Talk:Cold fusion

This article was the subject of mediation during 2009 at User_talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion.

To the IP editor from Kursk

Edits appear above from IP addresses 109.127.181.110 and 109.127.155.170 both with the same ADSL provider in Kursk. If they are for one person, would you please consider registering an account? Registration is free and actually improves your privacy. It is quite difficult to hold a real discussion with someone whose name and address keeps changing. Details are at wp:WHYREGISTER. If you prefer, you can register on the Russian-language Wikipedia, as accounts carry across between languages. Thank you. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:01, 27 March 2014 (UTC) Nehotela you Zalata fee izibretatelyu grief, and then here in Russia small fees or none at all, you can publish material after talks addressed alexras.82 @ mail.ru Rasulov A.V. Posmotrimte movie about cold fusion http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGrTWCcsYk8 In this article, you can take anything you publish yourself, http://www.physical-congress.spb.ru/download/cong10% 2803% 29.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexras82 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Is any of the preceding contribution by Alexras82, or the content of the previous section, anything to do with 'improving the cold fusion article', the purpose of the talk page? Just wondering. And did the editor's cat type a few extra characters while the editor wasn't looking? --Brian Josephson (talk) 08:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's likely that Alexras is the IP. Alexras also seems to think that Wikipedia can promote the existence of a fringe journal by reference to a link to the fringe journal, which is of course not correct. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to think this page is for profiling other editors in the negative sense. This is combative behavior that can not be confused for trying to work with other editors. 84.107.128.52 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Closure of some subsections

I notice this very interesting feature of closure of some subsection by JzG (see above at topic of current interest). He has no right of closure for unsettled topics just based on his personal opinion. His abusive closure will be undone.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Your determination to continue grandstanding and POV-pushing is noted. Feel free to go away and find another project that is happy to promote pseudoscience, fringe science and pathological science: Wikipedia is not that project. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also your determination to promote your personal opinion that CF is fringe is noted. Please stop all this nonsense talk about fringe and pathological science which in case does not apply.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my personal opinion, it's a verifiable fact well established in the arbitration case. Guy (Help!) 23:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

One can wonder how well established is the fact of fringe labeling based on sources by top scientists that have a statistical relevance and exclude error propagation by persistent reuse of comments made by Huizenga and Taubes-like sources? Top scientists (Nobelists in physics like Gordon Baym) have been cautious from the beginning in asserting impossibility.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be impossible in order to be fringe and pathological science. Those require only a pathological belief in a single explanation of something, pursued to the exclusion of open testing to see whether it is real and if so what it might be. Science very rarely says that anything is impossible - even homeopathy, which is the most self-evident twaddle, is discussed in terms of the absence of evidence of effect, mechanism and basic science, rather than dismissed outright as the nonsense it is. Popular science books will tend to use informal terms like impossible, ridiculous or whatever, published science will merely say that after X years there has been no published proof of an effect that is reliably reproducible by independent scientists. Guy (Help!) 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Absence of evidence or evidence of absence? Who says anything about a single explanation and who excludes open testing? I think the cautious language is preferable to judgement of value like dismissed outright as the nonsense it is.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In science, the burden of evidence is very firmly on the claimant. They have failed to make their case. The court of science has recorded a verdict of "not proven". Nobody doubts that the faithful are sincere in their belief, but you know what happened to the boy who cried "wolf!". They are not going to get any significant traction until they have solid basic science showing a credible mechanism. It's like homeopathy in that respect: we know they can reproduce the result, albeit unbelievers seem not to be able to, but what grounds are there for believing that these results are anything other than chance? There are precedents, e.g.: Jacques Benveniste and his water memory, Prosper-René Blondlot and his n-rays. Science has learned a lot about the power of belief over the years. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I think you have partially misunderstood the modus operandi of science. Science and especially the scientific method operates by falsification/disproving which implies the evidence of absence and it has little if at all to do with belief. Even if an (imaginary?) court of science (who are the members of this is another question) may have recorded a verdict of "not proven" until the evidence of absence has convincingly emerged, there is no justification of categorical labeling. Even some theorems can be not proven at some moment and hold the status of a conjecture. A classical example of disproving is the disproving of the geocentrism. Search for mechanisms can be in investigation.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

The section will be restored. No one has the right to archive aspects whose inclusion needs to be discussed.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Those sections were meandering, with no improvement to the article in sight. e.g.: Talk:Cold_fusion/Archive_46#Cited_excerpt was proposing a comment in wikipedia to counter a famous book, #Incompatibility_to_conventional_fusion had become a discussion about the general topic.

In WP:TALK#Others.27_comments "It is still common to simply delete gibberish, comments or discussion about the article subject (as opposed to its treatment in the article),(...)" (Personally, I would have preferred a "collapse" template) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

1) It is an improvement in sight because knowing exactly what has been quoted from Huot by Huizenga gives additional insight about the usability of Huizenga's book as a source.

2) WP:TALK#Others.27_comments's specification mentioned above do not apply here where aspects that should be presented in article require clarification.

As a general conclusion from the two aspects in reply to Enric Naval and other aspects mentioned in this section archiving is not necessary and the section Topics of current interest will be restored.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 09:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If the section is restored, the person responsible may be blocked for disruption. The only arguments for inclusion thus far are from people with no other interest in Wikipedia. We understand your passion but we're not here to play a part in rehabilitating the image of cold fusion within the scientific community or elsewhere. Cold fusion is regarded as fringe and pathological science, this is the consensus view of independent experts, we reflect that view per our foundational policies and specifically because of the arbitration case noted at the top of this page. Cold fusion is a walled garden and until it starts getting meaningful input fomr outside of the walled garden (which does not mean being allowed to talk among yourselves at meetings not devoted to CF), our article won't change.

Change the outside world first, Wikipedia changes later. That's the rule. And it's going to be applied with especial rigour here because of the past excesses of CF proponents on this article. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

@188.27.144.144, You can check the reliability of Huizenga's book by the positive reviews it got. And by the times it has been cited by other authors. I don't see any source saying that Huizenga's book contains misrepresentations. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Citing by other authors does not necessarily exclude error propagation. The best check of reliability can be done by seeing what is the base of the assertions made by Huizenga based on some scientific article cited. This may involve specialized knowledge of physical chemistry and mathematics according to WP:CIR#Lack of technical expertise.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 11:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that your arguments pertain more to the land of not providing reliable sources that directly support the removal.

In contrast, in the last thread, I managed to find a science educative book that takes Huizenga's analysis as a correct analysis that should be taken into account when doing experiments. And another source that makes a point similar to Huizenga's point. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to cite a source that says Huizenga's book is inaccurate if it is the case. Just analyzing the article(s) cited by Huizenga's and comparing to the full text of those article one should immediately see (although this may require specialized scientific expertise) if Huizenga's assertions are overblown or not and if there is a misquotation of articles or not.--82.137.13.159 (talk) 20:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

And then we're back to using unpublished original research of primary sources.... --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not OR, just immediate inference. No source is required to see if there is an error in some source similarly to seeing that 1+1=3 is false. Specialized technical expertise can and must be used if and where necessary.--82.137.9.236 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read Huizenga's source. But a primary source titled Electrolytic Hydrogenation and Amorphization of Pd‐Zr Alloys surely requires quite a lot of "specialized knowledge" to interpret, something that it discouraged by WP:PRIMARY. Especially when we already have an interpretation by a secondary source. You are unlikely to get anything done about this until you can provide more than unpublished research made by yourself. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Reading and understanding (using technical expertise if it is required) (primary) sources is not interpreting them and is a necessary condition for those who want to have a say in shaping the content of the article. Checking for (and noticing) possible discrepancies and misquotations of primary sources must not be discouraged under the pretext that would be considered interpretation. A quote from WP:CIR says : ″Insufficient technical knowledge is not usually a problem, unless when adding, deleting, or changing technical content. Not everyone needs the same skill set—and as long as people operate only where they're capable.″ And those who say that haven't read a source that is discussed are in a not very legitimate position because of the WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT that forbids citing directly a source not read.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

To clarify: I have read Huizenga. I have not read the source cited by Huizenga. In other words, I have read the secondary source, but I have not read the primary source cited by the secondary source. That should be OK by wikipedia standards.

We are talking about the interpretation of a complicated scientific equation that even trained people have problems getting right, and its application in a difficult environment with lots of confusing variables. That sounds to me like "technical content". I can't agree with you on this. Never mind that WP:CIR is an essay while WP:PRIMARY is policy. You are welcome to ask for uninvolved output in the reliable sources noticeboard or in the talk page of the "no original research" policy. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The equation is pretty simple and not needs a so-called interpretation. You should not try to obstruct the use of specialized expertise where is needed by opposing two wikirules. Without technical expertise you can't have a say in handling technical content and deciding what source is usable for what assertion. Every editor should wikioperate where he is capable. Perhaps an addition to WP:PRIMARY from WP:CIR should be made that emphasizes the necessity of technical expertise which is absolutely necessary in handling technical content. Editors who do not show enough understanding should stay out of topics out of their reach and not obstruct editors who have sufficient understanding for managing technical content/sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 14:15, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at the book Understanding Voltammetry. Nernst equation seems to be quite complicated to calculate and to get right. Understanding this equation without specialized knowledge should be really difficult.

Book This educational book details explicitly what pieces of knowledge are needed to understand the Nernst equation. Almost a page and a half of explanations. After that, it recommends to "consult a college-level algebra book" if you don't understand the maths involved. The google preview ends there.

[www.chembio.uoguelph.ca/educmat/chem7234/Lecture%201.ppt Lecture] on college-level course "Fundamentals of Electrochemistry". Lots of maths and chemistry concepts are needed to understand the applications of the equation on different types of cells.

Please stop claiming that this equation can be understood without technical knowledge on the subject. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely one cannot reasonably expect that editors not or insufficiently familiarized with the concepts needed to understand the equation dictate or impose editing restrictions to editors who are familiarized and notice errors in quotation in a secondary source like Huizenga's and want to remove them without appealing unnecessarily to another source that would notice the errors in the first secondary source.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

The unfamiliarized editors should firstly familiarize themselves with the necessary concepts and only then when they prove their familiarization exert to right to edit topics previously not understood.--82.137.9.180 (talk) 08:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Surely the secondary sources are clear enough on the topic, without need of specialized knowledge to understand them. And that's the best situation, according to wikipedia guidelines. We are only following wikipedia's guidelines about reliable sources. If you think that this is an imposition, then maybe wikipedia is not the right place for you. You will have to find a website that allows unpublished personal research. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Enric Naval One of the issues with this topic is that it is so little discussed outside of the waled garden of cold fusionists, and their followers are so determined to expand it ad infinitum, that each successive revision is proportionally more reliant on a tiny number of partisan sources. Much of it is really a rambling timeline of trivial events that manifestly failed to change anybody's mind. I guess this is inevitable in fringe and pseudoscience topics (homeopathy was the same for a long time, for example). Guy (Help!) 14:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose you are referring to Cold_fusion#Subsequent_research, and some of the paragraphs at Cold_fusion#Reported_results? --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Semiprotection?

It seems that some users are making unfounded allusions of semi-protection of this talk page.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

It will, however, be semiprotected if you insist on continually restoring the WP:FORUM cruft. Guy (Help!) 12:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to obstruct legitimate comments under the impression/pretext/labeling that they be WP:FORUM cruft is disruptive.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 12:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Template Housekeeping

The template at the top of this talk page referring to sanctions linked to the wrong ArbCom case, which had to do with climate change. I have changed it to link to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience, because cold fusion is considered by the mainstream scientific community to be fringe science or pseudoscience as usually defined. There was also an ArbCom case entitled Cold Fusion, but it was decided after Pseudoscience and resulted in a few editors being topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

How do you parse the enforcement provision in the link you deleted "1) The cold fusion article, and parts of any other articles that are substantially about cold fusion, are subject to discretionary sanctions." (the original ruling includes that wikilink to this article) as the wrong ruling having 'to do with climate change?' The Abd-WMC case was resolved years after the Pseudoscience case, and the arbitration committee found it necessary at that time to make it utterly clear that sanctions apply to this article whether or not someone chooses to argue whether or not this topic is pseudoscience. (In fact, you'll see from the current talk page that some still actively dispute this categorization.) It is therefore useful to link to the decision which specifically nails down that this particular article is subject to sanctions whether or not one considers it to be pseudoscience. Things get muddy because the committee decided to retroactively merge logging of enforcement with the earlier pseudoscience case for purposes of simplifying recordkeeping ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment&oldid=484342294#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Discretionary_sanctions_in_cases_named_after_individual_editors ). However, I think there is value in maintaining the link to the Cold Fusion-specific ruling to avoid misunderstandings... after all, this article was problematic enough that the arbitration committee found it necessary to single this page out for sanctions years after the pseudoscience ruling had been in effect. Perhaps all three should be linked in the template? --Noren (talk) 23:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I had been looking at a different William M. Connolley case. My mistake. The case does indeed involve cold fusion, and explicitly states that cold fusion is subject to discretionary sanctions. The pseudoscience discretionary sanctions are also applicable. I agree that both cases should be cited, and possibly the Cold Fusion case, although it did not restate the sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Pretending something is pseudoscience while it is not is a great example of unacceptable behavior.

84.107.128.52 (talk) 07:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Obstructive archiving of discussion in progress

I notice on this page and from its history that attempts of obstructive ending of valid discussions by tendentious archiving and other means by some users (JzG, Binksternet, etc). This is an example of unacceptable behaviour.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that it has been suggesting that edits should be commented, not behaviour. A recent edit like that of McSly of trying prevent legitimate comments is unaceptable.--82.137.14.162 (talk) 18:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Content handling

I also notice a suggestion by Enric Naval that is not complying with all guidelines, that technical content should be managed without understanding of topics edited. Insistance of editing certain topics with undestanding them is becoming disruptive and vandalism.--193.254.231.34 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)