Talk:Cold fusion

Skip to table of contents

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Cold fusion. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Cold fusion at the Reference desk.

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

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on March 23, 2012 and March 23, 2014.

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

Cold fusion is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 24, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 16, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
January 6, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted
June 3, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
June 7, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
July 19, 2006	Good article reassessment	Delisted
December 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
May 28, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
November 23, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Former featured article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Physics B‑class High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Skepticism Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Stephen Foley (Tuesday, 3 February 2009). "So is Wikipedia cracking up?:It was a utopian vision: an encyclopedia for the people, by the people. But eight years on, Wikipedia is plagued by endless hoaxes, and lurches from one cash crisis to another. Will it become a footnote in the history of the web?". The Independent. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Archives

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by .

Reflist for Talk

Moving on from RFC

The two-part RFC has now been closed. Cold fusion, or reports of cold fusion, may be said to be considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. Cold fusion may also be categorized in Category 2 as defined by the ArbCom in WP:ARBPS, areas that are generally considered to be pseudoscience but have a following. Any edits that differ with those conclusions are against consensus, and so are disruptive. Any questions that do not contain sufficient to be answered, or any edit requests that do not contain sufficient detail to be understood, may be ignored, but, if persistent, are disruptive editing, and can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement.

Now that the RFC has been closed and consensus is established, I will be requesting that this talk page, but not the article page, be unprotected, to allow comments by unregistered editors. However, any disruptive editing of this talk page (which has happened more than once) will either result in its semi-protection again, or in Arbitration Enforcement, or both.

Now that the RFC has been closed, we can move on.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've no idea what this is all about, but you certainly do not have my agreement to the proposition that CF is considered to be pathological science by the mainstream scientific community. The fact that papers on the subject have been published by regular peer-reviewed journals disproves the proposition. This whole business has the air of a coup and smells distinctly nasty. --Brian Josephson (talk) 11:33, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly RFC could have lasted longer than the default duration (30 days) and not necessarily needed an explicit closure. In cases with obvious lack of consensus like this an explicit closure that just count votes and not !votes is not needed.--86.125.191.31 (talk) 18:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

N-rays and polywater were also published in peer-reviewed journals. Perpetual motion machines are still occasionally patented (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_perpetual_motion_machines#1981 to 1999). Being published means next-to-nothing. It is the scientific consensus that is derived through discussion of such publications that brings validity, and when the cold fusion researchers deliberately misunderstand critics and refuse to answer them, they prove they are pathological scientists. Invoking conspiracy theories doesn't help either. Kirk shanahan (talk) 12:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those mentioned topics have been falsified quite rapidly.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which doesn't change the fact that pseudoscience got published before, and probably will again. Kirk shanahan (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once falsified, the topics disproved like poliwater have never been investigated and published.--86.125.191.31 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that ANY addition to the article supporting the proposition that Cold Fusion is real, and that its investigation is legitimate, if controversial, science, is against the "consensus" and will be regarded as disruptive? Alanf777 (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that additions to article should be based on reviews articles in journals.--5.15.36.30 (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what sources support the statement, and how the statement is presented. Compare these two statements:

"Cold fusion is real, and most scientists agree with this" (link to the self-published website of a supporter)
"According to historian of science X, cold fusion is currently not considered real by scientists because of Y and Z. But it should be considered real because of R and T." (cite to a scholar book, the author is a guy who specialized in history of physics and has good reviews)

--Enric Naval (talk) 16:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the latter case, the opinion of historian of science X may be cited with the reference to reasons R and T as the opinion of historian of science X. All statements made in the voice of Wikipedia should be avoided, regardless of what side they are on, because Wikipedia's job is to present the divided voice of mainstream science. Reliable quotes are permitted in the voices of their authors, not of Wikipedia. Quotes that give undue weight to the idea that cold fusion is mainstream should be avoided. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems reasonable that statements in Wikipedia voice should be avoided. Selection of quotes however isn't a clear cut issue and it can easily be abused. There is no consensus in reliable sources about CF status as fringe or not and Wikipedia should reflect this lack of consensus in sources.--188.27.144.144 (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]