Talk:Cold fusion

Archives

November 2003 – November 2003 December 2003 – July 2004 July 2004 – January 2005 February 2005 – December 2005 January 2006 – January 2006 January 2006 – April 2006 (E. Storms article, ObsidianOrder article, Powerpedia, Atomic temperature, F&P Press Conference, Jones and Rafelski) April 2006 (POV issues) April - May 2006 (POV issues) June 2006 (Lead section) August 2006 (Nuclear Transmutation and length of article)

To do items from an archive discussion

7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.

8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.

10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.

11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. --Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

12. It needs to be pointed out in the commercial section that a theory that explains the experimental results is necessary before an accurate estimate of commercial potential can be made.--Ron Marshall 19:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

is LENR a subset of CMNS ?

The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"". What are the other parts of CMNS ? How do they differ from LENR ? Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research. Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

about the "quotefarm" tag

Found in WP:QUOTE:

Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."

Pcarbonn 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PCarbonn, I removed the quotefarm tag. I am losing patience with your games.--Ron Marshall 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

PCarbonn, this is not about editing, this is about your bias and your effort to suppress the experimenters point of view. The problem is a DOE panelist made himself and his cohorts look bad and despite all the insults of experimenters in the article you cannot let that stand. If I turned the quote into statements you would invent some other excuse.--Ron Marshall 18:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, this is only about writing a good wikipedia article. I put the tag back. Let's turn these quotes into statements, and we'll both be happy.Pcarbonn 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Ron, I removed your statements about me: they are plain wrong and out of place (see WP:ATTACK), and I ignore them anyway. My only concern is to write a good wikipedia article. Now that the history section has been moved to a sub-article, we have more room to discuss the fine points of the argument.Pcarbonn 07:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

M's comments on bias

The most important - and hence most controversial - matter that this article should address is what the scientific community at large has to say about cold fusion. Do they shun it? Do they approach it with interest? Is skepticism abating? What results (accepted by the scientific community) are there? How are they interpreted? The lead addresses this as follows:

The latest mainstream review of research in LENR occurred in 2004 when the US Department of Energy set up a panel of eighteen scientists. When asked "Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources", the panelists were evenly split. When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence "somewhat convincing" and one was entirely convinced. The nearly unanimous opinion of the reviewers was that funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field. Critics say that the DOE review had too limited a scope and inappropriate review process.

Alright, I was somewhat skeptical (evidence proportional to claims), but this sounds good. Of course, the best source of information is probably the Report itself, so I went to have a look.

While significant progress has been made in the sophistication of calorimeters since the review of this subject in 1989, the conclusions reached by the reviewers today are similar to those found in the 1989 review.

Is what the conclusion states. Haha - something's not quite right here, is it? Looking closer, I see other ...mistakes.

"Is there compelling evidence for power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources" is not the question asked, and a needless re-intepretation of the report's "evidence for excess power is compelling". Don't use quotes unless quoting, and don't needlessly change "excess power" to "power that cannot be attributed to ordinary chemical or solid-state sources". And don't skip something as seemingly important as "Most reviewers, including those who accepted the evidence and those who did not, stated that the effects are not repeatable, the magnitude of the effect has not increased in over a decade of work, and that many of the reported experiments were not well documented."

"When asked about low energy nuclear reactions, two thirds of the panel did not feel that there was any conclusive evidence, five found the evidence 'somewhat convincing' and one was entirely convinced." is a needless substitute for "Two-thirds of the reviewers [...] did not feel the evidence was conclusive for low energy nuclear reactions, one found the evidence convincing, and the remainder indicated they were somewhat convinced."

"...funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments in this field." is much more general than the specific and explicit "...funding agencies should entertain individual, well-designed proposals for experiments that address specific scientific issues relevant to the question of whether or not there is anomalous energy production in Pd/D systems, or whether or not D-D fusion reactions occur at energies on the order of a few eV."

Criticisms such as "Many reviewers noted that poor experiment design, documentation, background control and other similar issues hampered the understanding and interpretation of the results presented." were entirely omitted.

But my biggest objection is, why isn't the clear conclusion being provided? I see that the current paragraph makes cold fusion seem quite legitimate (not to say that it's illegitimate - I don't know), while the actual conclusion states that nothing has changed since the 1989 review - the review isn't mentioned in the article. I doubt that it had "good" things to say about cold fusion, considering the history. The motive seems clear.

Moving up a paragraph, we see "However, from 1989 to the present many scientists report experimental observations of..." - someone is mistaken as to what "many" means. They probably should have used the word "some", or "few" - unless in fact "many" is the correct word, which I doubt.

Looking at the citations for the first paragraph:

1. Mizuno, T., "Nuclear Transmutation: The Reality of Cold Fusion". 1998, Concord, NH: Infinite Energy Press
2. Beaudette, Charles. Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed, 2nd. Ed. South Bristol, ME, Oak Grove Press, 2002. ISBN 0-9678548-3-0.
3. Hagelstein P. et al., "New physical effects in metal deuterides", submitted to the 2004 DoE panel on cold fusion [2]
4. Mallove, Eugene. "Fire from Ice: Searching for the Truth Behind the Cold Fusion Furor". Concord, N.H.: Infinite Energy Press, 1991. ISBN 1-892925-02-8
5. Krivit, Steven ; Winocur, Nadine. The Rebirth of Cold Fusion: Real Science, Real Hope, Real Energy. Los Angeles, CA, Pacific Oaks Press, 2004 ISBN 0-9760545-8-2

One is the paper submitted to the panel. The rest are books and hence not easily verifyable, and come from unknown (in google) or suggestively named ("infinite energy press") publishers - which is all fine, but not when other sources are lacking. The citations for the second paragraph were surprising - considering the tone, I expected critisicm from the scientific community at large. Instead, it's critisicm given by proponents. That simply doesn't belong in the lead section, not unless it's as important as the definition (it isn't), the history (it isn't), the current state of affairs (it isn't), and a clarification that needs to be shortened.

Citations in an article as obviously controversial as this should be expanded. What did Mizuno's book say, exactly? Don't be afraid to cite the paragraph. If that paragraph for example refers us to 4 experiments that have been carried out cite the results of those experiments instead of the book.

Looking now at the first citation, the one that addresses "but the public debate abated quickly and cold fusion was generally rejected by the mainstream scientific community", I see that it points to an article titled "DOE Warms to Cold Fusion". Rebuttals not what citations are for. Simply write it out - "...rejected by the mainstream scientific community. However, the DOE has decided to proceed with an evaluation of...[1]" - which really doesn't deserve mention anymore. Those citing sources have a look at Multiple_uses_of_the_same_footnote.

Though it initially seemed alright, I'm going to remove "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS). ". It's not cited is one reason, but the main reason is that ofter debunked subjects of inquiry tend to, amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about. Regardless, you refer to the topic by its title, otherwise the page should be moved to "Low energy nuclear reaction" - if not, then this naming comment belongs at the end of history, and not up in the lead.

This is just the introduction. I don't care about cold fusion. I am, however, intolerant of the sort of bias that this article presents. If you're a proponent of cold fusion, please stop editing this article, or edit it to the extent that your position is represented by the scientific community. I see the notice, but since I doubt that a rebuttal to this will show that green is red and that this isn't all just bias, I'm going to change the lead section to address these concerns. –M^T 22:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Response to comments

Dear M:

I have a pro-cf bias. I admit it and make no attempt to hide it. And I also respect anyone who has an anti-cf bias and backs up their positions with logic, courtesy, references and cooperates with others amicably and with Wikilove.

Normally when one wants to make drastic changes, the considerate thing to do is to propose it first in the TALK, give it a few days, and then see how it goes. You appear to have lost tolerance for, or are ignorant of this mode of community effort.

I cannot say that I have found your recent action to be respectful or neutral - as you allege. Your anti-cf bias shows quite clearly. Please don't come here and play games. Many people have been working very hard on this page for quite some time. Perhaps you had a bad day or something. Anyway, you need to play nice here or find some other sandbox to play in.

Now, on to matters of fact.

1. You state "The most important - and hence most controversial - matter that this article should address is what the scientific community at large has to say about cold fusion. Do they shun it? Do they approach it with interest? Is skepticism abating?"

You need to defend the following points:

1a. Why should scientific opinion be the most important aspect of this article? Is opinion more important than the actual research and scientific facts?

1b. How do you know what the "scientific community at large" is? Have you done some sort of survey? Do you have a reference for the "scientific community at large"? Are you alleging that 18 members of the 2004 DOE panel represent the "scientific community at large"

1c. To directly answer your question, I might direct you to the excellent online magazine, New Energy Times. They appear to be quite expert in this subject matter. They recently reported on a U.S. Navy Science and Technology conference this summer that took place in Washington, D.C. To answer your questions, based on editor Steven Krivit's article http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#FROMED it would seem that interest is growing and skepticism is abating. You may also note that, as Krivit says, " LENR research was one of many other research areas and applications presented at the conference. They included inertial confinement fusion, fuel cells, biodiesel, coal, wind, and synthetic hydrocarbon liquids." Of course, you can dismiss Krivit as biased, if you wish, but he *was* there in Washington, D.C. and apparently he did meet generals, admirals and the like. Did you attend the conference?

2. As far as the 2004 DOE Cold Fusion review, I'm as confused as you are as to the origin of those quotes and would be quite pleased to see the specific references. I've looked at the charge letter http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ChargeLetter.pdf and I don't see that language, though I believe that language may have come from some of the reviewers own personal comments, http://newenergytimes.com/DOE/2004-DOE-ReviewerComments.pdf though I don't care to nitpick and hunt that down at the moment.

3.Next matter is your comment, "someone is mistaken as to what "many" means. They probably should have used the word "some", or "few" - unless in fact "many" is the correct word, which I doubt."

There seem to be about 200 researchers around the world who have been working on this over the last few years. When I say "working," my definition is anyone who has written or co-authored a paper on the subject. If you have an argument with that metric, please let me know. The references for these people are in the conference abstracts. If you go to the New Energy Times "Conferences" page, http://newenergytimes.com/Conf/conf.htm you will find a rather detailed index of conferences, and under many of the headings, you'll find links to conference abstracts. Read them - count the researchers over the last few years - tell me how mistaken I am. Also, you might try going to some of the conferences and meeting some of them first hand. If you're near Russia, the next big international conference is in 2007. If you're in the U.S., the conference will be in Washington, D.C. in 2008. I would expect attendance over 200 in D.C. but not so many in Russia due to the travel challenges.

4. Next item: " The rest are books and hence not easily verifyable"

What do you mean "not easily verifyable?" Do you mean accessible? If so, try Amazon; you can purchase all the books [Mallove, Krivit/Wincour, Mizuno and Beaudette] there. Do you mean that the contents in the books are not reliable, accurate, or the sources are not identified? For someone who is trying to improve the factual basis of a scientific article, your suggestion of a less-than-credible reference as these, due to "not easily verifyable?" is so ridiculous that it really makes me wonder. You do realize, of course, the pains that authors, publishers and their lawyers go through to assure the factualness of their books before they spend ten to forty thousand dollars on a book run?

I've read Krivit and Beaudette's books in detail. Seems as though they provide ample references to "verify" their content.

5. And what is your point: "and come from unknown (in google) or suggestively named ("infinite energy press") publishers"

Is a book not a worthy book unless it is published by a publisher which is well-known and established? You're making me laugh now. Infinite-Energy Press - yes, duh, of course it is suggestive. Got a problem with it? You say, "which is all fine." You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. If you didn't have a problem with "Infinite-Energy Press" you wouldn't have mentioned it.

6. Next item: "Though it initially seemed alright, I'm going to remove "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), part of the field of "condensed matter nuclear science" (CMNS). ". It's not cited is one reason, but the main reason is that after debunked subjects of inquiry tend to, amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about."

6a. The reference for this was identified in this page as a need a while ago. So, thanks to you, I searched and found a reference. Now, you're going to have to be a bit patient with this. It's not in any textbook at the moment. First of all, this "cold fusion" idea is only 17 years old. Second, it's been a pretty big mish-mosh of information. However, if you go to the people who - at least claim to - be experts on the topic, you'll find that this is their understanding of CMNS and LENR.

I won't bore you with the details, but I will suggest you read item #9 in New Energy Times FAQ http://newenergytimes.com/PR/LENR-FAQ.htm

Nagel, by the way, the author of the graph, is a college Prof, and is retired from a very high-ranking position in the U.S. Naval Research Laboratory in the condensed matter group. He's been speaking about CMNS/LENR to government, military and scientific groups for the last few years including the DOD, APS, NRL. Ask him, if you can't google this - it's not something that's been highly publicized - but first try googling him on New Energy Times. Please don't even suggest that he's unqualified.

6b. "after debunked subjects of inquiry" Guess what, my friend? It was never debunked. *That's* bunk! Caltech, MIT and others did slipshod hasty experiments in less than 6 weeks and then called it quits.

Take a look at Krivit's Historical Analysis of Key Cold Fusion Experiments http://newenergytimes.com/Reports/HistoricalAnalysisSummaryCharts.htm . I'm sure you've never heard of the guy and he's not a scientist, but just look what he's researched - it's all referenced - all laid out on the table. Krivit's been speaking around the world for the last few years on this stuff - in front of real nuclear physicists -http://newenergytimes.com/contact/contact.htm#appearances and as far as I know, nobody has challenged him or found problems with his investigations.

6c. " amongst their supporters, have their name changed to something new to avoid that past stigma (not to say that cold fusion is debunked). I suspect that this is what "LENR" is about."

Sorry to disappoint you, but AFAIK, nobody involved in "cold fusion" really gives a hoot what the rest of the world thinks anymore. I'm mean, really, after the beating its taken, how much further in the ghetto of science can it get?

It's called LENR, AFAIK, for several reasons:

1. The hypothesis of "fusion" is even debated among those in the "cold fusion" field.

2. As I've heard, there are some reactions that are clearly not even fusion, some kind of low energy transmutation, perhaps fissions, perhaps something new.

3. There is a new theory out by Widom and Larsen http://newenergytimes.com/news/2006/NET18.htm#wl4 that suggests that LENR has something to do with ultra low momentum neutrons - not fusion, not fission.

The name "cold fusion" was stupid in the first place, it was not chosen by F&P and it is stupid, except when referring to the history, to continue to use it to describe the science.

Yes, science.

STemplar 06:08, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if somone feels so inspired and willing, to revert the draconian changes by M. I will do it myself, if neccessary but I would prefer to see if there is community agreement with my position, and I would also like to avoid an edit war.

STemplar 06:13, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

--- --- ---

Scientific "opinion", also known as scientific consensus, reflects research and scientific facts. One may claim X, or Y, or whatever, but the truth of the claims is best found not in the minds of you and I, but in many minds. Even if you were to offer me irrefutable proof of some claim, because is an encyclopedia, I would not agree to adding it. That's not how we work. The 18 members of the panel represent the scientific community. I may or may not think that they were poorly selected - again, it doesn't matter. Until we have respectable and neutral sources claiming poor selection, we don't add anything.

New Energy Times "[offers] original reporting on research in the field of leading-edge energy and power technologies, with an emphasis on cold fusion". This is fine, but not a source I would want to involve myself with considering their apparent inclination. Could you please quote where in Krivit's article growing interest is suggested? I'd like to have a quick look, but yes, I won't accept "interest is growing" when the only source is a proponent. A person that meets a general is not thereby more trustworthy.

Of those 200 researchers, how many report these observations? 150? Of "scientists researching cold fusion" then, yes? But given that only 200 researchers are working (by your definition) on a technology that may bear such massive fruits as near-unlimined free energy, I fully stand by my claim that "many scientists" is not the right proportion (of those potentially interested in such a technology).

I mean that it is hard for me to verify a book, in comparison to a website. As I said, this doesn't bother me, it's the lack of easily-verifyable citations that does that. And redundantly, I'm fine with "infinite energy press", it's the lack of non-pro-cf books that I'm against.

If LENR is not a common term, then why is it mentioned here? | I never said that anything was debunked, just that I was suspicious of that usage in an article with the bias that I found. | As far as I'm concerned, LENR is a better term than cold fusion, and would happily change it and wait for it to settle in. Sadly, I may not do this.

I want to make make something quite clear: I'm not anti-cf. This is not even my domain. I wish that accurate information is provided to me, and for that I am against your work on this article. I don't think that any anti-cf bias exists, or shows - what is your criteria for judging such bias? I find your patronization ridiculously out of place. I'm sure that you've (plural) been working hard for quite some time, but I point out that your hard work has led to this article to be stripped of its featured article status, and then of its good article status. Bias is the most-cited reason for this.

Regarding my changes. The comment is justifyably tactless. The removal of the uncommon LENR naming from the lead was proper. The references given have nothing to do with "but the public debate abated quickly and cold fusion was generally rejected by the mainstream scientific community", and so were moved. The quotes were all uncited, non-representative, and evasive of the conclusion (which is effectively the summary of that document) - biased towards pro-cf. The abridgement of that medium paragraph regarding other topics had nothing to do with pro-/anti-cf. The correction of citations is nothing but proper. What are you against? Perhaps how I've presented the conclusion of the report? Can you more aptly summarize that conclusion? –M^T 08:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I support M in this matter. As part of being WP:BOLD, I reverted the article to its featured status. There are obvious improvements that can be made to the article, but when an article degrades as this one has done, it is important to go back to a point where it was better. Let's propose that M and I take edits slowly: one by one. And we'll see what we can do in terms of WP:V, WP:OR, WP:RS, etc. --ScienceApologist 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to take the edits slowly, one-by-one, then please don't throw out months of work by dozens of editors. You deleted over 70 peer-reviewed sources. There is a line between being bold and being a dick, and that kind of deletion crosses it. GKK 06:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The months of work were not "thrown out" since we as editors can see them in the article history. We deleted the "sources" because we are working from the article that was previously featured. As we continue to add, cull, and edit material, we will consider the relevance and usefulness of including these sources, each in turn. --ScienceApologist 07:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you just delete the parts you think are bad instead of deleting over two years of work? Putting "sources" in scare quotes doesn't change the fact that most of them are peer-reviewed. There is no reason you need to throw out two years of work and that many sources. GKK 07:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, nothing is ever thrown away on Wikipedia. It's all there to see. We aren't talking about deletion here, we are talking about starting from a point where the article was featured. That's considered a high standard on Wikipedia. The article as you are promoting it was not up to those standards. We want the best possible article and so are starting from when the article was better. If you disagree and think that the article is better in your version, take it up with the article review processes of the featured and good article collaborations. Your issue is with them, not with me. --ScienceApologist 07:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are talking about a featured review which is over two years old. Yes, I think that version is worse, not because what it says, but because it contains a tiny fraction of the links and references for people to learn more from. Your attempt to destroy two years of edits isn't very much better than vandalism no matter how much you try to dress it up. It's obvious from your comments and previous edits that you are simply using the excuse of being "better" because you disagree with the consensus version that arose in the following two years since the controversial topic made FA status. That is POV-pushing, plain and simple. You can't seriously think that an article as unstable as this one will suddenly regain FA status simply because of a revert to a two-year-old version. GKK 08:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I am stating that if the article was FA at one time it can be FA again. We are starting from scratch and will allow you to help us getting in any information you wish to see in the article. However, violating 3RR as you just did is a blockable offense and you will be reported for it. I encourage you to discuss what precisely you wish to see in the article. If you think the version you like is better than the FA version, then you should take up the issue with the review that delisted the article. Otherwise, we should start with the version that was, by community consensus, considered of higher quality than the current article. --ScienceApologist 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

You are accusing me of violating 3RR with my last edit to the article? How exactly could adding a tag which neither you nor any other editor has removed from the article in at least the past several months be considered "undoing another editor's work?" I demand that you retract your false accusation. GKK 08:19, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

No, thankfully you didn't violate 3RR! I retract my statement and apologize. --ScienceApologist 08:33, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Citations and hard work do not make an article great. This is made obvious by the consensus-based demotions of this article even as recently as this July. The best place to start building a 'perfect article' is at the place that consensus - not you nor I - deems this article to be best. Though you believe that the peak takes place at the most recent revisions, a respect for consensus dictates that that peak is at the 'featured article revision' (though perhaps we should have a look at revisions up to a week after that event). –M^T 11:06, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary, citations and hard work are probably more than 90% of what make an article great. This is a controversial subject, and it always has been, and maybe it always will be. Just because some individual came along and marked it GA, and then another individual tossed it off the GA list doesn't mean that there was consensus of any kind involved. And no, FA status from less than two years ago isn't any kind of a "peak" in status, which in this case is obvious because of over 70 missing peer-reviewed article citations and the statements that had referenced them. Your comments above clearly show that you were opposed to the article in its present-day form. You have provided no reasons that the present-day article is worse than the FA version other than an appeal to the consensus of two years ago. Please give me some reason to believe that this rhetoric is an effort from good faith and not simply bias pushing. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

4:0 individuals made it a FA. 24:9 demoted it. Of those opposed, 6 had less than 11 edits. 24 agreeing against 3 is consensus. The temporary loss of these citations is inconvenient, but we didn't just remove them: we also removed all of the content that has unarguably caused this article's degradation in the view of clear consensus. This is enough justification to revert to a point before the identification of the degradation, but the clear bias that I have shown in the lead is yet more. –M^;;T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Totallydisputed tag

Because it seems clear from his edits to this article that ScienceApologist had problems with its content before he reverted to the FA version of over two years ago, and because he doesn't provide any reasons that he thinks the old article is "better," and because the old article has only a tiny fraction of the number of links and references to more information, including completely ignoring the DOE review, the comments of which by M, above, he purports to be addressing with the revert, I believe ScienceApologist is simply trying to use the massive revert to push his own bias on the article. Because the old FA version of the article completely ignores the DOE review, and contains uncited sources such as "Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproduceable"[sic] which are plainly contradicted by the peer-reviewed sources in the present-day version, the old article is also inaccurate. Therefore I have placed the {{totallydisputed}} tag on ScienceApologist's version. GKK 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Have we discussed any content? I'm waiting for you to begin discussing what you want to see included but I haven't seen anything. The reason the older article is better is because it was featured. The current article was delisted for reasons that can be read about in the review. If you disagree with those comments, you need to address them specifically. What we can start doing is adding citation tags if you think things are disputed. Let's start with the sentence you want to cite. I'll add the {{fact}} tag. --ScienceApologist 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And now that I have a citation to this fact, I have replaced it with a reference. --ScienceApologist 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Part of your here-expressed disagreement with our starting position has nothing to do with neutrality and factual accuracy, it has to do with the lost work. | ScienceApologist has cited his source (and should cite the conclusion of the DOE report). This leaves you to provide sources that stand up to the DOE report - and it will not do to claim that a book authored by a cf researcher has equal weight to areport by the United States Department of Energy. The sources should show us that advancements actually have been made (in contradiction to the conclusion of the DOE report). At that point, this tag would be justified. Right now it is not. I suggest its removal. –M^T 11:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I usually don't like to remove tags especially when the article is so clearly a "work in progress" as it is currently, but I am of the opinion that the totally disputed tag might be a bit misleading as to what the real issues are. What's going on is actually that the article may need a cleanup, expansion, and more consistent citation of references. I submit we change the tag to these three. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The latter two seem right, though cleanup seems an odd tag to put on an article that was once featured. I think that tags should be used, but that 'totally disputed' is alarming and innapropriate. –M^T 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation SA provided is neither peer-reviewed or particularly supportive of the statement citing it. I am more convinced than I was last night that the reversion was done for illegitimate reasons of POV-pushing, so it is biased, and the contradiction of the 70+ peer reviewed references leaves the article inaccurate and out-of-date as well. Please leave the tag on the two-year-old version until both of these issues are addressed. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've directly above pointed out that the conclusion of the report by the United States Department of Energy is a citation supporting his claim. You will have to point out exactly what you think is innacurate before you have justification for placing that tag. There is a different tag for out of date articles. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

DOE review

What exactly about the DOE review should be included in the article and why? --ScienceApologist 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact that it concluded? The present version reads as if it is still ongoing. Beyond that, I'd include the summary from the recent version and a summary of the points M raises above, in the lead section, with the more complete description of the report from the sections of the present-day version. Along with the other 70 peer-reviewed sources along with the statements they used to support. I continue to believe that you should not be allowed to POV-push and require others to do all the hard work of putting those references back in piece-by-piece, just because the article was featured more than two years ago. I think we need mediation to work this out. Will you agree to mediation? GKK 08:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation is fine. I am more than ammenable.

I would like to consider what you believe the result of the report to be and how we should report it? I don't think that the "present-day" version is adequate nor do I think it was entirely accurate. I will be bold and try to include your idea as best as I can ascertain.

--ScienceApologist 09:01, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made it clear that I believe the present-day version is acceptable. I don't think M's assertion that the conclusion of the DOE report was that cold fusion is at the same point it was at in 1989 is accurate, because the statement referred to is hyperbole. I think it is far more important to mention that a clear majority of reviewers found support for unexplained excess heat, a term which is supported in several places of the report if not the one which M chooses to selectively quote from, and that the panelists were evenly split on the question of whether the excess heat was nuclear in nature. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Please cite the claim of hyperbole. That the reviewers agree that excess heat is a reasonable conclusion is not the issue - this is unimportant to us (as far as the main body of the article) until that excess heat is attributed to cold fusion. If you'd like to mention in the reasonably-sized section on current research, that excess heat was generated I'm not at all against that. Such incremental changes are what we'd like to see more of. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Note: mediation request withdrawn pending outcome of survey below, per dispute resolution procedures. GKK 00:50, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Tossing around "bias"

Please cease calling those that are reverting to featured article status biased. Scientific consensus [the DOA report and surely others] approximately states that cold fusion is where it was in 1989. Objections to this report may exist, but they do not deserve mention in this encyclopedia until scientific consensus veers to support them. The debate over cold fusion isn't somewhere in the middle, with many believing that it happened and many disbelieving - it's at one end, and the debate is over. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine what an anti-cf bias would look like - perhaps someone believes that no research is being conducted, I don't know. I do know that a bias exists that purports comparatively exciting innovation/advancement to be occuring in the field. I call this a bias because it contradicts scientific consensus. When we that are critical of the recent article start contradicting scientific consensus, inform us of the truths immediately, and if we continue regardless, then point out that we may be biased (and not just uninformed). Until then, please don't call us biased. It's innacurate and rude. And it's probably a personal attack. –M^T 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

That is false. There is one sentence, clearly hyperbole, in the DOE report suggesting only that the matter has as much final resolution now as it did in 1989 -- i.e., that authorities are still split on the question. That is not at all what you have included. This kind of selective quotation is plainly and obviously counter to the creation of an accurate encyclopedia. If you had quibbles with the term "excess heat" then by all means replace it with more accurate terms. Replacing the entire summary of the report with the statement that the field is in the same state as it was in 1989 is bogus. You should have explained that was referring to whether a consensus opinion was settled or not. Claiming that the field is in the same state ignores hundreds of peer-reviewed publications. You should know better. GKK 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Selecting the conclusion as the source of the quote is nothing but proper. It's the conclusion. Cite "hyperbole", and cite "still [are or were] split". I have nothing against the term "excess heat". That part of the summary was replaced because it misrepresented the report (details above). –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Will be reverting

ScienceApologist and M, after having ample opportunity, have been unable to show that their reversion to the two-year-old version of the article was due to desire to make the article more accurate, and not just because of their bias against the present-day version. No reasons have been given that the present-day version could not be improved by incremental changes, which is the way we improve every other article on the wiki, or that a monolithic revert eliminating two years of work and 70+ peer-reviewed science references is necessary for any actual reason. My complaints about the lack of content, in particular those peer-reviewed references and the DOE review of 2004, were met with the absurd counter that I was not complaining about any actual content, and a hasty citation of a non-peer-reviewed hearsay statement to support the absurd hyperbole of the DOE report that the field is at the same state today as it was in 1989.

Therefore, I will be checking in on this article about once per day until a mediator arrives, and reverting to the present-day version unless the two-year-old version is improved with at least half the number of peer-reviewed science sources as the present-day version I prefer. If ScienceApologist and M are serious about improving the article to beyond its present-day state, then they ought to be able to cite at least half its number of peer-reviewed references. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Incremental improvement should start at the consensus-deemed best version. The old FA version, despite a lack of references, despite X years of hard work, is nonetheless better than the newer article. If you're unsatisfied with the DOA report as a valid source, show us that this unsatisfaction stems from your evaluation of a contradictary and equally trustworthy source (cite it) - and not from your opinion. I'm not going to comply with your request to 'cite 35 articles, or don't revert'. It makes no sense. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Should those unhappy with the current state of the Cold fusion article work incrementally from the present-day version which they believe is too long and has other unspecified problems, or should they revert to and work from a two-year-old version which was once a Featured Article, deleting over 70 peer-reviewed references and the work of dozens of editors?

Work incrementally from the current version

1. Essentially every other article on Wikipedia is edited this way. GKK 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)User has a total of 0 article edits . (Talk and community edits excluded)
   • comment. I assume that very few articles have faced a choice between the 'updated' and the 'good'. Could you point some out? –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
     • See physics and physics/wip. --Michael C. Price ^talk 06:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Work incrementally from the featured article version

These are votes for censorship not science--Ron Marshall 17:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

1. Less work to be done. Consensus informs us that the old article is better than this new one, despite all of the sources that have been added. My opinion is that the old article is clear and readily improvable. The current article is biased (as I describe above), its citations are often duplicated and are used improperly (such as to respond against the point, rather than to support it), nearly all citations are from cold fusion proponents, and nearly three fourths of the article consists of what appears to be arguments for and against things like "excess heat = cold fusion". That argument belongs, if anywhere, in an article titled 'Controversy over current cold fusion research'. –M^T 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
2. I agree with M. Having a good article to use as a base will imo lead to a better overall article. I was reading the version supported by the other side and its clear that many of those 70 references that keep being thrown around do not appear to be particularily valuable, especially considering that many of them are books published by cold fusion advocates. In science, books by anyone other than large academic publishing houses (ie not Infinite Energy Press) are not considered reliable sources, because they have not necessarily been through a peer review. Obviously however knowledge in cf has progressed in the last 2 years and that should be edited in, including the DOE report. --AmitDeshwar 05:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
3. Start from FA-version and take it slowly from there.O. Prytz 05:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
4. Let's start from the FA-version. References from non reputable sources have been used as propaganda in the non-FA version. That's simply wrong. I suggest that before starting to edit the FA version of the article, we have discussions here about what reputable sources are, what counts as evidence and what not etc. Count Iblis 12:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
5. The FA-version may be out-of-date, but at least it was recognized by reviewers as being good enough to feature rather than terrible enough to be removed from a good article listing. --ScienceApologist 14:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
6. The above commenters make good points, in particular Count Iblis and ScienceApologist. I find myself in agreement — revert to the last version known decent. Also, I would like to lodge my disapproval of how this survey question was phrased. As the comments here plainly indicate, people do not agree that the "over 70 peer-reviewed references" were used in proper or legitimate ways. The question is blatantly slanted, not that the people commenting so far seem very influenced by it. Anville 16:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
7. We are not doing science here. And incidentically, the work to done in an encyclopedia can be positively described as censorship, as a an encyclopedia has to report established knowledge. There are other Wikis for questioning the establishment. --Pjacobi 17:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
   • I disagree, this is an article about science and if it is inaccurate we are doing the readers and science a disservice here. If Wikpedia cannot produce a fair and accurate article on a controversial subject then it should not produce an article.--Ron Marshall 19:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [Ron Marshall had added this comment as a vote, I changed it to a comment–M^T]
8. Joke 20:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Work incrementally from the current (0737,1 October 2006 by 75.35.76.29) version

Am I the only one who remembers that when Edmund Storms and Jed Rothwell proposed a full re-write, they were requested to write a separate new Wiki page rather than perform massive BOLD changes? (Which they agreed to.) My guess is that being BOLD (and reckless) does not apply when you are dealing with a highly controversial subject, someone please correct me if I am wrong.

The statement by M, "The debate over cold fusion isn't somewhere in the middle, with many believing that it happened and many disbelieving - it's at one end, and the debate is over," does not support his/her claim of being neutral.

Good luck people.

STemplar 21:13, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Going Forward

We are going to forward from the 9/27/06 or equivalent version in an incremental way. This is an article about science and experiment is the reality check of science. This article is and should be about the pro and con of experiments. The article presents the skeptics and the experimenters point of view and will continue to do so. --Ron Marshall 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Dispute over version to build on

Some want to continue with the September 2006 version which gives both the skeptic and experimenter point of view. Some want to revert to a two year old favored article with less emphasis on presenting the experimenters point of view.

Comments

The people who have been participating in the survey/vote regarding this subject have been providing comments there, above. –M^T 21:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Murder of Dr. Eugene Mallove

On 14 May 2004, a foremost cold fusion champion, science journalist Dr. Eugene Mallove, was brutally murdered in a yet unresolved case. His death has both saddened and inspired the cold fusion and free energy community in general and has drawn international attention to the status of cold fusion today.[4]

Are we implying that he was murdered because of his cold fusion work? This is conspiracy theory. Wikipedia isn't a memorial. Many other prominent people have died but we give the details of their death on their pages. Stating this death here, and in those words, only implies that somehow his death was cold-fusion-related - there is no proof that it was. I'm removing the above-quoted paragraph. –M^T 20:55, 2 October 2006 (UTC)