Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Cold fusion/Lead

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 First proposal 1.1 Impact factors 1.2 Should we mention the fringe press in the lead ? 1.3 Is cold fusion a "claim" ? 1.4 Proposed new and clearer lead 1.4.1 Mediator's response 1.5 OK to publish ? 1.6 LENR 1.7 Which "scientific community" ? 2 References

[edit] First proposal

Cold fusion is a controversial effect reported by some researchers to have been produced from nuclear fusion at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure.^[1] Early announcements raised hopes of a cheap and abundant source of energy.^[2] However, there is no scientific consensus that reproducible results have demonstrated the existence of such a phenomenon.^{[citation needed]}

Cold fusion received media attention after an announcement made in 1989 by chemists Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann at the University of Utah, when they generated excess heat that they believed could only be explained by the occurrence of a nuclear reaction. Their apparatus was relatively simple, consisting of a pair of electrodes immersed in heavy water. Cold fusion gained a reputation as an example of pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the effect. ^[3]

Since then, reports of anomalous heat and tritium production ^[4] have been published in peer-reviewed journals,^[5] and discussed in special sessions at scientific conferences. ^[6][7] The scientific community, however, have met these reports with skepticism. ^[8] Panels organized by the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), the first in 1989^[9] and the second in 2004,^[10] did not recommend a focused federally-funded program. The 2004 panel identified basic research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field, stating that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

The "More than 490" crap needs to go. There's no point counting the number of papers, that's giving undue weight to the fringe field, it's sufficient to note that a number of scientists tried with mixed success to reproduce and build on the original experiment. As noted before, the British research council groups cold fusion with antigravity in the realms of the impossible, and that is a very important body, so we need to be very careful indeed not to give the impression that cold fusion is currently considered anything other than thoroughly implausible by a very substantial proportion of the scientific community. No special pleading, in other words. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your statement about the British research council view on CF. Pcarbonn (talk) 09:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The phrasing "Attempts to replicate the effect were not successful initially" is not correct since it implies that the later attempts were successful, which they were not. While there have been later reports which may describe cold fusion, those are not replications of the PF effects. Rembmber that PF reported excess heat, neutrons, and tritium in specific quantities from a single type of device. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 04:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• Out of the first paragraph, I removed a blip in transition.
• Added cn after the following: "Early attempts to replicate the effect were unsuccessful after which cold fusion quickly gained a reputation as an example of pathological science."
• Removed numerical references. Attempting to gain consensus through a numerical analysis is probably giving undue weight. A reader should be able to make their own assertions regarding the work.

Feel free to make any edits, dispute what I've written, etc. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I made some edits. There was too much pandering to cold fusion supporters. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• We need to say that many reports have been published, and balance it with the fact that they have been met with skepticism. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Many by what standard? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the word numerous was added to replace numerical counts. I think it is better left off, after reviewing the revised text. I just can't see a strong reason that we have to numerically apply, even with broad descriptions, something that can be construed as possibly bias. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I removed some rather ambiguous terms that were not quantified (nor should be) and that were not properly referenced. I also added a citation tag for a sentence, and did some minor changes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

"scientific conferences in 2006" : I question the "2006". They have been discussed in 2005, 2007, and will be discussed again in 2008. And that's not counting other conferences. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pcarbonn, why are you using Fringe publications if you think that they aren't relevant to the lead? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, is there any reason why we can't use my version? The current version panders to cold fusion inordinately. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because it was a complete rewrite from essentially one editor. This is a version that has been edited by others involved with the mediation, and per comments left in this thread and in above discussions. Since you and Pcarbonn were engaged in edit warring, I highly suggest that both of you discuss your proposed changes here rather than continue along the path that will surely lead to potential actions. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

To add, what are your proposed changes? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:40, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

In case you have not seen, we have discussed the changes proposed by SA at length above in this section of the talk page. Most edits, if not all, have been accompanied by comments in the discussion. The issues are about the references to the "fringe press", and to "relatively low ranking" peer reviewed journal. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Added citation-needed tags for the following statements:

• "Cold fusion is a claim reported by some researchers that energy can be produced from nuclear fusion at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure."
• "Early announcements raised hopes of a clean and abundant source of energy."
• "However, there is no scientific consensus that reproducible results have demonstrated the existence of such a phenomenon."

The first needs a citation due to the phrase, "...claim reported..."; the second needs a citation to confirm the "early announcements raising hopes..."; and the third needs a citation to augment that there is "no scientific consensus...". Seicer (talk) (contribs) 05:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a citation to the original PF article for the first of these. I am not sure we need a citation for the third location, since that topic is addressed later in the article (for example, in the New York Times article and the Wired article). 209.253.120.205 (talk) 13:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Sans the one missing citation, which may or may not be needed for verification, can we call the lead substantially complete and move along to the next body? Per note before, we have primarily moved on from initial discussion regarding the arguments and have gone forward with editing towards consensus -- regardless if any user is blocked or not. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if I'm permitted to edit the lead, but I would be content to move on once the mentions of the DOE studies are modified to make them reflect the actual statements of the DOE. PouponOnToast (talk) 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with the lead as it is, and we can move along as far as I'm concerned. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to resolve the issue of the order of the sections quickly though. As you know, I'm strongly in favor of presenting the experimental report first (and to start improving it first, rather than the history section). Pcarbonn (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Impact factors

Simply stating that the ideas have been published in the mainstream peer-reviewed press doesn't properly indicate that these papers are published in low-impact factor journals. I think this is important for proper framing of the lead. Thoughts? ScienceApologist (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Nowhere else on WP are source so-ranked. Let's please stick with standard policy for citing reliable sources rather than making it up. Far better is to assume that the reader is smart enough to judge the quality of the source on their own. Ronnotel (talk) 23:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is important for adequate framing. The point is that cold fusion advocates have been unsuccessful in getting their reports published in high impact factor journals. This is a vital piece of information considering that this is a fringe science. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is important for framing, surely a reliable source such as Physics Today would have said so. Please provide a reliable source that says that papers have been published in low-ranking publications. The best way to advance a point is to provide a source for it. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact factors are simply a verifiable way of reiterating the point that Physics Today makes that this subject is fringe. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is already stated by the statement "The scientific community, however, have met these reports with skepticism" which is closer to what Physics Today is actually saying. No need to say more. We should avoid using the words of editors, and use instead the words used by reliable sources. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

However, it is important, so that we don't mislead the readers, to point out that the peer-reviewed papers that were published were not published in the top journals and therefore have not received the exposure to the scientific community that usually accompanies amazing new discoveries. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If it was so important, how come that none of the general-purpose articles from reputable sources such as Physics Today are saying it ? Pcarbonn (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

They are saying it. Don't quibble over how it is said. If you want, we could dispense with this and simply say that cold fusion proponents have not published in the top 10 physics journals since PF. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

If they are saying it, it should not be a problem for you to give us the sentence(s) where they are saying it. So please do so. Pcarbonn (talk) 13:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

P, they actually are much more critical of cold fusion than the point we are trying to get across. Do you really want to go down this road? ScienceApologist (talk) 13:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)What evidence supports the assertion that these papers were not exposed to the scientific community before they were published? The index you cite merely gives evidence of citation frequency, it says nothing about the quality of the peer-review process. Attempting to impute such a measure from this source sounds like original research. Ronnotel (talk) 18:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the statements by Pcarbonn Ronnotel; is it an issue to give us the citation/statement where they are discussing this? If not, then it is original research. This is standard procedure: if you cannot give verifiable or adequate citations towards your statement that you wish to include, SA, then it is pretty much a decided issue. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Impact factors, by definition, show the exposure of a paper to the scientific community. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's important in this case for a unique reason: the original publication was in Nature, which is very high impact. After the initial flurry of interest, including letters in the high impact journals noting inability to replicate the effect, subsequent publication has been in low impact journals often not primarily focused on electrochemistry or nuclear physics. As with the note I left elsewhere about the order of the number of papers versus the number of supporting papers, it is valuable context for the development of the field and its mainstream reception. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Should we mention the fringe press in the lead ?

• What is a non-mainstream scientific publication ? I could see the difference between a major and a minor scientific publication. Is a non-mainstream publication one devoted exclusively to a non-mainstream theory ? If so, it does not apply here (pls give an example otherwise). Also, I do not see why "non-mainstream publication" is linked to fringe science. Pls clarify. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Infinite energy magazine is an example of a "non-mainstream publication". ScienceApologist (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we should mention publications in such magazines in the lead section. It is irrelevant. Many other subjects are discussed in second rate magazines : so what. What is relevant is that publications have been done in scientific journals.

It's relevant and necessary for mention in the lead because Eugene Mallove created this journal for this express purpose. This makes cold fusion somewhat unique among the fringe/pseudosciences discussed at Wikipedia. It is partially why cold fusion still has present notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 17:20, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't get it. What has Eugene Mallove to do with the lead section ? What makes cold fusion unique among fringe science ?? Are you saying that Infinite Energy has given the notability to cold fusion ? That would be hard to believe. I would say instead that the notability comes after university professors have requested and obtained a second review by DOE, that this DoE review had news coverage, and that serious researchers have published in peer-reviewed journals. Eugene Mallove has nothing to do with that.

Eugene Mallove, for better or worse, is one of the main reasons that cold fusion has maintained a profile as high as it has in the public arena. We must not discriminate based on our dislike for this character. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how Infinite Energy could have maintained cold fusion in a "high profile in the public arena" : are you suggesting that the circulation of Infinite Energy was high enough to create such "a high profile" ? That does not seem realistic. If you say that it's not Infinite Energy, but Eugene Mallove in other writings that have given that profile, then the lead section should clearly mention him, not the "fringe press". I don't think that there is a case for that either though. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you deny that many researchers in cold fusion have availed themselves of the use of Infinite Energy Press? ScienceApologist (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that cold fusion has maintained a standing in the fringe press community. To elminate mention of this is to basically ignore this fact which provides proper framing of the idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not proper framing of the idea. Cold fusion is an unresolved scientific controversy until it is falsified. The proper place to discuss it is in peer reviewed journals and scientific conferences. The fact that it is discussed in non-scientific magazines is not relevant. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Pls provide a standard for "relatively low": you'll see that you have the same issues as for "numerous". Pcarbonn (talk) 18:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the journals cited in the link, it is clear that their impact factors are lower than the high impact journals. See this cite: [1]. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Relatively low" is not the same as "not the top ones", and it introduces bias. Your reference shows that it is "not the top ones". Pcarbonn (talk) 08:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it sounds encyclopedic to say "not in the high ranking ones" when it is available to us to say instead: "the journals publishing such papers included the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics and the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry". Surely we can leave it to readers to notice that one is Japanese and about applied physics rather than simply physics and that the other one relates to a specialist field in chemistry? The article will also have to mention that there have also been papers in die Naturwissenschaften and the European Journal of Physics, which no-one has yet been able to show to be low status. Perhaps it would be better to seek consensus on a non-lead section on the later research and its publication first and then pull out the salient pointsfor the lead. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it has not yet been shown that the scientific papers that have published cold fusion papers have "low impact factors". Pcarbonn (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why mention peer review in the lead at all? It is not a very big part of cold fusion. In fact, what's more important is the DOE panel and the 2006 conferences. That's what got more visibility. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Because peer review journals are the most reliable source for a scientific subject such as cold fusion. It also shows that it remains seriously discussed by some scientists, not just by "lunatics" or "believers". I agree on the 2006 conferences, thus added to the lead section. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is more than just a scientific subject. There is siginificant part of this topic that involves the fringe nature of the subject. You cannot just pretend that there aren't lunatics and believers who love this stuff: Wikipedia needs to acknowledge this aspect of the cold fusion phenomenon, and it needs to do so right up front. After all, that's where cold fusion got a lot of its continuance throughout the 90s and through this decade as well. Certainly, there are people who are working on cold fusion who wish that there weren't ZPE fanatics trumpeting their work, but Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This would be giving them more notability than what they deserve. See WP:notability. Cold fusion got continuance in the 90's and 00's thanks to serious and reputable scientists who made progress in experiments, such as the SPAWAR Team. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I would think that "Cold fusion quickly gained a reputation as an example of pathological science after others failed to replicate the effect." is already conveying what you mean to say. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Whether they "deserve" notability or not is irrelevant. The fact is that they are notable and are one of the biggest mouthpieces. I also note that part of the reason serious and reputable scientists studying cold fusion were supported was through fringe presses who attempted to keep the flame alive. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This is bordering on the ridiculous. Please provide a source for "reputable scientists were supported by fringe press" and "the fringe press on cold fusion has notability". This seems unbelievable. None of the reliable sources have ever made any reference to the fringe press you mention, as far as I know. None of the CF scientists have ever said that they were supported by the fringe press: they said that they were supported instead by the results they got in their labs, as it should be if they are serious scientists. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that many of the people who supported cold fusion found it necessary to publish at infinite energy and new energy times is all the evidence that we need. It's not surprising that SPAWAR work would not refer to the fringe journals, but to deny their existence or their importance to this field is to deny proper framing of cold fusion as a fringe science. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I really don't see how your first statement provides evidence to the 2 statements you made, and how it answers my questions. Please provide evidence that the fringe press is necessary to provide "proper framing" of cold fusion. Surely, a reliable source would mention the fringe press if it was so necessary. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Will this suffice [2]? ScienceApologist (talk) 19:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, it does not. I don't see any reference to the fringe press. Pcarbonn (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) --> Here is a quote: "Over the past 15 years, enthusiasts have generated some 3,000 manuscripts on cold fusion, but very few were ever published in scientific journals. Many results evaporated under outside examination, and promoters pushed "free energy" schemes that sounded more like perpetual motion than physics." Where are these manuscripts found? On LENR-CANR, New Energy Times, Infinite Energy Press, etc. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what you infer. Please note that the article does not talk about Infinite Energy nor the fringe press, and that's my point. It also says that scientists were encouraged by their results, not by the fringe press. Many of the 3000 manuscripts were actually presented to the ICCF, and published in its proceedings. Many others have been published in scientific journals, as referenced in this cold fusion bibliography. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You just dug your own grave. [3] lists new energy times as a resource. Done and done. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I still don't see how this justifies mentionning the fringe press in the lead. Sorry. Let's see what others have to say. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see an overwhelming need to mention fringe press in the lead. As I stated in earlier discussions, we should be sticking only peer-reviewed literature reviews in academic journals. Not op-ed pieces. Not fringe press. Not general journal articles. I don't see an overwhelming need, either, to rehash out old discussions given that they are now over and we have moved on to editing the lead; SA had his chance to voice his opinion earlier (and still can), but what's been said has mostly been said. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 21:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the introduction is pretty good as is. I actually don't think any of the recent versions of the third paragraph are very different in their effect on the reader. I don't think it matters whether the "The 2004 panel identified basic research areas... " sentence is included, because I think the likely readers would think it is gobbledygook. Similarly, the likely readers will not know how to evaluate phrases like "non-mainstream press" or "impact factors" or "fringe press." Probably the best approach is to leave it as is and move on. 209.253.120.205 (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it is satisfactory to both parties needs. Both parties, as in, those who participated in the opening docs and in the arguments, not those who jumped in at the last minute to make a few splashes or to question the integrity of my mediation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 01:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This lead is not satisfactory. It does not properly frame cold fusion as a fringe science in its publication history. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be addressed by putting the 1,300-odd before the 490-odd, which clarifies the fact that most of the published literature does not support CF. Guy (Help!) 15:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've addressed this earlier, but using pure numerical counts to discredit Cold Fusion is a method that introduces bias -- so early on. I feel that by using reasoned text that introduces both sides of the issue, and let the reader decide on the issue, is a much more beneficial and agreed method. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning the count of papers is not necessary in the lead. One paper that would falsify CF would be enough to convince everybody (and vice versa): the quantity is thus not relevant. Also, I'm not aware of any reliable source that is presenting the count of pro and against paper, so why should we ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The counting of the papers was discussed earlier extensively. We should be basing an argument based on the quality of the sources, not the count. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we should go for the proposed lead below which avoids the proiblem entirely. Fine by me, since I always thought the paper-counting was special pleading anyway. Guy (Help!) 10:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is cold fusion a "claim" ?

The current version of the proposed intro starts with "Cold fusion is a claim reported...". From a semantic point of view, this does not fly. Also, "claim" is a word to be generally avoided. Shouldn't we use the existing wording in the CF article: "Cold fusion is a controversial effect reported by some researchers to have been produced from nuclear fusion at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure." ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Refactored opening statement to correct that. Thanks for the good catch. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 16:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new and clearer lead

v-5.1 (FINAL)
Cold fusion is a name given to a controversial field of research which investigates the possibility of nuclear reactions at conditions near room temperature and atmospheric pressure.

The first report of such an experiment was published by M. Fleischmann and S. Pons from the University of Utah in 1989 ^[11]. In their publication, Fleischmann and Pons reported the observation of anomalous heating ("excess heat") of an electrolytic cell during electrolysis of heavy water (D₂O). Lacking a simple explanation for the source of such anomalous heat, they proposed the hypothesis, without supporting evidence, that the source of the heat is nuclear fusion of deuterium.

Cold fusion gained a reputation as a pathological science after other scientists failed to replicate the results. ^[12] A review panel organized by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1989 did not find the evidence persuasive, and said that such nuclear fusion at room temperature would be contrary to all understanding gained of nuclear reactions in the last half century; it would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.^[13]

Since then, other reports of anomalous heat and tritium production ^[4] have been published in peer-reviewed journals,^[14] and discussed at scientific conferences. ^[15][16] The scientific community, however, has met these reports with skepticism. ^[17] In 2004 the US DOE organized another review panel.^[18] This panel, like the one in 1989, did not recommended a focused federally-funded program. The 2004 panel identified basic research areas that could be helpful in resolving some of the controversies in the field. They stated that the field would benefit from the peer-review processes associated with proposal submission to agencies and paper submission to archival journals.

1) This is a much simpler lead that introduces the lay readers to the subject and defines what it is, without entangling them in the political arguments.

2) The lead in wiki is similar to the abstract in professional journals. Having read hundreds of professional articles, I cannot recall a mention of citations/ references/ evidence in an abstract. Journal editors are very much against it. The place for citations and evidence is in the details which follow. Avoiding citations and evidence in the lead gives it a clearer and more professional look.

3) I suggest separating the research from the politics. Again, the lay readers (I think we should think of them as our customers) want first to know what it is all about. They don't care for the politics of it. That's why, I believe, the lead should avoid all references to political arguments. The laws of physics are not going to bend because a zillion papers were published in support of one argument or another. similarly, the laws of physics are not going to bend because the DOE panel decided one way or another.

Having said that, we cannot avoid the reality that the field is loaded with politics. Therefore, I suggest to collect all the political arguments near the end, under a heading like: "The politics of cold fusion research" or something similar. That's where we can mention numbers of publications, DOE panels, etc.

4) In many earlier versions of the article the lead statement also refers to "cold fusion" as a name. It opens with: "Cold fusion is the name for effects supposed to be nuclear reactions..."

--Rabbiz (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Like it. I would like there to be some mention of pathological science at least since that is where cold fusion derives much of its notability. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support: I don't find a huge issue with this lead, either. It removes political references at the least, which is a definite plus. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oops. I should refactor my comment in support of the removal of the political references and statements, not an outright replacement of the entire lead, which was much discussed previously. I wouldn't mind incorporating sections of Rebbiz's lead into the current lead if it removes political mentions, though. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what you mean by "political references and statements". Pcarbonn (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am going along the lines of removing the last paragraph in the original lead, as the panel/DOE mention may unfairly bias the reader. Mention of that should be made further down under say, a Controversies section (just throwing that out there) with more detail. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Why would the mention of the DOE in the last paragraph "unfairly" bias the reader, since it is a reliable review of the field ? According to WP:LEAD, "the lead serves a dual role both as an introduction to the article below and as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." I believe that we should give the state of the controversy in the lead, as the last paragraph does, since it is an important aspect of the topic. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: we agreed on a lead after much discussion. The new proposed lead has many issues, and would thus require to be discussed again at length : several statements are unsourced (e.g. the last two statements), it uses "claim" (a word to be avoided), it does not talk about additional replications, it presents the field as a closed controversy while the DOE says it is still open, it gives undue weight to the idea that excess heat is explained (contrary to what the DOE says). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarbonn (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since F & P and others claim (as opposed to prove) a certain nuclear achievement, it is our duty to present it as a claim, unless we can find another word to say it, without implying "proved". Regarding sources, I am not that versed in wiki policy; all I know is that in professional journals sources and references are either discouraged or prohibited in the abstract. It's not a big deal one way or the other, it only makes it look more professional. quote: "it gives undue weight to the idea that excess heat is explained" where do you find an explanation in the lead? Mentioning replications is a possibility, but it will get cumbersome trying to keep it balanced. --Rabbiz (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

For the use of "claim" and alternative to it, please check WP:AVOID and the proposed phrasing in the lead section above. There is no reason why the lead section of a wikipedia article would need to look like an abstract. The last sentence of the proposed new lead section implies that all nuclear physicists argue that excess heat can be explained by "mistaken assumptions and experimental errors". In fact, this view is held by only one half of the 2004 DOE panelists, and thus gives undue weight to that half. For a balance presentation of replications, please see the lead section we agreed upon above. Pcarbonn (talk) 18:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The word claim is a rather ambiguous term and should be avoided. As for the last paragraph, I believe that it asserts undue influence by stating all nuclear physicists dispute the theory, which itself is an unverifiable claim. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Made revisions - is it better now? Regarding the nuclear physicists, as far as I know, all nuclear physicists (myself included) dispute the theory, since it violates the laws of physics. I never heard of one who agrees with it. However, if we find even one reputable nuclear physicist who agrees with it, then we need to change it to "Most..." or "Many..." . --Rabbiz (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rephrased the 4th parag. for clarity, and added references. --Rabbiz (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to find one reputable nuclear physicist who agrees with it: this would be original research. Instead, you have to find a reliable source saying that all physicists use the theoretical argument to reject the experimental evidence as impossible. Furthermore, that source would have to be more reliable than the 2004 DOE, where none of the panelists (which included a fair number of nuclear physicists) mentionned this argument, and a significant number of them actually did not reject the experimental evidence. Also, please remember what the 1989 DOE said: "the failure of a theory to account for cold fusion can be discounted on the grounds that the correct explanation and theory has not been provided". So they clearly said that the lack of theory cannot be used to reject the experimental evidence.

I still don't see any reason to use another version of the lead than the one we have already agreed upon. Pcarbonn (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• This is a good statement of the subject, so would be an acceptable lead. It lacks some of the problems of the current lead, especially the "more than 490" claim which I consider to be a neutrality issue as presented (though less so if the total number of papers were given before the number which are supportive). It also lacks any hint of special pleading, a historical and indeed ongoing problem with this article. Since it is simpler, clearer, plainly and factually stated and reads to me as neutral, I support it. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• One of my main concerns was the removal of the following: "However, there is no scientific consensus that reproducible results have demonstrated the existence of such a phenomenon." It seems to have been rectified with the inclusion of the following: "Nuclear physicists dispute this theory, arguing that nuclear fusion at room temperature and atmospheric pressure is impossible and is contrary to the laws of physics. [...]" and features a citation. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, that was a point worth making at that level. It reads well, as I say, and I think we should accept this and move on to the next section. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

a) Why do we need to cite the same reference to the original F&P paper twice in the same parag.? Looks very unprofessional. b) CF is not an "effect". Calling it an effect already tilts the balance heavily in one direction, as if it is already a scientifically established effect. Adding the qualification "controversial" does not un-tilt it; all it does is add a political flavor to this established "effect". There has not been a single piece of evidence to prove that CF even exists. Heat, radiation, neutrons, protons, helium, etc. are NOT evidence of CF. They are disputable side-effects of "something", the source of which nobody knows. Therefore, the only neutral description I can think of is "CF is a name...", a description which survived many edit wars in old versions. c) Removing the parag. of "Nuclear physicists..." is again an attempt to tilt the balance in favor of one particular POV. It removes the reference to the fact that we are dealing with something which might be contrary to the laws of physics. CF may or may not end up one day in the same category as alchemy, flat earth, and perpetual motion. However, since the vast majority of scientists in the world believe it is in this same category and it does violate the laws of physics (see: http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/050399sci-cold-fusion.html), we have no permission to ignore it. Isn't this kind of POV pushing the reason why we started this whole mediation process? The way the middle parag. looks now is a "special pleading" approach to create bias in favor of one POV. --Rabbiz (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

My biggest problem with this proposed lead is the that, fundamentally, it doesn't point out the lack of reproducibility of the experiments. This is the fundamental problem with it, and is VERY important, perhaps THE most important thing about it - the reason that it was discredited was that everyone basically tried to do it and it just didn't work. This is why it is considered a fringe field - it isn't something which is emerging, its something the scientific community rejected on the basis of confirmatory experimentation not replicating the published results. Not making this clear in the introduction is absolutely unacceptable. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Reproducibility is indeed a key ingredient for credibility. Some of the recent revisions have drifted away from the technical-style lead towards becoming a predominantly political lead. I think the lead should be much more technical than political. Added a display of several versions to facilitate discussions. --Rabbiz (talk) 20:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "a predominantly political lead". Please clarify. In such a controversial subject, we have to be very specific on who thinks what. I would encourage you to look at the WP:NPOV, one of the key policies of wikipedia. Here is what it says (here): "Assert facts, including facts about opinions — but do not assert the opinions themselves" and "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates.[2] A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable." Pcarbonn (talk) 10:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support the v 6 lead, with the caveat of removing "and witchcraft"; it may be sourceable, but I don't think it is particularly notable as a viewpoint; the pathological science view is much more mainstream and it looks like a slam against cold fusion (which it is, to be fair, but I think "pathological science" summarizes that viewpoint better). I think this is an excellent lead. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's response

• I am going to officially endorse version 5, primarily due to the last paragraph in relation to the DOE reports. I feel that the usage of quotations and the strong statements against cold fusion in the lead could be a sign of bias fairly early on. I would like to add that with version 5, I would like to see the following added to the second sentence: "The scientific community, however, have met these reports with skepticism. [ref]" I feel that the addition of the counterbalance, with a reference, would adequately solve any lingering lead issues, especially regarding the final paragraph. seicer | talk | contribs 06:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm fine with the additional sentence you propose. I would add it after the first sentence of the last paragraph though. ("Since then, other reports of anomalous heat and tritium production have been published in peer-reviewed journals, and discussed in special sessions at scientific conferences.") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pcarbonn (talk • contribs) 08:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Omitting the parag. "Nuclear physicists.." Is doing injustice to the lead. Since F&P came up with a speculative nuclear theory, without supporting evidence, there must be a counter balance to that, from the only specialists who are qualified to talk about nuclear theory - nuclear physicists. --Rabbiz (talk) 10:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Justice has been made by quoting the 1989 DOE panel (see last paragraph of V5). The V6 paragraph on nuclear physicists is largely unsourced, and fails the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia: "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact merely by stating "some people believe..." as is common in political debates. A reliable source supporting that a group holds an opinion must accurately describe how large this group is. In addition, this source should be written by named authors who are considered reliable" Pcarbonn (talk) 11:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If it can be sourced, it could be included. seicer | talk | contribs 19:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Included it in v-5.1 as a statement by DOE-1989. This location is also more appropriate for the 1989 panel, to streamline the historical flow of the lead. --Rabbiz (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] OK to publish ?

I would propose that we publish V5.1. This would give us a sense of accomplishment, and immediately improve the quality of the article. If additional changes are needed, it will still be possible to do it. What do you think ? Pcarbonn (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. --Rabbiz (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no issue. seicer | talk | contribs 20:55, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LENR

I would propose to change the lead from "Cold fusion is a name given to a controversial field of research..." to "Cold fusion, or low energy nuclear reaction, is the name given to a controversial field of research ...". The LENR name is used by the researchers and by the DOE in 2004 (see the title of the report). A search on google shows that the name is used on many sites. So it has notability outside of the CF community. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• Any evidence that anyone not seeking to distance themselves from the scorn poured on cold fusion, uses the term LENR? Guy (Help!) 18:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• • We should follow the wikipedia principle of notability and reliable sources. The fact that the 2004 DOE uses LENR gives us enough support to use it too. The criteria you propose is subject to interpretation, which is forbidden by WP:OR. Pcarbonn (talk) 21:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

a) The term LENR is now used as a substitute for "cold fusion" to avoid the negative image of this field in the academic community. Most people who know about CF have no idea what LENR is. b) LENR is really a different field of research. It is focused on a search for the existence of nuclear reactions using nuclear detectors. It has nothing to do with excess heat which is the focus of the CF field. Mixing these two fields in one article would be a mistake. It will also make the article much longer, and will delay the completion of the article - not very desirable. In the article "Belgium" we would not include information about Burma, even though they are both countries on the same planet. Anyone interested in LENR is welcome to start a new article. (Right now LENR redirects to CF, which is a mistake, but let's not deal with it now.) --Rabbiz (talk) 02:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have never heard of the following statements. Please provide sources. I have no intention to make the article much longer than what it is today.

• "LENR is really a different field of research."
• "LENR has nothing to do with excess heat which is the focus of the CF field."

Please provide a reliable source which shows LENR as independent of CF. Pcarbonn (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See, for example, http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep4/ep4alchem.htm and a long list of references there. Transmutations were claimed much before 1989. CF just happens to be another episode in the history of LENR claims. --Rabbiz (talk) 16:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

This pages has 9 occurences of "cold fusion". Hardly a proof that LENR is a distinct field of Cold Fusion... Pcarbonn (talk) 16:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course it does. CF is a recent addition to this field. LENR is is much wider than CF. The original proposal to open the lead with "Cold fusion, or low energy nuclear reaction, is the name given to a controversial field of research ..." creates the impression that LENR is just another name for CF. This is simply not true. It does not mattar if LENR started in 1959 or 1800, it is a wider and earlier field than CF. CF is a subgroup of LENR. LENR is NOT a subgroup or synonym of CF. --Rabbiz (talk) 16:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Another point - LENR is viewed by mainstream scientists as a subgroup of alchemy. If we equate CF with LENR, then, we might as well equate CF with alchemy. Would you support mentioning alchemy in the lead? --Rabbiz (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which "scientific community" ?

The following sentence has been challenged in the talk page of cold fusion [4]: "The scientific community, however, has met these reports with skepticism". There seems to be a consensus to use "most scientist" instead. Reason is that the source quoted for the article does not mention the "scientific community" at all, while this source uses "Most scientists". Could we reach consensus to change this ?Pcarbonn (talk) 08:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree to "Most scientists..." Seicer: I think it is safe to make this modest change. --Rabbiz (talk) 00:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Seicer, would you now accept to change the lead from "the scientific community" to "most scientists", so that we can close this discussion ? Pcarbonn (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References