User talk:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion

Published conclusions are presented on the user page.

Greetings. Hipocrite has requested that I attempt to mediate a content dispute regarding Cold fusion.

About me

These are facts about me that I consider relevant to this mediation:

• According to this, I have never edited Cold fusion. I do not know anything about cold fusion.
• To the best of my knowledge, I have never worked with Hipocrite, Abd, Verbal, Olorinish, Kevin Baas, Kirk shanahan, EdChem, OMCV, LeadSongDog, Enric Naval, Stephan Schulz, Objectivist, Coppertwig. If my memory fails me and I have worked with any of those editors, please notify me so I can amend the previous statement or, if necessary, recuse myself from the mediation and find someone who would be more objective in my stead.
• I have not read the entirety of Cold fusion nor its talk page. This is not because I am lazy, but because I wish to remain as objective as possible. I believe that if I were to read through Cold fusion in its entirety, I would possibly become biased towards the information that is currently presented in the article. I also believe that a similar effect would occur if I were to read through the entirety of Talk:Cold fusion.
• I am not an administrator. I unsuccessfully requested adminship in February 2009.
• I have very little experience with dispute resolution. I have participated in discussions at WP:RFCN.
• I write and review science-related articles on Wikipedia.
• I have never been employed as a scientist of any kind, nor have I ever written a peer-reviewed paper.

Subpage

I have decided to confine my attempted mediation to this subpage for two simple reasons: First, this mediation will likely become quite lengthy and require the use of multiple sections which would otherwise clutter up the talk page. Second, in the time that this mediation takes place, there will likely be unrelated discussions that spring up on the talk page. Such unrelated discussions would interrupt this mediation if it were to occur on the talk page. I would like to make it clear that in no way do I intend to use this subpage as a means of concealing the discussion contained herein. Upon completing my introductory statements, I will provide a link on the talk page and notify the involved editors. If someone wants to add a notice to the top of Talk:Cold fusion, you are more than welcome to do so.

Process

What I have read thus far has illustrated to me that much of this dispute (as is the case with many disputes) is comprised of personal attacks, accusations of personal attacks, personal counterattacks, and, more generally, criticisms of how the involved parties present information rather than criticisms of the information being presented. This will not occur here. Debate and argumentation will occur at points during this mediation process, but posts (or even individual sentences) that serve no purpose other than to criticize another user will be deleted. If you have a problem with the way another user is behaving and I have not already intervened, take it up at Talk:Cold fusion, the talk page of the user, or my talk page. If you simply have a problem with the material that another user presents, please try to make your rebuttal as impersonal as possible: "I believe that your statement of 'such and such' is incorrect. According to 'so and so'..." or "Your reasoning is somewhat flawed in that the gilbo sprocket generator...".

As of yet, I do not have a detailed plan for how to go about resolving this content dispute. I intend to make sure that all the involved parties are aware of this page and agree to work within the guidelines that I have set forth. I then intend to gather from the involved parties a detailed outline of the individual statements, sections, or sources which are in dispute. From there, we will work to resolve those disputes.

Participation

If you have been actively involved in the Cold fusion content dispute, please sign your name below. While there may be discussions in which uninvolved parties may participate, this list is for those who are actively involved in the dispute.

This list will serve three purposes: First, it will insure that all involved parties have been made aware of this mediation process and help us identify any missing parties which should be notified. Second, it will provide an opportunity for the involved parties to ask preliminary questions before the mediation begins. Third, it will serve to verify that the involved parties have read through the introductory material, agree to participate in the process that I have set forth, and ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon. Alternatively, involved parties who believe that this process is unnecessary or that I am not the best possible choice for a mediator can also sign here and express their concerns or refusal to participate.

1. Hipocrite (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2009 (UTC) Note - I will retract my acceptance of this process if editors banned from Wikipedia are permitted to participate. Hipocrite (talk) 01:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Out, untill issues are resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Returned, issues partially resolved. Hipocrite (talk) 12:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

   Umm. Let me get this straight. This is about Jed Rothwell, who was banned from Cold fusion, not actually from the project, by an administrator later found to have been involved. Whether or not he's still banned from Cold fusion is unclear, but suppose he is. So are you, Hipocrite, as am I. Now, we don't need Rothwell's participation here, but we can't stop him from dropping notes here, unless we semiprotect the page. He's an expert in the field, he's well-known and published, and he knows the literature intimately, it's quite possible he will say something useful, and it's not up to you or me if it stays, ultimately, it's up to Cryptic. You don't want to be here, that's certainly your choice; while your consent to decisions here would be nice, it's not essential as far as I'm concerned, and, below, it looks like it may be more trouble than it's worth. Cryptic doesn't need my additional consent, but to be clear, he may remove this note if he thinks it better. --Abd (talk) 02:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   Clarification: What is (or was) the username of this Jed Rothwell character? I'd like to look into the matter myself before this is discussed any further. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   [1], but since his siteban he has been disrupting with a traveling IP roadshow. Hipocrite (talk) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   You might review the evidence given at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG, which then refers to the RfC that preceded it. Summary: there was long-term conflict between JzG and Jed Rothwell, at Talk:Cold fusion. User:JedRothwell was abandoned in 2006; Rothwell stopped editing the article then, and only posts to Talk pages with comments, as IP, but he always signs his edits. He's a notable expert in the field (not a scientist! not all experts are scientists), and should probably have an article, because of RS mention of him, but nobody has tried to create one and I haven't gotten around to it. In December, 2008, JzG blocked Rothwell's IP and unilaterally blacklisted the web site, lenr-canr.org (and another site on the topic). JzG then claimed block evasion because of another IP he'd also blocked, not behaviorally similar except possibly for POV, not signed, mistakenly claimed to be Rothwell. And in January, JzG declared a topic ban on Rothwell. This was protested.[2]. Without necessity, JzG took the ban to ArbComm, claiming the right to block or ban based on the POV of an editor, which rejected the request as premature, not to mention dangerous. JzG was later found in the RfAr cited above to have violated admin recusal policy. The JedRothwell account was indef blocked, during the consideration in the earlier RfAr, by User:MastCell in an action which has not been contested, mostly because Rothwell truly doesn't care if that account is blocked, doesn't care if he's blocked at all, is quite amused by the whole fuss, and I'm certainly not going to intervene to unblock an old, moot account which the editor may not have access to anyway. The ArbComm non-decision was interpreted by one editor as a topic ban, and the application of that to this page would be basically up to you; see User talk:JedRothwell. Editors may permit edits by banned editors, even if we conclude that Rothwell is still banned, to pages in their user space, I do it routinely at User talk:Abd/IP. To me, the issue with Rothwell is whether or not we want to consider the opinion of a COI editor. My observation is that the facts he presents have never turned out to be false; he obviously has a point of view, as do experts in general. He's known to be heavily involved as an editor of papers for publication, so his claim to be editing a paper for Naturwissenschaften is quite reasonable. He made a comment here that is very much on-point, if we set aside the possible incivility. He has personal knowledge of the editorial process at Naturwissenschaften, and, as he later disclosed to me in email, the editorial process there is grueling. He stated that some of the reviewers he is dealing with know as much about cold fusion as someone like Storms, and "several orders of magnitude more than I know." Whether we take this into account as background, I'm not sure, but I do know that we should be very careful about assuming the reverse without any evidence, as has been the case here. Rothwell was quite amused by the claim, as you can understand given his claimed experience, and that is typically why he makes a comment, and also why some editors are allergic to him. --Abd (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   I thought we were talking about Cold Fusion, not about topic bans, JzG, aribtration, and all the like. If this mediation is about all of the nonsense that you've gone over fruitlessly a thousand times, then I'm out. If Jed Rothwell is going to be permitted to be a dick on this page, I'm out. This seems like a perfectly reasonably request. If anyone who is NOT Abd or a single-purpose account disagress with me, I'm happy to hear from you, on my talk page. I have unwatchlisted this page, as it's has devolved. Hipocrite (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

   We are indeed here to discuss cold fusion. I asked for information and I was given it. Jed Rothwell is topic banned, indefinitely blocked, has an obvious COI if he is who he claims to be and it's Essjay all over again if he is not. Most importantly (to me), all of his edits thus far have been disruptive and not in the spirit of this mediation. All edits made to this page by Jed Rothwell can be removed on sight by any editor. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

2. I'm a bit surprised about being named. I have made some comments in the discussion, but I do not have the time to spend on another science vs. pseudoscience conflict. Thus, do not expect extensive contributions to this mediation from me. I do think that the mediator should indeed start from good knowledge of the conflict and read through at least significant parts of the page and the discussion. I also reserve the right to comment on other editors behavior as necessary during this mediation. I don't see this as a pure content conflict. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Some may agree that there is a behavior conflict as well as a content conflict. I have neither the authority nor the interest to mediate behavioral issues. On this page, the only thing that I consider to be relevant is the determination of which content should appear in the article on Cold fusion. It is for that reason that I will disregard and remove any other commentary. It is also for that reason that I will not read the article, its sources, or the ongoing dispute until I am convinced that it is necessary to do so. Neutrality requires a certain level of ignorance, and that ignorance cannot be regained once it has been lost. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat hacking at the PDP-6.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:50, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   I do not fully understand what point you are attempting to make by providing this link. Could you please elaborate? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Just because you close your eyes, the room will not be empty. There have been plenty of arguments (or structurally similar statements) made. Why do you think disregarding them will help in the "determination of which content should appear in the article"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   It is not my intention to disregard logical arguments, but instead to separate those arguments from the name-calling and other content-unrelated issues. I am searching for blue rocks at the bottom of a blue chlorinated pool. Why should I dive in headfirst and sting my eyes when the people who threw the rocks are willing to point them out and provide scuba diving equipment? If you (and all the other involved parties) are able to point to specific sections or diffs rather than restating their arguments, I will read the material you provide, but I will waste neither my time nor my currently unbiased position attempting to find the useful material on my own. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

3. I will respect your role as mediator, Cryptic, because you were recommended to Hipocrite by Jehochman, whom I trust. He wouldn't do that for no reason. It's not clear to me, as well, why Hipocrite developed the list he did. Because you wish to focus on content issues, I will also respect that, and, indeed, believe that it could be helpful. However, as to respecting the result of the mediation, that would depend on what you mean by "respect." I trust that you will decide as you see best, but you are also only one editor. As a neutral editor -- I completely accept your representations on that -- you will be faced with a field rife with complexities and complications, and it's really easy to make snap judgments that are quite wrong. Experts have done it; indeed, the whole position of the field can be seen as based on such judgments. However, if you do your work well, I expect it to be of great influence on the article and on the editorial work. I'll warn you, though, that I was neutral -- or skeptical, actually -- about five months ago. You may be able to keep yourself becoming informed, but, I suspect, it may also be difficult. My position, all along, has been that a neutral judgment of sources, based simply on RS guidelines, would result in a better article than one controlled by editors with POVs about the subject and then about sources based on what those sources say. If a source appears to support a fringe positions, why, it must be a fringe source, to be deprecated or ignored. It's a classic Wikipedia problem. You may be able to help, and I'll do everything I can to assist. Thanks for trying.

   I suggest you move this page to your user space. You can use the user page as a consensus page to develop a report, and the user talk page for discussion. That's a practice I've followed with a little success. In your user space, you have a little more authority over the page; sometimes it can make a difference. With just one page, it's easy for discussion to spin out and obscure results; with the user/talk pair, you can keep tight focus and clarity on the user side and let discussion proceed in more detail on the talk side. How you would use that would be up to you: you could, for example, reserve the user page for yourself, for your report, and then let us discuss it and advise you on the talk side. --Abd (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   If you are dissatisfied with Hipocrite's list of involved editors, which users would you suggest omitting/adding? Regarding your concern with my ability to remain neutral and find the best possible solution, I suggest that you read this conversation I had with EdChem if you have not already. Other than that, the only promise I can make is that "I'll do the best I can." Regarding the use of a user subpage, I believe your suggestion is an excellent one. The of user subpage will be quite helpful for cataloging and publishing conclusions later on. The user talk subpage, where this content will soon be located, will be used for discussions such as this one. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   Not dissatisfied, did you think I was? Just puzzled. Does Hipocrite have a dispute with the above editors, or is Hipocrite suggesting that I do? And why EdChem, but I'll look again? Probably some of each. While it would be good to have a list of editors who are "parties," you may also admit others who wish to "testify." It really will be up to you. I didn't see Stephan Schulz as agreeing to participate, just kibbitzing. I think you should ask Hipocrite to clarify what issues he sought your mediation on, because if it isn't about editorial behavior, it's not enough to just identify parties and, indeed, the parties are largely moot except for some process reasons. --Abd (talk) 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

   While creating this page, I simply asked Hipocrite for a list of the involved editors. The list above reflects the list that he gave me. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

4. Enric Naval (talk) 05:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC) Still stuck with Abd-WMC's arb case, so I can't reply yet. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:49, 25 July 2009 (UTC) I have time again to participate. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
5. This seems reasonable to me. Offhand I can think of one other editor, User:Coppertwig, who has been involved in the CF discussion not too many days ago. V (talk) 07:56, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   That is definitely an oversight on my part. He should have been included, no doubt. Hipocrite (talk) 10:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   No problem. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

6. I wish to participate in the process, am generally willing to respect consensus, I like the process you've set up, and think that a consensus arrived at via mediation is likely to work well and I'm unlikely to try to go against it, but am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to "ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon." Thank you for arranging this mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I am glad that you are willing to participate, but hesitancy worries me. The phrase you've highlighted is the most important element of this mediation. The power of any mediation is derived from the fact that the participants all agree beforehand to respect whatever decisions are made. I hope you also understand that "we" in this sentence refers to all of the participants, not to all of the mediators (even though there is only one). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   Wikipedia:Mediation says "Agreement to mediate does not obligate the parties to accept any proposed agreements." I'm a member of the Harmonious editing club; I voluntarily follow 1RR; I tend to act in a mediator-like role, and I believe I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Wikipedia policies, including WP:CONSENSUS. However, I generally don't sign blank cheques or agree to as-yet-unspecified terms. You can choose to trust me, or not. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:35, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   First, Wikipedia:Mediation is not policy. I am not obligated to adhere to any of its proposed guidelines. Second, there is an inherent incompatibility between your statements "I have a good record of following consensus. I plan to follow Wikipedia policies, including WP:CONSENSUS." and "[I] am hesitant to make an absolute commitment to 'ultimately agree to respect the final content decisions that we collectively arrive upon.'" Do you or do you not agree to adhere to the eventual consensuses that will be arrived upon by the participants of this mediation?

   I applaud your optimism, but I don't wish to predict the future, i.e. whether any consensus will necessarily arise out of this mediation or not. WP:CONSENSUS says "Consensus can change". If something in some future situation will be the reasonable thing to do or will be required by policy, why would you need me to say something about it now? Perhaps you're confusing the concepts of mediation and arbitration. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   I'm increasingly worried about this. In the absence of some definition of "consensus among the participants," and with the selection of participants being highly likely to be biased at this point, which I'll explain, I can't agree to be bound by that consensus. I just ran, a bit more than a month ago, an RfC on admin misbehavior, at which two-thirds of the participants argued that I was completely off-base, many of them that I should be banned for even raising the issue; and many of those with the latter argument are represented in the list of possible parties here. Yet, at ArbComm, I was confirmed in my claims by almost every arbitrator. What was "consensus" at the RfC? Did I abide by it? Should I have abided by it?

   This mediation effort was initially defined by a specific issue for which mediation was not necessary, it was a transient issue, probably moot, how to determine what version to revert to during protection. Instead of addressing that directly, Cryptic, you proceeded to define a much more complex mediation process than would be appropriate for that issue. Fine. There are other issues. But they have not yet been defined, and until they have been defined, there isn't any basis for deciding who should be a party, and, as well, for my decision to participate in the mediation. I'm willing to mediate one issue at a time. You may well take that approach, but if you are questioning Coppertwig's commitment, you really should question mine.

   Here is what I suggest: let a complainant define an issue, a single issue. Pursue that informally as an independent editor who seeks to help resolve a single issue. If that proves impossible, and if it seems that expansion is needed, then use this page as a more complex form of informal mediation. For that one issue, invite other interested editors to participate. No promise to "respect" a decision is needed. Rather, later, failure to respond to the attempted intervention of a neutral editor can be used against an editor, it's a precondition for RfC, for example, likewise for RfAr.

   I absolutely respect your intentions, Cryptic. But you've stated that you have no experience in mediation. Fine, you can learn. But starting with a complicated process, burdened with promises that editors may later find conflict with WP:IAR, isn't a good idea, and that the meaning of the promises isn't clear doesn't help. Just pick a dispute and talk with both Hipocrite and I and anyone else who wants to help, and do your best to find compromises and consensus. You might report these efforts on the user page to which this talk page is attached, as a history of "mediations." I assure you I will fully cooperate with this, and will confine my comments as you request. You have already removed comments from me, which, again, I fully accept and respect. Thanks for your efforts, so far. Normally, for mediation to be of effect for further process, it must take place on the Talk page of the editor subject to further process. There is no need that all the process take place there, only that your efforts be documented there. So if, for example, you find that my positions have been improper, you can then attempt to gain my agreement on my talk page, as could Hipocrite or anyone else. If, then, I act contrary to this, I could be subject to RfC. I can't post to Hipocrite talk, but Hipocrite has waived notice, etc., so it could be said that I've already attempted to negotiate a dispute, pick any dispute. But there isn't someone else who has attempted this with the same dispute. You could be that person, as could be anyone. Good luck, I'll help as I can, and do, still, encourage your efforts. --Abd (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

   What I propose is this: You (the involved editors) will populate the list of specific content issues which Coppertwig started below. We will then choose one of those issues to discuss. As a neutral third party, I will provide input and ask questions in an attempt to find the best possible solution for everyone involved. When I am able to identify such a solution, I will post my thoughts on the user page and we will move on to the next issue. I will strike the statement in question regarding consensus. It seemed like a good idea at the beginning, but after putting a considerable amount of thought into the matter, I realize that it isn't really logical. If you choose to have further discussions on the issues after this mediation, if you choose to incorporate bits and pieces of my suggestions and ignore others, or if "consensus" here (if such an event actually occurs) is entirely ignored afterwards, so be it. That will be your choice. Does this sound reasonably to everyone? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

7. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to participate, or what is involved, but I'm not against anything that might help the project. I've been more involved on the talk page than editing the article. If putting my name here means more than just being willing to look in and add a comment now and then, please let me know! Verbal chat 21:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
8. I'm in a similar situation as Verbal. My interest in CF is insuring that sources are represented in the proper context and given due weight. My involvement has been limited mostly to the talk page for several months. Most recently my concerns on the talk page centered around a large portion of material derived from Storm's book. Specifically a small portion of text concerning biological transmutation. Latter I found out that Storm's book also took the phenomenon of spontaneous combustion seriously. It seems Storm wants to believe in things very badly (while I enjoyed the the x-files its not how the real world works). I believed the entire Storm book should be ignored in terms of scientific fact and theory since the author has embraced so many ideas well outside the mainstream. At the same time I do think the response that proponents of CF offer to the mainstream/historic perspective should be presented with the proper weight (I'm not sure how this would best be done and that is why I stick to the talk page). I also think Storm is a reliable source for what many CF proponents believe but I don't think his ideas can be treated as anything more than wp:fringe.--OMCV (talk) 04:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
9. I've nearly given up hope of being able to improve the article, so for weeks now I've limited my input to reference gnoming. The last straw was having been reverted for claiming that the scope of Naturwissenschaften is what that journal's official site says it is: Life sciences. I don't have sufficient patience to continue reading through thousands of words discussing the most trivial of points. I'll opt out of this unless someone asserts that I've behaved badly.LeadSongDog come howl 07:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
10. I don't really understand what "participation" is, but I want to participate, if it means that I read stuff and comment when I have something to contribute. Cryptic, what is the difference between an editor participating in mediation and one who is not? I actually think the article is pretty good these days. Olorinish (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

    The only requirement I place on editors who "participate" is that they read the introductory material I've written before they sign their name. This insures that the validity of whatever conclusions I publish will not be disputed by such arguments as "Wait, screw that, he's not an admin!" Also, if you list yourself as participating, I may ask you to make comments if your name is brought up in discussion. For example, if an editor provides a diff involving something you've written, and another editor argues that the first was misconstruing what you had written, I would ask you (via your talk page) to clarify the meaning for us. Other than that, there is no obligation to participate if you are "participating". Does this answer your question? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 15:42, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

11. I am signing to acknowledge that I have been notified. But I haven't been very active on the cold fusion page or discussion for some time. Frankly I haven't even been following it all that much lately. I'm not aware of any significant disputes on it currently and consequently don't believe I will have much to offer here. But for what it's worth, I'm here. Kevin Baas^talk 14:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
12. I have been following the CF pages for quite a while, on and off, though not editing. I am willing to participate, provided the discussion remains focused on content issues. EdChem (talk) 06:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
13. --GoRight (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
14. I'm not that interested, but since i'm following this, and there have been some comments that i felt the need to place ;-) I'm going to add myself per request[3]. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Content issues

Collapsed discussion

I just read [ the request for mediation]. I had somehow assumed that this would be about longer-term issues. Instead it's about determining which version to revert to while under protection, and there isn't any real dispute worth mediating over that. We have two polls going, one I started and then a competing poll that Hipocrite started for unknown reasons, but the two interpreted together show a strong result, and I doubt that it will get much muddier over the next few days. The list of users was a list of those who had been active with the article, it doesn't indicate dispute. I don't see the need for this mediation. There are many other issues with Hipocrite that have nothing to do with the specific question Hipocrite raised. It seemed you were thinking this would be about cold fusion issues, when, in fact, what Hipocrite asked about was pure process. It's possibly entirely moot if the article comes off protection. Sorry to waste your time. On the other hand, if it seems to you that there is something to mediate, I still would cooperate, but I'm not exercised to try to lay out a case for you, which is what you seem to assume would occur. Maybe Hipocrite will clarify what his issues are and maybe then I'll feel differently. --Abd (talk) 23:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC) From the conversation I had with Hipocrite when he asked me to mediate, it seemed that there were several particular issues in the article that editors could not agree on. Based on this diff, I was planning on asking the involved parties to compose a list of these individual content issues, after which we could attack each one and reach a series of individual conclusions. If you don't believe that a purely content-based mediation is necessary, I agree that it would be worthwhile for Hipocrite to provide a preliminary explanation of the issues at hand. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I think that some assistance with certain issues, particularly about reliable sourcing, could be useful. The immediate problem, though, how we would choose the version to revert to, which prompted the request for mediation and was specific in that request, wasn't a dispute needing mediation, and the time for mediation would be entirely impractical. I.e., if you want to decide whether to open the windows or not for air, you don't name a committee to consider the issue. You just quickly poll those present, if there is any question. If you like, I can state what I consider the most significant issue, and it's a real logjam at the article, and that would be how we determine what is reliable source. I'd think it simple: we follow WP:RS, as with any other article. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 6 June 2009 (UTC) I'd prefer not to address meta-issues in this mediation and support Cryptic's suggestion that we outline a series of actual content disagreements and work from there. Hipocrite (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC) The reliability of sources will inevitably become an important factor in this mediation, as it will likely affect many of the individual content concerns. It may even be the case that a general discussion may arise regarding the reliability of the available sources or how to determine the reliability of future sources. However, we must crawl before we walk. Our first mission and the majority of our work will be dedicated to addressing individual content issues. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was planning on waiting until we had finished assembling a list of participants, but Coppertwig has taken the initiative to begin the list of content issues. All involved parties are welcome to expand or modify the list. Signing individual entries is not necessary. Current discussion is in bold.

• Whether or not the beryllium-8 hypothesis should be mentioned in the article.[4]
• Whether or not the patent [5] should be mentioned in the article.
• Whether or not the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook should be included in the bibliography.

Marwan, Jan; Krivit, Steven B. (2008), Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, Washington, D.C.: American Chemical Society, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8 [source for Be-8 paper giving detail]

• Whether or not to include the following text: "According to Storms (2007), no published theory has been able to meet all the requirements of basic physical principles, while adequately explaining the experimental results he considers established or otherwise worthy of theoretical consideration." [6]link to context.
• To what extent to include speculative material and which sources can be used to verify this material.
• Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal? [7][8][9][10][11][12]
• Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?

Moving forward with mediation

Collapsed discussion regarding the banning Hipocrite and Abd. Consensus indicates desire to move forward with mediation.

William M. Connolley has topic banned Hipocrite and Abd from editing Cold fusion and its talk page. He has also reduced the article's protection level from full to semi. In light of these changes, how does everyone feel about continuing this mediation? As I see it, there are three options: Continue the mediation as planned. Participation from Abd and Hipocrite is allowed. Continue the mediation as planned. Participation from Abd and Hipocrite is disallowed. Pause the mediation. Allow editing and talk page discussion to occur normally. Discuss at a later date whether mediation is still necessary. I see no reason to exclude Hipocrite or Abd from the mediation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Connolley said that them posting at these mediation pages is at Cryptic's discrection[13], see full discussion. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC) The ban was not a topic ban, it was a ban from two pages only. This might be a good place to examine a few of the issues with a mediator keeping the focus. I'd say let's get on with it. What I'd suggest is using the user page to create a document (section with subsections) for each issue stating, to start, the exact nature of the dispute and all the arguments raised, not signed but possibly attributed as to opinion as distinct from a fact where source can be cited. We can all work on this with Cryptic assuring that our work product is NPOV on the topic (i.e., the topic of the arguments). When we are done, a new reader should be able to quickly see all the arguments, evidence, citations of relevant policy and guidelines, ArbComm decisions, etc., whatever has been asserted and is reasonably relevant (as judged by the mediator). This should be done before conclusions are considered! The goal would be to find as much consensus as possible, and to delineate what issues might remain, so that they are clear and ready for further process if needed. Thus the work here will not be wasted even if consensus is not found, but I expect we are likely to find consensus. --Abd (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I think that the lowering of protection will mean editing of the main article resumes, and this will influence what needs to be covered in the mediation. I think Abd and Hippocrite should be allowed to participate, as it lets content issues be raised by them or discussions to involve them whilst complying with WMC's ban. However, in order to keep discussions on track, I do very much hope that Cryptic will ensure behavioural issues and debates about policy are minimised as far as possible, and the discussion directed to content. EdChem (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, that's essential, and if I didn't trust that Cryptic was going to do this, I'd not participate here. Note, however, that policy on reliable sources is very much on point here, I don't think we are here to debate the Be-8 theory, per se, as a scientific issue, but what we should report in the article about it, which is an issue that involves examining WP:RS and WP:UNDUE, and their application as has been guided by ArbComm. I do think, however, that we should avoid debate format, and focus on discovering and documenting consensus, or, alternatively, established and clear disagreement which could then be subject to further review in a wider process. --Abd (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) For the record, I have decided to ignore the ban of William M. Connolley; administrators are not empowered to issue page bans or enforce them except for bans to enforce ArbComm remedies, community bans determined after discussion,or voluntary bans. It's not important here, except peripherally. I remain committed to the pursuit of maximized consensus at Cold fusion. The same argument would apply to Hipocrite. He is not banned, unless he chooses to respect the ban. --Abd (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that all involved parties want to move forward with the mediation, though Hipocrite has not edited this page in some time. I have notified him of the fact that he is still allowed to participate here. In any case, does anyone have any suggestions for which issue we should discuss first? I would prefer to take on the "smaller" disputes first and build up to the larger ones. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a comment to say I remain fully committed to this process, but totally indifferent to what we discuss first. Hipocrite (talk) 11:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Starting with any of them is fine, and I can't easily decide that one issue is smaller than another, but if I had to choose I'd suggest starting with the Naturwissenschaften/Life Sciences issue as the smallest. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I started the section below and presented context and argument for removing "life sciences," subject to the mediator's approval. --Abd (talk) 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. No sense sitting around discussing what to discuss when we could just go ahead and discuss it! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Naturwissenschaften a "Life Sciences" journal?

Should we state that Naturwissenschaften is a "life sciences" journal?

Consensus reached. Full report can be found here.

In an article where there have been long-term struggles over balance, we need take care with respect to why text is being included, and it can point to how that text will be interpreted by readers. An editor inserted "life sciences journal," and we should ask why. The editor who inserted it has generally declined to participate here; so I will speculate as to the reason: he wanted to make it appear (and, I assume, believed) that Naturwissenschaften would not be a place to ordinarily publish research in chemistry or physics. This is a frequent claim with respect to peer-reviewed journals publications in this area, that the journal would not have the expertise to properly review the paper. But the point of mentioning Naturwissenschaften is actually that it's a mainstream journal, and not specialized in the life sciences. Probably because most papers published are in life science fields, Springer has classified it in the Life Science category, but the journal actually covers much more. From [14]: Naturwissenschaften - The Science of Nature - is Springer’s flagship multidisciplinary science journal covering all aspect of the natural sciences. The journal is dedicated to the fast publication of high-quality research covering the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences. Particularly welcomed are contributions that bridge between traditionally isolated areas and attempt to increase the conceptual understanding of systems and processes that demand an interdisciplinary approach. ... Naturwissenschaften is only interested in publishing the very best of research, and the selection criteria are scientific excellence, novelty, and the potential to attract the widest possible readership, reflecting the multidisciplinary nature of the journal. Cold fusion is an interdisciplinary field, where chemistry and physics intersect -- or collide. Calling Naturwissenschaften a "life sciences journal" is misleading. That is why I removed this reference. Enric Naval disagreed, adding "peer-reviewed" in what he must have thought would be a reasonable compromise, but restoring the misleading "life sciences journal." I raised the issue in Talk, and, there being no response, the next day I removed it. I had assumed the issue was resolved, but apparently the editor who had removed it still considers the removal preposterous. Maybe it would be worthwhile to formally find a consensus on this. --Abd (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Calling it a "life sciences" journal would give an inaccurate impression to the reader, since the journal also covers "chemical ... and physical sciences". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Sorry to bud in - but life sciences seems to be quite correct. I've been through the last 10 issues, and there are very very few (if any) papers that aren't connected to biology. Take a look yourselves. Do a random sweep of the content. I'd say there is a very good reason that Springer themselves are categorizing it as life-sciences. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC) These two articles on one page don't seem to me to be in life sciences: [15] ("Are transient X-ray sources cataclysmic binaries?" and "Element 114 in Meteoriten?") "Mostly life sciences" might be accurate but without relevant sources perhaps both OR and SYN; I still say that just "life sciences" gives an inaccurate impression. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Did you just link to a 1976 letters page to show that the journal today is not a life sciences journal? Do you think that's a bit disingenuous? It's categorized as a life sciences journal. They publish articles almost entirely on biology. Hipocrite (talk) 02:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC) To complement the above comment by Hipocrite - how exactly is classifying it as life-science WP:OR? It is Springers own classification - i was just doing spot checks to see if the classification was correct, and quite apparently it is. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC) As Kim says, Springer itself classifies it as "Life sciences". Also, I also looked at some issues. Looking at the paper titles in all 6 issues of volume 96, almost every single paper appeared to be about biology except this one about haemoglobin tests. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC) I have looked into the journal in question as well. I am not finished all the checking I would like to do, but would comment the following: It certainly is a reliable source, and so papers within it are usuable unless the usual caveat applies in any particular case. It does publish predominantly to almost exclusively material on life sciences and nature topics (including some geology), so it does appear to be an unusual place for the papers from SPAWAR. The choice of an unusual venue is, on its own, insufficient to raise the usual caveat. However, the publications in Naturwissenschaften are not full journal articles but rather communications. Consequently, the full paper which would be expected to follow would actually be a better source for the article. Unless I am missing something, the topic of how to describe this journal (if at all) is probably going to be irrelevant in a short period of time. In a quick search, I found the following: The paper Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments from the Dec 2007 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 40(3), 293-303, was challenged by Kowalskai in Dec 2008 (44(3), 287-290) and a further response provided (44(3), 291-294). Using the 2007 paper would seem to me to require noting the criticisms which conclude the pitting on CR-39 could not possibly be due to α-particles or anything smaller. The paper Solid State Modified Nuclear Processes by Kalman, P., Keszthelyi, T., and Kis, D., also in the Dec 2008 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 44(3), 297-302, might also be relevant - I don't know, not having read it. The paper Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition by Mosier-Boss, A., Szpak, S., Gordon, F. E., and Forsley, L. P. G. in the Jun 2009 issue of European Physical Journal - Applied Physics, 46(3) might be the one needed to see if the results are confirmed. As far as I can see, this is the only paper to have cited the Jan 2009 energetic neutrons Naturwissenschaften SPAWAR publication - perhaps not surprising, given the timeframe. The preprint of the paper Theory of Bose–Einstein condensation mechanism for deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in micro/nano-scale metal grains and particles by Y. E. Kim (Dept. Physics, Purdue Uni) to appear in Naturwissenschaften seems likely to be relevant, in that it will apparently (to judge from the abstract) present a conventional explanation for some of the phenomena under discussion. The abstract states that "Recently, there have been many reports of experimental results which indicate occurrences of anomalous deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metals at low energies. A consistent conventional theoretical description is presented for anomalous low-energy deuteron-induced nuclear reactions in metal. The theory is based on the Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) state occupied by deuterons trapped in a micro/nano-scale metal grain or particle. The theory is capable of explaining most of the experimentally observed results and also provides theoretical predictions, which can be tested experimentally. Scalabilities of the observed effects are discussed based on theoretical predictions." It thus appears that the present discussion may be overtaken by additional publications. I do not agree with the implied proposition from above that the coverage of a journal or its reliability is determined simply from the identity of the publisher and what the journal says of itself. The coverage is best assessed by looking at what it actually publishes, along with the areas of expertise of the Editorial Board. The Sokal Hoax clearly demonstrated the dangers when a journal publishes a paper in an area where the Editorial Board lack the expertise to make a reasonable assessment of the manuscript, and then fail to seek comment for those who possess the requisite expertise. In some ways, this goes to the heart of the issues in relation to cold fusion topics - that many people lack the experience, knowledge, or expertise to be sufficiently aware to make informed comments and decisions. EdChem (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC) EdChem, while I appreciate your efforts put toward finding other relevant papers, I would prefer to avoid the line of argument that the issue might be "irrelevant in a short period of time." Even if we here decide to implement the sources you've mentioned or any other papers which circumvent the need to describe Naturwissenschaften, we must keep in mind that that very same need may re-arise in future discussions. Our goal here is somewhat trickier than to find a solution for the current situation. Instead, we must find the solutions that cover all of the bases and prevent similar problems from arising in the future. As I see it, the real question lies in choosing the best possible method in which the journal in question should be characterized. There are several ways to do this: Use the short description: "Life sciences". Use the medium description which I found in its article: "Weekly Publication of the Advances in the Natural Sciences, Medicine and Technology." Use the longer description which Abd linked to: "...the whole range of the biological, chemical, geological, and physical sciences..." Analyze the topics covered in recent issues. Analyze the expertise of the journal's editorial staff. The fifth seems nearly impossible, though it is worth bearing in mind that the editorial team is comprised of humans. If we choose the fourth method, I would advise taking a "true" statistical viewpoint. Don't point to an issue filled with biology articles, and don't pick out individual chemistry/physics articles either. Take a random recent sample and analyze it objectively. As for the three descriptions of varying lengths, there still seems to be room for discussion as to which length is most appropriate. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC) As you can see below, I consider the discussion of how to characterize the journal to be premature, given that we haven't agreed that it should be characterized at all, and we mention it because our secondary sources mention it. (I'll check on that.) I agree about setting aside the argument that this may become irrelevant because of subsequent publication, this is actually historic work, and that's how the media treated it. The Kowalski paper criticized their earlier alpha-particle conclusions about the pitting, but, back-to-back, that criticism was handily answered, in my opinion, and Kowalski's objection would not at all apply to the triple-tracks characteristic of energetic neutrons, which are also found on the back side of the detectors. And we can go way down the road of debating content, I do suggest we stick to basics, first. Why characterize the publication at all? Sorry, but 4 and 5 are pure instances of WP:OR. What about "6 - try to find additional external sources discussing Naturwissenschaften"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC) ...and to that end I offer [16],[17],[18]. What is interesting is that "Naturwissenschaften" is not really intended to be the primary means of communicating new results to experts, but to describe research to an expanded audience of teachers and non-expert scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Thanks, Stephen. As Coppertwig points out below, we mention Naturwissenschaften because it was mentioned in reliable secondary source. Those sources, to my memory, did not characterize it, so, when I put this in the article, I did not characterize it, but I do have an opinion: they mentioned the journal to lend gravitas to the report, this is a mainstream journal of high reputation, which, I'm quite sure, published this because they believed it to be very significant work. This report of neutrons has been widely considered important, that's why we can cover it and why it would be in the article. As to the sources Stephan found, these are from Springer. [19] doesn't show us anything new, as far as I could see. [20] is in German, I can't google translate. [21] links to an English translation of the third page Stephen cited, where the history of the journal is briefly described, and notable authors whose work has been published in it. The page, from 2003, claims 60% of articles are in life sciences. --Abd (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Oops!! I had just clicked around a bit on their website; I forget exactly what I did; and didn't notice the year of the page I had selected. Silly of me. One more way to approach this: look at how sources specifically mentioning the cold fusion article describe the journal. For example, here [22] it's just referred to as "Naturwissenschaften". A wikilink can provide additional information on the journal. Some other wordings that might or might not work: "the multidisciplinary life sciences journal Naturwissenschaften"; "Naturwissenschaften, a multidisciplinary journal focused mainly on life sciences"; "a multidisciplinary journal in Springer's life sciences collection". By the way, anything to do with haemoglobin sounds like life sciences to me. Kim D. Peterson, you raised a good point; and Ed Chem, that's useful information you've contributed. Thanks for keeping us on-topic, Cryptic. I may be on wikibreak for several weeks. Go ahead with the mediation, don't feel you have to wait for me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC) As can be seen above, we often put the cart before the horse. To find agreement here, we first have to establish why we are even discussing this. It's clear above that there is a basis for calling the publication a "life sciences journal," and there is a basis for considering that misleading, because it is explicitly a multidisciplinary journal. But why do we mention what kind of journal it is at all. The mention, in context, wikilinks Naturwissenschaften. Above, I speculated as to why "life sciences" would be mentioned. I invite the other editors to justify it; I will repeat what I wrote above in a subsection, and ask that discussion in that subsection be toward the desirability of any characterization of the journal at all, other than provided by the wikilink. If we establish a need for characterization, then we can discuss how to characterize it. Otherwise we will be debating a matter without a clear basis. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) (heh, now maybe I can write something without running into an edit conflict; the text in the edit window is much much less extensive than before) I want to ask regarding the possibility of compromise. In grade school we supposedly learn that we can look up information and write it down for the class, but in our own words --not plagiarize it directly. Some of the Wikipedia rules seem to favor plagiarism, so maybe we can't "make up" a reasonably accurate and non-misleading description of this journal. But, just because I want to try it, and see what you have to say about it, here: Naturwissenschaften is a multidisciplinary journal with a major, but nonexclusive, focus on the life sciences. V (talk) 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The text in context From the article, references have been reduced to labeled links: On 22–25 March 2009, the American Chemical Society held a four-day symposium on "New Energy Technology", in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the announcement of cold fusion. At the conference, researchers with the U.S. Navy's Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center (SPAWAR) reported detection of energetic neutrons in a palladium-deuterium co-deposition cell using CR-39,ACS Press Release 'Cold fusion' rebirth? New evidence for existence of controversial energy source a result previously published in Die Naturwissenschaften.New Scientist: Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion Neutrons are indicative of nuclear reactions.AFP: Scientists in possible cold fusion breakthrough The New Scientist source refers to publication in a "peer-reviewed journal (Naturwissenschaft, DOI: 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x)." --Abd (talk) 22:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Why mention the journal? We mention it because it's been mentioned in reliable secondary source as significant, as I recall. I'll provide references; this statement wasn't added based on the simple publication, to my memory, but as derived from secondary source. --Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) The source:New Scientist, Neutron tracks revive hopes for cold fusion, 23 March 2009. --Abd (talk) 19:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Why characterize the journal? I'd prefer to characterize it as a "mainstream journal," and "multidisciplinary journal primarily focusing on the life sciences" is accurate, but both of these involve OR, probably, though of the kind that we can sometimes allow with consensus. I believe, however, that there is a specific motive for characterizing it, which is to impeach it by implying that it would have inadequate peer review. If we don't characterize it as a "life sciences journal," will this mislead the reader into thinking that there has been publication of this work by the mainstream in a place where there might have been inadequate review? I will not open sections below on how to characterize it until there is a conclusion that we should characterize it, otherwise we may be debating a moot point.--Abd (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Because Mosier-Boss's paper is a paper about physics, and Naturwissenschaften is a biology journal, not a physics journal. And that means that maybe their Editorial Board wasn't able to review it properly. And it suggests that Mosier-Boss was forced to publish in Naturwissenschaften for some reason. Maybe because their paper would not have passed the peer-review process of a physics journal because it has flaws that Naturwissenschaften couldn't detect because it's not specialized in physics. And I think that Mosier-Boss has already published four papers in Naturwissenschaften. We know that most papers are of poor quality[23], and I think it's necessary to point out that it's not a physics journal. (mind you, as EdChem says, this issue could be made moot by other papers who are appearing and which analyze Mossier-Boss paper) There could be another reason of why Mosier-Boss decided to publish there. Jed Rothwell said that physics journals reject cold fusion articles without review[24], unfortunately he failed to provide any documentation for his claim[25] --Enric Naval (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC) It's well-documented above that this isn't a "biology journal," I won't repeat that. The SPAWAR group has published a great deal of material in another physics journal. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2007. 40: p. 293-303. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Reply to Comment on 'The Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments': A Response to Kowalski. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2008. 44: p. 287-290. Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition. Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2009. 46. See also Szpak, S., P.A. Mosier-Boss, and F. Gordon, Further evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice: emission of charged particles. Naturwiss., 2007. DOI 10.1007. Szpak, S., et al., Evidence of nuclear reactions in the Pd lattice. Naturwiss., 2005. 92(8): p. 394-397. (In other worlds, if this was a mistake by Naturwissenschaften, you'd think someone would have let them know....) For a list of peer-reviewed publications by the SPAWAR group, see [26]. There is also a list published by them; this is a U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Why did they submit to Naturwissenschaften? It's obvious. This is a highly reputable journal, mainstream, run by the Max Planck Society, which would certainly have the physics expertise, and which has, in the past, published many seminal papers, going back to Einstein, and it is multidisciplinary, having a wider audience than Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. This paper is historic, the method was simple, and if their experimental report is not actually deceptive, they've iced it. Sure, we should have confirmation, but we already have notability, and plenty of source for that. It should also be realized that neutrons have long been reported at low levels, so this paper is really a confirmation of the earlier work. The early "refutations" of neutrons were of high levels, and the complaint about prior low level reports was that the "bursts" could be background, cosmic rays, etc. CR-39 is an accumulating detector, so it recorded the characteristic triple tracks caused by neutrons, apparently, over many weeks, in many runs. They obtained sufficiently consistent results, roughly ten times accumulated background, and adequately controlled, to be able to make this claim, and for it to receive very serious attention. Does anyone here seriously believe that they submitted to Naturwissenschaften because it would be easier to sneak by the reviewers? As to Rothwell's comment, it's true and it's in reliable source, but that's not our topic here. I'll mention, though, the Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Julian Schwinger's famous resignation from the American Physical Society over rejection of his work without review. --Abd (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC) That raises the question of why she didn't publish her paper in those physics journals, and why the only two papers published at Naturwissenschaften are also the only ones mentioning "Nuclear Reactions" in the title. And, yeah, now that you ask, it appears very much that Mossier-Boss published at Naturwissenschaften because most physics journal would not have accepted her work (the reasons of why this would happen are a different question: was it quality? or bias against CF? etc). And why it's necessary to qualify that it's not a physics journal. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Leave aside that this is speculation, and, actually, preposterous, directly contradicted by the evidence, i.e., this group has repeatedly published in a physics journal. Okay, why not a physics journal this time? Well, the SPAWAR group has a long history of publishing very similar work in physics and chemistry journals. Naturwissenschaften, though, is a multidisciplinary journal, and cold fusion straddles chemistry and physics. A short, grossly oversimplified summary is that the chemists knew -- or figured out -- how to cause the effect, and say that it isn't chemistry. The massive rejection came from the physicists, who couldn't initially reproduce the effect and many gave up, and said that it must be chemistry, it couldn't be nuclear physics. We have stuffed Condensed matter nuclear science and Cold fusion into the same article, though CMNS covers stuff besides fusion. It's a cross-disciplinary field, chemistry dealing with "consensed matter," and publishing in a multidisciplinary journal of the reputation of Naturwissenschaften is likely to have far more impact, than in the EPJ Applied Physics, see [27]. Previously the SPAWAR group, with many publications before 2000, published since 2000 the following peer-reviewed papers; the claim about "nuclear" in the title is only partially correct. Physics journal publications are bolded. "Characterization of tracks in CR-39 detectors obtained as a result of Pd/D Co-deposition," Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys., 2009. 46. "Triple Tracks in CR-39 as the Result of Pd–D Co-deposition: Evidence of Energetic Neutrons," Pamela A. Mosier-Boss, Stanislaw Szpak, Frank E. Gordon and Lawrence P. G. Forsley, Naturwissenschaften, DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x (nuclear not in the title. "Energetic neutrons," though, has "nuclear" written all over it.) "Detection of Energetic Particles and Neutrons Emitted During Pd/D Co-Deposition," Mosier-Boss, P.A., et al., in Low-Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook, J. Marwan and S. Krivit, Editors. 2008, Oxford University Press. "Reply to comment on 'The use of CR-39 in Pd/D co-deposition experiments': a response to Kowalski," Mosier-Boss, Pamela, Szpak, Stan, Gordon, Frank, and Forsley, Lawrence P.G., European Physical Journal, Applied Physics, Vol. 44, p. 291–295 (2008) “ Thermal Behavior of Polarized Pd/D Electrodes Prepared by Co-Deposition”, S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, M.H. Miles, and M. Fleischmann, Thermochimica Acta, 410, 101 (2004). "Thermal behavior of polarized Pd/D electrodes prepared by co-deposition," Szpak, S., et al., Thermochim. Acta, 2004. 410: p. 101. “The Effect of an External Electric Field on Surface Morphology of Co-Deposited Pd/D Films”, S Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, J. Electroanal. Chem., 580, 284 (2005). “Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd Lattice”, S Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, C. Young, and F.E. Gordon, Naturwissenschaften, 92, 394 (2005). “Further Evidence of Nuclear Reactions in the Pd/D Lattice: Emission of Charged Particles”, S. Szpak, P.A. Mosier-Boss, and F.E. Gordon, Naturwissenschaften,, 94, 511 (2007). “Use of CR-39 in Pd/D Co-deposition Experiments”, P.A. Mosier-Boss. S. Szpak, F.E. Gordon, and F.P.G. Forsley, EPJ Applied Physics, 40, 293 (2007). "The effect of an external electric field on surface morphology of co-deposited Pd/D films," Szpak, S., et al., J. Electroanal. Chem., 2005. 580: p. 284-290. It's not that EPJ-AP won't publish papers on cold fusion with "nuclear" in the title: "Solid state modified nuclear processes," P. K´alm´an1,a, T. Keszthelyi1, and D. Kis2, Eur. Phys. J. Appl. Phys. 44, 297–302 (2008) How about this: our source uses "peer-reviewed journal Naturwissenschaften." Why are we doing our own original research to substitute our opinion for that of the secondary source? We could, if we agree, add "multidisciplinary," i.e., "peer-reviewed multidisciplinary journal, Naturwissenschaften." Or, to avoid disruption, we could simply refer to the journal by its name and leave out the qualifications, which was the compromise I followed. Did I give up too easily? --Abd (talk) 19:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC) (outdent)What is the Impact factor of these journals? And what are similar physics/multidiscipline journals impact factors? That should be a way for us to determine how highly regarded the journals are. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Certainly that's of interest, though I'm not sure what it has to do with the question here. We aren't talking about conflict of sources. --Abd (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC) Cryptic C62, I see KDP is participating even though he is not listed in the participation section (not complaining, just noticing). I have refrained from commenting because of the following statement found there: "While there may be discussions in which uninvolved parties may participate, this list is for those who are actively involved in the dispute." So is this a private discussion or is anyone welcome to join in? --GoRight (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I held little belief that the list of editors to whom I sent notifications and whose names I included in the introductory section would be "complete". I have stated that all are welcome to suggest additional editors to be added to the "involved participants" list. In retrospect, I should have made it clearer that this included suggesting oneself. GoRight and Kim, if you wish to participate, which you are certainly welcome to do, I ask that you read through the introductory material and sign your name in the participation section. If either of you have issues with the mediation process I have laid out, please list them alongside your name in the participation section (as several other editors have done). GoRight, thank you for pointing this out. With so much discussion being churned out, it is difficult to notice all of the little things at once. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC) eigenfactor for Naturwissenschaften. EPJ AP doesn't seem to be listed. At journal-ranking.com, Naturwissenschaften (rank 8), 8/50, is just below Scientific American (rank 7), in the category "multidisciplinary sciences." In the Applied Physics category, EPJ-AP is 69/80. I don't think there is any doubt about why Mosier-Boss might prefer to publish in Naturwissenschaften, if they'll accept the paper, and it looks like they have accepted 3 from the SPAWAR group. --Abd (talk) 22:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I am pleased with the discussion that has occurred thus far. I would like to inform you of how I currently perceive the issue. I also have a few new points I would like to bring up: The person who added the phrase "life sciences" to the article may have done so to try to give the impression that Naturwissenschaften is not a suitable journal for a cold fusion paper to be published in. That person may instead have added it simply to describe the journal in question (so that readers won't have to follow the wikilink to find relevant information) without giving any thought to the implications. The original intention is irrelevant. It has been made clear from the volume of discussion on the matter that the inclusion of the "life sciences" does indeed cast doubts on the validity of the paper. We must also consider the opposite: Does the exclusion of the "life sciences" descriptor imply that Naturwissenschaften is an appropriate journal for the article in question? There is certainly room for discussion on this question, but I currently think that the answer is no. It is our responsibility to provide information plainly and clearly. It is wrong to employ a wording which implies certain things without further information to make those implications (and the supporting evidence thereof) clearer. It is likely that we will never know why the paper in question was published in Naturwissenschaften. Some speculate that this was because the journal in question is multidisciplinary and mainstream, some speculate that this was because it would be easier to slip the article past the review process for a non-physics journal. We will never know. All that we do know is that Naturwissenschaften is a peer-reviewed journal. As such, this line of argumentation is futile. If it is indeed true that SPAWAR chose Naturwissenschaften to try to slip the article past the review process, and if there is indeed reason to believe that the results in the article were falsified or otherwise flawed, then at least one of two things must happen: First, the section of cold fusion that discusses the SPAWAR article in question must receive the same treatment as any other piece of information which has been shown to have originated in an unreliable source: It must either be rewritten or augmented to make this unreliability explicit or it must be deleted entirely. Second, reliable sources must be provided in that section which discuss and dispute the reliability of the article and the choice of journal in which it was published. With all this having been said, I am currently leaning towards the exclusion of "life sciences". --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Yeah, that's what I thought. Except it's pretty clear to me why they chose Naturwissenschaften. But I wouldn't propose putting it in the article. "Naturwissenschaften is ranked just below Scientific American in importance among multidisciplinary journals."[ref] Too much detail, don't you think? --Abd (talk) 01:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC) As I see it, the inclusion of statements that "support" the journal would only be appropriate as a counterargument to statements which dispute the reliability of the article in question, statements which, as I understand it, do not yet exist in the cold fusion. I think a more appropriate place for the statement you've written would be in the (fairly poor) Naturwissenschaften article itself. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I'll add that the discussion became polarized with the insistance from one part that the publication of the paper on that journal single-handedly demonstrated that cold fusion was no longer a fringe science, and the insistance from the other part that the journal had zero relevance in physics journal and that it shouldn't even be mentioned. I believe that this started as a moderated debate with moderate positions and arguments about the importance of the journal, and then it entered a positive feedback circle that culminated in the positions described above. Myself being one of the editors that entered that cycle, mind you. I thank Cryptic62 for breaking that cycle, his arguments sound very reasonable, and I abide by what he decides. Myself, I'm happy with no qualification, specially since the other journals mentioned in Cold fusion don't have any qualification (we haven't even placed "prestigious" in front of Physical Review Letters!). --Enric Naval (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, the polarization began when the attempt was made to put "life sciences journal" into the article. The "insistence" (where?) that cold fusion was no longer a fringe science certainly wasn't manifested in the article attempts around this issue. Obviously, though, this publication is a piece of evidence in that direction. Just like the issued patents below, just like the CBS documentary, etc., etc. There are a few mainstream media sources that hint that "cold fusion is coming out of the cold," or is receiving serious consideration again, but I haven't tried to put this directly into the article, just a few indirect hints that are clearly notable facts. Thanks, Enric and Cryptic, one worm buried is one less in the can, except that we aren't necessarily there yet. There are other involved editors who might have something to say. --Abd (talk) 11:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Below, Hipocrite argues in a manner that incorporates the assumptions rejected here, that "life sciences" is a crucial aspect of Naturwissenschaften, and he merely takes that one step further, that the paper shouldn't be mentioned at all. Thus, I assume, if it is going to be mentioned, a logical extension of his argument would be that the characterization be present. Underlying his argument there is a set of assumptions about the experimental work, the field, and the journal that, to me, seem unlikely to hold up under examination, but I won't, as I sometimes have done in the past, lay out the foundations of the argument, I will leave that to him or to anyone else who cares to do so. If that doesn't happen, I assume, the consensus will be that, if included, Naturwissenschaften is to be uncharacterised, neither by "life sciences" nor by what the source says (remember, this mention in the article is based on a secondary source!), "peer-reviewed," and we can move on to remaining issues. --Abd (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) (Outdent) The main rationale I am hearing above from the proponents of characterizing the journal as "life sciences" seems to be related to some conjecture that the journal's peer-review standards are inadequate to the task of reviewing a nuclear physics article. Do we have any hard evidence from reliable sources that this is the case, or is this pure conjecture and therefore WP:OR on our part? --GoRight (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC) The prohibition against OR is not a prohibition against engaging in research to determine the validity of sources, it's a prohibility against including that research in article-space. We all seem to agree that the Journal almost certainly lacks expertise in fusion physics and/or electrochemistry based on our OR of reviewing the undisputed fact that they don't publish on either of those topics. We can't put that in article space, but that dosen't mean we can't even consider it. Hipocrite (talk) 17:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC) But if the purpose of including "life sciences" is explicitly to leave the reader with the impression that their peer-review standards are inadequate to the task of reviewing a nuclear science article then you are, in effect, including the WP:OR in the article, perhaps not explicitly but clearly implicitly. In other words, you are violating the spirit of the no WP:OR policy, if not the letter. If leaving such an impression is the fundamental goal of including the characterization I still argue that it is wrong. I assume that you would agree that our purpose as editors is NOT to leave the readers with biased impressions based on behind the scenes WP:OR, correct? --GoRight (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC) I don't have a strong stance as to characterizing the journal, either as peer-reviewed to make it look more credible than it is or as life-sciences to accurately reflect the fact that publishing on cold fusion is well outside of it's typical perview. I feel that this discussion is putting the cart before the horse, and so I feel no need to stress about it. I suggest that if it were put on hold while we determine if it is even a remotely reliable source for anything related to cold fusion were explored, we would quickly moot this section as irrelevent, as papers published in Naturwissenschaften are not reliable unless they are cited by other papers and used in textbooks, which, of course, they are not. Hipocrite (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) This is a non-issue, because we are not relying for the section on Naturwissenschaften as our source, it's New Scientist, with reference to Naturwissenschaften as the primary source that New Scientist is referring to. I'm certainly not likely to concede, absent evidence that I haven't seen, that Naturwissenschaften isn't WP:RS, but this is moot here, where we are mentioning the journal as cited in other reliable source; there is, in addition, much other reliable media source that covered the paper's report without naming the journal. As to publishing outside its purview, low-energy nuclear science, dealing as it does with the condensed matter state, is a cross-disciplinary field, and that's exactly the purview of Naturwissenschaften. Debating the reliability of Naturwissenschaften is a totally different issue; this could have been a conference paper and if it had received the media attention that these experimental results did, we should have been including it. --Abd (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC) That would be great if it were true, except it's not. We're using the paper, or the press-release issued along with the paper to support "what they called the first scientific report of highly energetic neutrons." Beyond the fact that this isn't true, because P&F reported neutrons (though they later retracted), as did a host of other studies, it's also sourced only to Boss and co, and the ACS press release that does not appear to have been vetted by any editors at all. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC) What's not true? We put this report in the article, by editorial consensus at the time, because of the massive media reports in March. What's really new about the Mosier-Boss report is that energetic neutrons were reported at levels roughly ten times background, using an integrating detector, far less vulnerable to the problems with prior work, where there was always suspicion it was background, or odd cosmic ray events, being seen, or detector failure. Sure, Fleischmann reported neutrons, at a far higher level, and that report was withdrawn, it was clearly an error. Other, later and far more careful work, showed very low levels of neutrons, always reasonably criticized as being close to background. The ACS report is a primary source also, made notable by its broad publication in the media. The report is on the ACS meeting, you might notice, it's not actually about the Naturwissenschaften article. We can find alternate sources if needed. Cryptic, welcome to the world of cold fusion, where underneath every argument, it seems there is another. Congratulations on seeing clearly enough to deal with one at a time. It will be necessary to get through this thicket. I still think we have consensus here, on the narrow issue, and the continued debate now is just wasting time. Please find alternate sources that have editors, yes. Hipocrite (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC) New Scientist has editors. It's already there. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Refocus This discussion seems to be losing focus. I don't believe that enough of the participating editors have weighed in on the issue after my statements above for consensus to have been reached. Involved editors: Without further discussing the use of Naturwissenschaften as a source (which will be covered in the next section) or Jed Rothwell (a situation I will deal with in the Participation section), and without making unnecessarily long arguments, state plainly and clearly your opinions on the following statement: "If the Naturwissenschaften article is discussed in the cold fusion article, it should not be characterized as 'life sciences'." I have explained my reasoning above, and as of yet I have not seen any arguments which tell me that the reasoning is flawed. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 05:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) At the end of one of the pevious sections I proposed an alternate description; I was wondering if anyone saw it, since considerable discussion took place between the last OTHER post in that section, and the thing I added. I copy the description here and leave the rationale for it above: Naturwissenschaften is a multidisciplinary journal with a major, but nonexclusive, focus on the life sciences. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objectivist (talk • contribs) 13:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC) (e/c)non-exclusive seems to be redundant. What interests me more are the links by Stephan, which indicate that the journal today is more of a pop-sci/research brief magazine (somewhat like an amalgam between Scientific American and geoph.res.abst.) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I do see the redundancy, but it had a point, that of reinforcing "multidiciplinary" and reducing any perception that "life sciences" was all it was any good at. Abd, I simply didn't think about including "peer reviewed". Obviously that could be added.... V (talk) 17:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Yes, I saw it. This shows the danger of making up stuff. What was considered significant by our secondary source, "peer-reviewed," which is certainly true, is left out, and what is synthesized, "major ... focus on the life sciences," is included. At the present time, the publication balance is heavily on the life sciences, in some way, but that could reflect the overall balance of research, I don't know. My conclusion: the most important qualification would be "peer-reviewed." That this is a prominent mainstream multidisciplinary journal (rated just below Scientific American), would also be important; but none of this is necessary for the article. Our source wasn't Naturwissenschaften, it was New Scientist, so, I'd say, it's "peer-reviewed," based on our source, or nothing but the name, also legitimate. --Abd (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Making any effort to describe this journal, even in a positive light, will cause the reader to doubt the validity of the result. As I have stated above, we are not here to cast doubts or make vague implications without providing sufficient evidence and discussion to fully inform the reader. Any statements which do this, including the one proposed above, should be avoided. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I agree. Because it's present in our source, we could add "peer-reviewed," but consensus is important, and it looks like consensus is maximized if we leave it out, which we can do by consensus. Addressing the importance of Naturwissenschaften, in the article, without more extensive secondary source on it, would probably be too much detail, and require reliance on primary sources, as far as I've been able to find. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I also agree with Cryptic C62's position. --GoRight (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC) I would say that there is one rational reason for including a description of the journal, and that would be context. Now i know that the next thing i'm going to say might inflame some - but please stop a bit and contemplate this as a "what if", "possibly" or "in the case of", and not as my opinion. If there is sufficient reason to believe that the paper is fringe, and that the peer-reviewed nature of the journal is used to white wash or lend more importance to the paper, than is indicated by the impact factor, and number of citations the paper has gotten inside the scientific press. As opposed to the same outside the scientific press. We are talking about a fringe subject here, and all (that i know of) fringe subjects have managed to get some papers published - be it from insufficient peer-review, or simply an interest in publishing something controversial (dream up your own reasons). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC) As an extra comment: The above could be seen as a "do not cite" rationale (if the hypothetical situation is correct) - but weight and importance within the area is still to be determined. So it could be a possibility. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Just to clarify: Your position is that we should characterize Naturwissenschaften if evidence from secondary sources arises which disputes the validity of the results in the article or the editorial team at the journal in question, but in the current absence of such evidence, it should remain uncharacterized? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 22:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC) To some extent yes. But also in the case where we determine that the paper has too little scientific impact (citations) to be considered, but where we none the less want to mention it (for weight or other considerations), then a description of the journal may be in order. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC) If the mainstream science journals consider all things "Cold Fusion" to be "pathological science" and therefore (presumably) have a "do not publish policy", how will a paper such as this gain any "scientific impact" within those journals? Obviously they can't, so "scientific impact" as you have defined it seems an inadequate metric for judging whether a paper in a supposedly fringe topic (as described by you) should be included, or not, correct? It is a forgone conclusion that the "scientific impact" as you have defined it (or as it has generally been defined, if you prefer) will be low for any fringe topic. Given that this "do not publish" position is a seeming reality, are peer-reviewed journals like Naturwissenschaften not actually becoming the "go to" journals for any on-going research and potential advances in this particular field? So, if anything at this point, these journals have more experience with conducting peer-reviews in this particular field than your favored journals (based solely on numbers of articles actually published in recent years), do they not? This seems to suggest not only that the article should be included (to be discussed further below) but also that we should avoid introducing any doubt about the journal's ability to properly conduct peer-reviews in this area. --GoRight (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I think you are ascribing things to my comment that i haven't said, or implied. I find the "do not publish" argumentation implausible. Of course research will be published if it has merit and can pass the scientific scrutiny of peer-review, no matter if its pathological science or not. That said, peer-review or peer-reviewed journals aren't infallible, and they occasionally do print papers that are substandard, or papers that should have been rejected. The way to determine the scientific merit of any paper, is to look at how often it is cited in other scientific journals/papers/books. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The blackout on publication of articles considered to be related to cold fusion is well-known. I could create a page of text, reliably sourced, on it, but won't, not today. Undead Science (Simon, 2002) is an entire book, written by a sociologist, on it. It's not that CF articles can't pass peer review, its that certain major journals won't even submit them to peer review, or, sometimes, the peer review was purely knee-jerk, there is a clear example of that in Simon, where a reviewer types in caps, WHERE ARE THE NEUTRONS?, reviewing an experimental paper that wasn't claiming cold fusion (but other experimental behavior that might imply it -- or some other anomaly.) Nature, for example, refused to publish responses to the famous negative replication papers, criticizing Fleischmann's work, violating normal protocol that authors are allowed to respond to criticism of their work. Naturwissenschaften appears to be highly respected and often cited, and peer review there appears to be more rigorous, not less rigorous, than elsewhere, and the CF papers there go back to 2005. The paper in question is recent, so we don't use it as a source, in itself, except for the fact that it's been cited as of major significance, mostly in media sources so far. The issue of "scientific merit" arises when there is conflict of sources, and in particular with text implying that the findings in a paper are to be relied upon. We are not talking, by the way, about "occasional papers." And with Naturwissenschaften we are not talking about some obscure publication with weak peer-review resources. The opposite. --Abd (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Let me just note that you are making a lot of assertions in this comment, many of which i do not agree with. But i am not going to answer them, and i will consider the comment void, because you raise too many different aspects/topics in a single long comment. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The comment isn't "void," it responds to issues raised here by KDP, but silence is not consent. Those issues are better not raised in this section, so this discussion, for efficiency, might be transferred to the section on whether or not to cite Naturwissenschaften at all, if we take that up. Cryptic may choose to refactor extensively. --Abd (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC) OK, folks, here's a left-field notion: How about a separate Wikipedia article about reference journals used in Wikipedia articles? Then all of them can be described as thoroughly as anyone wishes, and any article, not just the CF article, could reference it. If that seems impractical, due to sheer quantity (regarding whole of Wikipedia), then then maybe a CF-references article would be adequate for our purposes here. V (talk) 01:34, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Die Naturwissenschaften, New Scientist, Science (journal), Nature (journal), and various other members of Category:Scientific journals all have their own articles already. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I've been thinking of creating a page (might be a Talk subpage, though an article is possible) as a list of cold-fusion related peer-reviewed papers. I can easily obtain a starting list from the Britz bibliography. We could then develop a consistent analytical technique to apply. As it is, material from weak sources has been permitted in the article, recently added, (at the present time, as negative material; at one time, there was quite a bit of weak pro-cold fusion source), but very strong sources are being rejected. That's a great deal of why this mediation was started, so a long-term solution would be appropriate, but that's a separate question. So that we can move on, Cryptic, please facilitate a close on this narrow question, or it will continue to be a coatrack for other issues. There was, above, a narrow question you proposed. The only objection to it has been theoretical, i.e., that there might be an objection, not an actual objection. --Abd (talk) 11:20, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I'd say if we have an article on any particular journal-in-question, then instead of talking about it in the CF article, just reference the other article. V (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) That's what we did. It's wikilinked. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Then this particular discussion should be over. There is simply no need to characterize the journal in the CF article, when it has its own article doing that already. Next discussion, please? V (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Should the Naturwissenschaften article be used as a source?

Consensus reached. Full report can be found here.

Sorry, I'm a bit confused at this point. We all agree, it seems, that Naturwissenschaften is not a reliable journal for new advances in fusion, without replication in other, more traditional journals. We all agree, it seems, that new advances in cold fusion aren't being published in other, more traditional journals. From this, we determine that we will include information about the very exciting publication of random cold fusion results with limited notability based on their publication in Naturwissenschaften, without any kind of other reliable source publishing similar results? This dosen't seem kosher to me - in fact, it seems that the only logical conclusion is to exclude everything published in Naturwissenschaften that isn't in it's obvious field of editorial expertise - life sciences for a technical but not cutting-edge audience. Hipocrite (talk) 14:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC) I find this comment interesting. How have you come to the conclusion that everyone agrees "that Naturwissenschaften is not a reliable journal for new advances in fusion, without replication in other, more traditional journals?" I know I have just arrived at the discussion but even reading the above dialog I don't see how one can come to that conclusion. Are you referring to some past agreement or something? I believe that the generally accepted standard for inclusion in science articles has been "peer-reviewed journals". Naturwissenschaften certainly seems to meet that objective criteria. I think it a mistake to start trying to apply additional subjective criteria to the mix because it only invites the introduction of POV through personal preferences. Even though Naturwissenschaften publishes mostly "life sciences" material their publication is clearly multi-disciplinary and it includes natural sciences within their scope. I have seen no evidence to suggest that their peer-review process is any less rigorous in the natural sciences than it is anywhere else. I can only assume that the "peer" in "peer-review" means exactly that. Do you have any reason to believe that they are asking biologists to review nuclear physics articles? I would be quite surprised if they did. --GoRight (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Because the basic rule of WP:RS reads "The scholarly acceptance of a source can be verified by confirming that the source has entered mainstream academic discourse, for example by checking the number of scholarly citations it has received in citation indexes. A corollary is that journals not included in such indexes should be used with caution. Isolated studies are usually considered tentative and may change in the light of further academic research. The reliability of a single study depends on the field. Studies relating to complex and abstruse fields, such as medicine, are less definitive. Avoid undue weight when using single studies in such fields. Meta-analyses, textbooks, and scholarly review articles are preferred to provide proper context, where available." Given that the basic substance of academic RS is "just getting published dosen't make it reliable," and "don't just find a single study you like and use it," why do we feel the need to mention this paper at all? Hipocrite (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC) Discussion re-opened 20:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC) The scholarly acceptance of a source paper does not enter into RS considerations directly. RS guidelines establish notability, from the fact of publication by an independent publisher, they do not establish "scholarly acceptance." The issue of acceptance and how balance is handled arises mostly when there is a conflict of sources. I agree that an isolated publication in RS doesn't negate an established general consensus. However, where the new publication provides previously-unconsidered evidence that can be used to question that consensus, no contradiction has actually been shown. Nevertheless, it's a standard compromise to add an OR comment, with isolated RS: "There has been little or no mainstream acceptance or review of this claim," or other such synthetic text, unsourced. The view I'm expressing should be understood: by the weight of publication in peer-reviewed journals, cold fusion would be considered a legitimate controversy, and if we consider the most recent publications to be the most authoritative, as peer review would consider the prior work, we might be at the point where the existence of some low-energy nuclear reaction would be considered established. However, it's obvious to me from indirect evidence that the general opinion still exists that cold fusion was rejected conclusively twenty years ago. I do believe that our standard is WP:V, and that articles on science, as to scientific fact, reported without attribution but only sourced, should be based on publications of high quality, i.e., special emphasis on peer-reviewed secondary sources, however, this does not demand that we treat as fact what many editors contest, rather, we are free to attribute and otherwise make clear that there is significant or even widespread dissent. Thus I consent to a certain level of WP:WEASEL where it increases consensus. --Abd (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2009 (UTC) I will simply reiterate the following, [28]. If the more favored journals have decided to focus on topics other than Cold Fusion then by definition we won't be able to find lots of papers on the subject in those journals. This does not, however, imply that there is no on-going research in the area. We know that there is. We also know that it is being conducted within reputable organizations. In this case we have a paper that has been peer-reviewed by a respected journal in an area that they have published multiple papers previously. We have, to my knowledge, no evidence to suggest that their peer-review processes are not up to the task of reviewing articles in this field. Indeed, judging from the number of such papers published over the past few years on this topic one could make the argument that this publication is better qualified to conduct such a peer review since they have chosen to keep current with the latest research whereas the more favored journals have abandoned the field as pathological science. In view of this I see no reason that the venue in which it was published should be considered a disqualifying factor. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC) As an extra reply to Hipocrite's 15June post above, I'd like to say that it is widely known that there is a considerable lag in the top journals, between submission and publication. The CF article in Naturwissenschaften is quite recent; I'm pretty sure there simply hasn't been time for references to it to appear in other journals. Therefore you are making an impossible demand, which properly should be ignored until it is reasonable to expect such references to actually begin to appear. V (talk) 00:46, 19 June 2009 (UTC) I'm not clear on what the exact question is here. The section header seems to assume that we are using the Mosier-Boss paper as a source. That's not accurate, we are using New Scientist, which refers to the Naturwissenschaften paper; and that was published at a time, around March, when the Mosier-Boss was the subject of wide media notice. Because the paper is notable, regardless of its scientific status, it's a service to the readers to cite it. Now, at another point in the article, this same paper, which refers to the Takahashi theory of Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate fusion, which would, he predicts on theoretical grounds, immediately fuse four deuterium nuclei or two deuterium molecules to Be-8, which then decays promptly to two alpha particles, thus satisfying practically every objection that's been raised to cold fusion (no primary neutrons! no theory! not the branching ratio of d-d fusion!), while explaining, as far as I can see, most of the experimental anomalies. In the edit war that started on June 1, I believe I added this source to what had already been accepted in Talk, on this theory. It's currently removed. So we could examine Naturwissenschaften as a secondary source on the Be-8 theory, through the citation in the Mosier-Boss report. This is merely a supporting source, for the theory is already covered in Storms (The science of low energy nuclear reaction, World Scientific, 2007) and He Jing-Tang (Frontiers of Physics in China, 2007) and there is a major paper by Takahashi in the American Chemical Society Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (2008, Oxford University Press). V is incorrect about CF articles in Naturwissenschaften. The earliest CF paper I see there is in 2005. The subject paper was available on-line 1 October, 2008 (There is a very recent N. paper now on-line, on CF theory). Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons. Pamela A. Mosier-Boss & Stanislaw Szpak & Frank E. Gordon & Lawrence P. G. Forsley, Naturwissenschaften (2009) 96:135–142 DOI 10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x. The relevant text from Mosier-Boss: The multibody reactions proposed by Takahashi (1994) involve deuteria occupying the tetrahedral and octahedral sites in the metal lattice. In the proposed 3D and 4D fusion reactions occurring in the metal deuterides, high-energy α particles are formed that dissociate deuterons in the system to produce neutrons with a continuous spectrum in the 0 to 10 MeV region. These high energy α particles are also expected to produce Bremsstrahlung X-rays. Experimental data that support this mechanism are evidence of recoil carbon and oxygen atoms on the backside of the CR-39 suggestive of 1.25–8 MeV neutrons (see discussion in “Electronic supplementary material”) and Bremsstrahlung radiation that has been observed in the X-ray and γ-ray spectra obtained during Pd–D co-deposition (Szpak et al. 1996). Should this be taken up next? Is Naturwissenschaften RS? --Abd (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (outdent)This is a most strange discussion. People seem to argue that because there are very few peer-reviewed papers on the subject, the papers suddenly become more scientific? That rules and guidelines for science has suddenly been put on hold? That the journal is suddenly more reliable because it is publishing fringe/pathological science? That popular science media such as New Scientist should suddenly be our guide to science articles? The only relevant questions here are: Has the paper had an impact? Ie. do other scientific papers cite it? Or is it a lone wolf with little to no scientific relevance that we can determine at the moment? Are there any independent assessment reports on the subject? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Abd, fine, if enough time has passed for more articles either supporting or refuting the 2005 article, then where are they? I think the answer is, that one didn't make a big enough "splash" until the 20th anniversary arrived, and it along with at least one other by the SPAWAR team got lots of notice. So, while the "top" journals may have thought they could ignore anything related to the 2005 paper THEN, I think now they cannot, so that is what we are waiting for. Meanwhile, since I've seen several times and places a statement to the effect that "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth", the answer to KimDabelsteinPetersen should be something as simple as, "The CF article can always safely state that such-and-such article contained certain claims." V (talk) 05:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Somehow I've overlooked [29] which is a peer-reviewed secondary source reviewing the 2004 DoE review. Glad you asked. First of all, here is the 2005 paper: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/SzpakSevidenceof.pdf ... They cite themselves in Naturwiss., 2007. The 2005 paper, like all of their Naturwiss. publications, was a "short communication," reporting results from a particular form of co-deposition electrolyis, found to be reliably reproducible, and, for whatever reason, that particular form (codeposition in the presence of an electric field) hasn't been much taken up by others, if I'm correct, I think they may have found that magnetic fields were more effective, but I'm not sure. The paper is cited in Kim, 2009 and Kalman, 2008. It is cited in Takahashi [30]. This is published by World Scientific, and that's the first chapter, a review of the field. (This is an edited selection of papers from ICCF 12, 2005). Storms (2007, p. 64, see note 272) cites this paper. Given that what the paper reports is really a detail, and that there is much citation of other papers (the group has a long list of publications in peer-reviewed literature, much of it about the codeposition technique), the low citation of this paper isn't surprising. It's not the most notable work they have done, but, probably because they reported high reproducibility -- one of the features of codeposition, and it has apparently reached 100% -- Naturwissenschaften decided to publish it. They report in the 2009 paper (often cited as 2008 since it appeared on-line in 2008) that: These triple tracks have been observed in every Pd–D co-deposition experiment that has been conducted using Ag, Au, or Pt cathodes in both the presence and absence of an external electric or magnetic field. When Ni screen is used as the cathode, tracks and triple tracks are only observed when an external electric or magnetic field is applied. Triple tracks are indicative of a reaction resulting in the formation of three particles of equal mass and energy. In this communication, the origins of these triple tracks are investigated. Absolutely, if we maintain the definition that cold fusion is "fringe" and a "walled garden," there is a problem. What publication occurs in mainstream publications -- and Naturwissenschaften is mainstream -- can be dismissed as "isolated," without mainstream response. To be exercised to write a critique, or, even more so, to do research to confirm or fail to confirm reported results, one must, first of all, be following research in the field, and, even more important, not have a belief that such research must be flawed and that this opinion is scientific consensus. So, even though we have plenty of recent source and evidence that questions the "consensus," and very little recent source that confirms this consensus -- which, though it was never based on sound scientific process, did clearly exist twenty years ago -- there has been, through persistence of opinion, a strong force confining research and response in the field to those easily considered within it, any new "convert," previously skeptical, such as Robert Duncan (physicist), is dismissed as "deluded." My suggestion is that we apply reliable source standards evenly, and without assuming that a publication in a peer-reviewed journal must be due to problems with the review. That alleged problem with Naturwissenschaften has been asserted over and over here, without any evidence of it other than speculation based on an assumption from the bulk of their published papers being on life sciences topics, when a deeper examination shows that they'd be expected to have the best of review resources available. With some publications the problem might be real, but we actually have no evidence about it. We do have some evidence, if we choose to honor the testimony, that the review at Naturwissenschaftein is rigorous and done by experts. To exclude this source can be seen as circular, particularly if we realize that such exclusion is part of a pattern of exclusion, such that the growing body of research and theoretical exploration in this field is entirely excluded, even though reliable source and notability standards would suggest its inclusion. No claim is being made by me that we should present cold fusion research as being established science, though we are getting close to that point, in my opinion. As far as I can tell, the blackout on publication (positive and negative!) in certain prominent journals is still maintained. It is irritating to see, in discussions on this, claims that "if the research was good, it would be published by Nature (journal)," or other widely-respected journals that are known to refuse to even review papers in the field. We have reliable source on that refusal, it's well-known. Is this covered adequately in the article? --Abd (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Of course these are all straw man arguments. As far as I can see no one ever claimed any of these things. But as I pointed out above the metric you propose is wholly inappropriate for judging the suitability of this paper in this context given that the journals you will favor have chosen to ignore this field of study. Again, we know that there is active research being conducted in this field and it is being done within respected organizations. The fact the your otherwise preferred journals have chosen not to publish things in this area doesn't negate either of these facts in the slightest. The only relevant question here is whether the paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, or not, and as far as I can see based on what has been presented thus far it was. --GoRight (talk) 02:20, 20 June 2009 (UTC) The Britz autobiography was finally added back to Cold fusion after a long absence, I see, proving that my presence isn't essential to improving the article. There is an analysis of the peer-reviewed papers on cold fusion, it might be eye-opening, it's at lenr-canr.org. Note that the Britz bibliography is compiled by an electrochemist, a skeptic on cold fusion, and the analysis of papers into positive and negative is his. In a section in the analysis, Rothwell discuss where he disagrees with some of the classifications, but the basis of the report is done straight from Britz, and can be verified against Britz. It is simply not true that there are "very few" papers on the subject. As of April, 2009, the lenr-canr database lists 2066 journal articles on cold fusion. Britz has 1390 papers. Apparently the bulk of them are positive, with negative papers almost disappearing by about 1997. Page 11 of the analysis shows a chart of the papers in the Britz bibliography by positive/negative/undecided (Britz's categories). Has the Naturwissenschaften triple-track paper had an impact? Well the work has had a wide impact, because of being featured at the ACS LENR conference in March, and media notice, a whole list of articles could be cited, the New Scientist article is merely the best-researched of these popular media commentaries. Most articles mention Mosier-Boss and the SPAWAR group and neutrons, but not the actual published paper. KDP seems to incorporate an assumption that Naturwissenschaften is a low-reliability journal, which is quite the contrary of what is true on the face, there is much discussion above on this. What's the specific question here? Source for what? The usability of a source depends on the use to which it is put. The neutron work is new, it became visible in 2008, and there hasn't been a lot of time for replication; on the other hand, it does confirm earlier reports of low levels of neutrons, some of which was quality work. (Note that the whole field suffered for years from Fleischmann's error in reporting much higher levels of neutrons, a result retracted early on.) --Abd (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2009 (UTC) Perhaps I can help shed some light. The reason I split this off into a new section was the following statement by Hipocrite: "it seems that the only logical conclusion is to exclude everything published in Naturwissenschaften that isn't in it's obvious field of editorial expertise". At that point, I realized that the argument had swayed from "How should we characterize Naturwissenschaften" to "Should the article even be mentioned at all?". I figured that this would probably be a question that you all would want to discuss once the first discussion ended. If I am wrong in this assumption, and you guys would like to discuss this later (or not at all), I'll collapse this discussion and open another. Actually, I believe that this would be the most sensible solution, for the most compelling argument I have read thus far is that the paper is too new to have been cited in other peer-reviewed articles. Some may interpret this as meaning that we should remove it until such citations appear, some may interpret this as meaning that we should include the article until there is stronger evidence that it should be removed. I interpret it as meaning we should not worry about it for now, bide our time discussing other issues, and resume this discussion when enough time has elapsed for us to see if any other scientific publications have cited it. Any thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC) And **I** think the optimum solution is for the CF article to have a "News and Rumors" section, which can include anything that meets the WP:Verify criterion. Then those editors whose anti-CF opinions are based on 20-year-old data, and not recent data, can't enforce equivalent ignorance upon the average curious article-browsing visitor. And anything in that "news" section, not later supported by more data, can legitimately be recategorized as "old news, not supported". All we would need to argue about would be "How much time does it take for it to be 'later'?" V (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree on some level, but any such section would have to be reconciled with WP:NOTNEWS (and so I would stay away from the specific title you used above). I also would NOT want to see supportive peer-reviewed research arbitrarily excluded from other sections just because this section exists. --GoRight (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC) I pointed out part of the problem to Hipocrite a while back on the CF talk page, that plenty other articles don't wait for 3rd-party publications of information, before that info gets included in the article. We appeared to be using different defintitions of "3rd party". For example, regarding the new Star Trek (film), is there yet any publication equivalent to Storms' review of publications in the CF field (that is, "a review of reviews, of the movie")? No? Then why does that article exist? All it has are 1st-party and/or 2nd-party descriptions! So, while we wait for equivalent 3rd-party publications regarding recent CF events, the precedent exists, under SOME sort of naming scheme, to include news. Else, to be consistent, much of Wikipedia should arbitrarily be deleted. I acknowledge your objection, though, and could suggest "Recent Developments" as a section title, with a description something like, Due to the time delay between first publication of new experimental results, and publication of follow-up experiments, information in this section cannot be considered as "solid" as information in the rest of the article. V (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC) There is a kind of paradox: is cold fusion "science"? What if it is just "history"? We have much of the article presently cited to newspaper reports and non-peer-reviewed publications, especially ones which are critical of cold fusion. My view is that the article is both science and history. When we write science articles on noncontroversial subjects, we simply state what is known, we don't write "according to," or "it is claimed by So-and-So that...." The standard being suggested (wide review, appearance in peer-reviewed secondary sources) is applicable when we want to state "scientific fact." But a much lower standard is appropriate for the history of a topic; this is where ordinary reliable source, independently published but not necessarily peer-reviewed, comes in. The SPAWAR work on neutrons is notable, so it should be covered. How it is covered is another question. Can we report that neutrons are found in low levels in cold fusion experiments? No. That's not an accepted fact, a scientific consensus not yet. But can and should we state that the SPAWAR group has reported finding them, or however we say it, when we have ample secondary source of the ordinary kind commenting on the work? See, for another example beyond New Scientist, see the IEEE Spectrum. We don't have peer-reviewed secondary source on the neutron findings yet, to my knowledge, though we do for much of the older work, such as helium/excess heat correlation. --Abd (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2009 (UTC) On the basic issue. Original claims in the Naturwiss. article are primary source, to be used with caution. However, this article also reviews prior work, including work by others. Acceptance of this coverage of prior work, by peer review, creates a strong source, not impeachable by mere speculation. We could treat secondary review in the article of prior publications as authoritative, depending on details. --Abd (talk) 15:28, 21 June 2009 (UTC) Regroup This discussion is splitting into separate discussions, making it somewhat difficult to keep track of (both for me and, I suspect, for those who have not yet participated). So far, these seem to be the solutions that people have proposed: The Naturwissenschaften article should not be mentioned in the text. The Naturwissenschaften article should be treated as History / News. The Naturwissenschaften article should be treated as fact. We should just move on to other discussions until more media attention/citations are given to the Naturwissenschaften article. It seems to me that option 2 is the most reasonable compromise. As Objectivist pointed out, while it may be difficult or even impossible for cold fusion to ever make definitive statements regarding the validity of experiments, it can always simply state what the researchers have claimed without presenting it as fact. The (arguably) biggest strength of Wikipedia is how well it "rolls with the times", and I think this solution best serves that goal: If the article in question is given more media attention or is cited in other articles, the section which discusses it can be amended or expanded. If not, it can simply exist as a historical record and can be shortened as necessary later on. The question now is how to achieve a balanced and fair representation of the article in cold fusion, but I think that this can be worked out with a combination of editing and focused discussion here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:03, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Nobody here has proposed that the "article" be treated as "fact," by which I understand that the contents, in general, what the article describes as experimental results, would be treated as fact. It's possible that with some specific text in the article, referring to prior work by others and thus serving as a secondary source on that, having passed peer review, we may derive fact from it, such as the fact that the Takahashi Be-8 theory exists and is taken seriously in the field. But as to the primary claims in the article, it's primary source, and we don't take primary sources as fact other than the fact of notability and existence of the source itself. Sometimes when a secondary source clearly contradicts the primary source on which it is based, or the very existence of the primary source contradicts what is claimed in a secondary source, we will cite the primary source, but without synthesis or explicit statement of contradiction, presenting to the reader sufficient verifiable information for the readers to come to a conclusion themselves. We have an example before us, secondary source claims that the U.S. Patent Office rejects cold fusion patents, ipso facto, and then two recent patents that explicitly claim energy generation from the palladium-deuterium process. I.e., cold fusion. This isn't actually a contradiction to the claim of rejection, because of timing, what it contradicts is an impression that something stated in the past would still be true. There is another exception noted somewhere, by the way, a patent that was issued due to the age of the inventor, which apparently is a loophole which bypasses normal patent review. From my perspective, the specific article ("Triple tracks") is highly notable, we have adequate media and popular science secondary source on it. There hasn't been time to see peer-reviewed secondary source. From the secondary sources we have, this is indeed News or History, and is very usable in the article, just like what we find in older secondary sources. This is also how it's been treated, in fact, at the article, by consensus, and suggestions here that this be excluded entirely were never accepted there. I haven't seen sufficient reason here to totally exclude the article as a source so I'd suggest a conclusion here. We currently reference it merely because the article is mentioned in secondary source, so that readers can see what our sources have been referring to. Our text doesn't depend on the article. The specific usability of the article as a secondary source, itself, will come up when we turn to the Be-8 theory of Takahashi, and can be discussed there, in the presence of a specific example. --Abd (talk) 14:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) With regards to "experimental results, would be treated as fact" ... Unless it is replicated independently (with other papers), experimental results can most certainly not be be fact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) nr. 3 is out of the question. 2 shouldn't be a problem though, depending on weight. It is news, and as long as the scientific community hasn't reacted, it can't be used as more. Popular science mentions are written from press-releases, not from a science point, so since there hasn't been responses, its simply a science paper, with (completely) unknown impact. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Well, it's a little more than that. But we don't need to decide that now. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) I tend to agree with KDP that 3 above would be premature at this point. Regarding 2, I think V's suggestion above of a section highlighting "Recent Developments" with a one sentence disclaimer to distinguish the content of that section from other material for which 3 actually would apply makes a reasonable compromise. Judging the proper WP:WEIGHT for newly emerging results such as this is likely to prove tricky given that the "favored science journals" are (seemingly) no longer participating in a substantive way (i.e. through additional publications), but this can be given proper consideration on a case by case basis. --GoRight (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2009 (UTC) We have an agreement on #2 as far as I can see. Cryptic, can you note this and open up the next discussion? I will propose one that may be more important than the patent issue. --Abd (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC) number 2 is cool for me. I'm afraid that most of the media coverage was caused by announcement during the 20th anniversary. Later independent research/replication/validation of the phenomena should clarify if we should move it to #3. Also, as Kim says, it needs acceptance by the scientific community, and impact is still unknown. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Per email request, I step aside from this decision and accept whatever the rest of you decide. Hipocrite (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Abd notified me on my talk page that he was dissatisfied with the wording I chose in my conclusion. I must admit that I found it difficult to concisely summarize the position with a neutral wording. It was not my intention to put words into your mouths, and I will do my best to amend the conclusion to achieve the best possible wording. If anyone else has an issue with the wording, feel free to notify me on my talk page or here. This applies to past and future conclusions as well. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of patents

Recommendation published here.

(I restored the patent thing and I expanded it a lot before remembering that it was listed for discussion here. Sorry for that. It seems that the mediation is about mentioning primary sources like specific patents in addition to what secondary sources say. Sooo I will tentatively suppose that my edits won't disrupt this discussion, and that the specific patents can later be add where necessary.) See talk page discussion and the proposed addition. To start the discussion, I suggest this text: “ An example of this type of patent is U.S. Patent 7,381,368, it described "a method of generating energy" by fabricating an electrode in a certain manner, immersing it in water containing deuterium, and applying a currentNew Energy Times ” right after the text that uses Simon's book to describe how cold fusion researchers avoid mentioning CF in order to get grants and patents that would be rejected directly if they self-identified as being related to CF. This should place it in the adequate context. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC) The controversy that resulted in edit warring was over the apposition of material from a primary source (a patent) to qualify and make clear the restricted scope of what was in secondary source (originally the comment of a patent officer). It's not clear exactly what is accepted and rejected, but at one extreme, we have the rejection of any patent that mentions "cold fusion," at the other we have the acceptance of patents that obviously refer to what this article calls "cold fusion." Behind all this is a rather obtuse policy, inconsistently applied. The whole purpose of patents is to encourage rapid sharing of information, and, because of blanket rejection, Blacklight Power was denied a patent rooted in hydrino theory, and has thus been forced to keep their techniques secret. If these are con artists, the U.S. Patent Office played right into their hands. Hydrino theory may be bogus, but perpetual motion machine, it is not. On the point, secondary sources ordinarily trump primary ones; however, where a secondary source makes a statement that is either blatantly false or could be misleading, and if this is clear from reviewing primary sources, we can point to what's in a primary source without necessarily concluding contradiction. The reader can decide. The actual patents show that the Patent Office claim is not to be interpreted as a blanket rejection of anything to do with "cold fusion." These patents are much more recent than Simon (2002), and much more blatantly claim what amounts to cold fusion. Note that the SPAWAR group doesn't claim "cold fusion." They claim "anomalous energy generation in the palladium deuteride system" or something like that. Cold fusion is merely a hypothesis that could explain it. I'm not sure we need to mediate this one. Let's see if anyone objects to Enric's work. I don't expect it. --Abd (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC) And if someone objects to using New Energy Times as a source, then speak up now instead of reverting when it gets edited into the article, that's very annoying, and I will invoke WP:SILENCE :P --Enric Naval (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I object on using it as a reliable source. It's a self-published source outside of the main-stream, it could be used as a reference to opinions of individual authors, where such are experts (per rules on SPS) and only where such is useful in correspondence to weight, but not as a general source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I object to NET as a source as it is self-published and not reliable. Verbal chat 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC) I object to NET as a source. It lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Hipocrite (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I'd dispute that, but it's moot. NET was only used for a convenience copy of the patent. The patent is the source, not NET. --Abd (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC) strike because Enric did use NET as a source, unlike what had been used in the article and removed. Patents have long been unreliable. Patents unmentioned by any secondary source are violations of WP:UNDUE. Hipocrite (talk) 02:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC) This is a misreading of guidelines. A patent is a primary source. Primary sources in general are unreliable, except for the bare fact of their content. Where a primary source appears to contradict a secondary source, we may place them in apposition without synthesis. In this case, the secondary source claims that the USPTO does not grant patents that claim "cold fusion." We have two patents that claim "a method of generating energy" which is very clearly what we call "cold fusion." This does not deny the secondary source, for that might still be the intention of the USPTO, and they might have decided to allow exceptions. Since there are two of these, from the same inventor, separated by years, it's hard to believe that this simply escaped their notice. But it's possible. It's also possible that the policy has changed, and we simply don't have a source on that. This is a problem with assuming the continuation of something in older sources. In any case, we should cite the patent itself, I see that this wasn't actually done by Enric, I was in error above. (When there was edit warring over this, the patent itself was cited.) Here is the 2008 patent, directly: [31] see Claim 14.--Abd (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Patents are not considered reliable sources for behaviors of the patent office. Hipocrite (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I agree with both comments of Hipocrite's. Patents are not reliable sources for anything except their own existence - and extrapolation or interpretation from the existence or otherwise needs a WP:RS, including to determine if they are relevant (per WP:UNDUE). Also, NET is on no way a WP:RS (made small as I already said this) Verbal chat 14:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC) On the point about patents, can anyone cite a precedent where an issue like this has been considered and consensus found, either with patents specifically, or with assertion of primary source in apposition with assertion of secondary source, where contradiction might be inferred and where assumption of the unconditional validity of the secondary source comment might be misleading? The "existence" of a patent includes the existence of the exact text of the patent, which is reliably established by the primary source. Note the very important point: we would not, absent secondary source so stating, note that there is a contradiction, we would merely state, without interpretation, the language of the patent, as Enric Naval did. We do have, I think, secondary source, but the reliability of that source is challenged above. --Abd (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That is the very definition of OR by SYNTH. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) No. WP:OR and WP:SYNTH don't apply if no text is synthesized. See also WP:SYNTH: Carefully summarizing or rephrasing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis—it is good editing. Wikipedia:OR#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources: All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. If there is no interpretive claim, this doesn't apply. The policy goes on: Primary sources that have been reliably published (for example, by a university press or mainstream newspaper) may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge. That is what was proposed here. We state the text of the patent, which is verifiable as described. We do not interpret it; the reader may. If we did this to create a misleading impression, it would be offensive, but, here, it will have the opposite effect: show that the prohibition isn't absolute. But we don't make this claim in the article. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC) That inclusion of the unclear patent leads the reader to question the policy. That is OR by SYNTH. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Novel thinking. What's unclear about 14. A method of generating energy comprising the steps of: providing the electrode of claim 13 [99.2 percent palladium], connecting the electrode to a cathode, immersing the electrode and the cathode in water containing deuterium, and applying a current to the electrode and the cathode. I think that anyone who has read our article will recognize this as a cold fusion claim, the way we use the phrase. And if not, well, exactly what harm has been done? --Abd (talk) 19:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It has nothing to do with patent office policies regarding the granting of patents. That's what's unclear about it - not that it exists, but what you are using it to insinuate. Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Our article is about cold fusion, not about patent office policy, per se. We only mention patent office policy insofar as it relates to cold fusion. Hence we might also mention some cold fusion patents. Nothing is "insinuated." We really should have, here, the text without this extra tidbit or examples, for comparison. That's what is often overlook in wikilawyered debates about policy, that we are making choices, not abstract isolated decisions. --Abd (talk) 19:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC) What of the possibility of including some of this "lesser" stuff, like patents and NET, in the News/History section. Certainly as far as "history" is concerned, patents have been granted (and others rejected), and articles have been published. Is there a valid reason for the CF article to be written as if those things did not happen(by not mentioning them at all)? So, to me, it seems the argument should not be about "To Mention, or Not To Mention" but "How To Mention in an Appropriate Way". V (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Actually, no. The existence of the patent doesn't establish its notability sufficient to just mention it without a specific reason. The reason here would be to balance the claim about USPTO practice. --Abd (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Patents are not reliable sources for USPTO practice. Hipocrite (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC) The addition proposed at the top of this section would be an extremely bad idea, since that patent does not assert that it describes a method of fusion. The phrasing implies that the patent office is at least partially convinced that cold fusion is real, which is simply not true. Olorinish (talk) 21:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC) I don't see that implied at all, au contraire, the secondary source establishes a strong position that they don't think that. Or at least didn't. --Abd (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC) And the secondary source (NET) is not reliable for that kind of information (as was agreed above) - so you can scratch that. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The "secondary source" is not NET. It's the Washington Post currently cited in the article for the statement from the USPTO officer. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC) And please explain to me exactly how an article in WaPo from 2004 can be a reference/secondary source for a statement about a patent taken out in 2008? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC) By the way, this is from the patent, just in case someone still thinks this is not about "cold fusion": An additional application of the alloy, which has been borne out by experimental data is as an electrode in the generation of energy in the form of heat. In a preferred process using the alloy of the present invention in the form of an electrode, the electrode in connected to a platinum cathode and immersed in water containing deuterium. The immersed electrode is loaded with deuterium from the surrounding electrolyte. As a current is applied, excess energy from the loaded electrode in the form of heat is generated. Using the palladium-boron electrode manufactured in accordance with the present invention, excess enthalpy has been achieved, and this result has been far more reproducible than in past experiments of this type, which may result in a new energy source at low cost. Now, perhaps they were able to get the patent because they also claimed other applications. The same traits that would make this more reliable for generating excess heat, if their claims are correct, would also make it more useful for hydrogen purification. They did not cite Pons and Fleischmann. Note, as well, that there is no claim that the excess heat is produced by fusion. Most researchers in the field, in fact, don't make that claim, and Fleischmann, interviewed this year by CBS News, said that he regretted claiming it was fusion. Nobody really knows what causes the heat, for sure, fusion of some kind is merely one hypothesis; do be aware that the U.S. Department of Energy review panel in 2004 was evenly divided on the issue of evidence for excess heat, with half of the 18 reviewers considering it "convincing." The patent is claiming heat, not fusion. --Abd (talk) 01:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC) (e/c)And all of this is WP:OR. Do you have a reliable source that says that the patent is about cold fusion or not? So long as that hasn't been provided, the discussion is completely irrelevant. Once (a) source(s) has been established we can determine if it merits inclusion (weight). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC) When it comes to efforts to establish an article on Low energy nuclear reactions or Condensed matter nuclear science, the claim is made that it's "cold fusion" and the articles are merged as POV forks. But here, when what is blatantly a claim for the Pons-Fleischmann effect, it's "original research." Nobody has suggested claiming that the patent is a "cold fusion" patent. What is suggested is that citing some of the patents on the topic (there are at least three in the U.S., and two are relatively recent), without synthesis, would help readers to become more informed. Readers would do any interpretation. To pretend that we should act, as editors, neglecting the patent because we allegedly don't have an RS on it, as if we were blind to the blatantly obvious, is a total misunderstanding of WP:OR. I see the same editors, frequently, arguing without sources for their own point of view, or using primary sources, we saw it on this page with "life sciences" journal. --Abd (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Do you have any reliable source that says that this patent is about LENR or CMNS? If not we are back to the same position as before. It is original research. (synthesis to be exact - you combine your interpretation with a text, and claim it corresponds). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Upon studying the above overall discussion, it appears to me that what we say or don't say about various patents should depend on an aspect of the CF article that may have been overlooked. The title of the article, of course, is "cold fusion", but a great deal of the data--especially all the original data--is about heat that is difficult to explain any other way. (There are too many workers in the field, replicating the data, for the explanation of "fraud" to hold water; fraud requires secrecy, and that many people can't keep such a thing secret.) Now, patents are generally supposed to be about things that the inventor, at least, thinks will be useful. A new method of generating heat could qualify. This is irrelevant to knowing where the heat comes from (do you think the discoverers of those ceramic high-temperature superconductors waited to know how it worked, before applying for patents? Hah!). So, if the article is going to discuss heat-generation, in that part of the article it could make sense to say that patents have been filed to claim it as a discovery. (Personally, I don't see how such patents can stand up; the original discovery goes back a bunch of decades, and there is a one-year time limit between a discovery becoming publicly available information, and the filing of a patent on it.) V (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC) The patent is over a particular method of forming a palladium electrode. The original P-F electrodes were "unreliable," I forget the ratio, but maybe one out of 6 showed excess heat. That ratio has been greatly increased over the years, as the crucial factors came to be understood, until the codeposition technique (same research group) is reported at 100% with immediate effect (because the palladium plating is immediately loaded to 1:1 deuterium-palladium, which could take weeks with solid palladium). The patent specifically mentions improvement in reliability. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Second try OK, trying to address the criticism above, how about adding this paragraph after the paragraph describing the USPTO position: “ Cold fusion advocates indicate that patents on key aspects of cold fusion research can sometimes be granted by the USPTO, as soon as they don't mention "cold fusion" anywhere. An example is U.S. Patent 7,381,368, which described "a method of generating energy" by fabricating an electrode in a certain manner, immersing it in water containing deuterium, and applying a current, without mentioning "cold fusion" anywhere and without citing any paper by Fleischmann and Pons.New Energy Times ” --Enric Naval (talk) 16:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Same problem as before. NET is not a reliable source, and using it as the primary reference for a rather solid claim is to say the least problematic. The text is written in such a way that it shows the minority position - but it will still need a secondary reliable source that states this. Otherwise we are engaging in original research. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC) I don't see any reason to use an NET reference, to talk about a patent. The article could simply state that such-and-such hardware, associated with heat production, has been patented, in spite of the formal USPTO position, with a reference to the patent number. V (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Which would then be a synthesis - since we connect CF/LENR/... with the patent, without having a secondary source to connect the dots for us. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Hey, I wasn't specifying precise wording, there. We don't have to do synthesis to present two facts sequentially, (1) the USPTO says it won't grant CF patents, and (2) such-and-such patent(s) exist(s). There is NO restriction in Wikipedia on simple presentations of plain facts. Let the reader do their own synthesis, when faced with facts like that. V (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC) When you are including the patent on the article, you are implicitly saying that it is relevant. If you do not have a reference to support that it is relevant - then you are doing a synthesis. Its not a question of "let the reader do their own synthesis" (which is POV by gaming the system). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Opinions often depend on what facts were available when the opinion was formed. If it is POV-pushing (toward a certain opinion) to ensure certain facts are available, then equally it is POV-pushing to work to keep readers in ignorance of relevant facts. Not to mention withholding facts violates the core concept of an encyclopedia, to present facts. Also, we established earlier that relevant information that (1) meets WP:Verify rules, but (2) not meets WP:RS rules, yet (3) other descriptions exist of that publication -- a "Recent Developments" section would be allowed to mention it. WELL: a patent that contains the text that indicates its relevancy is, in essence, exactly this sort of (1) and (2) publication --and the NET article qualifies as (3) the kind of "news report", about that patent publication, that we saw so much of regarding the Naturwissenschaften article. The logic here is quite simple and equivalent, which is why I mentioned earlier about putting something about patents in the news section. V (talk) 21:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC) You cannot meet WP:V if you can't meet WP:RS. (RS is a subset of V - specifically burden). So 1+2 are down, 3 is down as well - since its not a WP:RS. Btw. when i say POV here - i mean that it doesn't adhere to NPOV, it has nothing to do with POV-pushing. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC) BAD LOGIC. It is VERY possible to meet WP:V without meeting WP:RS, exactly because the first is a subset of all the requirements of the second, not the other way around. Meanwhile, I can repeat what I've been told on other occasions: "Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth." I don't particularly like that, but I also don't like the fact that many RS publications have so often refused to print articles about CF experiments since maybe 1991. Thus the rules of Wikipedia present an opportunity to fill a information-void. It remains quite factual and verifiable that many claims have been published outside the RS camp. We are allowed here to say that so-and-so claimed such-and-such, if the claim can be verfied to exist. The essence of NPOV is, all we have to do is make sure the reader of a Wikipedia article understands that we are talking about the truth that claims were made, and not about the claims being truth. Which brings us back to patents; every one of them, verifiably, contains a list of formal claims. V (talk) 12:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC) How about this source? I think that it was published at Nature[32]. I quote: "Miles is also careful to avoid using the words 'cold fusion'. "There are code names you can use," he says. In 2004 Miles and colleagues were granted a US patent for a palladium material doped with boron for use in low-energy nuclear reactions, but if the patent application contained the CF words it would never have been granted, Miles says. "We kind of disguised what we did."" --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Depends on what you are going to use it for, if its for the 2004 patent, then its verifiable, if its for the statements above, then it wouldn't be - since that patent is a 2008 thing. (btw. if i'm not mistaken, this (2004 patent) is not for the process - but for equipment/material needed?) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The Nature article talks about the 2004 patent 6,764,561, and the NET source talks about 2008 patent 7,381,368, but the 2008 patent makes a direct reference to the 2004 patent (under "Related U.S. Patent Documents"). I think it's not that much of a leap of faith to assume that the 2008 patent is also related to CF. Anyways, scratch the text I put above, let's just source the 2004 patent and give a general statement about patents being granted that way, since it's coherent with what Simon says about CF researchers getting patents that way, and since we can't realistically expect Nature to cover every single CF-related patent that slips through the cracks. Ok? Let's just use both Simon and Nature for "CF patents being granted because they don't explicitely mention CF". I think that those two sources together cover enough the WP:RS requirement for that statement. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The second try at including US patent 7,381,368 is still not a good idea. We are working on an article describing cold fusion, but US patent 7,381,368 doesn't describe fusion or teach how to achieve it. Actually, the phrasing of the second try is still misleading since it gives the impression that the patent describes how to achieve cold fusion, and leaves out the fact that the authors describe the field of the invention as the "generation of heat energy or other electrochemical processes" without mentioning any nuclear processes. It seems like including US patent 7,381,368 is motivated by the desire to show that cold fusion researchers are performing the proper tasks of scientists, submitting their results to public scrutiny and earning respect. However, other sections of the wikipedia article already describe their papers and presentations, which are far more relevant since they are, according to their authors, giving evidence of nuclear reactions. A while ago I proposed a compromise [33]; would something like that be acceptable? Olorinish (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Your text looks good, Just noting that "however" would be out of place there because the last sentence in Cold_fusion#Patents now acknowledges that some CF patents do get approved, so there is no longer a contrast that needs a "however" to be there. (yes, I am very picky about using "however") --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Olorinish claims that "we are working on an article describing cold fusion." One might think so, but consensus has been that anything closely related to the Pons-Fleischmann effect belongs in Cold fusion, and that effect refers to the generation of excess heat by the formation of palladium deuteride under certain conditions, without regard to the cause being nuclear or not. The articles Low energy nuclear reactions and Condensed matter nuclear science are redirects to Cold fusion, even though there are plenty of nuclear reactions that aren't fusion, and CMNS covers such things as the effect on radioisotope decay rates by the chemical ("condensed matter") environment (which, like muon-catalyzed fusion, is an accepted fact with known examples, though more extreme examples covered at the ICCF conferences aren't yet accepted). What the subject patent (2008) claim is, in fact, the generation of energy from the formation of palladium deuteride, in specific detail enough that someone reading the patent, with some patience and knowledge of the art, might actually reproduce the effect. Absolutely, it doesn't claim "fusion," but neither does the bulk of research confirming the Pons-Fleischmann effect, which is based on a chemistry experiment, that, according to most chemists who have studied it, can generate more heat than can be explained by any known chemistry. Telekinesis, perhaps, from the "die-hard' fervor of the experimenters? --Abd (talk) 15:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC) Third try Ooook, I looked at the above and I add a 1999 Science article "`New Physics' Finds a Haven At the Patent Office", this Science article lists patents that are about CF processes, not just about CF materials (thanks to Bilby for his help with this one) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. relevant parts of Science article "Dozens of recent patents have been awarded for devices that invoke principles outside accepted science, such as exotic nuclear physics and psychic forces." "The image reflects a common myth--that the government checks that an invention relies on accepted principles before granting a patent. But consider two recent patents: 5,616,219 and 5,628,886, issued to Clean Energy Technologies Inc. of Sarasota, Florida, for an electrochemical device that is claimed to put out more energy than is possible by chemistry alone. Or take Clean Energy's patent 5,672,259, for a process to transmute radioactive elements by electrochemistry. Physicists who have examined these patents say the claims resemble cold fusion; the company rejects that label but says its products do exploit "new nuclear physics."" "(...) Although the Patent Office initially rejected cold-fusion patents after Pons and Fleischmann's memorable Salt Lake City press conference in 1989, some experts say the Clean Energy patents show that such patents are now slipping into the books. James Reding, Clean Energy's chief executive officer (CEO), insists that his company's technology is not "cold fusion," although he says it does exploit nuclear processes. But every physicist Science has asked about the Clean Energy patents, including IBM's Richard Garwin and William Happer of Princeton University, says they describe what are essentially cold-fusion devices. And the March/April 1999 issue of Infinite Energy magazine, a publication for cold-fusion buffs, includes Clean Energy work in its list of "Key Experiments that Substantiate Cold Fusion Phenomena."" "The patents say that the devices generate excess heat by passing a current through a cell containing beads coated with a metal such as palladium and exposed to various hydrogen isotopes--the same setting where cold fusion was said to occur. Garwin and others say the devices are unlikely to prove viable, either as energy sources or as systems for rendering radioactive waste harmless. Conditions in an electrochemical cell fall far short of what is needed to trigger nuclear reactions, they note. "The cell has never produced any excess heat, in my judgment," says Garwin, who has looked at Clean Energy's data. "And this remediation of radioactive materials is incredible and has not been demonstrated."" "Reding responds that he knows the physics is controversial, but "the technology is very real." Reding says that the company's first attempts to patent the devices failed because the applications went through the group of patent examiners who specialize in nuclear science. But he says that by carefully structuring another application, the company was able to steer the patent to a different group of examiners, who handle electrochemistry. "Our patent attorney was very helpful in this process," says Reding. Attempts to reach the examiners who approved the patents have been unsuccessful. " The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. So, the above source + Nature source + Simon book, should be enough to source this little text: "Proposed text: Some patents that very closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in CF, have been slipping by and being granted by the USPTO. This was apparently thanks to the patents not making any mention to "cold fusion" anywhere in the text, claiming that the processes are caused by some new nuclear physics unrelated to CF, using "codewords" to replace any term that could give away its relationship to CF, etc. This is inside the frame of a more general problem where the USPTO has many science-related patent applications, and it doesn't have enough experts in the relevant science fields to review all of them. The patent fillers also attempt to get their applications reviewed by experts in fields other than nuclear science, so that the reviewers will have a much lower chance of spotting the resemblance to CF, or the fact that the invention is at odds with established physics."ScienceNature[Simon] This explains quite well why those patents exist, without the need to explicitely cite one. (Let's remember that wikipedia articles give summaries of the sources, and that people interested in the gory details should check the sources themselves). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC) "Slipping by" implies that the patent examiners simply didn't notice the claims. I doubt that's the case; it might be argued for the 2004 patent, but, then, not the 2008 one, which is blatant and discussed in the patent discussion after the claims, with reference to prior research (though I don't see specific reference to the P-F paper). It's true, then, that patents are being granted, at least two, on the substance of cold fusion, specifically the P-F effect, but the reason isn't, I suspect, the delusion or inattention of the patent examiners, but that these patents aren't patenting cold fusion, per se, but specific methods of creating (in 2008) an electrode more likely to show the excess heat effect, without regard to whether or not it is nuclear in origin. From the 2004 DoE review, where half of the 18-member panel considered the evidence for excess heat to be compelling, we can't say that excess heat is "at odds with established physics," for it makes no claim about physics, per se, beyond showing an unexplained phenomenon verified by many experimental reports, 153 peer-reviewed papers, last count, against a fraction of that which didn't find excess heat, a result easily explained through the fragility of the effect and the non-availability of the electrodes as patented. By the way, my congratulations to Enric Naval, who has clearly been working hard researching this. I would say that we should point to actual patents that are examples of what is being described, and those links could be in the note. Personally, I'd like to see more evidence of the alleged attempt by patent filers, that's not a serious problem in a note. --Abd (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC) There is a level of synthesis in Enric's discussion that might be problematic. The source he cites has: "Reding responds that he knows the physics is controversial, but "the technology is very real." Reding says that the company's first attempts to patent the devices failed because the applications went through the group of patent examiners who specialize in nuclear science. But he says that by carefully structuring another application, the company was able to steer the patent to a different group of examiners, who handle electrochemistry. "Our patent attorney was very helpful in this process," says Reding. Attempts to reach the examiners who approved the patents have been unsuccessful. " Enric has: The patent fillers also attempt to get their applications reviewed by experts in fields other than nuclear science, so that the reviewers will have a much lower chance of spotting the resemblance to CF, or the fact that the invention is at odds with established physics. The substance is correct, and this would also apply to the SPAWAR patents, which don't claim nuclear process, but only "excess energy." Who defines "science"? Nuclear physicists or electrochemists? What this shows, in fact, is what has often been asserted by people like Jed Rothwell: electrochemists mostly think that the P-F effect is real, on experimental grounds, nuclear physicists reject it, on theoretical grounds. The chemists, experts in chemistry, mostly say, "This isn't chemistry." The physicists, experts in physics, say (most of them, there are quite a few exceptions among prominent physicists), "This can't be physics." If the 2004 DoE panel had been composed of only chemists, it probably would have accepted "cold fusion" as real, and had it been mostly physicists, it probably would have rejected it as experimental artifact of speculative or unknown nature. We can summarize, in the note, the positions more accurately, implying what is implied by the Science article and which is almost certainly true: electrochemists are likely to accept the excess heat as real, nuclear physicists to reject it. If you make a patent claim about electrochemistry, and make no "nuclear" claim, why in the world should it be reviewed by a nuclear physicist? Note, however, that Garwin isn't "fooled." He knows this is a cold fusion claim, and he's right. But he's a physicist, with quite an investment in this all being bogus. This is a relatively recent argument by him, and it's based on the lack of proven commercial applications, he's often said things like that. Which have nothing to do with the science. We don't deny muon-catalyzed fusion, which is very cold, based on the lack of commercial applications. It's possible that the P-F effect turns out to be so fragile, requiring such a delicate balance of conditions, that no commercial application will ever pan out. But the electrode may still be a valuable invention, and commercially, for use in cold fusion experiments studying excess heat and investigating its origin and exact conditions! --Abd (talk) 16:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC) The two topics "Chemists are much more sympathetic towards cold fusion than physicists" and "Physicists are rejecting evidence for CF because it endangers their established beliefs" should be discussed as separate topics in a different section. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC) You introduced the topic, Enric, with this text proposed for the article: The patent fillers also attempt to get their applications reviewed by experts in fields other than nuclear science, so that the reviewers will have a much lower chance of spotting the resemblance to CF, or the fact that the invention is at odds with established physics. In fact, the source describes steering the application away from reviewers who were nuclear physicists toward those who were electrochemists. Now, tell me, do you really believe that an electrochemist would look at one of these patents and not "spot the resemblance to CF"? Are there any electrochemists who would not smell cold fusion immediately upon seeing "palladium" and "deuterium"? When I have time, I'll see if I can scare up more RS on this. The source cited by Enric is quite interesting, but it did not say what Enric claimed, it has nothing about "lower chance of spotting the resemblance," that was pure synthesis. And neither did I claim that physicists reject evidence because it "endangers their established beliefs." I claim -- and there is a ton of RS for this -- that they reject experimental evidence for cold fusion on theoretical grounds; that is, they require a much higher standard of evidence for "cold fusion" phenomena, such as excess heat, than might otherwise be necessary, because of the theoretical implications. --Abd (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) From the article: "first attempts to patent the devices failed because the applications went through the group of patent examiners who specialize in nuclear science". aka, the electrochemists that reviewed later were not specialized in nuclear science, aka they had a lower chance of knowing if the nuclear fusion going on was accepted or not by mainstream science because they didn't specialize in that branch of science. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC) And this argument shows why synthesis is discouraged. Here is my own synthesis from that: from many sources, starting in 1989 up to the present, we know that a random nuclear physicist is quite likely to be very negative on cold fusion, until and unless they have extensive opportunity to review the evidence. Most won't be aware of the recent research, i.e., much of anything that's happened since 1989-1990 in the field,and that is easy to tell (the arguments they give are pretty much canned from twenty years ago, and contradicted, massively, by experimental results). So a nuclear physicist asked by the USPTO to review the patent is quite likely to start out with a highly negative opinion, and the patent isn't designed to change his or her mind, a patent that did that would be outright rejected as improperly written. So we can easily understand why a patent lawyer would want to steer the patent toward electrochemists. Now, is a specialist in nuclear physics more, or less, representative of the "mainstream," than a specialist in electrochemistry? Further, which one is more likely to be aware of the massive experimental verification of excess heat by ... electrochemists, published in electrochemistry journals? Is excess heat a "nuclear physics" claim? Why? If you think that cold fusion is the cause of the excess heat, you might assert that, but if you don't, why would you make the claim that this is a nuclear phenomenon and would therefore require a nuclear physicist to properly judge it? The "nuclear fusion going on" was your language, Enric. The idea that there is any electrochemist who is unaware of the controversy over cold fusion is utterly preposterous, but that's exactly what Enric's synthesized text implies. The cold fusion affair put electrochemistry on the map. This is the truth: an electrochemist is more likely to know that there is strong experimental evidence for excess heat, and that's all that's needed to judge the reasonableness of the patent claim. Note that the claim doesn't have to be actually valid, it merely must not be preposterous, like a perpetual motion machine. And if half the 2004 DoE panel found the evidence for excess heat "convincing," it certainly isn't preposterous. Nuclear origin? In 2004, that was still quite debatable. So we have an electrochemical device with a number of possible uses. They claim energy generation as one. The only reason you can argue that this should be reviewed by a nuclear physicist would be a belief that the origin is nuclear. --Abd (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I would like other people to comment on this. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Btw, I expanded the quote above from Science article with two more sentences at the top. It's clear to me that the whole article is talking about patents of stuff that goes outside of accepted scientific concepts, so I think that I'm making a fair summary. About the devices not being about physics because they don't use nuclear fusion, see how the patent holder specifically claims to be exploiting "new nuclear physics", and how the article describes two of the patents as "an electrochemical device that is claimed to put out more energy than is possible by chemistry alone". --Enric Naval (talk) 17:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I think the problem here is that we're trying to make a mountain of text from the molehill of sources. I think a better solution would be something concise like this: "The USPTO rejects all patents claiming cold fusion.[cite] Melvin Miles, author of a 2004 patent claiming to generate "excess heat",[cite patent] later described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[cite that other thing]" No, I am not advocating these particular sentences, as I'm sure you guys can come up with something more neutral/accurate. I just think the solution to the synthesis problem is to scale down the amount of text spent describing this patent. This may also help satisfy WP:UNDUE depending on the amount of media attention this patent has gotten. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 13:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I think that's a good compromise to include that patent, as being probably the most notable CF-related patent out of all the accepted ones. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Good work, Enric Naval and everyone else! Sorry, in this "third try" section I don't see what proposed text is being discussed; could someone clarify that, please? Thanks. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC) The text being discussed is the italic block of text a few lines down from the section header: "Some patents that very closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in CF...". Glad to have you back. Be sure to check out the two conclusions I've published if you haven't already. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I have a question. The proposed text says the patents slipping by claimed "that the processes are caused by some new nuclear physics unrelated to CF." What are the patent numbers of those patents? Thanks. Olorinish (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC) I don't think there is one. The company filing a patent has made the statement not in the patent about new nuclear physics. See the beginning of this section, which references three Clean Energy Technologies patents. We should return to the reason for our debate here: we had text claiming that the USPTO did not issue patents claiming "cold fusion," and we had some examples of patents which clearly do claim excess heat of a kind that we would consider our article Cold fusion to cover, and it was claimed we couldn't, without synthesis, cite those patents as examples of themselves (other than the implied interpretation of possible contradiction from the fact that we point to them.) It got much more complicated when we started reviewing Enric's extensively synthesized text, which nobody but Enric accepts, as far as I can see. Enric above, though, seems to support citing the 2004 Miles patent. I suggest we return to the original question, and resolve it, under the assumption that there isn't a magic solution from other secondary source. I don't know that we need to work out a more advanced text, based on the Science article and Simons, here. Can we cite a patent as a possible counterexample, one as blatantly obvious as the 2008 Miles patent? --Abd (talk) 23:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC) They are 5,616,219, 5,628,886 and 5,672,259, from the Science article that I quoted above. About "which nobody but Enric accepts, as far as I can see", maybe that's because people haven't actually commented on the text yet :P --Enric Naval (talk) 00:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC) After reading these patents, I think it would improve the text if this part was removed from the second sentence of the third try text: ", claiming that the processes are caused by some new nuclear physics unrelated to CF, using "codewords" to replace any term that could give away its relationship to CF, etc." This is largely because the first two do not claim to describe any nuclear reactions. Olorinish (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC) hum, did you read the quote above. The first thing is from Science's "Physicists who have examined these patents say the claims resemble cold fusion; the company rejects that label but says its products do exploit "new nuclear physics."", and the second is from Nature's ""There are code names you can use," [Miles says]". I'm putting together the patents from 1999 and 2004 as being part of the same general problem with the USPTO. The patent holders didn't want the applications to be reviewed by experts in nuclear science, no wonder they made sure not to mention nuclear fusion.... The article quotes physicists saying it closely resembles cold fusion. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC) We are mashing up different things here. The source from the USPTO claiming that patents aren't issued for claims of "cold fusion" is from 2004, quoting the Deputy Commissioner of Patents then. The three patents cited in the Science article were by Patterson of Clean Energy Technologies, and were quite a few years earlier. There are also special rules if a patent application is 65 or older, for expedited approval, and my understanding is that this process was used for Patterson.[34] We might assume that the policy stated in 2004 still applies, reasonably. But, clearly, patents that are not of a cold fusion process itself, but of something that might be useful in experiments or devices that "generate energy from palladium and deuterium electrolysis," as well as other possible uses, have been issued, we have the Miles patents from 2004 and 2008 as examples, and they are blatantly for electrodes used for what we call cold fusion. They do not attempt to explain the source of the heat, and neither did the older Patterson patents. Both the Science article and Simon predate the Miles patents, so they are quite possibly talking about Patterson, which may have been an exception due to his age. Remarkably, Pons and Fleischmann are mentioned in at least one of the Patterson patents. --Abd (talk) 03:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Comments on Enric Naval's text: "have been slipping by" is an opinion, insofar as it implies that the examiners were making a mistake rather than being aware of what they were doing. If sufficiently notable it can be reported with prose attribution, but not in my opinion stated as fact in the Wikipedia article, per WP:ASF. I also agree with Abd that the proposed text draws a conclusion not necessarily implied by the source, about the reason for steering it to electrochemists. One idea is to make the whole mention of patents in the article very short. I'm not sure that I necessarily prefer this, but it may solve a lot of problems that have been raised with various versions. Something like this: Proposed text: The U.S. patent office avoids granting patents which explicitly mention "cold fusion". with the Science reference that Enric Naval found, and the reference from 2004. By the way, I also support the two statements about the Naturwissenschaften article here; that's one reason I had said "Good work"! I think we all agree that we shouldn't present cold fusion as fact; it's not generally accepted by mainstream science. Cryptic, may I suggest that you put a link to that page at the very top of this page. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 13:11, 5 July 2009 (UTC) You are right, I shouldn't be making those conclusions about electrochemists. Another mistake is that I'm mixing an article covering the 1999 patents with another covering Miller's 2004 patent. I'll separate them and attribute properly. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Will write up something in 24 hours, sorry for long delay. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC) "Proposed text, this time with attribution: David Voss said in 1999 that some patents that very closely resemble cold fusion processes, and that use materials used in CF, have been slipping by and being granted by the USPTO.Science The holder of such three patents says that his applications were initially rejected when they were reviewed by experts in nuclear science, but that he managed to have a second application reviewed instead by experts in electrochemistry, who approved them.Science When asked about the resemblance to CF, the patent holder said that it used nuclear processes involving "new nuclear physics" unrelated to CF. Science Melvin Miles was granted in 2004 a patent for a cold fusion device, and he later described in 2007 his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.Nature" The references can have inside of them the numbers of the related patents, instead of having them in the text. Also, it doesn't cite directly any patent, only the secondary sources talking about them. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Fourth try I'd like to reintroduce my suggestion, for it seems to have drowned in the seas of discussion: "The USPTO rejects all patents claiming cold fusion.[cite] Melvin Miles, author of a 2004 patent claiming to generate "excess heat",[cite patent] later described his efforts to remove all instances of "cold fusion" from the patent description to avoid having it rejected outright.[cite that other thing]" This follows Coppertwig's notion that "less is more" while still incorporating the patent that Enric presented. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC) I support Cryptic's suggestion, per "cite that other thing". ☺Coppertwig (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Okay, general support, but quibbles: do they reject all patents? What we have is a statement from 2004. Is this still their policy? So: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has refused patents on any invention claiming cold fusion, based on "it doesn't work."[35] Melvin Miles, an inventor for two patents issued in 2004 and 2008, with "generating energy" included in the claims,[36][37] described, in 2007, his avoidance of "cold fusion' in the patent description to keep it from being rejected.[38] --Abd (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC) I had not noticed that the cold fusion rejection statement was from 2004. Has any attempt been made to find a more recent statement? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC) It's hinted at in the 2007 source for Miles' statement. I.e., if they said "cold fusion," or even if they said "nuclear reaction," Miles clearly thinks the patent would be rejected. The 2008 patent, though, in its discussion, is about as blatant as one can get without saying the magic (or countermagic) words. Somewhere there are documents I've seen that have been extracted, I think, from FOI requests to the Patent Office, explicitly asking for patents on cold fusion to be flagged for special review. Primary sources; the comments on them would only be among cold fusion supporters, perhaps at newenergytimes.com or lenr-canr.org or Infinite Energy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abd (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 July 2009 The online version of the USPTO's Manual_of_Patent_Examining_Procedure, last modified in December 2008, in its page called 2107.01 General Principles Governing Utility Rejections [R-5 - 2100 Patentability], under the section II. WHOLLY INOPERATIVE INVENTIONS; "INCREDIBLE" UTILITY, specifically mentions "a 'cold fusion' process for producing energy" and Swartz's lawsuit in a federal court that winded up upholding the rejection of his CF patent by the USPTO. According to this, this would be the latest (revision 7 of the 8th edition from July 2008), so this would be the manual that is currently being consulted by patent examiners. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) You guys, wasn't this originally only about mentioning or not the patents themselves? The text I proposed in the section above would be added as a third paragraph to Cold_fusion#Patents, and the patent numbers listed inside the "ref" tag. But the text I wrote cites only secondary sources, and this sort of editorial work would belong more to Talk:Cold fusion than to here. It's nice that the text is well discussed, and the suggestions are good, but I'm on the verge of dumping the text above into the article and let people sort it out at the talk page, while we sort here the citing of the patents themselves. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Just so you-all know I haven't been ignoring the discussion, I'd like to say that in general, my preference is to present information in a Wikipedia article (in a NPOV way, of course!), not stifle it (which almost always smacks of POV-at-work). A couple of modest sentences regarding the patent situation is fine by me. I don't have anything more specific to say about the topic at this time. Carry on! V (talk) 16:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC) The article still lacks that there are CF patents in Europe and Japan (included one filled by Canon (company), lol), and that the denial of patents has had a chilling effect on commercial investors, and that people make the assumption that patents validate that stuff works, and that is the reason that several parties in the dispute consider patents to be so important. So expect that section to grow :P I just need to get the damned RS for that, but, if I was able to find them for Miles' patent, then I can probably also find them for this stuff.... Damned article is still too US-centric... Also, I add stuff in any random order instead of starting by the important stuff, so parts of the article get temporaly very unbalanced... --Enric Naval (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2009 (UTC) I don't know a single editor who makes "the assumption that patents validate that stuff works." It's true that refusal of patents chills investment; it forces companies developing rejected technology to develop it secretly until they have full working proof, which then inhibits the sharing of information that was the public policy reason behind issuing patents in the first place. I don't think patents are "so important," but if we are going to mention them, we should not mention them in a distorted way, that's all. I really don't care if we mention patents at all, it's low on the scale of importance, I would have preferred we start with what's much more important: the science. What's known, demonstrably from reliable source? What is notably proposed to explain the known phenomena? What was a problem was insistence upon text that says that the USPTO doesn't issue patents because cold fusion is like perpetual motion, when, in fact, patents not only were issued previously, but two were issued, in 2004, and 2008, explicitly claiming what we categorize as cold fusion. However, what was issued were patents on specific methods of forming electrodes, not on the generation of excess heat from the palladium deuteride system as a general phenomenon. Fleischmann and Pons and the University of Utah would have been first in line for that general patent, but that patent effort, if I'm correct, was withdrawn. (We probably should tell that story if there is enough RS on it.) --Abd (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Dunno what assumptions the editors here make, but Voss' Science article says: "[Nicholas Godici, the deputy assistant commissioner for patents] concedes that the public views patents as a stamp of approval but says that's a misunderstanding. Patents are nothing more than "a legal right to exclude others from using or profiting from an invention." Yet Clean Energy's Reding says they carry an additional cachet. "We've raised $5 million from investors," he says. "The fact that the U.S. Patent Office has declared your invention novel and unique is clearly valuable.""[39] Anyways, that's also another different topic.... About the 2004 and 2008 patents, the text already says that patents can be granted by the USPTO when they disguise their relationship to CF, and we have the patent holder, Miles, saying that the 2004 patent does exactly that, and the disgusing of the relationship to CF is supported by three RS (the Nature article, the Science article, and Simon's book). So, I cant' really see what is the problem that you have with those patents, since they are coherent with what the sources say and one of the sources (Science) even mentions the 2004 patent explicitely and other of the sources (Nature) gives three other specific patents from 1999 as examples..... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Whatever the secondary sources say may have been based on interviews where informal language was used and interpreted. What's clear from the Miles patent is confirmed by the secondary sources, in substance, though: utility in electrochemistry is emphasized, and, in fact, these electrodes are, as I've noted, useful for cold fusion experiments, if nothing else! That is a commercial application, i.e., electrodes for that purpose could be sold, whether or not there is any nuclear phenomenon involved. Emphasizing electrochemistry steers the patent to experts in electrochemistry, as it should. A nuclear physicist should not be able to cause the rejection of a patent on a process to be used in electrochemistry, based on an argument that whatever effect is produced (the "excess heat effect" is what is claimed, but only in one claim) isn't nuclear or real. However, it's dicey to assert that the Miles patents themselves "disguise" the relationship with cold fusion, they explicitly discuss it, in a way that any reader of the Cold fusion article can recognize as being what we call cold fusion. In the scientific literature, though, it's called "Anomalous heat," which is an NPOV description when that is what a paper studied. A calorimetry paper may propose a nuclear explanation, but that's dicta. The actual findings would be excess heat. There is a great deal of support for excess heat in the literature, to claim that "it doesn't work" is asserting what has probably become a minority position among scientists familiar with the literature, by now. It was probably a minority position in 2004, if we carefully analyze the DoE report that year -- another issue, to be sure. The original dispute arose when the alleged policy of not issuing patents covering "cold fusion" was removed by an editor based on citing a patent that does. Hipocrite reverted. I then added the patent citation directly, without synthesis, and the revert war of June 1 started, in which I did not participate. The question was whether or not a primary source could be asserted to allow the reader to judge whether or not the secondary source accurately reflects the patent record. I think a decision on that should be made here; this mediation is not to determine exact text in the article, but to resolve disputes, and that is the dispute that was brought here. I'd say it's relatively clear and simple, and we have over-discussed it. Please decide, Cryptic, and if you need more evidence or guidance, then please ask. This is diverting us from far more important issues, the "proposed explanations" problem. --Abd (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC) This fails to address that the secondary sources, either directly say that the patents disguise the relationship, or they cite the patent holders explaining how gamed the system, in the case of Miles explicitely saying that he disguised the relationship. I don't see anything to be won from ignoring the secondary sources or saying that they make wrong interpretations, specially if they are articles from Nature and Science, which I think that are the top journals in science, and no source of comparable quality is given. It appears that using other sources in the proposed by Abd would require high levels of original research, while these sources are quite straightforward. As I stated above, I'll just post the proposed text to the article, including links to the 1999 and 2004 patents, and ask that tweaks to the text are done there (I will wait until tomorrow morning for last-minute comments here). I would suggest that Cryptic_C62 moves the discussion towards discussing how/if we include also the 2008 Miles' patent. To the people who have not commented much lately, are you okay with closing this and moving forward? ooops, I didn't notice Cryptic's posting below. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I am inclined to agree that I should close this discussion for the simple fact that it has been stale for quite some time now. Whatever the original issue may have been, this ended up being a fruitful discussion on how to go about phrasing and citing the text regarding this particular patent. I'm sure that the Enric Naval (and any others who wish to introduce material about patents) has benefited from this discussion. However, rather than publish a detailed conclusion advocating a particular version of the paragraph in question, I think it would be better to simply recommend the inclusion of patents which have been discussed in reliable secondary sources. I fully expect that, upon being added to the article, this fairly uncontroversial topic will eventually be presented in a more perfect way due to the great volume of editing activity that will undoubtedly occur. Sound good? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:46, 17 July 2009 (UTC) I'm OK with that (I guess that the 2008 patent will have to wait until we discuss the usage of New Energy Times as a source, since that's the only secondary source where it's appearing for now). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2009 (UTC) The 2008 patent, which hasn't been discussed outside of New Energy Times, which would be likely to be challenged as a source, is clearer in its claim to what we'd call cold fusion. It simply doesn't claim "nuclear fusion." It claims "generation of heat," and it refers to the history of replication difficulty. What Miles did was to patent, not "cold fusion," but an electrode to be used for generating heat through electrolysis of deuterium. That's the "disguise." It steered the patent toward electrochemists as reviewers, instead of the nuclear physicists who'd have been assigned if Miles had claimed nuclear fusion. I'd still prefer to at least point to the patent, as did Cryptic's suggested text at the beginning of this section, which was fine. The foundation of this dispute was over the use of a primary source, a patent, but without synthesis; from the version that Cryptic proposed above, it would seem that he would allow this. I'd prefer to see an explicit statement that patents may be used, without synthesis, for purposes of comparison with or explanation of what's in secondary source. Alternatively, Cryptic, closing without a conclusion is a bit frustrating, given how much work was done here, but, as you've said, the discussion may have been helpful. --Abd (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

My conclusion didn't have any support diffs to link to, as this discussion panned out differently than the others. Please indicate your support or any concerns below. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with excluding New Energy Times as a secondary source. What is the reasoning? If it's to support the fact that cold fusion proponents have claimed that the patent is related to cold fusion, I don't see why it wouldn't be considered a reliable source for that sort of statement.

I think the precise wording is important. I think we can state (based on the sources I've seen referred to) that the patent office rejects patents claiming "cold fusion" (with quotation marks!) but I think if the quotation marks are left off, it can easily be interpreted as something that is apparently (arguably) false, given the patent that has actually been approved. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

"I disagree with excluding New Energy Times as a secondary source." - I agree (with C's disagreement). I admit that I haven't followed this patent discussion because, quite frankly, I found it rather boring. I didn't realize that we were going to get a broad principle out of it, that NET is not a reliable source, which to me appears unrelated to the topic at hand, whether to include patents. I would like to add to our list of topics a detailed discussion of not only NET but what sources should be considered adequate for this article. Or is that out of order somehow? --GoRight (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I based that part of the recommendation off of the following:

I object on using it as a reliable source. It's a self-published source outside of the main-stream, it could be used as a reference to opinions of individual authors, where such are experts (per rules on SPS) and only where such is useful in correspondence to weight, but not as a general source. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to NET as a source as it is self-published and not reliable. Verbal chat 16:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I object to NET as a source. It lacks a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Hipocrite (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Did I misinterpret these statements, or do you disagree with them? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll disagree with Verbal's objection, who fails to define "reliable", or identify the "self" doing the publishing. NET appears to be published by a small organization. What makes one organization a "self" while another organization isn't? And, has NET ever failed to deliver an issue on time? Why is that not "reliable"? Heh, yes, I'm sure an alternate meaning of "not reliable" is intended. OK, in my mind that would mean NET routinely publishes statements that are presented as fact when they are actually mere opinion. I don't know of the extent to which that is literally true; I do know that that is a quite different thing than simple publication of experimental results (something NET does routinely). That is, if an experimenter reports observing such-and-such event, the statement cannot properly be considered an opinion. It could be simple truth, or it could be an outright lie, or it could be what the experimenter honestly beleives to have observed, regardless of what actually happened (illusions are known to have that effect). None of these three cases is in any way different than experimental results that can get published in a major journal, even after the sort of peer review that Hipocrite claims NET lacks. For evidence, see http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/05/health/research/05ghost.html?_r=2&hp V (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take issue with KDP's use of the term "main-stream". Main-stream for what, publication of on-going research related to the topic at had, LENR? I would argue that NET is at the very center of main-stream publications in that particular field.

Do scientific journals not regularly specialize relative to one another? Absolutely. You have Physics Journals and Geology Journals and Chemistry Journals and so fourth. Where is the preferred place to publish things related to Chemistry? In a Physics Journal? Of course not, you go to the to the Chemistry Journals because there is where you will find the most current and up-to-date experts in Chemistry.

Well, where does one go to read about the latest developments in LENR? It seems that NET would be considered main-stream within that field of expertise, no? I am not necessarily suggesting that it be considered as on-par with the most favored Physics or Chemistry Journals by any means as a WP:RS for absolute statements of scientific fact, but for identifying and mentioning breaking developments in the field? Sure, why not? If KDP can suggest a journal he considers more main-stream that is regularly publishing articles in this field we should definitely consider that as well. I just reject the concept of blacklisting NET out of hand. --GoRight (talk) 02:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should proposed theories explaining cold fusion be mentioned in Cold fusion?

• The beryllium-8 hypothesis [40].
• The hydrino hypothesis.[41]
• Storms' comment on cold fusion theories.[42]

The above three sections were present in the article briefly, and were the subject of edit warring.

Background: the present article has text relevant to theory:

Nuclear fusion of the type postulated would be inconsistent with current understanding and would require the invention of an entirely new nuclear process.ERAB report, 1989, conclusion 5 The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) announced in April 12, 1989 that it had applied for its own patents based on the theoretical work of one of it own researchers, Peter L. Hagelstein, who had been sending papers to journals from the 5th to the 12th of April.New York Times, 1989 In a biography by Jagdish Mehra et al. it is mentioned that to the shock of most physicists, the Nobel Laureate Julian Schwinger declared himself a supporter of cold fusion and tried to publish a paper on it in Physical Review Letters; he was deeply insulted by the manner of its rejection, and was led to resign from that body in protest.[43] [Schwinger's work was theoretical] Considerable attention has been given to measuring 4He production.[84] In 1999 Schaffer says that the levels detected were very near to background levels, that there is the possibility of contamination by trace amounts of helium which are normally present in the air, and that the lack of detection of Gamma radiation led most of the scientific community to regard the presence of 4He as the result of experimental error.[73] In the report presented to the DOE in 2004, 4He was detected in five out of sixteen cases where electrolytic cells were producing excess heat.[85] The reviewers' opinion was divided on the evidence for 4He; some points cited were that the amounts detected were above background levels but very close to them, that it could be caused by contamination from air, and there were serious concerns about the assumptions made in the theoretical framework that tried to account for the lack of gamma rays.[85] [bolded theoretical concerns.] Production of such heavy nuclei is so unexpected from current understanding of nuclear reactions that extraordinary experimental proof will be needed to convince the scientific community of these results.1999 Scientific American article Section titled Lack of accepted explanation using conventional physics which raises the "triple miracle," The probability of reaction, The branching ratio and Conversion of γ-rays to heat Section titled Proposed explanations, with this text: By 1998, many groups trying to replicate Fleischmann and Pons' results had found alternative explanations for their original positive results, like problems in the neutron detector in the case of Georgia Tech or bad wiring in the thermometers at Texas A&M, thus bringing most scientists to conclude that no positive result should be attributed to cold fusion, at least not in a significant scale.Routledge, 1998 Among those who continue to believe claims of Cold Fusion are not attributable to error, some possible theoretical interpretations of the experimental results have been proposed.Derry, 2002 As of 2002, according to Gregory Neil Derry, they were all ad hoc explanations that didn't explain coherently the given result, they were backed by experiments that were of low quality or non reproducible, and more careful experiments to test them had given negative results; these explanations had failed to convince the mainstream scientific community.Derry, 2002, ibid Since cold fusion is such an extraordinary claim, most scientists would not be convinced unless either high-quality convincing data or a compelling theoretical explanation were to be found.1999 Scientific American article

We have no coverage of actual proposed explanations in the article, and the edit wars of May 21 and June 1 were largely about attempts to insert them. Coverage of the hydrino hypothesis had remained after May 21, and the Be-8 theory after June 1, but were both removed by the reversion under the June 1 protection to May 14, and have not been reasserted. The article implies that no serious theories that could possibly explain cold fusion "using existing physics" have been proposed.

What exists in peer-reviewed reliable source and in academic and peer-reviewed secondary sources on this?

The Be-8 and hydrino theories are covered in Storms (2007) as to current notability; we have reference above to older theories, such as those of Hagelstein and Schwinger, which are no longer considered within the field to be of much import. In addition, there is Widom-Larsen theory, which I have not researched. Hydrino theory is new physics, and was apparently allowed on May 21, ultimately, because of RS covering it, and it was balanced with negative RS on hydrino theory. The Be-8 theory, more accurately, the Tetrahedral Symmetric Condensate theory, does not involve new physics, but only, apparently, the consideration of a previously unconsidered physical possibility, which is double-deuterium (molecular) fusion under lattice confinement, possibly through the formation of a two-molecule Bose-Einstein condensate, which Takahashi then predicts, from quantum field theory, will fuse within a femtosecond or so, 100%. This theory, if correct, predicts nearly all the observed phenomena: Be-8 rapidly decays to two alpha particles at 23.8 MeV each, they will transfer most of their energy to the experimental environment, there will be no primary neutron or gamma radiation, the nuclear ash is helium, matching experimental observations, it will happen at the surface (the molecular form is not present inside the lattice), the TSC itself is neutrally charged and thus experiences no Coulomb barrier and may directly cause some heavy-element fusion with the kind of atomic number plus 4 that has been observed, energetic alpha particles can cause secondary fusion resulting in low levels of neutrons and other products. Mosier-Boss (Naturwissenschaften, 2009) cite Takahashi's theory to explain their neutron results, and the theory is cited by He Jing-Tang (Frontiers of Physics in China, 2007), a peer-reviewed secondary source. This explanation is my own, based on reading many papers by Takahashi and discussion of the theory on-line, it is here for background, not for inclusion in the article; at this point what we have,for the article, is mention of the Takahashi theory in two or three reliable secondary sources. It should be covered, based on what is in reliable secondary source about it.

I think the best way to handle this topic is for all of it to be in a separate article. That will prevent bloat in the main CF article, which merely needs to mention that various theories/hypotheses exist, and provide a link. Then, in the separate article, it can be plainly stated that while a number of proposed explanations exist, none have received substantial support, either by the scientific community or by experiment. Yet... V (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

In general, the field is broad enough, and there is enough material, that there should be many articles. In the past, this was resisted as creating "POV forks," but, in fact, such articles, if they follow guidelines, aren't POV forks, they are just what V has stated. As to "substantial support," V's comment isn't precisely true, but there is, it's true, no specific theory that is broadly supported, and none of them can claim general acceptance or confirmation by experiment. I'll note, however, that Preparata predicted that helium would be correlated with heat, at about the right Q factor, before those measurements were made. This is especially important because, at that time, on theoretical grounds, i.e., the branching ratio, it was expected that helium would be rare as a product. That's the kind of evidence that generally tends to confirm a theory, that it is able to predict experimental results, especially unexpected ones. The problem is that the present article pretends that there aren't any theories of weight, that they are all "ad hoc," and this is based on a very weak source, contradicted by ample peer-reviewed and academic sources, including secondary sources, which are themselves not contradicted by sources of equal or better quality. Isn't it a tad odd to allow claims that there are no notable theories, based on old sources? Suppose those sources were accurate at the time written. What does that say about present, later theories? Are there any peer-reviewed secondary sources that reject the theories? Or even that make the "ad hoc" claim? (The "ad hoc" source is reliable source, all right, but not peer-reviewed.)

(And if there were such sources, rejecting, that would make them even more notable, it would simply be easier to "balance" them. As it is, it can take some considerable synthesis to balance them, we should seek consensus, but be very careful how we do it.) --Abd (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly like to see the proposed theories mentioned, and briefly described, in the article. They can be described more fully in a separate article as V suggests, but a reasonable-length summary (about one to three paragraphs perhaps) in the main article would also probably be reasonable. I think there is a fair amount of RS discussing these theories (peer-reviewed papers) so they deserve some weight. For example, at Robert Duncan's seminar, a large part of the seminar was presentation of various theories. It's a significant aspect of the subject, even if none of the theories is widely accepted. I feel that the cold fusion article would be more interesting and informative if it discussed these proposed theories (along with problems with the theories). ☺Coppertwig (talk) 01:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

In other words: I support including the material in the 3 links given above. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Abd, V and Coppertwig with the clear understanding that however these theories are represented that they are accurately portrayed in terms of their levels of maturity and mainstream acceptance. Given the state of this field it clearly seems to warrant a mention, or even an article or two depending on the level of detail the editors wish to provide. --GoRight (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On Hydrino, here there are four sources that cite hydrino in relationship with CF. We don't need a whole sub-section for the theory, just a few sentences will do, maybe one paragraph. Maybe under "Non-nuclear explanations for excess heat"

Pardon this interjection, but there are two aspects to the hydrino hypothesis. Only one of them is about the formation of hydrinos as a source of heat; the other notes that hydrinos, if they exist, would be "shrunken" hydrogen atoms, very much like muonic hydrogen atoms, although not necessarily shrunken to the same degree. And muon-catalyzed fusion involves a shrunken hydrogen interacting with an ordinary hydrogen. That's pretty much a 100%-certainty-of-fusion event. A less-shrunk hydrino might fuse with lower probability (but rather greater probability than that 50-orders-of-magnitude improbability of fusion between ordinary hydrogens). V (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

On Be-8, there are no secondary sources dealing with that. In the link given in the opening post there are 3 sources. First one is Takahashi himself talking about his theory. Second one is from the He Jing-tang paper Front. Phys. China which was already found at the talk page as a paper that appeared to be very flawed and low-quality in a journal of unknown quality. Third one is a conference at a CF conference that appeared in Krivit's sourcebook, which is a compilation of conference papers. So, no, not enough good-quality sources at all. No way it's appearing with only those sources.

On Storms, it was already discussed at the talk page that he is a retired scientist who works from his garage, holds fringe views, gave credence to very fringe views even those verging in crackpottery, it was unknown how much quality control there was at the house editing the book, his views are not representative of mainstream, etc. There were only two book reviews, one in Journal of Scientific Exploration, and one by Sheldon that was discussed here. Additionally, the proposed text placed Storms at the start of the "proposed explanations" section, as giving a summary of the acceptance of explanations on the mainstream, which gave it a lot of undue prominence as is problematic due to Storms not representing the mainstream in the first place. So, not a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all, Storms (World Scientific, 2007) is a reliable secondary source. It is independently published, and thoroughly cited. It's true that it is not peer-reviewed, but speculation about the editorial process is inappropriate. The review by Sheldon recommends the book for its coverage of the topic. Enric is raising issues that would be appropriate where there is conflict of sources. I've seen no such conflict, except between the book -- and much recent source -- and the synthesis that Cold fusion remains fringe science. No claim has been made that Storms should necessarily be used for unattributed fact, though where there is no reasonably controversy over what Storms reports, that would be appropriate.

Secondly, hydrino theory is both a possible non-nuclear explanation and a nuclear one. Storms cites it as a possible mechanism for cold fusion, because hydrinos could theoretically shield the Coulomb repulsion as to muons.

We have three reliable secondary sources for Be-8 theory: Storms, He Jing-tang, and the Mosier-Boss paper in Naturwissenschaften. The actual theory is published in the ACS Low Energy Nuclear Reactions Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, 2008), which is peer-reviewed. Je Jing-tang (Frontiers of Physics in China, Higher Education Press and Springer, 2007) and the Mosier-Boss paper "Triple Tracks...." (Naturwissenschaften, 2007) are peer-reviewed.

Storms mentions one particular idea in his book, about Spontaneous human combustion, presented as a pure speculation, which would be what Enric is referring to. Speculation in works like that is not uncommon. The key is that it was presented that way. Storms doesn't, as far as I've seen, present as fact anything that is not well-established in the literature. Excluding material from Storms is inappropriate. If there is doubt about acceptance, then what Storms states can be attributed.

The text from Storms about theory isn't controversial. Skeptics have said much the same thing, as a criticism of cold fusion. (I.e., that no one theory explains all the commonly reported phenomena.)

What's the "mainstream?" The ACS is mainstream. Naturwissenschaften is mainstream. The 2004 DoE Review consisted of mainstream experts. To treat this field as if there is a consensus of mainstream scientists rejecting cold fusion simply does not match the facts that we know from reliable sources. Scientists not familiar with current research in the field, yes, there is still an atmosphere and assumption of rejection, but not where experts have examined it, recently, and "experts" must be considered to include reviewers for peer-reviewed publications, especially one as high-profile as Naturwissenschaften (next to Scientific American.) Opposed to this, Enric presents only speculation and synthesis. --Abd (talk) 02:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Dead?

Just prurient curiousity... is this still live? Or does Abd's block and ban resolve the issues? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that activity here seems to have declined significantly from its start. But even if people got bored with it and stop adding text here for a year, this page could serve a purpose. At the CF article there are new editors arriving every now and then. It would not hurt at all for any dispute-in-the making to be directed here before it gets out of hand over there. And new editors could find this page informative, since some things discussed here have been decided, but would a new editor know that from reading the CF article? Things that have been decided could be undone by a POV pusher, all too easily! V (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should change the link to something like: "This article was the subject of mediation during June 2009-August 2009." Olorinish (talk) 14:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, let me be more explicit. I didn't follow this mediation in any detail, but: If the *only* cause of this mediation existing (at the time, or in retrospect) is Abd, then it can now be closed-moot (I would say). If there were issues needing mediation amongst other participants, then it could still be live. I'm not sure which of those two is the case, so was trying to find out. As a separate issue, I agree that even if it is now dead it might have useful info for future discussion William M. Connolley (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you are mistaken; it takes two to make an argument. And Hipocrite has neither been banned from the CF article, nor has (so far as I know) changed his POV. And of course we could easily have another edit war in the future even without either of them, due to new editors arriving. So I personally think that no matter how dead is this mediation, on account of just one party being banned, it should continue to be available for immediate use. I even have in mind a particular point that seems already to have become polarized on the CF Talk page: Arata's 2008 experiment has been cited as a reference to a somewhat similar experiment that was very recently published in Physics Letters A. This gives the earlier experiment some RS that it didn't have before (and it is Secondary RS, at that!), and logically implies Arata's 2008 experiment could now be described in the CF article. But Kirk Shanahan and others are focussing on the "recent-ness" of the PLA article, as if that somehow makes the earlier experiment too recent to talk about. Tsk, tsk. V (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

This page is quite inactive, yes, but it certainly seems reasonable to believe that it may be of use again in the future (assuming my work here has been helpful). For the meantime, however, it may make sense to link to this page as though it were inactive. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)