Talk:Brilliant Light Power

Errors in the lede ...

The lede of the Wikipedia article on Blacklight Power includes the phrase:

"Analysis of the experimental claims in one paper, it was noted that detection equipment reportedly used was not capable of making measurements. "

This is a reference to a 2008 commentary of H.-J. Kunze in J. Appl Phys 41 (10). The quoted sentence is ungrammatical to the point that it is not even a sentence, and its content is clearly wrong. The 'detection equipment' was certainly capable of making measurements. What Kunze correctly pointed out was that the spectroscopic grating employed by Mills and Ray did not have the capability of resolving extreme UV emissions in the short-wavelength range claimed by the authors; therefore the spectral lines in that range reported by them had to be artefacts. The 2003 paper was crucial to the claims that hydrino states, below the accepted ground state of hydrogen predicted by quantum theory, exist. Kunze's article demonstrated that, independent of glaring flaws in hydrino theory, empirical results reported by Mills et al. cannot be assumed correct. No retraction of the 2003 Mills-Ray paper has appeared.

Suggested replacement for the offending text:

Mills and Ray (2003) in a pivotal experimental paper, claimed to have seen spectral lines of hydrogen in the extreme ultraviolet which they attributed to below-ground-state hydrinos. However, it has been noted that the spectroscopic grating used in that experiment was not capable of resolving lines in the range reported by Mills and Ray. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.116.194 (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

The paragraphs aren't sourced. Anyone have a source? If not, they should be removed. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The arguments are also questionable. I have studied these arguments years ago. Kunze, et. al. do not appear to understand enough of what is going on concerning the work behind these papers. (https://sites.google.com/site/kmarinas86/web-history/hydrino-study-group) (https://sites.google.com/site/kmarinas86/web-history/hydrino-study-group/what-you-didn-t-know-or-remember-about-the-mills-ray-2003-paper).siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 03:43, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Several comments on this. First, the main article itself references the paper of Kunze, and the journal reference was included in what I wrote. Second, it was not 'Kunze, et al'; Kunze was the only author. Third, Kunze is an internationally recognized expert in UV spectroscopy. Are you? Fourth, you reference your own voluminous website on this, but nowhere do you actually provide a convincing refutation of what Kunze said. Fifth: what the heck is an "Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia" ? A google search on this term yields only references to one person: Kmarina86. Would that be you, and only you?

Bottom line for me is, I am fine with IRWolfie's removal of an ungrammatical and erroneous statement in the lede. He could have left in the first sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.101.116.194 (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

To answer your questions: No I'm not an "internationally recognized expert in UV spectroscopy", and as for your second question, "Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia" simply means that when ever I have the time, I reorganize the sections of an article to suit the greater purpose of the quality of Wikipedia. It's a very efficient approach in that how sections are designed can guide the development of an article in ways very profound and significant in the long run, and when done right, it allows the the context of an article to be fair, balanced, and comprehensive. And the answer to your last question is "yes" because I currently have not seen any case where someone other than me assumed the name "Kmarinas86".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

By "et. al.", I was referring to others who were alleging just the same about the spectroscopic measurements, albeit these others have not published these same views in a referred journal (specifically, they were people on the internet who cited Kunze to promote their arguments). I have found some refereed articles which cite Kunze's paper, if you want to take a look (http://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=1408707199752719551&as_sdt=5,44&sciodt=0,44&hl=en). I'm staying relatively hands off right now on the article, simply making some suggestions and context broadening to keep this topic alive.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Considering your failed attempts to understand basic physics, your original research means nothing. So keep it to yourself. This page is only for discussion of article issues, not a place to put an ad for yourself. If you want to be taken seriously, go published it somewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

"So keep it to yourself." "If you want to be taken seriously, go published it somewhere," 'Nuff said.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed the following:

Extended content

Analysis of the theoretical claims by physicists has resulted in the conclusion that the proposed theory is unphysical and inconsistent with the highly verified equations of quantum mechanics. Analysis of the experimental claims in one paper, it was noted that detection equipment reportedly used was not capable of making measurements. Independent experiments not funded by or affiliated with BLP have failed to corroborate the claims of the theory.

If can properly source it and thinks it should be restored, please fix and grammar and do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Often the lead is not sourced because it is summarising other material that is sourced. If you want sources, they are the ones in the analysis section. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

It is often better to be safe. For a controversial topic like BlackLight Power, it is a good idea to have sourced material in the lede. The current lede is sourced well enough for the time being.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 00:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The sentence in question may have had grammatical problems but does it belong in the lede at all? It looks like excessive detail in the lede to me. The referenced experiment is only one of many controversial results that BLP claims support their theories. There is already a section in the article that deals with this and selecting a small piece of information about that and attempting to use that to summarize the whole section is not the best approach. The lede without this detail works fine and is overall a pretty good summary of BLP claims and the mainstream physics community's view of this.--Davefoc (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I collapsed the last two paragraphs into one. There may have been a bit too much detail and perhaps some unnecessary repetition. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 15:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Keepcalmandcarryon's changes seem good to me and they make the grammatical issues that this section was about moot, since the sentence in question was removed. This issue looks closed to me.Davefoc (talk) 16:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the ground state?

The article states, "Mills' assertion that a hydrogen atom's energy level can drop below the ground state, contradicting the definition of ground state." I don't believe Mills' theory, but to be fair, rather than say he's claiming a state below the ground state, which is, by definition, absurd, it ought to be written that he thinks there are states below what had been considered the ground state, the lowest of which (if there are more than one) is the true ground state, and what had hitherto been considered the ground state is not the ground state, but an energy level above what his theory states is the ground state.HowardJWilk (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the point, that Mills' claim is contrary to well-established principals of physics? Pseudophysics should be presented in terms of accepted physical theory, not Mills' unreplicated version. Jim1138 (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Good catch on an unclear sentence. I added a clarification: "Mills' assertion that a hydrogen atom's energy level can drop below the ground state, contradicting the definition of ground state that is used by the rest of the scientific community."

I was about to use "mainstream definition". --Enric Naval (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

"rest of the scientific community" is wrong. It implies Mills is part of the community. Mills is contradicting all of the science "community". Bhny (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I have never liked the phrase, "contradicting the definition of ground state" added on to the sentence, but I haven't edited it because I have assumed that there was some sort of consensus around it. The point of the sentence is (as HowardKWilk suggests above) that Mills thinks that the energy level of electron orbitals can drop below the ground state that is recognized as the lowest energy state by main stream physicists and not that he doesn't know what the definition of ground state is. I suggest the following: "The purported energy source is based on Mills' assertion that the energy level of a hydrogen atom can drop below what mainstream physicists believe is the lowest possible level (ground state)." Davefoc (talk) 03:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not "mainstream" physicists, it is all physicists. Mills is contradicting quantum physics. This is really extreme fringe stuff. Bhny (talk) 05:14, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to write things more plainly, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Needs an update

Hi, this article seems to be quite out of date - the lede cites something from 5 years ago as it's main summation of the reception of the hydrino hypothesis. A cursory look at BLP's website shows that there have been considerable publications and movement since then. To avoid triggering a potential edit war, I thought perhaps we could start drafting here first? I think the CIHT cell development certainly needs to be covered in some way given it has an article published in the Int. J. of Energy Res., and the company also received independent (?) acclaim in receiving an award recently. In light of this, I think the tone of the article is overly negative/dismissive and warrants an update. I'd welcome being corrected if my reasoning here is flawed or if I'm missing something. Blippy (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blippy. There's been a lot of talk about the papers here. Maybe search the last few archives. We weren't able to find a secondary source that justified inclusion of these papers. The latest one you added (sorry I reverted it!) isn't cited[1] and I'm not sure that journal is well regarded. Anyway it would need to be written about in a secondary source (science magazine etc.) before we include it. Bhny (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation Bhny - no probs on the revert, I figured a quick edit was more likely to get a response than just leaving a comment here. Putting the quality of the journal to one side (Impact factor of 1.9 isn't great!), it is nevertheless a peer reviewed journal. So at the very least I think we need to adjust the tone of the article which implies their work is not being published - and explicitly goes on to claim that replication work hasn't been published when it seems that it has been... Jansson, P., Schwabe, U., Bellomo-Whitten, K. (2010) Calorimetric Analysis and Validation Testing for a Proprietary Water Flow Calorimeter, International Review of Chemical Engineering - Rapid Communication, Vol. 2 Issue 5, p606. I'm not wanting to puff BLP up, but I don't think the article accurately conveys what BLP is doing (not that I know anything beyond what my own curiosity in their research has generated). So, yes, happy to discuss the primary/secondary issue - but I'd like to first try and be clear about intent. It seems that BLP is not as shady as this article implies, and while the underlying theory clashes with the received view, readers should be clear that they are working on an alternative theoretical formulation of reality, not trying to sell perpetual motion machines to the gullible.Blippy (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, no. Readers should be clear that BLP has been making such claims for many years, and delivered precisely zilch. That is the relevant 'reality' here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like either a personal view ATG, or an out of date one. I'm aiming for something that more accurately reflects the recent circumstances and takes account of the publications/recognition/award... That's not to say that the article shouldn't be conservative in tone, but not as mocking/dismissive as you are suggesting. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So my accurate description of the facts - that in 22 years BLP has delivered nothing - is a 'personal view' is it? As for the 'award', the New Jersey Technology Council isn't exactly the Nobel committee, and the fact that BLP has been given one of fifteen awards this year by a "private, not-for-profit membership organization" is hardly front-page news. Possibly because Blacklight Power is a paid-up member of said private, not-for-profit membership organization. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

"NJTC's member companies work together to support their own enterprises while advancing New Jersey's status as a leading technology center in the United States."[3] This award seems self-promotional, in addition to not being independent and not being recognized...... I couldn't defend adding this award to any article...... --Enric Naval (talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I also just dug up that according to SCImago the Int. J. of Energy Res. is in the top 50 of Energy Journals (47 of 367 - although I'd say only the first 200-250 are actual journals) - so that seems a pretty reputable source. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like a personal view... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oooooh! Ziiinnnggg!!!!  :-) Blippy (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly enough - just this morning BLP has announced a public demo of a working CIHT cell for January 28th. Looks like might be heading towards a conclusion. Either Mills has re-invented fire or we're going to get an epic "Orbo"-level face plant. Ronnotel (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. Scientific claims are verified by replication by third parties, not by 'demonstrations' which inevitably raise more questions than they answer. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, from the release, it seems like third parties are involved - ENSER for one. But there's no point in mindlessly bashing. If Mills can keep a light bulb light with nothing but water vapor as the input I suspect we'll all know soon enough. The Blacklight saga of claims and counter-claims has gone on for over 20 years, I think this is the first time Mills has committed to a public demo. It's bound to be of interest to some. Ronnotel (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Given that ENSER is a commercial organisation, rather than a scientific institute, it seems reasonable to ask why they are involved. Unless of course they are being paid for their involvement, in which case they aren't a 'third party'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

ATG, you seem to be confusing this article with a debunking exercise. We just need to present well sourced information, not conduct WP:OR about the motives of this organisation or that. Who cares if it's 10, 20, 50, 100 years? If you think you can keep a scam going for 20 years, produce 100 papers, get highly regarded professionals to join your board, all whilst being under attack for claiming to violate the fundamental laws of physics - well, I for one would be impressed. This isn't about whether it's true or false, it's about presenting information in an NPOV manner, and I don't think the article has been doing that. I would suggest it is counterproductive to edit the article from the perspective of someone who thinks they have absolute knowledge of the falsity of their claims. For instance, I think Park's armchair critique is given far too much prominence compared to Marchese's NIAC funded investigation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Blippy, I deleted the press-release info from the lead. Press-releases aren't useful sources in any article. Another unrelated thing that I don't think you realize is that this article deals with fringe-science and must be treated as such. Please read WP:FRINGE Bhny (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bhny, I agree a press release by itself isn't WP:RS, but if the release is picked up by other RS then it is appropriate viz. Business Wire, Venture Beat, Atalantic Journal etc. So while a self published announcement doesn't warrant inclusion in and of itself, there is no doubt that this announcement is of some note, and significant to the company this article is about - so surely it must be covered in some way. Is there any doubt that they have announced this demonstration? Shouldn't the article cover such a development given the single biggest critique is that such a demonstration is impossible? I'm not pushing for the press release, but I think this is a major announcement and has a place somewhere in the article, if only as part of a response from BLP to critics... Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Any objection to this quote from W. Henry Weinberg - former professor of Chemical Engineering, Chemistry and Applied Physics at California Institute of Technology going into the commentary section? My only concern is that I'm not familiar with the website, and will continue to look for an alternative source in the meanwhilst:

“It would be irrational not to be very skeptical, and I was extremely skeptical. However, after having reviewed Dr. Mills classical theory, participated in experimental designs and execution, and having reviewed vast amounts of other data BLP produced, I have found nothing that warrants rejection of their extraordinary claims, and I encourage aggressive optimization and fast track development of a scaled up prototype.”

Cheers, Blippy (talk) 08:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I found an article containing similar information so used that instead. Blippy (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source Bhny (talk) 12:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, that source traces back to this press release. Note the dreaded "H+K Strategies" at the bottom. Hill & Knowlton are the go-to choice for such crap. Have a look at their involvement in selling the war in Iraq. They've been spinning BLP's line for a long time. Still no results. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

From their press release: " A 100 W unit is planned for completion by the end of 2012, and a 1.5 kiloWatt (kW) pilot unit that can serve the residential power market, as an initial target commercial application, is expected to be operational by 2013". Now here we have something that needs an update..... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is untrue that more recently a number of scientists have claimed to have investigated the BLP process and been persuaded that it may have some merit? I don't see how that is a controversial claim? The quality of this and this reference are sufficient to attribute that claim to - in fact we could legitimately even use BLP's website to establish such a sentence. To my knowledge this is not a fact that is in contention... as distinct to the claims BLP makes :-) Cheers, Blippy (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've already said those references aren't reliable. One is a blog and the other (cnn) is a self published article. From memory (please read the archives!) the "number of scientists" are friends of Mills at Rowan university. Bhny (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Aren't reliable for what purpose? You concede that there are scientists who have not completely rejected BLP's claims, we don't need to wait for Nature to publish this fact to be able to provide reliable sources to that effect. How do you propose we moderate the current impression that no such people exist? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The article doesn't state that such scientists don't exist. Can you cite a source that suggests that the number of scientists who "have not completely rejected BLP's claims" is somehow significant? Actually, I'd have thought that this would include the vast majority of scientists - most of whom have better things to do that spend their time rejecting the claims of fringe purveyors of supposed 'cheap energy'. That isn't how science works. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by pretending anyone actually knows how science works! In any case, this isn't science, it's a WP article on a company that makes controversial claims. I've added a source which covers the claim that some labs have validated the work and some scientists find it interesting. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't understand how science works, I suggest you find articles on other subjects to edit. And yes, this is an article on science, in that it relates to scientific claims made by BLP. If it wasn't about science, why would you want to include statements about what scientists think? Anyway, this article comes firmly within the remit of WP:FRINGE, and your attempts to cherry-pick statements to boost BLPs claims - which are utterly at odds with mainstream physics - is contrary to the guideline - and to WP:NPOV policy, which is quite clear that giving undue weight to minority (miniscule minority in this case) points of view isn't acceptable. If and when mainstream science recognises Mills & co's theories, so will Wikipedia. Until then, we reflect the scientific consensus, and BLP will have to get its publicity elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Judging by your statements to date I suspect my understanding of how science works is better than yours! But, once again, this is an article on a company making FRINGE claims. NPOV requires just that - a NEUTRAL poing of view - not one that is biased to cherry picking all the criticism. By definition, being FRINGE means that a small number of supportive claims are significant - especially if the supportive/non-dismissive claims are from scientists. A balanced article must include such views. The fact that Mills' team have 100 or so papers should suggest to you that if the company is scamming people, it is doing so within the context of a pretty convincing attempt at looking like a serious research facility. We don't need to make a judgement about whether it is a scam or not, we just need to provide a balanced article which shows what BLP theory and products are, that its theory is rejected because of it's incompatibility with accepted physics, but that some scientists think it may have some merit - especially those who have gone to the trouble of investigating it for themselves. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Where have the results of these investigations been published? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well there are at least two kinds of published results. There are the formal results that I suspect you are referring to, which consist of the various and many papers viz. peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed commissioned reports. The other kind of published results are the informal ones reported in interviews with the investigators such as those contained here, here, here, here, here etc. The formal papers are the single most important piece of the science question, but the informal publications are important for telling a balanced story about BLP. We want readers to be well informed about BLP after reading the article. It would be ridiculous for someone to be well informed about BLP and not to know certain things e.g. that the theory violates accepted physics, that BLP has been strongly crticized by various well known skeptics, that there have been questions raised about it being a fraudulent outfit or some sort of scam, who they have on their board and some sense of their credibility, their history of missing promised deadlines, that they have published numerous papers in peer reviewed journals, that some scientists have investigated their claims with mixed results, that they claim to be about to give a demonstration they think will change the world. Would you agree that these are pretty basic nuggets of information that are part of the BLP story, and that this article should strive to provide them in a coherent and NPOV way? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected, your claims of 'investigations' are based on nothing of any scientific merit. Given your self-evident promotion of unverified scientific claims, your continued removal of sourced content, and your refusal to abide by WP:FRINGE guidelines, I can see no particular reason why your edits shouldn't be reverted entirely. Wikipedia isn't here to promote BLP. It is an encyclopaedia, not free advertising space. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake, I thought this was an article about the company BLP, not the Journal of Applied Physics? Or is it you who has that wrong? The claims made by the investigators are reported in WP:RS, that's the bar we have to satisfy. I am not promoting anything beyond a balanced article that informs readers of the notable and most interesting aspects of this company. Are you unable to respond to my brief overview of what I think should be included and where you disagree? Girating off into bluster and ad hominem attacks does nothing but to distract from making this a better article. And as for your odd reversion, how is this:

In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported that whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling".

not a reasonable, terser, and (I think) better written version of this:

In 1996: NASA released the report, "Replication of the apparent excess heat effect in light water-potassium carbonate-nickel-electrolytic cell" by Janis M. Niedra, et al. The paper describes experiments done with a 28 liter electrolytic cell on loan from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (as BLP was known at the time). The experiments described in the paper did not recreate the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP. However, unexplained power gains in the cell ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported. Speculation on the causes of this excess power was included in the "Summary and Conclusions" section of the paper. From that section: "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell, it falls far short of being compelling" and "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination [referring to recombination of hydrogen and oxygen] becomes the explanation of choice".

And as for your somewhat uncivil edit summary,i) it is obvious why you removed the last part - I have no idea what you're talking about! Please elaborate. And ii) cut out the crap edit summaries - perhaps a mirror would come in handy? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

So it's just a coincidence that your 'terser' version omits the NASA explanation for the 'unusual heat' is it? Yeah, right...

And if this is about 'the company', rather than the scientific claims they are making, why are you so intent on adding so-called 'investigations' by scientists to the article? Not that anything seems to have been investigated by anything approaching science. The fact of the matter is that nothing has changed: BLP is making unverified claims entirely contrary to physics as it is currently understood, and so far have nothing but press releases to show for it. Oh, and an award they seem to have awarded themselves. Nothing new at all... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Coincidence??? You are coming from a really biased position on all of this stuff. I get it, you don't like BLP, and you're not afraid to let that skew your editing of this article. But don't start jumping at shadows every time you read something that offends your personal position. How about this version:

In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported which whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.

As for your continued impugning of motives, can you seriously expect a competent article about BLP not to contain information relating to scientific investigations of their claims??? This article should neither be a puff piece nor a smear - it should simply put forward notable and interesting information about BLP. So instead of continuing to play Mr Bombastic, how about we collaborate on making it better? This NASA para is a good start, and I'd appreciate your input on the list of topics I mentioned previously. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Has any reliable group confirmed Mills' experiment and reliably produced significant heat? Anomalies would not be confirmation. Anyone done any chemistry on hydrinos (which would have vastly different properties from "ground state" hydrogen)? Physical chemists have done experiments on pico-scale quantities; no reason hydrinos should be exempt. This seems to be yet another attempt to white-wash the article. If there is no evidence, and I have not seen any, the article should be labeled pseudoscience and any indication that it works would be contrary to Wikipedia:Fringe theories. Shouldn't this be posted to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard? Jim1138 (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It would appear that you have built a ready made answer into your question - presumably any group that claims to have confirmed any of BLP's work is not "reliable", including Rowan University, ENSER, and NASA. This is an article about an entity that promotes controversial alternative theoretical formulations that they claim have real world implications, which - judging by the WP:RS's we have - have been investigated by others. That doesn't mean they're right. It doesn't mean the public needs to be protected from these dangerous pieces of information. It simply means that if we are to write an article readers would find useful, it should contain various bits of reliably sourced information that tell the BLP story in an NPOV fashion. If that constitutes a white-wash in your view, then perhaps you are coming from a similar place that AndyTheGrump seems to be coming from. What's your view on the topics I suggested should be covered? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Neither NASA nor Rowan University have 'confirmed' anything. And where exactly is the evidence that ENSER has 'confirmed' anything for that matter? Which scientific journal is this scientific journal is this published in? Oh yes, its in a BLP press release... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is fringe. There is no debate. The article is even in the category "Pseudophysics". It has often been posted to the fringe noticeboard. Bhny (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What exactly are you arguing about? That it isn't true? Who cares?1? We're just telling the story, not making judgements about it's truth content, that's the job of others. The press release is a RS for the fact that BLP have made the claim. Them making that claim is an important part of the story - regardless of whether ENSER etc. have actually verified their work or not. It is the claim that is reliably sourced by the press release, not that they have validated their work. You are confusing facts about the company with facts about their theory. Blippy (talk) 00:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Press releases are rarely of the slightest relevance regarding sourcing encyclopaedic content - if the claims are of any significance, they will be reported in mainstream secondary sources. Since they haven't we can safely assume that yet another press release detailing yet more unverified claims from BLP isn't 'important'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This is one of those occasions. Claiming to have their work validated is of considerable significance to the BLP story - that's why the secondary sources have picked it up. You can't claim that a press release that is picked up by an independent source is not reliable because it originates from a press release. The fact that it has been picked up and retransmitted lends it the significance required by WP. The announced patent and demonstration are two obviously significant parts of the story, and should be covered accordingly. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 02:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. BLP have been making similar claims for years - as you know full well, having added such claims to the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

i) How do you know? ii) Why does it matter? I presume your answers are i) from their website/press releases and their coverage at other sites, and ii) because it speaks to their credibility. If you think these are important and decisive points here, then you should be arguing that they appear in the article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:18, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Is that even supposed to make sense, or are you just posting whatever random drivel comes into your head? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Blacklight claims to have a power source that violates well established principles of physics. They have had ample opportunity to do so, yet failed to demonstrate their claim. Scientists with expertise in the field say it is bunk. End of story. Anything else simply results in a confusing article. Unless BLP demonstrates that this phenomenon really exists, there is nothing else to report. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

So what do you propose we do about the scientists with expertise in the field who say it may not be bunk? Or is that covered by your idea that "anything else" will confuse the article? Blippy (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Science doesn't work through testimonials - it works through experimentation, publication and replication. When there is science to report, we will report it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again you are confusing how you think science works with how WP works. My question was not a question of science, it is a content question. This is not a page about hydrinos (in fact I don't think WP has one does it?), it is a page about a company. We have WP:RS's reporting the conclusions and comments of scientists who say it may not be bunk. What do you propose we do with that information, or do you also think it falls into the anything else will confuse things camp? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

If this is 'not a page about hydrenos', it would seem logical to remove all the hydrino-related claims made by BLP from the article. Except of course that there would then be nothing left to indicate that BLP was in any way notable - and accordingly, it would have to be deleted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Once again you don't seem to have answered my question but gotten carried off on a bombastic tangent. I don't see how that is a constructive approach to improving this article. Blippy (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Just getting back to some productive editing... I think as things stand the NASA paragraph is pretty clunky. I propose replacing:

In 1996: NASA released the report, "Replication of the apparent excess heat effect in light water-potassium carbonate-nickel-electrolytic cell" by Janis M. Niedra, et al. The paper describes experiments done with a 28 liter electrolytic cell on loan from Hydrocatalysis Power Corporation (as BLP was known at the time). The experiments described in the paper did not recreate the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP. However, unexplained power gains in the cell ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported. Speculation on the causes of this excess power was included in the "Summary and Conclusions" section of the paper. From that section: "Although our data admits the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell, it falls far short of being compelling" and "Following the principle of simplest explanation that fits the data on hand, recombination [referring to recombination of hydrogen and oxygen] becomes the explanation of choice".

With:

In 1996 NASA released a report describing experiments using a BLP electrolytic cell. Although not recreating the large heat gains reported for the cell by BLP, unexplained power gains ranging from 1.06 to 1.68 of the input power were reported which whilst "...admit[ing] the existence of an unusual source of heat with the cell...falls far short of being compelling". The authors went on to propose the recombination of hydrogen and oxygen as a possible explanation of the anomalous results.

I think this shorter version conveys the essential elements of the original with much less distracting detail. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Protected for 3 days

Hopefully this will give time to sort out the disputes. Dougweller (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

What a strange thing to do. What on earth triggered such a paternalistic overreaction to a perfectly normal & reasonably amicable editing discussion!!! Amazing.Blippy (talk) 09:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It will not.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 20:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you know something I am only starting to glimpse... perhaps it should be protected until the 29 Jan when we will know how the media etc. have responded to the demonstration (if it happens)!! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

"perhaps it should be protected until the 29 Jan when we will know how the media etc. have responded to the demonstration (if it happens)!!" That sounds about right.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 01:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have just realised that the section starting "In 2012 after studying the BLP process..." is a copy-paste of the source cited, [4] and thus a clear breach of copyright. Since the article is locked from editing, I will have to report the issue at WP:ANI in order for this to be dealt with. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be mistaken. The phrase "In 2012 after studying the", nor anything similar, appears anywhere in that source. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:15, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

However, the text after that phrase was copied from the source. That's why the it was deleted. Dougweller (talk) 07:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How difficult is it to provide the diffs? I don't recall ever seeing this block of text in the article:

After studying the process, Dr. K.V. Ramanujachary, Rowan University Meritorious Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, described it as "truly exceptional", while W. Henry Weinberg, a professor of Chemical Engineering, at California Institute of Technology for 18 years and at University of California for six years, said the process could prove to the "one of the most important technological breakthroughs in history.

Certainly not the phrase "truly exceptional", and whilst I recall editing something about Ramanujachary I seem to recall it was to cut out all the cruff relating to how long who had worked where. I certainly don't recall putting that text there. Again, diffs would help (if it's not too difficult) given none of those edits are visible any longer. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It's [5] and yes, you inserted that block of text. How you can not know what you are doing I don't understand. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirmed - the inserted text is identical to the posted article. It looks like the text was removed via the copyvio process. Blippy, you appear to have some issues understanding how to edit this page. No one is questioning your good faith, but it would be useful to become more familiar with accepted practices here at WP before editing a highly controversial page like this one. FWIW, I agree with you that this page carries a distinct negative bias. However, that's likely because it's simply reflecting the available source material that has been deemed acceptable. If Mills demonstrates he has indeed re-invented fire on the 28th - and gets reliable sources to document that fact, then this page will certainly be changed to reflect what appears in those reliable sources. For now, I kindly suggest redouble efforts to locating high quality material from reliable sources and discussing their merit, or failing that, to find other pages to contribute to. Ronnotel (talk) 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide the text as it stood after the last of those 3 edits so I can see what is being referred to? Thanks, Blippy (talk) 01:23, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Evidently the edits can't be unhidden. Can you confirm that the text as it stood after the 3rd edit was still a copyright violation? I think I pasted text because of the complicated name spelling, and inadvertently saved prior to editing the pasted text. If the text after the 3rd edit (8 mins later) is still a copyright violation I will be very surprised and displeased with myself. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand this. Drmies removed the copyvio. His was the last edit before this was protected. That was at 05:06, 17 January 2014, 21 1/2 hours after your last edit. Does that answer your question?‎Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to the edit I made at 09:15, 15 January 2014 - to the best of my knowledge the other couple of dozen edits since then related to other sections of the article. But I'm only guessing because I can't see anything  :-) Are you saying that all of the intervening edits have been restored by Drmies? Sorry if I'm appearing thick, this is new territory for me. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I think I've explained this at ANI - it was not changed by the edits you've asked about. No edits were restored - only the copyvio text that was removed by Drmies is missing from Drmies last edit - the intervening edits still remained in the article so still show up. I thin Ne Ent's comment at ANI is wrong. Dougweller (talk) 13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, saw your reply there. Thanks. I think it's much easier to avoid all the grief in future by me being more careful! Cheers, Blippy (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Village Voice addition

I just reverted an addition to the lede on the basis that it uses the weasel phrase "other scientists." We should be attributing any such statements to the source that makes them, e.g. "Agent Smith at the DOD has said blah blah blah." (With that said, I'm not sure that the lede needs as much detail—pro or con—as it has. It gets rather specific when it should be a brief summary).

In addition, I'm a little uncomfortable with using the Village Voice as anything close to authoritative on scientific matters; that is, I don't know that it should be considered when assigning WP:WEIGHT. Don't get me wrong, I respect and enjoy VV in most contexts, but over the years I've run into many articles that convince me they don't have the best editorial oversight on science.

Lastly, without explaining why any particular scientist is interested in this technology, I don't think we're correctly explaining the situation. i.e. We start off by saying that it likely violates principles of quantum mechanics, but then we go on to say that some scientists are interested in it. Imagine that someone had a theory of biology that violated principles of evolution: wouldn't it be expected that we'd require some sort of logical justification as to why the new theory could be sound? Blippy, can you find a source that better explains the why part? The VV article mentions an upcoming study in a peer reviewed journal, is there anything there we could use? N^oformation ^Talk 05:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think one of the things that is most interesting about BLP is that there are, on the face of it, credible scientists who have investigate their claims and who are saying that even though the theory violates QM, something is going on. This information is presented further on in the article, and so I think it should appear in the lede in summary form. I agree with your sentiment to attribute statements to sources that make them, but in the lede we're providing a summary of the article rather than the sources per se. That's what I was trying to achieve with the stuff that has been reverted. I'm not sure any summary can avoid weasel-like phrases without going into additional and therefore more verbose detail, though. Personally I don't find the "other scientists" phrase that offensive, and not wholly different to "critics" which appears in the same para, and again, hard to avoid in a summary.

I think VV is a reasonable source for this kind of claim - after all, it's not a scientific claim that other scientists think it's worth exploring further.

For the 'why' question, are you referring to this bit in the lede or elsewhere? In either case, I'm happy to pursue this further. My guess is that the 'why' relates to the fact that these people have convinced themselves that BLP is onto something in terms of the phenomena if not the theory. At the end of the day if they are able to produce energy from water in the way they claim, then it is almost of trivial by comparison as to whether the theory is right or not ;-) And thanks for the constructive spirit and tone Noformation. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 06:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Bit of an update from the VV article which I think justifies the reverted bit: "More quietly, however, some scientists are taking notice" (my emphasis). There's a bit about Marchese being sent by NASA to investigate and getting positive results but being "agnostic about the existence of hydrinos". And a bit about the editor of the Journal of Applied Physics defending his decision to publish Mills' paper per "formal review" processes AND that the editor is "interested to see what happens now, when the news hits" and that he "can't just reject it because I have some preconditioned thinking about it". Oh, and something relevant to our own discussions "The debate over Mills’s work has long since left the realm of pure science." Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

There were many credible scientists that believed in the existence of Blondlot's N-rays. It seems that one can almost always find "other scientists" who support a dubious claim. Look at the history of "free energy". Many claims, many scientist supporters, and we are still burning coal. The pseudoscience label comes off when there are multiple simultaneous cover stories on both Science, Nature, and numerous other science rags. Which is what would happen if the hydrino was unequivocally demonstrated. Until then, there is no reason to think it is any different then the rest of the pseudoscience. Jim1138 (talk) 08:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how what you're saying is relevant Jim1183, nobody here is arguing about the pseudoscience label. Nor is the question whether there are reasons to think BLP is different to the rest of pseudoscience (whatever that is!). It is simply the case that there are a number of credible scientists who do not think BLP should be dismissed out of hand. Armchair analysis is wonderful, but even the editor of the J. of App. Phys. chose not to reject it based on his experience to date. So if someone in his position suspending their disbelief isn't enough to encourage you to do so as well, at the very least it remains a reliably sourced fact that some scientists think BLP's claims are worth exploring further. And that point is all I'm trying to include. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "some scientists believe" and variations on the theme is that it is true for virtually any assertion you might wish to make. There are a lot of scientists in the world, and it only takes a couple out on the far fringe to give a columnist the magic 'some scientists' waffle. Project Steve does a good job of making this point in evolutionary biology, where creationists regularly attempt to bolster their position by issuing statements about how $FAMOUS_SCIENTIST supports creationism, or $TEN_RANDOM_SCIENTISTS express doubt about Darwinian evolution. I can see very little distinction between the creationist strategy and the cold-fusion believers strategy when it comes to loudly trumpeting the views of very tiny numbers of scientists. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating a strategy, I'm advocating WP policy. I'm not making any assertion, just those supported by the sources. If you have WP:RS that show BLP is engaging in the same shenanigans as creationists then put that in the article too. We don't pick and choose what to include based on the kind of analysis you are providing TenOfAllTrades, we pick and choose based on WP:RS. The comments I'm suggesting satisfy the RS criteria, and importantly, these reactions are the very ones that make BLP interesting cf. other alternative energy claimants, so per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV it is important they are reflected in the article. Let's not forget that BLP has scores of published articles, so arguably the actual scholarship in their particular field is heavily weighted in their favour. But I'm not suggesting we change the article to reflect that, because obviously the broader armchair physics position overwhelmingly outweighs the actual research being conducted. But implying that the editor of the J. of App. Phys. is "out on the far fringe" is itself a pretty far out position to adopt without any evidence, wouldn't you agree? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 22:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll leave aside the WP:RS issue, and note that the primary problem with the "some scientists believe" construction is with WP:NPOV—specifically, WP:WEIGHT. That is true whether we are talking about cold fusion, creationism, or any other topic. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessarily true, but what do you suggest? Assuming some sceintists and other scientists are off the table, how can we best convey the information in summary form in the lede? I think you raise a good point about the credibility of the other scientists, so perhaps "several reputable scientists" will fix the problem. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't mention it at all, it's undue and not neutral. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 04:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How is it either of those things??? It is mentioned in WP:RS, and their work is published in peer reviewed journals (something not given much prominence in the article btw). It is one of the single most interesting aspects of BLP compared to other 'free energy' types, so it would fail NPOV to exclude it and pretend it doesn't exist. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It is undue because these 'several' scientists are in a tiny minority. And no, it isn't unique - I could cite at least one Noble prize winner who has endorsed another fringe 'energy source' entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

And they should be mentioned in the corresponding article! Per WP:UNDUE:

If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;

If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;

There is a clear majority view, as reflected in the article. However there is a significant minority view and prominent (in the world of science) adherents of this view have been named in WP:RS sources. It's not the 'tiny number' that is the issue here, it is whether it is a significant view, and clearly it is - or are you saying that the editor of the J. of App. Phys. is not prominent enough or is not sufficiently qualified to have an opinion on BLP that would be of any significance? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:53, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

It would give undue weight, and obfuscate the mainstream view (that BLP is a load of nonsense). So, for neutrality, we don't included it. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:59, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The viewpoint isn't 'significant' if it is held by a tiny minority, by definition. As for the editor of the J. of App. Phys., he hasn't endorsed anything. Or even expressed an opinion on the validity of BLP's claims, as far as we can tell. He has allowed Mills to publish a paper which apparently doesn't even mention hydrinos. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you both saying that the attention BLP has received has nothing to do with the scientists who have expressed interest and/or support for their work? If so I think you run the risk of violating NPOV in order to push your personal view over those expressed in WP:RS. That doesn't make for a good article. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Why would the Village Voice article be considered RS? Is the writer trained in any field related to BLP? Anthony Marchese is a mechanical engineer, and would not, presumably, be qualified to judge the physics nor chemistry of the BLP apparatus. The literature is rife with individuals in their field, let alone outside their field, getting hoodwinked by "free energy" scams. I don't see any RS here. Jim1138 (talk) 07:34, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that VV is a RS of what these scientists say, not the author's opinion. The author's credentials are that VV published their article, beyond that it doesn't matter whether they have any related "training". The RS is VV, not the author. And you seem to be saying that your judgement about Marchese trumps NASA and NIAC's judgement to fund his research into BLP. If you don't see any RS, then perhaps that's because you're being blinded by your personal opinion. I note you aren't complaining about Park's blog being so prominently reported... Cheers,Blippy (talk) 08:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

You are mistating the facts here. The author is not reporting all of what "the scientists say", he is reporting what he thinks the editor wants in the article. The author has little idea what is relevant to the science and what is not. Therefore, it is highly likely important "statements" are missing. You don't seem to understand that VV is not an RS on this topic. Your using the 'bias' card speaks to your inability to present a solid case. The level of credulousness here is astounding. Jim1138 (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Please point out the many WP:RS that are transcripts of interviews. Please then point out the WP policy on how such transcripts should be processed. The fact that you can assert such silly things is a testament to the bias I am observing in your position. We are all biased, the trick is to be open to being fair minded as an editor. I recognise that I might be assuming more good faith in the work of BLP than the general scientific community, but I am not trying to remove their criticisms of BLP. You are actively denigrating a RS in order to exclude material you disagree with. You run the risk of embarrassing yourself in taking such a twisted position that only a journo-physicist can properly report on what a scientist says. And all based on your armchair speculation that the author of the article has no scientific training and is merely a puppet of the phantom editor who also presumably has no scientific training. Come on, surely you can see that you are taking an extreme and untenable position on this. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

NPOV

I have added the NPOV tag given the serial reverts of sourced material that tries to fix the NPOV bias. I recognise this is a contentious article, and acknowledge that the dominant accepted scientific view is that BLP is mistaken. I also recognise that there are, as reported in WP:RS's, reputable scientists who have examined their claims and been persuaded that something interesting is going on, and that there are scores of articles by BLP adherents that have been published in peer review journals. This not reflected well in the article, and now not at all in the lede. I'm not aiming for any kind of whitewash or diminution of the serious concerns expressed by mainstream science on this topic, but I do believe the counterbalancing RS's need to be included to maintain NPOV, especially given many of the editors here seem to be justifying their removal of such material based on personal animosity toward BLP. Cheers, Blippy (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

'Personal animosity toward BLP'? Nope. Concerns over the relentless efforts of multiple POV-pushers (of which Blippy is but one of a long series) to promote BLP in a manner entirely contrary to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. So far, the so-called 'NPOV concerns' seem to amount to nothing but a failure of other contributors to be as credulous as Blippy evidently is. Wikipedia isn't here to provide a platform for BLP press releases, or for vague 'endorsements' from scientists who haven't actually carried out a scientific investigation. If and when BLP ever delivers this supposed new 'energy source' we can amend the article accordingly. For now, "Wikipedia [NPOV] policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship", and accordingly, the 'extraordinary claims' and minority-view endorsements are unjustified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality is not an issue here by any but for one POV pusher. Wikipedia is not a platform for BLP's nonsense. Jim1138 (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The future will be filled with powerful mass disclosures of mass irony.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
^{86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk} 04:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There is no neutrality problem. Tag removed. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:19, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Simply asserting there is no NPOV issue does not mean there is no NPOV issue. Please address the concerns I have raised above. Articles aren't to take sides, but rather explain the sides, fairly and without bias. The FACT that reputable scientists have been supportive of BLP is not reflected in the lede. This surely must be as clear an example of a genuinely alternative theoretical formulation as you're ever likely to encounter, yet so far the responses to my NPOV concerns have included personal attacks ("POV-pusher", "credulous"), broadbrush dismissal (WP not a platform for nonsense), whimsy, and unilateral declarations of truth ("there is no neutrality problem"). How about some intellectually honest engagement with the issue? Cheers, Blippy (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2014 (UTC)