us an impossible job here. Even Robert Park, one of the most vocal skeptics since the beginning, has been hinting at nuclear processes now. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say rather that "cons" have not offered plausible alternative explanations for the observed phenomena, and have certainly failed to demonstrate any of their hypothesis via experiment, or even do any experiments to test them.

For example, contamination has been proposed as an explanation for the transmutation-like phenomena, but since 1) rare earth elements (lanthanides) showed up, and 2) unnatural isotopic ratios showed up, this explanation is not plausible - not to mention the fact that 3) the composition of the material was measured prior to the experiment! So after proposing an explanation that, given the circumstances(1 & 2), is highly improbable, and has already been scientifically ruled-out(3), those who proposed the explanation didn't perform any experiments to discover if contamination really was the source. (An experiment that they could have done: they could have split the source palladium into 5 samples, crushing one and doing a spectral analysis on it to determine it's original composition, then with the remaining 4 samples, doing the experiment with hydrogen-1(p), hydrogen-2(np), helium-3(npp), and helium-4(nnpp).) If contamination really was the source, they'd be able to scientifically prove it - but they haven't even tried to.

The end result is that we don't have any sources to cite to support their position - because they haven't produced any. Now I can understand the "burden of proof" argument -- it lies on the side making the extraordinary claim -- but when your hypothesis has already been scientifically ruled out, that makes your claim extraordinary. And I can understand them not wanting to take the time and effort on something that they didn't think fruitful, but it doesn't make for strong arguments on their part, and consequently leaves us with an unbalanced debate. Which is what brings us to this discussion.

Having said that, a "balanced" presentation, to me, is, to put it in confusing mathematical terms, one that minimizes the Kullback–Leibler divergence ("Q" being the article and "P" being reality). That is, one that "tells it like it is". I think the main area of difficulty for this article re:balance is that the weight of the popular viewpoint and the weight of the available scientific material are sorely out-of-sync with each other, yet we must present both aspects to the reader - who expects them to be strongly correlated - without confusing them. Kevin Baas^talk 15:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dan says: "Here's the problem: UNDUE won't let us make the statement 'Most scientists have met these reports with skepticism', which we all know to be true, and then follow that up with a long article that only gives sources that support exactly the opposite conclusion."

UNDUE refers to the weight given by reliable sources. DOE is a reliable source, and provided an ambivalent view, as we all know. The article represents that ambivalent view with due weight. "Most scientist" is not a reliable source, because they simply do not publish. Hence, the article does not need to give due weight to their opinion. If we accept that, the riddle is solved. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect to 2004 to the present, I agree with both of you. I like Kevin's last sentence. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

What about creating a sample page in userspace to flesh it out and see how it would stand? And what would the proposed title be? seicer | talk | contribs 02:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The first step is to make a few more posts like the ones I made at WT:Chemistry and WT:PHYSICS. (I'll get to this in a week, but I'm hoping someone else will beat me to it.) If physicists and chemists are interested, then the logical place for the "con" position would be in sections of pre-existing pages, such as Nuclear_fusion#Production_methods, Calorimetry and/or Electrochemistry. (Nuclear fusion is already a long page, so if material is added to the Production methods subsection, it should probably be spun off into a separate page.) These arguments could then have a more positive and educational spin. This is a common technique in science journalism and science education: you bring up recent, or contentious, or even (at first glance) goofy topics as a way of generating and sustaining interest. You could talk about why there was so much confusion over the calorimetry for cold fusion experiments as a lead-in to methods of calorimetry or to energy storage and balance in electrochemical cathodes. You could explain why most physicists lost interest in cold fusion in the early 90s, as a lead-in to a discussion of when the instincts of physicists have tended to be right and wrong. There are plenty of areas where the predictions of physicists have turned out to be spookily accurate, but also many areas where they seem to be really bad at seeing the future. For instance, even with huge amounts of interest and money, they have often stumbled at predicting the behavior of electrons in crystals and macromolecules (hafnium alloys, carbon nanotubes, graphene), and who knows, maybe there are things about the behavior of electrons in paladium crystals they still don't get.

If we don't have and can't recruit content experts for these subjects, then I would still suggest splitting the article, and perhaps the "con" position could be called Critique of cold fusion. Now that there are regular sessions on cold fusion at the APS and ACS meetings, and plastic CR-39 plates showing tracks of energetic particles produced in labs funded by the Navy and DARPA are being passed around, the "con" position necessarily includes a government-funded bad behavior. One point that hasn't been made yet, that I recall, is that you've got major WP:BLP issues when you imply that researchers are charlatans and conspirators. That's another reason I think you want to break this article into two pieces rather than hopping back and forth; the "pro" page should focus on what people have reported and what the evidence is. The "con" page should not trash people; it should focus on what the science says, on the history of similar experiments, and on providing context. The "con" page could, if desired, discuss science policy and process in the Bush administration; this would not be the first time that DOE scientists got something wrong, you know. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't understand what the problem is, and where you are trying to get. No amount of wikipedia expert editors will solve the problem of lack of sources for the skeptics camp. To solve this, one would need to encourage skeptics to write articles in peer-reviewed journals, not in wikipedia (as examplified by the next discussion).

You say: "If we don't have and can't recruit content experts for these subjects, then I would still suggest splitting the article". If you don't have content for the skeptical side in the main page, how would you find content for a separate page ? Also, let's avoid a Wikipedia:Fork. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I personally think the 2004 DOE report is an adequate representation of the (degree of) skepticism of the community. However, I think we need more discussion about how to summarize that report. (For example, focusing on the "research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits" as a positive response to the research is misleading.) Could we agree that the '04 DOE report is a good representation of the "mainstream" response? Gnixon (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Along with the '89 DOE report and a few papers published in '89 and '90, yes. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 04:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Gnixon, you say "focusing on the 'research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits' as a positive response to the research is misleading". How could we be misleading, since we are quoting verbatim the conclusion of the 2004 report ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Because it is not a quote from the conclusion of the 2004 report. It's a sentence taken from the body of the report that you have cherry picked, as has been pointed out to you several previous occasions. Was something about these previous discussions unclear? The conclusion section of the 2004 report is clearly labeled, and it is an objective fact that it does not contain that quotation. Why do you persist in mischaracterizing this?--Noren (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello Noren. I'm glad you are back. Are you refering to "research proposals should continue to be evaluated based on their merits" ? Indeed, it's not a quote from the 2004 DOE Report. It is nowhere in the article either. The article does quote the 2004 DOE report verbatim. Some sentence come from the DOE conclusion, others from the body of the report, because they convey the same message more clearly. That's not cherry picking. Nothing prevents us from doing it, does it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 14:25, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, where were you during the mediation?

If you really think it's unbalanced, i would rather expect you to insist that we include an equal amount of material from the other two charges, as well.

In academia and the like, "conclusions" of reports are usually anything but conclusive. Usually "conclusions" say something like "In conclusion, we just reviewed what we told you we were going to review in the intro." And the 2004 DOE report is certainly no exception. Which is why I remain bewildered at your insistence to quote what is arguably the least informative section of the report, to the exclusion of anything meaningful the reviewers had to say about the three aspects they were assigned to review. And you do this, ostensibly, on account of the section's name alone, which is clearly a misnomer. Kevin Baas^talk 19:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Baas, Comment on content, not on the contributor. My whereabouts at any particular time are not an appropriate topic for this page.

The fact that the conclusion doesn't give the message that you want it to does not mean the conclusion is faulty. --Noren (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to be nice - to make you feel missed; to make you feel that your input is appreciated. And in response you accuse me of attacking your character. Well that's the last time I'll ever try to pay you a complement.

Re: "The fact that the conclusion doesn't give the message that you want." Who ever said that the section titled "conclusion" didn't give the message that I wanted? Now you're just putting words in my mouth. (...again. At least this time they're not personal attacks.) I do not appreciate being made a straw-man out of. Kevin Baas^talk 15:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in the past my opinion has been discounted based on the observation that I was insufficiently active during that mediation, though in fairness you weren't the person who did so. I do not discern any hint of warmth or welcoming in your statement "Yes, where were you during the mediation?" or in the rest of your comment- if that was your intent, you might want to consider phrasing such things differently in the future. Your claim that I was attacking your character is false.

I'm bewildered by your bewilderment, as I don't understand where you're coming up with the idea that I want the entire conclusion included. I never said anything of the sort. What I did do was point out that Pcarbonn had made the false claim that it had already been done, in spite of a previous dispute he had been involved in when passages were incorrectly referred to as part of the conclusion. You spent a paragraph discounting the report's conclusion, which was what led me to the impression that it did not give the message that you wanted it to give, as I stated.--Noren (talk) 03:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

"Your claim that I was attacking your character is false." - Your claim that I claimed that you were attacking my character is false. Yet another straw man. You should really read more carefully. I claimed that you accused me of attacking you - and my evidence is your link to WP:NPA (" Comment on content, not on the contributor.").

Now if a person writes "Hello Noren. I'm glad you are back. ...", and the next person writes "Yes, ..." most people would interpret that as to mean that that person is also glad to have you back. I really don't know how I could have been much more clear - there are practical limits. And this is by no means the only time there's been a communication problem. It seems to happen a lot. (For instance, just above you seem to have gotten the idea that I claimed you were attacking my character, when I did no such thing.) So I'd appreciate it if you met me half-way by trying to read what I write more carefully.

I never said you said anything of the sort. Pcarbonn never made such a claim. Passages were never incorrectly referred to as belonging to the section titled "conclusion". I never wrote anything discounting the report's conclusions -- I never disputed anything written in the report (save the appropriateness of the title of a section - in general academia) -- you're confusing the report's conclusions with a section in the report (misleadingly) titled "conclusions", but I've already explained this in the paragraph that you're referring to - this was in fact the entire point of that paragraph. Perhaps if you had read it more carefully and with more good faith you would have understood the point I was making. Perhaps if you had understood, you would not have had to make one up that's convenient for your perspective (and assumes bad faith). And might I add that that's where the "impression" came from. Not from me or anything that I wrote - but from your failure to understand the point that I was making, and your subsequent filling of that gap by pulling-something-out-of-the-blue that is consistent with your assumptions. Kevin Baas^talk 15:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

And now we have veered far onto the course of talking about talking about content and making accusations about each other and other people (and I apologize if my remarks have been a little ascerbic) - and though I hope it has helped us, at least, to more accurately interpret each other in the future, I fear it is diverging too far away from the matter to which it always must return -- and that is, ofcourse, the content of the article. Gnixon has made a suggestion below which I believe will help make the article more "balanced". Kevin Baas^talk 16:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, I am referring to your claim that "How could we be misleading, since we are quoting verbatim the conclusion of the 2004 report ?" Please indicate where the article does so or retract your false claim. --Noren (talk) 01:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Easy. The lead quotes verbatim the report conclusion: "the field would benefit from the peer-review processes...", and "The 2004 panel identified basic research areas..." Section 1.6 of our article is verbatim the conclusion of charge element 3 of the report (It would be ok to add here "reached the same conclusion of the 1989 report", although this statement is very vague). Our section 3.1 and 3.3 quote verbatim the conclusion from charge element 1 of the report. The references are given at the end of the paragraphs in our article (instead of being repeated at the end of each sentence). Pcarbonn (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

(undent) I apologize if I confused the issue by making up that quote from memory. I thought it was a good enough paraphrase to get the point across without inaccuracy, but maybe not. Mea culpa. My point was that "no focused program" best represents the attitude of the reviewers, whereas "funding agencies should entertain well-designed proposals" is simply another way of saying that CF research shouldn't get any special attention (because that statement simply restates the SOP for funding). I suppose the latter statement could be interpreted as a caution not to blackball good new research simply because of an association with CF. Anyway, I think the statement is liable to be misinterpreted to imply approval of CF research if it's included here out of context. Gnixon (talk) 15:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC) To be clear,

Please be more specific and say where we are including statements out of context. The section on the 2004 DOE report fully includes one of the 2 paragraphs of charge element 3, which is concerned with the question of continued effort. If quoting verbatim one half of DOE's assessment is "cherry picking", I don't have an issue with quoting the other half (it says basically the same thing). The lead section also presents the same balanced view, and is the validated result of many discussion and the mediation. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure, sorry if I was a little vague. The lead seems okay, I think. I'm not happy with the 2004 DOE section. If we want to quote the report, we need to be clear that we're quoting it. One reason it's important here is that the style of the report is not appropriate to the style of this article. My interpretation of that paragraph is that "...individual proposals..." is a polite preamble to "...no focused program." The takeaway is "no focused program," which is all I think we need to include here. On the other hand, quoting the entire paragraph may be useful for indicating the tone of the report. Gnixon (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If your take-away is "...no focused program", someone else's take away might be "reviewers were unanimous that more research and peer-reviews should be encouraged." So, it is best to include the full section and avoid introducing POV. I'm fine with making it clear that we are quoting the report. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

See, that's my issue. It's very clear that reviewers did not recommend a focused program. However, I think it's a misrepresentation to say they "encouraged" more research. One could just as well read those statements to say that agencies should not fund poorly-designed proposals that do not meet accepted scientific standards and do not undergo the rigors of peer research. That reading would be consistent with the following paragraph, which emphasizes using modern techniques in any further research, and says "experiments similar in nature to those that have been carried out for the past fifteen years are unlikely to advance knowledge." In any case, I think the quote from the report that is most relevant to this article can be found shortly before what we've been discussing: "The preponderance of the reviewers’ evaluations indicated that ... the occurrence of low energy nuclear reactions is not conclusively demonstrated by the evidence presented." (There has been no demonstration of LENR.) Gnixon (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'm fine with adding the "preponderence" sentence to the article. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Me too. That's a good sentence -- very precise and informative. Kevin Baas^talk 15:51, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Please hang around and help us develop the "con" position, Noren, and thanks for the links. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 15:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scientific discussion: energetic particles

The point is, the physical community is giving the cold fusion enthusiasts the benefit of doubt that some unknown physics might be happening, enabling fusion to happen. But why the hell is there no trace of the products of said fusion?

The 23.8MeV net energy potential of a D + D -> He reaction is very real and it needs to be somehow brought out of the nucleus. This is more energy than actually available in binding energy within the entire nucleus of Helium!

These are staggering amounts of energy excess energy within a nucleus that need to be shed off in some way:
The He nucleus instantly pops apart into He3+n or T+p (each 50% of happening) or in extremely rare cases very hard 23.8MeV gamma radiation (chance at 10^-7 to 10^-8) is released, killing everybody in the lab

Neutrons, Tritium as well as gammas can be measured blindingly easy to insane accuracy. Why isn't this being done? This is the reason why the physics community isn't taking the above "cold fusion" experiments serious. Actually, they are more like ROFL. No matter how the issue is turned and looked at, 23.8MeV of excess nuclear energy cannot be shed off in ways that are undetectable.

Edit:
The tracks of energetic particles within plastic CR-39 plates are without doubt due to micro cracks within the palladium electrodes causing localized extreme EM-fields and hence extremely high localized micro currents. These currents are sufficiently high to cause micro areas within the palladium to be turned into plasma. This is also the origin of the fabled "hot spots". --Dio1982 (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Dio, I don't mean to comment on whether or not your points are valid, but we're trying very hard to keep this discussion restricted to how we should represent the various published responses to cold fusion from the physics community. It's beyond the scope of our task to try and judge the research ourselves. Gnixon (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not some kind of new argument. This is part of the standard "where are the neutrons/tritium?" argument. There is no D + D -> He reaction. My above explanation is why this is so, which is usually lost to the cold fusion enthusiasts.--141.31.183.68 (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Your theory about crack formation in CR-39 is original research. You may want to publish it on wikiversity, which accepts original research. See here. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's okay, I relabeled this section "scientific discussion". Some people will object to discussions about the merits, but for me, it's a hard sell to say that you can't talk about the content of the page on the talk page; that's what the talk page is supposed to be for. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 13:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[[Wikipedia:Talk] says that "The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views." Let's focus our discussion on the article, not on cold fusion per se.Pcarbonn (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

We're both right. Discussions should be about the content of the page, about whether the content comes from reliable sources, and about whether content from other reliable sources would be an improvement on what we've got. What I'm saying is that some people's eyes will glaze over as soon as we get technical, and we can't reject a discussion just because it bores some people. We can, however, label the section as a "scientific discussion" so that people who will get bored by it don't have to read it.

So: 141.31.183.68, how about it? I asked on your talk page with no response. Would you like to cite a source? Would you like to help us build a stronger "con" position, either on this page or, as I'm proposing, a different page? - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 14:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: "The tracks of energetic particles within plastic CR-39 plates are without doubt due to micro cracks within the palladium electrodes causing localized extreme EM-fields and hence extremely high localized micro currents. These currents are sufficiently high to cause micro areas within the palladium to be turned into plasma. This is also the origin of the fabled "hot spots"." --Firstly, this isn't "without doubt", this is an untested hypothesis that you proposed. You thought, "hmm... maybe this could happen." and then instantaneously jumped to "that must be what is happening!" To me, that kind of illogical thought process stinks of pathological disbelief. Now if anyone were to actually do an experiment to test that hypothesis, there'd be many things that they'd have to explain. For instance, why doesn't this happen when you use hydrogen instead of deutrium? (or other solutions for that matter) Given that consideration alone, your hypothesis is extremely implausible. Perhaps that's why we haven't seen any citable sources make it (and thus we can't put it in the article.) Kevin Baas^talk 16:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Dio1982: You write "why the hell is there no trace of the products of said fusion?" I think your question deserves more attention than is given here, or is suitable to give here. It's obvious that you are very familiar with the three branches of dd thermonuclear fusion. I have begun to ask the same question recently, and it is a difficult question to answer, and for someone in my position, also a difficult one to ask. I refer you to my Bangalaore, India talk from January this year, and also to my forthcoming talk at ACS on 20 August at ~8a.m. In addition, I welcome your letter to the editor at New Energy Times for our September issue.

StevenBKrivit (talk) 06:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I might add that there seems to be a lot of helium-4 showing up in many experiments, both released as gas and trapped in the cathode. This is quite unusual as the probability of this reaction pathway is extremely low. Traces of other products have been found here - so you argument is flawed by two false premises: 1. there are no traces of tritium - this is not true. 2. tritium is the only possible product of a dd reaction - this is not true. That aside, it is an interesting subject because you are, ofcourse, correct in the more general sense that we are not seeing the kind (and resp. quantity) of products one would expect form a conventional thermo-nuclear fusion process. And in this respect I agree w/Steven -- that this oddity (esp/in light of the unexplained heat) deserves more attention than can be given here. Kevin Baas^talk 15:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got some real-life stuff going on and I have to tune out for a while. I'll unwatchlist (is that a word?), but feel free to contact me if I'm needed. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 17:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

- Dio says: "Neutrons, Tritium as well as gammas can be measured blindingly easy to insane accuracy. Why isn't this being done?" In fact this has been done many times. If the measured quantities was not consistent with the excess heat, they were still above any level that conventional theory would allow. Jones was the first one to detect neutron in 1989, and it was the basis for the rivalry with F&P. He confirmed his findings in 2003, and they have never been challenged, as far as I know. They are also over 60 reports of tritium, listed in Storms 2007. Storms also cites several anomalous gamma ray production.

Why aren't these measurements done more often ? Because of a lack of funding. Why is there a lack of funding ? I let you answer. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is verging too far away from talk-page principles. We need to get back to discussing the article now. PCarbonn, if there is material from Storms that you can briefly summarise and add then please do so. Itsmejudith (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

What two peer-reviewed literature reviews?

I would ask that in an article this controversial, could the statements in the introduction please be sourced with footnotes to the citations? I see that DOE 2004 is the only thing cited there. I think I can gather from reading this talk page, but what are the two literature reviews mentioned in the last paragraph of the intro? 75.61.107.67 (talk) 23:58, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it used to be that there was usually pressure at WP:FAC to take citations out of the lead except for quotations, but looking at the last few WP:FACs, citations in the lead seem to be fine now. I think on balance pulling in the citations would help, for the reason that 75.61 gives. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

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 Wikipedia 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:

[3]

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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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^talk 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"[ http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PR/v87/i5/p785_1] 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 [4]. 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^talk 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 [my] 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^talk 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. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. You are trying to use Wikipedia for that purpose. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 5 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 Wikipedia 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 ... [LENR]" 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 Wikipedia 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![5] (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 ^{(talk to me)} 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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^talk 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 Wikipedia 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 [6][7] 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.[8]

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 Wikipedia, Chemical & Engineering News, Chemistry World, Intute, Nature, Current Science." ([9] 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.[10]

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[11] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, is all over this article. The spam has got to go. And the rest needs to be seriously checked. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 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

Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia, 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 [12]. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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^talk 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)

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 Wikipedia: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 ^{(talk to me)} 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^talk 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.[13][14] — 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)

Status of other disputed edits ?

In his recent edits [15], 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^talk 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)

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

As I mentioned here[16], "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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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. Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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.[17] 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[18] 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[19] 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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, Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia was all about consensus. If Wikipedia existed in the middle ages it would report that the world is flat. If Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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[20], "[Robert Park is] 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 Wikipedia on the exact same page![21] He doesn't count as someone reliable enough to express that view, his own view? --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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)

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[22] to NET is questionable because it is likewise WP:SELFPUB[23] 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[24] is to Current Science, not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there. Especially since it's also here[25]

• Same thing: This citation[26] is to Current Science, not NET, and the link to NET doesn't need to be there. Especially since it's also here[27]

• This citation[28] 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[29]

• This citation[30] 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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[31], 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia, "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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. He is (or was) a contributing writer for New Energy Times. This is not considered spam or self-promotion according to Wikipedia.

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, "[Robert Park is] 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, Wikipedia's article doesn't seem like it's a broad coverage of all the different views. It feels like "Wikipedia: 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 Wikipedia, though, we have to meet a certain set of standards so that the Wikipedia article is considered a reliable, indepth, all notable views, coverage of the topic. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. Wikipedia 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 [there's a good index of "cold fusion" books somewhere on the 'net ;) ] 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, (Wikipedia), 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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. Wikipedia 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)

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 Wikipedia 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)