| Revision as of 01:53, 24 February 2009 editAbd (talk | contribs)14,259 edits →Best-known for in lead: This article does need to mention the controversy, but not necessarily in much detail.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 11:37, 15 January 2025 edit undoCewbot (talk | contribs)Bots8,073,076 editsm Maintain {{WPBS}}: 1 WikiProject template. (Fix Category:Pages using WikiProject banner shell with unknown parameters)Tag: Talk banner shell conversion | ||
| (133 intermediate revisions by 30 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{WikiProject banner shell|class=Stub|listas=Fleischmann, Martin|blp=no| | |||
| {{WPBiography | |||
| {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}} | |||
| |living=yes | |||
| |class=Stub | |||
| |priority= | |||
| |auto=yes | |||
| |s&a-work-group=yes | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{Archive box|search=yes| | |||
| * ] <small>(Sept 2007–April 2009)</small> | |||
| }} | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| {{Clear}} | |||
| == lenr-canr link == | |||
| (Note: This is a separate issue to the above whitelisting discussion, and is about one specific case and point) | |||
| ==POV== | |||
| According to ] "Copyrighted material which is reproduced, '''without verified permission''', by someone other than the copyright holder '''must never''' be linked." The link to lenr-canr included on this page is immediately followed by the text "(unverified reprint)". Should this link be included since the disclaimer (which we shouldn't have, as[REDACTED] shouldn't include disclaimers) suggests that the link is breaking this part of[REDACTED] policy? ] <small>]</small> 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The article was tagged with no follow up on the talk page. Frive by tagging is not permitted. As the article looks good and there has been no discussion by anyone, I have removed the tags. --] 05:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC) | |||
| Hmmm, reading through I still think it is highly POV. I removed slang with obviously negative connotations unsourced "burning through... research grant". ] (]) | |||
| == Postgraduate Lectures at Southampton University == | |||
| During the late 1970s, when I was a postgraduate student in the department of Chemical Physics at ], I was privileged to attend a number of lectures on ] by Martin Fleischmann. I recall his precision and attention to detail. Somehow, the idea of ] with its present connotations of ] do not fit in any way with his ] lectures. ] (]) 16:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Moved overlong section from article == | |||
| I have moved this section, which was copy-pasted from a previous version of ], from the article. It is much too long, and it unbalances the article. | |||
| === Fleischmann-Pons experiment === | |||
| {{Main|Cold fusion}} | |||
| Fleischmann said that he began investigating the possibility that ] could influence nuclear processes in the 1960s.<ref name="Fleischmann_2003_1">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2003|p=1}}</ref> He said that he explored whether collective effects, that would require ] to calculate, might be more significant than the effects predicted by ] calculations.<ref>{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2002}}</ref><ref name="Fleischmann_2003_3">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|2003|p=3}}</ref><ref>{{harvnb|Leggett|1989}}</ref> He said that, by 1983, he had experimental evidence leading him to believe that ] systems developed ] structures up to 10<sup>-7</sup>m in size.<ref name="Fleischmann_2003_3"/> In 1984, Fleischmann and Pons began cold fusion experiments.<ref>{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994}} p. 21</ref> In 1989, they reported that one of their experiments resulted in the melting and partial vaporization of the palladium cube used for their cathode, the partial destruction of their lab bench, a small hole in the concrete floor and damage to the fume hood.<ref>{{harvnb|Fleischmann|Pons|1989|p=301}}, {{harvnb|Krivit|2008|Ref=Krivit2008b|page=9}}, {{harvnb|Browne|1989}}</ref> | |||
| ] | |||
| In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons used a ] (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the ], so that heat conduction would be minimal on the side and the bottom of the cell (only 5 % of the heat loss in this experiment). The cell flask was then submerged in a bath maintained at constant temperature to eliminate the effect of external heat sources. They used an open cell, thus allowing the ]eous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the electrolysis reaction to leave the cell, along with some heat. It was necessary to replenish the cell with ] at regular intervals. The authors said that, since the cell was tall and narrow, the bubbling action of the gas kept the electrolyte well mixed and of a uniform temperature. Special attention was paid to the purity of the palladium cathode and electrolyte to prevent the build-up of material on its surface, especially after long periods of operation.{{Fact|date=October 2008}} | |||
| The cell was also instrumented with a ] to measure the temperature of the ], and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After ], it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction.<ref name="FleischmannPons_1989_301">{{harvnb|Fleischmann|Pons|1989|p=301}}</ref> | |||
| A constant current was applied to the cell continuously for many weeks, and heavy water was added as necessary. For most of the time, the power input to the cell was equal to the power that went out of the cell within measuring accuracy, and the cell temperature was stable at around 30 °C. But then, at some point (and in some of the experiments), the temperature rose suddenly to about 50 °C without changes in the input power, for durations of 2 days or more. The generated power was calculated to be about 20 times the input power during the power bursts. Eventually the power bursts in any one cell would no longer occur and the cell was turned off.{{Fact|date=October 2008}} | |||
| In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the ] for funding towards a larger series of experiments. Up to this point they had been funding their experiments using a small device built with $100,000 ].<ref name="LADN_092489">{{harvnb|Crease|Samios|1989|p=V1}}</ref> The grant proposal was turned over for ], and one of the reviewers was ] of ].<ref name="LADN_092489"/> Jones had worked on ] for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in '']'' in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in ] to share research and techniques. During this time, Fleischmann and Pons described their experiments as generating considerable "excess energy", in the sense that it could not be explained by ]s alone.<ref name = "vxuvtq">{{harvnb|Fleischmann et al.|1990|Ref=Fleischmann1990|p=293}}</ref> They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to ]. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest.<ref name="LADN_092489"/> In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their ] meeting differ.<ref name="Lewenstein-1994_8">{{harvnb|Lewenstein|1994|p=8}}</ref> | |||
| In mid-March, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on ] to send their papers to '']'' via ].<ref name="Lewenstein-1994_8"/> Fleischmann and Pons, however, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the ''Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry'' on ], and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.<ref name="LADN_092489"/> | |||
| {{reflist}} | |||
| ==restoring description of experiment to article== | |||
| A brief description of the experiment should be in this article, with details at the main article. I cut it down some. Some references are broken, and it's tricky to fix because simply restoring old code won't work because ] deleted the links to a site with the source, and apparently added, same day, that site, to the Misplaced Pages spam blacklist. Here is a permanent link to where JzG "proposes" adding the link, see section 1.9. . However, JzG is himself an administrator and so he added it himself, immediately. This is the proposal: | |||
| :== lenr-canr.org == | |||
| :Long-term spamming and use to push fringe views in {{la|Cold fusion}}, see also ]. Links actively being promoted by the site owner (e.g. ) in continued furtherance of a real-world dispute which has spilled over onto Misplaced Pages. Inappropriate as a source due to polemic and fringe advocacy, includes material hosted in violation of original publisher's copyright. Adding now, and listing here for transparency. Also newenergytimes.com seems to be apart of the same problem. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| The references can be fixed by making them refer to the original articles, which is cleaner anyway. There is no requirement that an article be available on-line to be cited. Later, if we can remove lenr-canr from the blacklist, and possibly overcome some other obstacles, a "copy at" notice may be inserted. For now, I will note that the activities of the site owner aren't relevant to whether or not a site hosting a copy of a paper may be used as a source. The link removed, in particular, which broke a citation, was to a copy of a paper by Fleischman, and there was no "polemic" in what was cited. It is not our business to punish web sites for "polemic and fringe advocacy." This was not a general External Link, where we need be careful of what we are effectively recommending. I'll not comment on the copyright issue at the moment, beyond saying that I suspect we should not be in the business of deciding whether or not some other organization is violating copyright. Maybe they have permission, for example, maybe the material has been released in some way, etc. And even if not, ''it isn't our business.'' We need protect Misplaced Pages from copyright violation, not the world. --] (]) 18:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * The site is not a reliable source (we have, for example, had links to it inserted purporting to be the 2004 DoE cold fusion review, but actually being a heavily editorialised version). It was spammed by Jed Rothwell, the site owner, who is a perennial IP hopper so not easy to rein in in any other way. It was posted for review at the time in the relevant place, and there was no notice saying "beware of the leopard". Google Scholar gives 14,600 hits for Martin Fleischmann, you're goign to have a hard time persuading me that the best and only source for some ] content in this ] article is a site devoted to the advocacy of a fringe POV, whose major proponent on Misplaced Pages has been its webmaster, which has been abused to misrepresent references on Misplaced Pages, and which I am now being requested by an admin on another language project to take to the meta blacklist. Even if it were not blacklisted, it would be inappropriate, but the inappropriate nature of the site is not the main reaosn for blacklisting, the main reason is spamming by the webmaster - which is completely uncontroversial grounds for blacklisting. Delinking a blacklisted site is perfectly normal. In the old days we would sometimes refuse to blacklist until the site ''had'' been delinked. These days the software has been tweaked to mitigate the collateral damage, but delinking is still standard practice for spammed sites. The most that could be justified, given the past abuse of Misplaced Pages to promote this site by Rothwell and his friends, is whitelisting a single link, if it is genuinely reliable, unavailable elsewhere, significant in context and of encyclopaedic merit. If I'd thought the link was likely to be any of those things I'd not have removed it. Martin Fleischmann is a highly-cited professional chemist with a publication list as long as your arm. I wonder if he would ocnsider that one of the most significant aspects of his current work? I know someone who can ask him personally, so maybe I will get in touch. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::(edit conflict, this reply was written prior to an addition by JzG above.) Thanks for replying, JzG. The web site isn't the source for what was cited in the article, the original article is. But the web site has a convenient copy. The site in question purports to be simply a library of articles on the topic, and which, by its nature, focuses on articles about cold fusion, such as the paper presented by Fleischman which is his personal account of the history -- and which should be cited as such. The diff you provided as evidence of spamming wasn't. The librarian of the site isn't stepping outside our guidelines at all by mentioning it in a Talk page post, and, in fact, that is exactly what someone in his position is supposed to do. I see this as a content dispute, Guy. And using your admin tools in a content dispute is, as you know, highly discouraged. I'm suggesting that you undo this and proceed, should you continue to believe that the reference was inappropriate, as if you were, in matters related to this, an ordinary editor. I am ''not'' attempting to resolve the issue of the legitimacy of the site itself and references to it; this should be done through normal editorial process. | |||
| ::That a site might host an inappropriate article doesn't establish that copies of other publications hosted there should not be linked. Sure, whitelisting a specific link might be done, but it's a lot more trouble and there should be good reason for blacklisting in the first place, supported by consensus, or made in the expectation of consensus and in the absence of objection (from other than the alleged spammer!). | |||
| ::Thus whether the webmaster spammed or not is not the first issue. I have seen no evidence that he did, you have not presented such, at least not where you've pointed to, but perhaps he did. That is ''not'' relevant to the rights of other editors of these articles to use resources as they may deem appropriate, without being prevented by your administrative action, taken, apparently, without consultation. I am unaware of the significance of leopards, nor of what the "relevant place" might be, beyond your "proposed" listing, done immediately or even after the listing itself, which attracted no comment, and which did not establish, except by your assertion of your own opinion, the fact of spamming. The arbitration you cited may have had, somewhere, *something* other than your own opinion, but that's the problem with citing a large document without any specific reference within it! | |||
| ::Again, all this is moot, because your action listing the site was improper on its face. Unless you believe that this blacklisting is so important that it warrants ], in which case I assume you would be ready to defend it as such, please undo your listing and don't use your tools in this dispute. | |||
| ::As to ], the events around the experiment were highly notable. The removed link was to a copy of Fleischmann's account of the history. I am ''not'' claiming that the link is ''necessary.'' What I'm claiming now is that editors should not be hampered by an administrator making a private decision about spamming and content, unless there is very clear need for the blacklisting. --] (]) 23:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == removal of link to Fleischmann account of history == | |||
| JzG removed the link to Fleischmann's history of the cold fusion affair The link was taken out by him in December 18, 2008, and then the site which hosts it was blacklisted by him. This was discussed above. ] went to the whitelist and, with considerable effort and delay, got the specific link on lenr-canr.org whitelisted () , then . The article is autobiographical, Fleischmann recounting his history of the cold fusion affair. It's inherently notable, because he is notable. If anything in that history is controversial, the text should be attributed, but notability isn't an issue. JzG, your repetitive restoration against apparent consensus is edit warring. Please don't edit war, but discuss here. --] (]) 15:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is part of a list of works. It's customary on articles about scientists and writers to have a complete list of publications, papers, etc. --] (]) 18:26, 9 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: No, not a full list - and it's not a "publication" as conference papers are not peer-reviewed. Do you have an independent source for the significance of that piece of work within Fleischmann's overall career? Otherwise we're just getting into laundry list territory. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Fleischmann has only published a few papers on cold fusion, and he is notable almost exclusively for his work on that field, and articles on scientists use to have a list of papers published by them (and yeah, that includes conference proceedings). It's not as if Fleischmann has hundreds of papers and we have to decide which are relevant and which are not.I hate to use a ] argument, but we actually make laundry lists on articles of scientists and writers, see ] or ] (includes stuff like notes from a lecture) and ] (see the last section "Collaborations and contributions") --] (]) 20:53, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I would agree that this is a core problem. In fact, I wonder if this article should simply be a redirect. At the moment it seems ot me to hover between ] and ]]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Hum, that's an interesting point. This and Pons could be redirected to ] ( is already a redirect to ]) --] (]) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::: So it seems to me, anyway. Per ] this does look borderline; not a problem if the subject is not contentious, but int his case Fleischmann (and Pons) are both controversial, and in both cases this controversy has a single source I think. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Google Scholar (the poor man's ]) shows about 12,500 references to ]; Fleischmann had a lot to do with its discovery. I believe that the guy would have been notable even if the cold fusion fiasco had never happened. ] (]) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Well, if I'm correct, Fleischmann was well-known in the electrochemistry field before the ] affair, I suspect there are many other publications. The conference paper on the history was a citation, at one time, for text in the article about the history, and that is possibly a more useful way to present it, not as simply another paper. I'll look at it if I have time. The ''significance'' argument is a red herring. The ] affair is highly notable and significant, famous, and that paper is Fleischmann's account. If there is a problem with neutrality, something controversial in it, it should be attributed as his account of the history, that's all. "According to Fleischmann ...." If it were on something for which he's not known, that would be a different matter. Then independent notice would be important. Now, is there independent notice? I'm not sure, I haven't searched for it because I haven't thought it necessary. There is notice, I think, by notable scientists, which could be attributed to them, but I'd have to do the research. To me, guidelines are guidelines and the gold standard is consensus. Consensus is not only how we ''interpret'' the guidelines, but is also how they are formed and modified, as documentation of existing practice. There are certain non-negotiables established by the Foundation, but this does not approach them. --] (]) 21:13, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Abd, can you point at any source asserting notability outside the Cold fusion thing? If not, he would fall under BLP1E. --] (]) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, I believe I can. I've read over and over that he was very well known in electrochemistry before the CF affair, that's one reason why so many electrochemists took the announcement seriously and did the work to reproduce the effect, and were generally more successful, apparently, than physicists who didn't have a clue about electrochemistry. It was a fundamentally ''electrochemical'' experiment, it didn't use the tools of nuclear physics, and where he did, he screwed it up, that Compton edge problem, right? So I'll look for some sources. | |||
| * Missing the point. This is a conference proceeding at a fringe conference, it is not a peer-reviewed paper. I would like to see some independent evidence that it is considered significant as an element of his overall body of work. That is perfectly normal, and the onus is clearly on those proposing disputed content to justify its inclusion. What I have asked is pretty straightforward and a normal interpretation of ]: an external independent reference that marks this as significant, rather than simply being part of the long-term campaign of POV-pushing by CF activists. This is nto to doubt Enric's good faith, it is to question the relevance of a paper presented at a conference on a pariah field within electrochemistry, a reaosnable request for any content in a ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 22:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| JzG, do you have reliable source that the conference was a "fringe conference." Further, *no claim is made, at least not by me, that this paper is a "significant element" of his work. It's not his work, actually, it is his ''history'' of his work. As to long-term campaigning by CF activists, this is an encyclopedia, and what activists did or did not do is ''irrelevant.'' Valid content doesn't become invalid because somebody pushed it. Further, who added this link to the article? Was it a CF activist? Have you ever bothered to look? Hint: I have, and I've written who did, but, you know what? You don't seem to read what is written, you keep reading some kind of battle with "CF activists" and "POV pushers," and everything is interpreted through that lens. That's why we have ]. Battles cause collateral damage. And the "fringe POV pushers" aren't the only ones crossing the line. | |||
| What you are claiming, essentially, is that autobiographical material, edited for publication by a university, isn't relevant for a biography of the person. Do you really think this would stand up to discussion by the community? Want to find out? I don't suggest it at all, but if you do one more removal here without consensus, like you did the last four, we ''will'' find out. Well, I just looked. You did. Sorry. See you around. --] (]) 05:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Um, no, what I'm claiming is that conference papers delivered at fringe conferences are not notable in the career of a living individual unless independent sources say they are. Of course it's a fringe conference, it's a gathering of those proposing ]; our article makes it absolutely plain that it is ''de facto'' fringe. Which is probably why this is published on a kook website rather than in a journal with some independent peer-review process. If Fleischmann wants to put an autobiogprahy on his university website we can absolutely use that, ] would support it, in this case the material is not an autobiography and it's not subject to objective peer-review so ] indicates non-inclusion absent independent evidence. Autobiography is biographical material about oneself, this is simply self-authored self-published material, a completely different matter. You seem to be using ] as the major justification for yuour actions and refusing to engage on the policy issues I have raised, please stop doing that. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This is the latest in a series of reasons given why this source can't be used. At some point, I have to conclude that the source isn't the problem, it's something else. I find the argument above bizarre. Fleischmann, it is acknowledged, can put up an autobiography, on a site he controls, and we can use it. An account of personal history is an autobiography. The source is Fleischmann's account of the history of the cold fusion affair, what was in his ''mind'' as he pursued the research. As Fleischman is notable, and cold fusion is notable, this paper is inherently notable, as long as it is reliably sourced to Fleischmann. This paper does include descriptions of his scientific ruminations, but the paper isn't cited to prove any scientific point, it is about the history, what led to his startling announcement in 1989, etc. It isn't "published by a kook website." That attitude is, unfortunately, a big part of the problem, this has become personal between JzG and Rothwell, the manager of the site. The paper was published by ], as part of the conference proceedings. This establishes that the university considered the conference notable. Hence, if we can use Fleischmann's writings, self-published, JzG is asserting that we can't use his writings if published in conference proceedings, which would be more notable, not less? | |||
| No, the initial issue here was lenr-canr.org. JzG removed all links to lenr-canr.org, giving reasons of "copyright infringement," "unreliable source," "fringe," etc. Here, he makes up more reasons. He is simply trying to enforce his position, previously by using his admin tools, and here by edit warring. He's now removed this source from this article ''six times.'' At what point do we say, "Enough! Discuss before removal!" I'm not reverting him. ''I don't edit war.'' ] is more important than whether or not this source is in this article, but apparently JzG disagrees. What, exactly, is the emergency that justifies such firmness of position? What harm does this paper do if linked? It must be great, in JzG's mind, or else he would not risk so much. | |||
| I know ], and I'll follow it. To me, edit warring is not an option, I dislike even one revert, and I never assert two unless other editors have joined me, and with three, I'd need to see more than one such editor or have very, very strong reasons, such as serious BLP issues or clear copyvio. | |||
| For reference, the edit warring here, I reported at ]. --] (]) 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : Abd, I removed the links because the site was abused, copyright violating material was found, falsification of sources was found, and the site is unreliable and has been extensively promoted by its owner. This is '''absolutely normal and correct'''. We do it all the time. Your crusade seems to be based entirely on the asserion of ill-intent and base motives, and you have no evidence to support this, and have been repeatedly asked to stop it. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm relatively new to the details of this page, but, IMHO: | |||
| :#We cannot use a self-pubished list or a self-published list edited by the university as a source for a list of publications. Individual publications which can be verified may be listed. | |||
| :#We ''can'' use a self-published "history" as an indication of what he says, especially if it differs from "official" histories. (See my new section, below.) | |||
| :#Conference proceedings are not normally peer-reviewed, but do constitute publications, and are an indication that the conference may have invited the speaker. If it's a fringe conference, the invitation ''might'' still be notable. | |||
| :— ] ] 14:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::: Absolutely. And the way we know, is that independent sources say so. All I have asked is for those independent sources, which would seem to me to be a reasonable minimum before linking to fringe material on a blacklisted website. Only Abd seems to think this is especially controversial. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I looked at ], he meets points 3 and 7, and you only need one of them to keep the article. --] (]) 22:10, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Trying to find out what's really going on=== | |||
| After going through various edits, I think that the following differences in viewpoint clashed due to miscommunication. The paper in question is: | |||
| # A dubious cold fusion research paper, submitted to and published by a fringe (cold fusion) conference. | |||
| # A piece of autobiography describing the most important events in the BLP subject's life. It's clearly authentic because it was published by the university press of a major university. | |||
| The fact that this paper is available on lenr-canr.org is: | |||
| # Because it is a cold fusion pushing, copyright violating website. | |||
| # In line with standard practice of scientific publishing: authors often obtain the right to co-publish a paper on their homepage; in this case in a similar place. | |||
| The purpose of including the paper in the publications list is: | |||
| # To cite a non-notable bad science article from a Misplaced Pages article in order to push the cold fusion POV. To generate traffic for lenr-canr.org. | |||
| # To cite a paper in which the BLP subject gives an autobiographical account of those events in his life which would turn him from a respected scientist into a pariah. To make it easily accessible. | |||
| My first reaction in each case was to choose 2, but I can see how Guy might choose 1. It seems hard to reconcile these two POVs since the outcome is more or less binary: The paper is or isn't cited. But acknowledgements from either side that the other POV is a reasonable one to hold could help to avoid further escalation. --] (]) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Hans. Absolutely, it is possible to hold the exclusion position, particularly if the full facts and relevant guidelines aren't considered. Beyond that, it isn't clear, because what has happened, as often happens with polarized situations, a farrago of arguments are presented, and even if each one of them is false or misleading, the ''assembly'' can look impressive. Let me go over the possibilities you gave, and I think this approach is excellent. | |||
| :*A dubious cold fusion research paper. It's actually an account of the history, not of new research. Straight from the horse's mouth, I'd say it's invaluable. In the end, the conference presentation only establishes notability ''within the field of the conference.'' | |||
| :*It's clearly authentic, there have been no claims otherwise, credible or not. I.e., the author is Fleischmann. | |||
| :*cold fusion pushing site. It's irrelevant for our purposes whether or not the site is pushing some POV. The site is not the source, the paper is, the site is only for a copy of the paper. We can cite the paper without the site. However, the decision on the requested whitelisting () to today's copy of the discussion, which considered both "very unreliable source and host of copyvios." was to whitelist the link to the paper. That, of course, doesn't prejudice decisions here about appropriateness, it merely prejudices, to a degree, claims of exclusion here for "unreliable source" and "host of copyvios." The decision was made on February 1, and could be reversed, but JzG did not protest there until February 16, after he had already removed Enric's replacement of the link in the article (remember, it was there from before JzG's original removal on December 18 when he blacklisted lenr-canr.org), and he had already removed the citation here twice, and was one minute away from the third time. I'll get back to this. | |||
| :*copyright violating. See the whitelist discussion, but also other discussions can be cited showing opinion from several administrators that copyvio is very unlikely. JzG has, again and again, for a long time, asserted copyvio, the question has been addressed many times. He's prevailed several times, but with a farrago of arguments, and no actual evidence of copyright violation, only a presumption that if it was published by Elsevier, there ''must'' be no permission, since, according to JzG, Elsevier doesn't give permission. How does he know? Well, apparently he asked once, and they said something like "No, we don't do that." Argument per anecdote. This is the fact: we have no evidence of copyright violation, therefore we do not "know" that there is violation. The site is highly notable based on google searches, and it is impossible that serious copyright violation would be hosted there given that, they'd be shot down in a flash. ] only suggests that we not ''knowingly'' link to violating material. This accusation, which is actually libelous, should stop, unless there is ''evidence.'' | |||
| :*In line with standard practice. lenr-canr.org's manager, Jed Rothwell, has written, in a letter reproduced in the delisting discussion locally before JzG went to meta and made it moot, that he obtains permission from both authors and publishers before hosting a paper; he would like to host every paper in his very extensive bibliography, but he's only been able to get permission for a third of them (as I recall). It is common practice, not necessarily standard. I find it for some papers and not for others. In this field, lenr-canr.org is very well known as a place to find a complete bibliography and copies of many documents, and the google results show that. | |||
| :*purpose of inclusion to push CF POV. The link was originally added here, 16 December 2008, by ] . However, he was copying the references from ] on a section, so, while he should be considered responsible for what he added, it could be argued that he didn't pay attention to the particular reference. The link was added to ] October 8, 2008, by ] (now topic banned for treating Misplaced Pages as a ]. (In some prior discussions I may have confused this a bit.) Because of the insertion by Pcarbonn, the claim of purpose is plausible; but, in fact, the purpose of an editor for inclusion, as to original insertion, is irrelevant when other editors assert the content. ''This time,'' the link was inserted, after a lot of trouble getting it whitelisted -- it is not easy -- by ], and there is no credible assertion that his motive is POV. I supported him and I'll leave it to others to judge my motives, but I'll say, for myself, no. I favor NPOV way above any personal POV, which doesn't mean I don't have POVs, I do, and I need them and I need to know them. | |||
| :*to generate traffic for lenr-canr.org. This is actually preposterous, the effect of this link on traffic for lenr-canr.org would be negligible. JzG in the past has confused lenr-canr.org with newenergytimes.com, where Pcarbonn wrote an article (a rather good one, actually) on Misplaced Pages process, it's referenced in the ArbComm case on Pcarbonn. But the paper is excellent for anyone interested in knowing Fleischmann's view of the history, and I assume that was Pcarbonn's motive, there is no reason to suspect anything else about "traffic," and I'm also certain this wasn't Enric's purpose, nor would this purpose have been tolerated by the blacklist admin who whitelisted. | |||
| :*To cite a paper in which the BLP subject gives an autobiographical account of those events in his life which would turn him from a respected scientist into a pariah. To make it easily accessible. Uh, yes, well said. The paper part refers to the original publication by ], the "make it easily accessible" is why whitelisting was requested for the link to lenr-canr.org. | |||
| :I'd like to know which of these points are seriously in contention; then, as to those which are, we can start a section on it specifically and try to find consensus; failing that, we can go for RfC. --] (]) 23:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I took JzG's repetitive removal of the link to Fleischmann's article to AN/I, where, as often happens, editors ignored the behavioral issue and began dealing with the content issue, and, since AN/I isn't about content, the discussion was then closed as being inappropriate for AN/I. But this does leave us with the content issue. Since no other editor here supported JzG's position on this link, I'm restoring it. ''I am enforcing consensus,'' not my personal opinion; while I think the paper is extraordinarily useful, it may be more useful in the ] article. But it is not out of place here. --] (]) 04:13, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, it is out of place. No other editor than you has ''opposed'' his position, so you '''are not''' enforcing "consensus". — ] ] 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I too support the removal of material from lenr-canr.org ] (]) 07:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I wrote in another place that it was 4:1 for inclusion. It's now 4:3. Just so it's clear. That proves nothing except that inclusion is a reasonable position. Do you need a list of those who supported inclusion? It's been presented elsewhere. At the time of writing, JzG was the only one taking the link out.--] (]) 22:29, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Did you two even read my comment with which this section started, or is there a TLDR problem? Arthur, if you think I am "no other editor" (like Threeafterthree seems to do) then please report me or Abd as a sockpuppet. Cardamon, this is not "material from lenr-canr.org", this is (among other things) highly relevant autobiographical material which the author, instead of putting it on his professional homepage, published in conference proceedings that were published by the university press of ]. The link to lenr-canr.org is simply because that's where the paper is available for free. So far ''nobody'' has denied these easily verified facts, and ''none'' of those who oppose inclusion of the citation have given any argument why the BLP subject's formally published statement about the facts surrounding his main claim to notability must be censored. | |||
| ::::Please stop the ] and start responding to rational arguments with rational arguments rather than by ] and repeating your one argument that has been dismissed ''for a good reason which you are not responding to''. --] (]) 07:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::This is the third time I've been in a discussion like this about the reliability of information hosted on lenr-canr. This is in this ; it links to two previous discussions of the issue. Briefly, JzG caught lenr-canr altering a PDF. ] (]) 10:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What I've seen is that there will be a discussion in which a laundry list of arguments, many of the irrelevant, are presented. There is no actual conclusion, but those who read it are left with an impression. And then that gets presented now. Cardamon, do you want to stand on that conclusion, take responsibility for it? You vouch for the evidence? Be careful, please. | |||
| :::::::I couldn't find the links Cardamon asserts above, but I do know what JzG has asserted on this. Lenr-canr.org hosts copies of the 1989 and 2004 DOE reports. They include an introduction by and attributed to Rothwell. A publisher decides to republish a public domain document and puts an introduction with it, I've seen it many times. Should we link to that paper? Probably, not, if there is a more direct and more reliable links. But that it ''totally'' irrelevant to this particular link, here. Please focus on this link. I'm sorry I've given so much background, but because this blast from the past keeps recurring, I believe I need to clear it up. In the old discussion, Cardomon, you also asserted, and some seemed to assume, the copy violation charges and claims were made that if we linked to a legitimate paper there, readers could alter the URL and find copyvios. However, they can do the same thing anyway, if they simply have the authors and name of a paper hosted at lenr-canr.org, it's typically top return from Google. | |||
| :::::::In my own study of this, I concluded that it was conclusions first, evidence and arguments later. I.e., a conclusion has been made, and then arguments are manufactured to bolster the original argument. That's why we need to look at one issue at a time; otherwise it becomes, "Well, that argument might be a bit weak, but there are five other arguments." What I've seen, over many years of dealing with stuff like this (back to the 1980s on ], is that when the second argument is demolished, the response remains identical. The number of "other arguments" does not decline. People make conclusions based on seat-of-the-pants affinities, first impressions, etc., and sometimes it can be very difficult to dislodge them, no matter how much and how cogent a body of evidence is presented, unless there is some orderly process that goes through the arguments and deals with each one, with conciousness of the overall balance. It happens on Misplaced Pages, but usually only at the RfC level or above, most reliably at ArbComm, where each finding of fact and conclusion is debated and voted on. --] (]) 22:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Thanks for the meaningful response. I won't say anything to it for now, because the discussions you are linking to are slightly vague about what actually happened and don't seem to give an exact pointer to an earlier discussion with more detail. Perhaps I will have more time to look into this later. In any case it seems to me that this is only an argument for not linking to lenr-canr.org, while citing the paper is fine. Is that correct? Sorry I didn't understand that earlier. --] (]) 12:16, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::What has happened here is a wall has arised with layers of arguments. Material from lenr-canr.org was removed on argument of copyright violation. This argument persisted even when no examples were given that actually show violation, and there is quite a bit of evidence and opinion by knowledgeable editors that there is no reason to assume the site is violating copyright. But if we get through that barrier, then it has been asserted that the site is fringe and the material fringe, POV-pushing. But this is a biography of Fleischmann, not a science article. If ] is fringe, ''he'' is fringe and to write a biography on him, we may need to reference some "fringe" sources, particularly the autobiographical one like this. (It also discusses the science, but it's quite clearly his opinion or recollection.) So, get through that barrier, then it's allegedly been linkspammed. I've seen no evidence of linkspam, but JzG managed to convince the meta editors to blacklist based on allegations of copyvio, fringe, and linkspamming, even though the "linkspamming" alleged wasn't links! (That takes the cake, actually!) And I'm not going to raise the issue again at meta until we have some usages, I know exactly what the arguments will be. So Enric Naval went to the trouble of requesting whitelisting, and Beetstra granted it. Then Enric put it back in the article, and JzG took it out, and began the seesaw of arguments again. He'd take it out with one argument, that would be answered and it would be put back in, so he'd take it out with a new argument. No sign of willingness to discuss before reverting. The "conference proceeding not reviewed" argument was given before, and considered. It's not relevant here, because this is a biography of Fleischmann, and it's his paper! | |||
| ::::::::As to reliability of lenr-canr.org, that's totally irrelevant here. lenr-canr.org is a library of papers where the site has (they claim and it is likely to be true) received permission from authors and publishers to host them. Lenr-canr.org isn't the source, the original documents are, in this case Conference proceedings published by ]. There is no reason to believe that the document is altered by lenr-canr.org. It would be pretty silly, it would trash their credibility. The book is hard to get, but there are copies in the U.S., for example. I'll answer Cardamon about the allegedly altered PDF, above. I wonder if people here are aware that charging lenr-canr.org with copyright violation and forgery of documents is libelous? I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, if necessary, but we should be far more careful about it than JzG has been. | |||
| ::::::::To answer one specific question, yes, we can put the paper in without the link to lenr-canr.org. However, this is where Fleischmann has chosen to allow it to be hosted. It's not being used as a reference (it was in the past, and that should properly be restored). A reader seeing it could then search for it and find it quite easily. For example, search for "Fleischmann searching Tsinghua" Today, top hit is Misplaced Pages. Just below that is lenr-canr.org. I've typically found that, lenr-canr.org doesn't need Misplaced Pages for page rank. My question is -- and was with respect to many links to lenr-canr.org -- "Why not link a cited paper to a site which hosts it?" It's a service to the readers, the counterargument has been it's "not necessary to satisfy ], which is true but obtuse, when it comes to the purpose of the project. --] (]) 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't know specifically about lenr-cnar.org, but there are some sites which really ''do'' put up false transcripts of documents or articles. If lenr-cnar did that ''once'', it should remain inappropriate as references for the content of the articles, until the management changes. Perhaps it shouldn't be blacklisted, to allow references in an article about itself. | |||
| :::::::::It still seems possible to include if that citation tag accepts "format=disputed reprint"; I haven't checked that particular citation tag to see if it does, but some questionable sites are allowable with the appropriate format tag. — ] ] 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| <outdent>For anyone who is unable or does not have the time to follow links, this is what Guy wrote : | |||
| <blockquote> | |||
| Checking sources, always a good idea. For example, when the article mentioned the DoE report it linked to what looked as if it was a mirror of the report on lenr-canr.org. I would prefer to link direct to the report on a .gov domain, so I opened the pdf to get the report number and reference. Guess what? The pdf turns out to begin with a polemic by Jed Rothwell. Who, as far as I can tell, linked the thing. | |||
| </blockquote> | |||
| The possibility that files hosted on lenr-canr.org may not always be the same as the original material is not irrelevant here; it '''IS''' the major point. @Abd - Assuming good faith, you did ''no''t toss around legal terms in an attempt to intimidate editors with whom you disagree. @Hans - yes, a reference to this paper that did not go thru lenr-canr could be used as evidence of what Fleischmann has said about, for example, his own thought processes. (It would be good to obtain an actual copy of it rather than relying on lenr-canr to not have made any changes in it.) Since conference proceedings are often (I am tempted to say "usually") not peer reviewed, I would be wary of using it as a source for any controversial facts. | |||
| ] (]) 18:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Thanks, Cardamon. That's the affair that I was already aware of. It's been highly misrepresented. First of all, linking to the government was apparently impossible. However, the lenr-canr.org document referenced another site, not a reliable source in itself, which hosts a copy without any introduction, and I agree that this would be a better use than a copy with an editorial introduction by Rothwell, neutral or otherwise, (and I think this is what is currently linked in the reference). I've already considered the issue above, there was no misrepresentation of content involved. Yet this incident has been described as if distortion or misrepresentation of sources was involved. This was an editorial introduction (which is unusual on lenr-canr.org; it's probably related to this being a public domain document, unlike most of what lenr-canr.org hosts). Was it polemic? We don't need to know here, but I don't think so. I'll give the URL, minus http:// to the page, you can decide for yourself. However, this is totally moot with respect to the link proposed here, and the editorial comment was clearly distinct from the government document itself, no reader would have been confused. | |||
| :I've found some of the original diffs, I'll come back with them and with a link to the problem page, if it still exists on lenr-canr.org or if it's in the wayback machine. --] (]) 15:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===Removal on argument of "conference papers often aren't reviewed."=== | |||
| JzG had the last edit in the seesaw reported above, and I reverted that yesterday, no support having appeared for the removal. Today, however, ] reverted, not having participated here, and giving an argument which was considered above (and generally rejected, though with low participation). Let's assume -- I will grant or concede -- that there was no review, this was merely a paper written by Fleischmann, possibly subject to some editing, but simply being his personal account of the history of his research into ]. Is this therefore not usable? The question has been considered above, and guidelines indicate that even "self-published" material by a notable author, on the topic for which the author is notable, are generally usable with attribution. This paper is almost unique in that it gives Fleischmann's view of the history; I learned things in it that have been quite absent from other material. Most notably, ''why'' did Pons and Fleischmann run electrolysis of deuterium for the months it took at that time to see some anomalous effects? It's an important paper, and it's clearly notable. (That's what the Conference adds, though it could have been simply self-published.) Given that there is so much history on this, and that I could expect that reversion of this latest edit might be controversial, I'm simply going to look for consensus on this. On the topic of usability, right now it's running something like 4:2 in favor of inclusion, not that numbers matter that much. I just say that point out that I'm not simply being difficult! --] (]) 21:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Arthur put the reference back (thanks), but not the link. Why not the link? There is no credible assertion that the paper hosted at lenr-canr.org is fraudulent. The paper is quite useful to anyone who wants a deeper perspective into the history. Citing it but not pointing to a copy permitted by the author and publisher seems perverse to me. ] specifically so it could be used here. To try to keep the dicussion specific, I'm starting a new subsection below. --] (]) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| === Should readers be given a link to the paper where they can read it? === | |||
| I'd argue that it's stingy not to give readers, if possible and if we have it, a link where they can read a permitted copy of a paper or reference. While some readers may find the paper anyway (are very likely to do so if they search for it, lenr-canr.org will often come up at the top of Google searches), I see utterly no harm in providing the link that we have all used to read the paper, if we've read it before edit warring over it. If the paper is allowed, the whitelisted link should be with it. If there is disagreement on this, please be as specific as possible, so the issue can be addressed with clarity. --] (]) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| This discussion assumes that the paper can be cited. Please don't argue here about that larger question, there is current consensus -- which can be challenged -- that it may be cited, but that issue distracts from the much simpler issue here. We have a paper listed (and it's been used in the past as a source, I believe), the paper is printed but may be very difficult to obtain in that form, and it is hosted on lenr-canr.org. I don't these facts are under contention. So I'm going to list the arguments as subsections; if we don't compartmentalize discussion like this, we are unlikely to get anywhere, as arguments that aren't supported simply get repeated in larger discussions. If there are other arguments or new arguments, logically distinct, please add new subsections, and please keep the discussion in each subsection clearly on point. --] (]) 18:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| If no cogent argument against insertion appears here within a reasonable time, my intention is to replace the link so that readers can read the paper easily, pending close of this discussion. I will not do so as long as discussion continues without apparent consensus, even though at this point there are more editors who have supported the link than have expressed opposition to it. --] (]) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :This is the wrong forum for the discussion. ] seems more appropriate. — ] ] 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Why? This is a question of a convenience copy, as noted below, not of the use of lenr-canr.org as a normal "reliable source." I see no reason why we can't attempt to resolve this locally, before taking it somewhere else or escalating to a content RfC. But if other editors would prefer that this be discussed at ], I have no objection to that. | |||
| ==== Lenr-canr.org allegedly hosts copyright violations ==== | |||
| , and . Evidence? Be aware, this has been discussed in many places, I've seen no cogent evidence, and experienced editors have commented that there is no reason to believe there is copyvio there. --] (]) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Among the places this has been discussed is . It refers to by ]. JzG , citing ''his own actions,'' or possibly the actions of others based on his copyright claim, as evidence of copyright violation, and then he immediately archived the discussion. There is, however, extended argument on the copyright question on the blacklist page. That discussion did not resolve the copyright issue because it became moot, as, during it, JzG went to meta and He reasserted the copyright issue. The request was granted before any contesting argument was heard. Discussion continued, however, with JzG arguing at length. , stating why he thought copyright violation was unlikely. The close was by a meta admin who did not confirm JzG's concerns about copyright, but decided based on allegations of linkspamming (which is moot for this subquestion). --] (]) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Conclusion ===== | |||
| '''Lenr-canr.org should not be treated as hosting copyvio.''' proposed by ] (]) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support.''' --] (]) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)<small> per Phil, below, a decision here only covers the one link. --] (]) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Support,''' for this one particular link. ] (]) 21:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Neutral'''. This link appears not to be a copyvio, but the guideline that sites which ''generally'' host copyvios should not be linked to is not properly dealt with here. — ] ] 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Is there any credible assertion that "lenr-canr.org" generally hosts copyvio? Evidence? I haven't seen evidence that stands up to examination for ''one'' page, much less "general." If it were general violation, it is still possible that the one page could be linked to, but that question is moot here, I suggest we not address it. Is your "neutral" a stand-aside, i.e, consent to setting aside the copyvio claim ''for this one link''? Or would you prefer a new subquestion: ''Does lenr-canr.org generally host copyvio, suggesting we should not link to any page on the site?''--] (]) 17:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' for this link in any case because it's a relevant source. And probably for other links, unless the primary nature of the site as a pirate site is actually proven. There is no evidence for any particular document that it does not have permission. Major publishers tend to try to enforce their copyright--some of the publishers involved with particularly great energy--and, since the site is prominent, I would regard the continued unchallenged presence of material there as evidence for there being permission. ''']''' (]) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Lenr-canr.org allegedly is a fringe web site or biased ==== | |||
| This should be moot for this usage. Bias could explain why lenr-canr.org hosts the paper, though indications are that they host every related document (skeptical or supportive) where they have been able to get permission, which may be something like one out of three documents listed in their bibliography. We currently, in ], reference a copy of the 1989 DOE review of cold fusion, using http://www.ncas.org/erab/, that's the National Capitol Area Skeptics. I've seen nobody complain about this. There is no reason to believe the Skeptics would alter the review, and the same review has been available from lenr-canr.org, but with an editorial introduction. The same argument applies for any document hosted at lenr-canr.org. The original document is the source, and the link is to a convenience copy. --] (]) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| From ]: | |||
| :A "convenience link" is a link to a copy of your source on a webpage provided by someone other than the original publisher or author. For example, a copy of a newspaper article no longer available on the newspaper's website may be hosted elsewhere. When offering convenience links, it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy is a true copy of the original, without any changes or inappropriate commentary, and that it does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. Accuracy can be assumed when the hosting website appears reliable, but editors should always exercise caution, and ideally find and verify multiple copies of the material for contentious items. | |||
| :Where several sites host a copy of the material, the site selected as the convenience link should be the one whose general content appears most in line with Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view and Misplaced Pages:Verifiability. | |||
| From this, "fringe" would apply to preference order, and suggests additional caution with regard to accuracy, but, by itself, doesn't prohibit linking. --] (]) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Conclusions ===== | |||
| '''"Fringe" is relevant to ], not for convenience links to copies of documents otherwise usable.''' proposed by ] (]) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support''' --] (]) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''' (not sure if this belongs here, please move if not) ] seems to disagree with section somewhat ] (]) 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::You would mean "disagree with proposed conclusion"? You are welcome to propose a different conclusion.--] (]) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose'''; fringe sites are more likely to alter material, or to selectively quote material, so this relates to the question of whether the material ''is'' properly quoted on the site. — ] ] 16:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's not related, actually. The issue here is whether "fringe" alone justifies not putting up a convenience link. If there is fear of alteration, that is a separate argument. "More likely" would also belong there. ''If the copy is considered or reasonably presumed accurate,'' does the fringe argument still stand? See the accuracy section, please. --] (]) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Uncertain''' I think it needs to be shown case by case. ''']''' (]) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Lenr-canr.org allegedly alters documents ==== | |||
| All claims of this nature, as far as I know, have been based on an editorial introduction given to one of the DOE reviews, <s>either</s> 1989 <s>or 2004, or both, I'm not sure. It's hard to find, the current copies of these reviews hosted on lenr-canr.org don't have an introduction (???). I know that Rothwell was pinged about the introduction and he may have removed it. I've been looking for it on the wayback machine, which supposedly has old copies, but which isn't responding, but I know I saw such a document at one time, possibly following a link given by another editor in a prior discussion on this point.</s> It was innocuous, relatively speaking, (an "editorial comment" will state the views of an editor!) and it was clearly separated from the actual review, so no reader would have been deceived. Properly, the article long ago moved on to link directly to a pure copy rather than to one with editorial comment. However, this incident was far from showing fraud or "alteration of documents," in themselves. Rather, the document was, perhaps, improperly framed, which is a quite different matter. Note that the claim of alteration has been used to remove many links to lenr-canr.org in the past, even though the documents were clearly original pdfs with no comment at all. --] (]) 19:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The discussion of the blacklisting on meta includes the link to the allegedly altered document, provided by JzG: lenr-canr.org/acrobat/ERABreportofth.pdf (http:// has been removed to the blacklist doesn't stop this edit). JzG also copies to the meta discussion, the introduction. While certainly not neutral, it's also not polemic. I agree with every statement in it (without having verified some of the asserted ''facts,'' such as bacteria in heavy water). We have also a reliable source below which confirms some of the claims about the 1989 DOE report. But Rothwell's opinions don't constitute reliable source, it was proper to link directly to the Skeptics' copy of the paper instead of one with editorial comment, leaving only the one issue: was this the kind of "alteration" which would call into question the reliability of copies on lenr-canr.org, and I conclude, clearly, no. A link was given to another copy without any editorial comment (which is still used at ], even though it is not, itself a reliable source) and the editorial comment was clearly set off from the document itself. So this argument is moot. --] (]) 21:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Firstly, this is not "alleged" as your title says. This is unequivocal fact. | |||
| :Secondly, the argument is far from moot. If we accept that at least some documents have had POV inserted into the actual source paper (and this is a fact), then nothing on the site should be linked. Look at it this way. I could easily start up a site right now and host a number of source papers. Could I then use it as a reference on Misplaced Pages, rather than the totally impartial DOI links? Let's further say that I altered some of the leads of the papers pointing out how the reasoning of the cold fusion advocates wasn't very good. Would you still call my site "reliable"? The fact that the site is under the exclusive control of a strongly opinionated advocate (instead of a totally neutral partly like a citation provider), AND that advocate has DEMONSTRATED that he has added his own POV directly to the leads of original source papers, makes the site totally inappropriate to be used for references. ] (]) 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Thanks, Phil. It's alleged, whether true or not. Please meditate on ]. The section header is NPOV, as it should be. We could take the headers and convert them all into one side of the argument, and frame them as "Arguments against use of the convenience link," but I think that the header as it is remains closer to guidelines for RfC, which this effectively is. | |||
| ::The DOE report was altered, yes. It was altered by conversion to PDF. Otherwise, the document itself was not altered. The original is plainly separate. Suppose a source document is published in some book that is available on-line. The document is accurately reproduced, with no confusion reasonably possible. The book contains other documents. Is this "alteration?" The document which is currently linked for the 1989 report ''also'' is altered, technically, and it ''also'' is a possibly biased host. And that is moot. The alteration involved, in either case, doesn't involve fraud or misrepresentation, and ''even if it did,'' it was one document, put up years ago, among over a thousand. There is no credible assertion that the ''present link'' has been altered, or that it would be altered, and it would be entirely against the interest of the site owner to do so, he has a very substantial reputation to maintain. | |||
| ::As to linking to your hypothetical web site, yes, we could link to it, ''if'' there was no reason to believe that the specific papers linked to were altered or would be altered (and prepending a clearly distinct introduction is not "alteration,") and ''if'' it was reasonable to assume that you have permission, which can be a bother to obtain, and ''if'' there were no paper available online without that editorial introduction. And this is moot here. There is no alteration here. "Reliable" is a red herring, because of the usage of the word in "Reliable source." lenr-canr.org is not being asserted as a reliable source, in the sense of being free of bias. It's reliable in that there is no credible evidence of alteration of documents that would mislead readers, which is the point, isn't it? The readers. Remember the readers, that's why we are here. Some of us, anyway. | |||
| ::I have not stated that the argument is moot, intrinsically. It's moot because the claim of alteration, as striking at the use-reliability of the site (not the source-reliability), is misleading. No fraud has been shown, at all. --] (]) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I could request that someone look at the original document from ], copies do exist in the U.S., not to mention China and probably elsewhere, and I might be able to get a faxed copy. I just think that the charge of alteration is so preposterous ''with respect to this paper,'' that it isn't worth the effort, but I'll do it if consensus is that it's required or it can't be used. --] (]) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Conclusions ===== | |||
| '''Only fraudulent alteration, not shown for lenr-canr.org, would be relevant.''' proposed by ] (]) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Addition of content, but not fraudulent and clearly distinct, does not impeach the site.--] (]) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Oppose''', for two reasons. | |||
| *#Abd's interpretation of the orginal allegation of ''fraudulent'' alteration appears incorrect. | |||
| *#Even non-fraudulent alteration means that the original text is ''not'' on the site. | |||
| *:— ] ] 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Arthur, that would apply to that other link, not to this one. Are we getting into a semantic argument over what "original text" means? Is there any credible assertion that ''this link'' has been altered, or that the other "alteration" was one which indicates the kind of malfeasance that would raise into serious question all documents hosted there? As to ''text,'' which is what counts, the original text was present on lenr-canr.org, modified only by conversion to pdf. --] (]) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If the other link was altered, then it would be credible to assert that this one was, unless independently verified (and a credible assertion could be made that it's unlikely to change). I'm more familiar with tax protester sites, which do such wierd things as post the (tax protester's) brief as if it were the Court opinion, and sites created by a certain now-banned editor. — ] ] 16:40, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Right, there are lots of reasons one might reasonably suspect document alteration. They don't apply in this case! I'm now leaning toward taking this question to RSN as you suggested, if we can't find quick agreement here. This matter of alteration has been asserted over and over as if it were a proven thing. Do you agree with the oft-repeated claim that reprehensible alteration, the kind that would impeach the site, has taken place? That lenr-canr.org was deceptive in hosting a public domain document with an editorial introduction? It's done all the time, you know. From the convenience copy guideline, that introduction deprecates lenr-canr.org as a site for a convenience copy, ''for that one link, and that is not in contention, and this was resolved at ] long, long ago.'' Note that the lenr-canr.org copy included a link to a copy without the editorial comment, so if there were true alteration, they'd have been setting themselves up for discovery. --] (]) 17:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *''Almost''' Rampant chronic inaccuracy is another reason for not using a site, not just fraud. But the matter here was a legitimate and specified edit,. Is there other evidence of major error, from any cause? ''']''' (]) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Link was allegedly inserted by ], alleged POV-pusher and ] ==== | |||
| *16:37, 16 December 2008 ] (References: copied {{citation}}s from Cold fusion) | |||
| ::We are responsible for what we copy from one article to another; however, setting that aside, who placed the original link in ]? -- diffs from that article: | |||
| *14:57, 8 October 2008 ] (+ Fleischmann 2002) | |||
| ::The link remained until it was removed: | |||
| *20:57, 18 December 2008 ] (Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright)) | |||
| ::At 21:13 that day, by JzG, making reversion of his edit impossible. | |||
| *And this argument is moot. Edits from even blocked and banned editors, which may be reverted on sight, become the responsibility of editors who return them, who actually originated text in an article is almost completely irrelevant. --] (]) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ===== Conclusions ===== | |||
| '''Who added the link is irrelevant to its continued usage.''' proposed by ], see support !vote below. <small> added by ] (]) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)</small> | |||
| *'''Support'''. Who added the link is irrelevant to its continued usage. ] (]) 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. --] (]) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Just noticed your edit, Verbal. The above discussion was about the specific link you removed, and the "unverified reprint" referred to the fact that ... it wasn't verified as a true copy. That phrase is unusual, but it was allowed because, with it, we had 100% consensus among those participating for inclusion, and this was reviewed by many experienced editors. Hence I'm reverting. It would be better, since you object to the disclaimer, to remove the disclaimer, so I'll do that, though I have no personal objection to it, it's true, and, in fact, it invites verification. I don't agree, though, that we don't allow disclaimers, a POV tag on an article is a disclaimer. Please don't disrupt a settled consensus without obtaining a new consensus. As far as I'm concerned, you would be welcome to reopen the discussion above and to present new arguments, but the issues you now raise were discussed above with respect to this specific link. It's not a separate issue, it is the ''same'' issue. --] (]) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Links to lenr-canr.org were allegedly linkspammed ==== | |||
| Whether true or not, this should be moot. The blacklist is concerned with that, and the blacklist is not intended to prevent regular editors from linking to a site, all the discussions I've seen there say that editors need merely ask for whitelisting of a link. In practice, the blacklisting admins will often assert that a link is not "necessary," but, really, it's up to us, and I doubt that a consensus here would be successfully opposed there. However, the particular link in question, Fleischmann's account of the history of his search, was whitelisted after discussion on the whitelist page. --] (]) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Verbal, the "verified permission" phrase from ] has been removed from the guideline. There was discussion of this section at , the language you cited seems to have only lasted a few weeks. It was the same day you cited it; however, this was , then to the pre-April 11 version. Which is where it stands. Had you looked the next day, you would not have seen this "verified permission" thing. --] (]) 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| =====Conclusions===== | |||
| '''Linkspamming is moot for content decisions.''' proposed by ] (]) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *'''Support'''. Similar to the issue of who originally used it. --] (]) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Verbal took the entire reference out, in spite of massive discussion above. I've reverted. I've been a tad busy elsewhere, see ]. Cat away, mice play.--] (]) 11:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ==== Overall Conclusion ==== | |||
| :: I did no such thing, I removed the link to a possibly copyright infringing copy, the reference remained. I have no interest in Abd's games. ] <small>]</small> 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sorry, "entire reference" meant the link to the page and the dislaimer about accuracy of copy, i.e., "unverified reprint." Yes, the original reference, the conference paper itself, is still there. Now, to the point. The issue of copyright was discussed above, and in many other places. See and open up the collapse to see the discussion. You are editing against consensus, Verbal, and this isn't a game. You've been asked to revert yourself, it seems you are refusing. Just so you know. --] (]) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Quite, Beetstra. No decision is made by the numbers. However, I'd like to know about the view of all editors who happen upon this, and Support or Oppose is quick and easy to enter. I prefer that editors add argument, above, in the argument section, and they are also free to add arguments with the !votes. Substituting polling for discussion would horrify me, ''unless discussion is apparently complete.'' This becomes a mini AfD on one specific usage of a link, possibly later opened wider as a content RfC if we can't find consensus here. Technically, perhaps, the Conclusion sections would have been added later, after more discussion. Should we delete those, refactoring arguments there into the discussion sections above, then add the conclusions sections being better informed of possible consensus? | |||
| ::::Lenr-canr.org claims permission from editors and publishers on their site.. Numerous editors and administrators have agreed that lenr-canr should not be treated as violating copyright. There is no evidence of violation that has been asserted for any page hosted there, and any editor could easily develop such evidence by writing to a publisher, warning them about the copy of their material hosted on lenr-canr.org, and seeing what happens. Note that the link involved here was specifically approved by an administrator. | |||
| ::::Verbal is now edit warring to keep the link out, I just reverted it back in. Verbal has previously argued against lenr-canr.org links on the copyright claim, that argument was rejected at . | |||
| ::::It's been stated that any web site could claim permission, as if such a claim means nothing. However, a false claim subjects the maker of the claim to penalties under copyright law, at least in the U.S. It is, in itself, an offense, separate from the offense of copyright violation. The site owner here is a known individual with known location, the site is reputable and widely known and highly visible. It's preposterous to act as if we should assume copyright violation in the presence of explicit claim to permission for all hosted material. From other editorial activity of ], I must assume that copyright violation claim is a red herring here, the real purpose is an anti-fringe agenda. I'll warn the editor. --] (]) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The relevant section in the ] is this: | |||
| :Beetstra, my opinion is that focused discussion like this is too little done. What happens is that the same arguments get repeated over and over again, even if some of the arguments are preposterous. As it stands, it looks like we might be able to dispose of some arguments right away, though this will become clearer as others participate. That, then, simplifies further process, as the question in dispute becomes narrower. The goal, for me, is consensus, as complete as possible; "polling" in this context is simply a helpful guide to what still needs discussion. --] (]) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{Cquote|Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions.|||]}} | |||
| -- ] (]) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :That really has nothing to do with this. ] <small>]</small> 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Petri Krohn, that remark works on the assumption that lenr-canr.org was blacklisted only to control content. Otherwise, that statement is totally useless in this case. --] <sup>] ]</sup> 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Notability == | |||
| :::The assumption is valid, though. If you read Mike.lifeguard's decision at meta, cited from the current whitelisting discussion at ], you can see that his decision to deny delisting was based on content argument. He made it look like it wasn't. Same as you attempted to do, in fact, before ArbComm. Basically, a conclusion that links are being "pushed," as distinct from simply being used appropriately, depends on a judgment that the links were inappropriate for the articles. No clearly inappropriate link was being used on Misplaced Pages at the time of the decision in December, a conclusion I can support by history of the articles and the obvious consensus on allowing them at that time, plus what has happened since. Verbal's attempt to remove this link on a copyvio claim is a direct denial of your prior decision to whitelist the link. Are you confirming that copyvio policy prohibits this link? If so, then you have changed your mind and you should remove the whitelisting and the offending links. As the deciding admin you can do that and are, indeed, obligated to do that or at least publicly recuse. In this case, Petri Krohn is serving notice that ArbComm is involved. That's valid. The strong attempts to remove this link, based on a farrago of arguments, presented one after another, are clearly POV-pushing, content disputes, and there are two related decisions, not merely the recent one I facilitated. There is also ], which prohibits exclusion of content based on arguments that it's fringe. And that's the real issue here; Verbal is not obsessed with copyvio, there is a reason why he picked this particular link and this particular blacklisted site for his focus, and it's obvious from his editing history with ], and, I assure you, it will be obvious to ArbComm. --] (]) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I just noticed that the above editor has been blocked for one year! That was either very fast (joke) or to do with something else. In any case I think which should just ignore the attempt to derail the discussion here and elsewhere. ] <small>]</small> 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Sure. Blocked over something which has utterly nothing to do with this, and which block may be appealed and overturned, it appears to violate block policy, though that will be, I'm sure, debatable. What does this have to do with our purposes here, beyond a pure ad hominem argument? You may ignore the warning if you wish, and at your own risk. --] (]) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: I would class this as disruption too, as it was a failure to assume good faith and brought an issue which is irrelevant. However, my point in posting was to alert people not to await a response as it would take a long time(!) and to ask to not derail the conversation. I should have made that clearer it seems. It is not an ad hom to let people know he's been blocked. Let's return to the issue at hand, please. ] <small>]</small> 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == I removed 1 ref == | |||
| Questions are raised above about whether Martin Fleischmann is notable apart from his involvement in Cold Fusion. He certainly is, as he is a Fellow of the Royal Society. I would suggest that all Fellows of the Royal Society are notable as only a very select number of scientists are ever elected to be a Fellow. All Fellows should have a WP article. There is no question of sources about Fellows, at least after their death, as the Royal Society publishes a long scholarly outline of the Fellow's life and career. This raises the question whether this article is giving undue weight to the cold fusion controversy. All the publications listed are about it. He probably has published several hundred peer reviewed papers in his career. Other aspects of his work should be added to this article. It should be the Cold Fusion article that concentrates on that. --] ] 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| * Fair point. Do we have a fellowship lecture or citation? Thise often contain a career summary which may well give a better balance than simply counting the papers, which is what has been done thus far. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 09:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I had a quick look earlier to see if I could find anything, but failed. I have never heard of fellowship lectures or citations, but I suppose reasons are given somewhere when people are elected to the Fellowship. --] ] 10:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The article claimed that Fleischmann "was" a Fellow. I corrected this, based on the latest list from the Royal Society still listing him. The obvious problem with balancing this article is that the cold fusion affair overshadows everything related to his earlier notability. I believe could help to identify topics that one may look for. | |||
| * {{Cite journal|title=Obituary : Harold Reginald Thirsk (1915–1995)|first=A. K.|last= Covington|journal=Electrochimica Acta|volume =40|year=1995|page=xii|doi=10.1016/0013-4686(95)90227-9|postscript=<!--None-->|issue=8}} | |||
| I must say I disagree very strongly with Guy about removing Fleischmann's article. It is autobiographical in that it recounts the events that led to his notoriety from his personal view. The argument that it could have been used if he had put it on his homepage, but it can't be used because it was published by the university press of a leading Chinese university is, well, let's call it unconvincing. This is not a matter of clear policies, this is an edit war. --] (]) 10:52, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Heh, I looked at some of the sources that I added to the article, and they don't mention anything about him leaving it (and some are quite exhaustive accounts, I'm sure that they would mention it if it had happened). I wonder where this misconception originated (I was myself convinced that he was no longer a Fellow). --] (]) 13:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The only reference to Fleischmann is: "Together with Wynne-Jones, he formed a strong electrochemistry group in Newcastle which included, notably, ''interlia'': Ron Armstrong, Willy Beck, Alan Bewick, Geoff Briggs, Ray Brown, Arthur Covington, Tom Dickinson, John Dobson, Bob Grieff, Martin Fleischmann, and Keith Oldham.". --] (]) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC) | |||
| :If a person has independent notability, there is no precedent for merging their biography with a highly notable, significant article that "overshadows" their prior work or other work. Biographies are about many things that would not be relevant in an article like ]. This article is sparse on material that could be here. Early work is largely missing, my understanding was, in 1989, that he was a highly respected electrochemist, a leader in the field, one of the world's foremost experts, and would have deserved an article based on this alone. And I've seen that notability referred to many times, in many sources. So, definitely, this article needs work. But the current dispute is about this one reference, which is indeed about cold fusion and his history of investigating it. What led him to look for it? I find it hard to believe that someone who wants to know about Fleischmann, in depth, wouldn't want to read that article. This basic principle, the foundation of the project in Rule Number One, ], has gotten lost in all the wikilawyering and personality clashes and POV wars that have afflicted the topic of ]. It's time that it stops, and that we work together to find consensus, <s>and, unfortunately, JzG has not been a useful contributor to this, he's started edit wars before in the ] article. See ] for a history of his involvement, including the use of admin tools. This is not ], it is a record of what happened, presented with an attempt at neutrality, but it leads to obvious conclusions. JzG argued for the topic ban of ] in the ArbComm case against that editor, and seems to have confused his arguments with ArbComm's conclusion. He blocked and topic banned Jed Rothwell for making suggestions (sometimes not civilly, I will acknowledge) in Talk. The real reason Pcarbonn was topic banned was a conclusion that he had violated ], and it is clear to me that Pcarbonn wasn't the only one violating this, JzG is practically a poster boy for it. If an RfC comes out of this, it will show sustained and heavily pushed assumptions of bad faith, accusations of "fringe" that weren't necessary, assertions of copyright violation without evidence other than personal opinion or suspicion, warped presentation and use of policies and guidelines, and JzG has continued in the face of gentle suggestions from many, and warnings from some. If I'm topic banned, I don't ], I'm not attached, the project doesn't depend on me, this is a ''community.'' But as long as I'm here, and when it is necessary, I'll call a spade a ]. I didn't start here. I was neutral, not involved, when I saw a complaint about the lenr-canr.org blacklisting and decided to investigate, and it was a huge can of worms. I had no opinion about JzG when I started this. I was, however, warned that cleaning up this mess would be a matter of "learning to eat worms." So far, not, because I was taking it one baby step at a time. But we'll see. Meanwhile, no, not merge with ]. Preposterous, just one more diversion.</s> I'd suggest we close this section as resolved unless someone else, here, wants to support a merge. --] (]) 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)<small>Strike unnecessary comment re an editor. Can't delete it because of response below.</small>--] (]) 00:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :: It's a pity your user page attack on me omits the fact that every single one of those complaints was raised at multiple venues and dismissed every time. Never mind. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::''What complaints?'' JzG, you have confused evidence with complaint. The evidence could be used in a complaint, but I've only filed one complaint about your behavior -- besides what was put on your Talk page -- and that was the AN/I report on your edit warring behavior here, ''and the behavior wasn't considered there,'' mostly, rather, discussion was diverted into discussion of the content and then it was speedy closed as inappropriate for AN/I. The issues raised were not addressed. I asked the admin to revert that close, but apparently he didn't. I should go look and see what his last response was..... So, JzG, in spite of what the closing said, it was Not Resolved, because no content issue was raised and no content remedy was proposed and the behavior wasn't addressed. You just mention "fact" that you think is omitted. Okay, put "facts" in, i.e., diffs or logs or ''brief'' comment that should be reasonably NPOV, that show what you claim and that is relevant to the issue of your involvement with ] and your usage of admin tools. Unfortunately, I don't think there are any "complaints" on the page. There is conclusion on the Talk page, you could certainly disagree with my conclusions. --] (]) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Grammar == | |||
| == Cold fusion publication decision == | |||
| “Fleischmann, Pons and the researchers who believed that they had replicated the effect remain convinced the effect is real, but the general scientific community remains sceptical.” “remain” should arguably be “remained” – Fleischmann himself is dead.--] (]) 23:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC) | |||
| I had read, on a ''real'' reliable source at the time, that Pons and Fleishmann were not ready to publish their "cold fusion" results, but did so at the insistance of BYU. The excised text above (from ]) states the reverse. Either would be relevant to the men, as well as to ]. — ] ] 14:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :I'm not certain that there is any conflict with what is above in the removed material moved here (is that what Arthur is talking about) and the claim that the publication was at the insistence of BYU (for patent law purposes). With time, we can find all this in reliable source, I believe. There is much more material in ''marginal source,'' complicated by all the hot air about "fringe." This is a tough issue, in fact, but my position is that "fringe" isn't an argument against the reliability of sources, but if a source is "fringe," then attribution may be necessary. I.e., there are notable "fringe" sources, and within "fringe" fields, there are publications, sometimes, that otherwise meet RS standards. In the matter of ] there is the complication that there is a general scientific consensus, i.e., consensus of scientists, considering all scientists, that Cold fusion was Bad Science, and books were written, such as one by ], an author whom I respect. But those books were then and this is now, a lot of research has continued in the field, with publications in mainstream journals, plus publications in journals, books from reputable publishers, etc., and the balance of recent research and publication has shifted more toward the idea that there might be something worth looking into here. Those who are actually investigating the field are pretty well united that fusion is probably happening, there doesn't seem to be anything else that explains the experimental results, which have involved many different approaches and techniques, but the "fusion" is by an unknown process (there are hypotheses to explain it, but none are generally accepted and certainly none are proven yet). So what is "the scientific consensus"? Is it the consensus of all scientists, the consensus of scientists in a particular general field (what field? electrochemistry? nuclear physics? hot fusion experts?), or the consensus of those active in a subfield, as shown by continuing publication of recent work? | |||
| == Stong Scientific Evidence Claims that "cold fusion" is reproducible, and nuclear == | |||
| :What I do know is that we can resolve these issues if we hew to ], avoid wikilawyering, and focus on the needs and desires of ''readers,'' and seek the broadest possible consensus. That takes civility and detachment from conclusions, and these traits have too often been missing, hence recent ArbComm attention. Where there is controversy, we report the controversy. This isn't like ] reporting of controversy as an avoidance of rules against teaching religious positions on evolution, pretending neutrality but actually favoring a fringe position, but neutral presentation, and the sign that we have found it will be that all reasonable editors will agree, and only those firmly dedicated to true POV-pushing will resist. --] (]) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| NASA Technology Gateway video on chief scientist Zawodny's work at NASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjA5LLraX0 | |||
| ::No, this is an independent question. As ''either'' version (Fleischmann published in an electrochemistry journal, in spite of an agreement with simulateous publication with Jones in ''Nature''; or Fleishchmann didn't want to publish, (perhaps not feeling the results were yet reproducible), but was forced to by BYU) is a notable action of Fleischmann, whichever can be sourced should be in ''this'' article as well as in ]. — ] ] 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| American Chemical Society Press Briefing on Cold Fusion: | |||
| :::Arther, you wrote "reverse," i.e., that the two reports were contradictory. But we clearly agree that whatever can be sourced should be in the article. Indeed, if there ''is'' conflict between reports, we can and perhaps should report both, with due weight. I was just pointing out that there isn't a conflict, on the face. I.e, his action ("published") and his intention or desire ("didn't want to publish but was forced") are not in conflict. Indeed, they are consistent. Or am I confused, and the issue you are raising is Nature vs. an electrochemistry journal. I think it was Nature, but that's easy to check. --] (]) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHc3jOTJYZA | |||
| ::::I see it as inconsistent that, if forced to publish, he would do so ahead of Jones. But perhaps (speculation, not suitable for the article) he felt the Jones' paper was not ready for publication, and didn't want ''his'' paper to be associated with it. — ] ] 16:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don't think that's it. He felt ''he'' was not ready for publication. And subsequent events bore that out. His first publication contained errors and problems that he'd have wanted to avoid, but the rush forced an inadequately prepared work to publication. --] (]) 16:40, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::One piece of the puzzle, see pages 86 and 98 (specially the end of page 86), see pages 26 and following (sorry, don't have time now to lok it better) --] (]) 22:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) Very nice, Enric. Consider this: researchers all over the world rushed to try to replicate the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, but they didn't have a reviewed paper to follow, with experimental details. The Cal Tech group estimated the size of the electrolysis equipment from a photo showing a hand with it. If cold fusion in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment is happening, it's apparent that a great deal depends on what might be obscure details until they become known. Palladium batch apparently matters: with the same experimental conditions, one batch of palladium may produce frequent anomalous heat, another batch, none. I'd interpret this as indicating that trace elements may be important, as catalysts or as spoilers. The Pons-Fleischmann method took months to show the anomalous heat, probably due to the time involved in loading the palladium lattice with deuterium. Other researchers were announcing negative results before waiting the necessary time. The first reference cited claims that had there not been the press conference, cold fusion might not be considered fringe science today. Controversial, perhaps, but not "irresponsible" or "looney." --] (]) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The secret was and is to achieve a very high gas loading ratio into the metal lattice. (over 90%) Edits that claim an inabiliity to replicate P&F's results are simply incorrect. Hundreds of high level laboratories around the world now agree that it's a series of nuclear reactions. They are currently trying to correleate the energy released and transmutation results to match a theory that will let them profoundly exploit the reaction for our energy needs,,,that is to say,, ALL of our energy needs. | |||
| ==Best-known for in lead== | |||
| I have removed this from the lead per ]. --] 16:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Nonsense. It's '''not''' ]. It's what he's best known for, not necessarily his best work. — ] ] 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Per ], leave it in place until some consensus is obtained. — ] ] 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::The article still makes perfect sense without using "best". Do you have a citation for this? If so, please post it here or add it to the article, thanks, --] 17:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is patent nonsense. Most people who have heard of him know nothing or next to nothing about electrochemistry or physics. He became famous because of the cold fusion affair. Before that he was merely notable as a respected and productive scientist. You have made a slightly silly edit with a really silly justification, and of course it was reverted. Now stop trying to defend it by wikilawyering. | |||
| :::There is a discussion going on about how to prevent the incorrect impression that he is ''only'' known for cold fusion. Then you come and make the problem worse by removing the only clue that he might be known for something else as well. And require a citation for the fact that he is best known for cold fusion before you are prepared to reinstate the fact that he is also known for other things? WTF? If you know what you are doing, then this is POV pushing in two opposite directions; in other words: pure trolling. Reverted. --] (]) 18:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) I don't know what the history is here, nor do I care. I don't know this guy, Fleischman or his work from Adam. The idea that I am trolling is crazy. Please do not attack me when you are obviously clueless. I am simply editing the lead to conform to some type of MOS and remove a POV if it is not sourced. Please read ] and ]. If somebody would like to draft a proper lead, lets do it, reach consensus and move on. Does ever article require drama? --] 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| The labs which failed to duplicate Flieschmann's work, did not wait the hours or days or weeks required to load the D2 gas into the Palladium metals crystalline lattice. Some left the cathode exposed to air instead of immersing it fully into the heavy water. Using the F&P method, the reaction took a long time to start, because electrically loading the gas into the metal is very slow,, Using Navy's co-deposition of gas and metal onto the cathode, results are immediate. Navy in their video above, claim very high repeatability of their cold fusion cell. | |||
| Current Lead: | |||
| Martin Fleischmann, (born March 29, 1927 in Karlovy Vary, Czechoslovakia) was an electrochemist at the University of Southampton and has been a Fellow of the Royal Society since 1986. He is known for his controversial work with his colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s. He was also the first observer of what was later called Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering. | |||
| U.S. Navy has two patents on the process that are not secret,, one is for the transmutation of nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. NASA has a patent on reliably starting and stopping the nuclear reaction. NASA has also started a seed project and funded an aerospace design company to build a spaceplane around this nuclear process, to take rockets to the edge of space for launching, where they would only need 20 to 40 thousand pounds of fuel to reach low earth orbit (LEO). | |||
| What is his nationality? | |||
| What is he known for? | |||
| What are his major accomplishments? --] 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Link to NASA Patent by Chief Scientist Joseph Zawodny: | |||
| :Talking about clueless: You are ''introducing'' a POV by creating the impression that the famous cold fusion misstep is everything Fleischmann has ever been known for. | |||
| http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645 | |||
| :"Please read ] and ]." — OK: | |||
| :]: "The opening paragraph should give: 4. What the person did; 5. Why the person is significant." | |||
| ::(a) Research in electrochemistry that is well known to experts (enough to make him notable) but not known to the general public. (b) Cold fusion research that made him famous. | |||
| ::While clueful editors are discussing on this page how to get (a) into the article to bring it in line with policies, you are removing a hint that something like (a) might exist. | |||
| :]: "Deciding whether a particular wording is suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment. However, oft-abused words include: best " | |||
| ::Notice the terms "common sense" and "good editorial judgment"? It doesn't say the words on the list are taboo. We are not saying he is the best known cold fusion researcher, we are saying he is best known for his cold fusion research. (That he is also known for other things is obvious, since otherwise he wouldn't have been made a Fellow of the Royal Society before his cold fusion research. It was also mentioned in the newspaper coverage when the cold fusion news first came out.) | |||
| :Making a stupid little degradation to the lede and defending it by wikilawyering is not an acceptable way to cause its improvement. The other editors are not your workforce, who need your whipping to become productive. See also ]. Once again, to your question about a citation for "best": The question is so stupid that I am not sure whether you want proof that he is also known for other things (see 3rd lede sentence), or whether you want proof that he is better known for cold fusion than for his other work (see just about everything that was ever written about him). Both readings of your question make no sense whatsoever, and I doubt that there is another one that makes sense. Stop the disruption. --] (]) 22:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Hans, I appreciate your participation here, but you aren't helping things with "stupid" and other incivilities. Please stop. We very much need civility here. Welcome to the ] editorial nightmare. Let's try to make it better, not worse.--] (]) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Abd: You are right. Tom: I apologise for the extreme language I used. You have taken my wrath in amazingly good style. I confess that when writing the above (but after your "bad faith" edit comment) I was influenced in part by a very old but eternalised mistake by Jayjg. I am sure now that you never meant to troll or to be disruptive, although I still think it came across that way. Probably a matter of incompatible personalities. --] (]) 01:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::I understand that you aren't saying ''he is the best known cold fusion researcher'', got it. You are syaing he is best known for cold fusion. Right? Is that a FACT? I don't know because I got give a rat's ass about this guy, but if folks want to write that FACT, then back it up. thats all. Otherwise, just LIST what the guy is KNOWN for or WHAT he has DONE. You probably have a ridiculously high IQ but its like trying to talk to a house plant. Is it me?? It must be me. Can ANY other edit please help me out here? Thanks, --] 22:23, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I'll try to help, but don't expect me to agree with you. I'll try to, though. --] (]) 00:05, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::How about replacing "He is best known for" with "He became famous outside of the electrochemical community for" or "He became famous in popular media for"? --] (]) 22:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Works for me, but I think "famous" is a bit problematic. More something between famous and notorious, I suppose. --] (]) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::How about "known"? See | |||
| {{quote|1=The two chemists who started a scientific furor by claiming to have achieved low-temperature fusion in a jar of water may not be widely known}} --] (]) 22:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I don't understand what you are proposing. I am also not sure that we should draw conclusions from a journalistic hook that even uses slightly guarded language ("''may'' not be widely known"). Also, "widely known" is relative; clearly the journalist had a general audience in mind. We are writing for a general audience ''and'' for experts. --] (]) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (unindent) Okay, the original claim of ] language was preposterous, based on a misunderstanding of the term "best." If we wrote that he was the "best" electrochemist, that would be peacock. If he did the "best" research, likewise. But "best known" simply states what those of us who know about Fleischmann and have known about him for years know and would acknowledge. Those within his field of electrochemistry certainly know him well for that, but would also agree that he's "best known" for the CF affair. Now, do we need a source for this? I'd certainly not place that on my list of priorities for this article! We have a lot of difficult issues to face, here and on ]. "Best known" reads well, much better than "famous." Now, did someone do a survey and ask "Have you heard of Martin Fleischmann," and ask if he's known for (1) Cold fusion, (2) electrochemistry, (3) margarine manufacture? I doubt it. Rather, a journalist would simply do what we could also do: write from what is obvious and well-known, and no fact-checker would challenge this phrase in this context. Sure, one can wikilawyer the thing to death, but I'd suggest that we have a project to build. Got better language to propose, try it out. What is the ''substance'' here? If someone wants to, the statement could be sourced, but, then, we should have a section in the article on what Fleischmann is known for. (The lead should only reflect a brief consensus statement of the rest of the article, and nothing should be in the lead that isn't covered in the article, except for obvious connecting words and non-controversial language like "best known." At least it's my opinion that it ''shouldn't'' be controversial.... | |||
| As to writing for general audience vs. writing for experts, we aren't exactly doing both. A biography should be written for a general audience, but such that experts will say, yes, that's right. However, experts will want more detail than would probably be appropriate here, hence we should use external links to good sources for deeper reading and understanding. Ahem. Fleischmann's paper, ''Searching for the consequences of many-body effects in condensed phase systems.'' is excellent for giving Fleischmann's perspective on the history, and it contains material that a general reader can understand, but also material that will be quite difficult for readers without some serious physics education or understanding. ], say whaaa? And I sat in ]'s lectures when ] was being compiled, both years. That, plus the fact that I was about a year ahead of my school cohort, having skipped a grade, would tell you fairly accurately how old I am. --] (]) 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Again, there is NO misunderstanding about the usage of the word "best". If you want to use the verbage that he is "best-known" for WHATEVER, I have ZERO problem with that as long as you provide a citation for that FACT, period. I don't want some blather reply about what everybody "knows" or what the "truth" is, ect, because that counts for squaduche around here. What counts is what ] have to say about the matter, not synthesis or original thought or personal experience, ect. --] 13:44, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::ps, just to reply to some of the "compromise" versions, first, I appreciate that folks and appreciate folks stepping back from the accusations against me, thank you, 2nd, I DON'T CARE which "version" is hashed out AS LONG AS there is a citation provided. The best thing to do, imho, would be to just stick to basic "facts" that are soucable and that EVERYBODY can agree to. Will that be easy or doable? I have NO idea but lets try. Cheers! --] 13:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::pss. How about something like ''Fleischman gained national attention for his contraversial work on cold fusion, ect....'' and provide citations to that effect if this is a FACT?? --] 13:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Stop this nonsense NOW. If you seriously believe that Fleischmann is ''also'' known for his cold fusion work you will need a ''very'' good citation to back this up, because it's obviously exactly the wrong way round. Just like New York City is bigger than Napoleon's little finger. You are wikilawyering. If you are not sufficiently interested in the article subject to read the article and look at the references, go away. --] (]) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) Please stop. I will add a fact tag, --] 14:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :Sorry to ask, but at this point it is neccessary, Hans Adler, do you have a conflict of interest with the subject of this article or other agenda here? --] 14:54, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::None at all, unless you count reading newspapers and watching TV in the 1980s. They were full of this topic. A lot of people were excited at the time, thinking that this might be a solution to the world's energy problems. It was a big hype. Just look at the bloody sources: . | |||
| ::Personally I used to laugh about these guys, once I realised that German scientists had published a very similar experiment much earlier, and had withdrawn it shortly afterwards, while Fleischmann and Pons didn't and continued their research. I am no longer so sure about that because I vaguely remember having heard it wasn't as easy as that. I don't remember the details, I can't be bothered to look them up, and so I am simply ''agnostic'' about whether this cold fusion business is ridiculous, not ridiculous but clearly wrong, or potentially promising. Right now I just don't care. | |||
| ::Now ''what'' is ''your'' agenda here, if it is neither interest in the subject nor disruption? | |||
| ::What are you going to attack when you are finished with this article? Perhaps "Several of these early works are performed today." in ]? You could try replacing it with "These early works are performed today." Or perhaps with "Several of these early works were once performed." | |||
| ::— Oh, I see. Now you have added a fact tag. I suppose clicking on the linked reference at the end of the sentence and then searching for the word "best" is too much to ask for. (Hint: The result would have been "Professor Martin Fleischmann, the Southampton University based scientist best known for his role in the ‘cold fusion’ controversy, found that the Raman effect was greatly enhanced close to a rough metal surface, giving rise to a technique called Surface Enhanced Raman Spectroscopy (SERS).") This reference was in the article from the beginning, initially at the end of the sentence following the one you attacked. | |||
| ::As the next step I suggest that you ask for proof that ] is a reliable source. You could also question that the website content really contains the original article. Or do you prefer claiming that the sentence cited above is insufficient because the formulation is not 100% the same that we are using? --] (]) 15:46, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Come on folks, be nice. Stop the unnecessary charges or implications or fishing for COI. I'm reverting, it's in that source ''and it is well-known,'' I know it, Hans knows it, many of us know it, and one editor, alone, is questioning it, with a series of reasons, starting with ], which was preposterous, and then demanding a "reliable source." On the other side, it would have been easy to miss the reference in the previous citation. Both of you leave it alone. Hans, it isn't necessary to insult the editor, being wrong is allowed here. But disruption isn't allowed, and there is consensus here for "best known," I'd say, and if you want to pursue this, ask me on my Talk and I'll tell you how to go up the ladder of ], but I recommend against it; when you call the attention of a lot of editors to a silly point you are trying to make, there can be a backlash. --] (]) 18:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Again, it isn't about what you or others here know, its about what reliable sources say. There is a reason that we have words to avoid. Anyways, your blather, allowed to be wrong? is a bit much. ] 01:13, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, it does require some sense of what language means to interpret it. "Best" is a peacock word used in certain ways, not in others, and you seem to have confused them. As to "allowed to be wrong," yes, you are. Or would you prefer to not be allowed to be wrong? I suppose it could be arranged, I'd have to ask. As to "what reliable sources say," we don't just copy text from reliable sources here, we find consensus interpretations of what they mean. Do, please, read ] and reflect on the possibility of trying to find favorable interpretations of what people are saying and operate on the initial assumption that this is what they mean. You'll be happier and we will have less disruption here. --] (]) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I have changed it to "gained national attention" is that better? | |||
| ] 04:21, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Umm - which nation were you thinking of? "gained worldwide attention" would be better. But frankly, "is best known" was fine. ] (]) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Exactly. Reverted. --] (]) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (outedent) Please see ] and ]. Anybody want to try to form a real lead and move away from what we have know? How about ''Fleischmann is a British chemist.'' ] 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::I don't know what you mean by "real lead". Based on your absurd misreadings of ] and ] and your bizarre insistence on replacing something that is perfectly OK by something that is even factually wrong, I am not sure I want to see you "improving" the entire lede. Arthur Rubin has reverted you several times and told your peacock argument nonsense. I have reverted you several times and have used very clear words that I am sure you haven't overlooked. Enric Naval made a compromise proposal but did not say that he agrees with you. Abd called your peacock argument preposterous and told you you are wrong. Now Cardamon has told you that "is best known" is fine. Do you see anybody agreeing with you? After almost two days of discussion about a single word? Do you think that's how to write an encyclopedia? --] (]) 11:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| (outdent) I am not impressed with your blathering. This article in its current state is garbage. Do you, or the rest of the "gang" have any interest in improving it or do you wish for it to stay as is? Open question to all.--] 14:12, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :The article needs improvement, and, in particular, expansion. Then there would be a lead, summarizing, and citations are to be avoided in leads. As to blathering, eye of the beholder. If Tom is interested in improving the article -- and the rest of us, at least recently active here, are definitely interested -- I'll say that his focus on "best known" isn't a good sign as to the likely quality of what he'd do, nor of his ability to cooperate with other editors, but he should know that the topic is highly contentious and this usually means taking baby steps and getting substantial agreement. If he is isolated in his opinion, there is just about zero chance of success, and he should drop it or be at risk of being considered disruptive. I make proposals all the time that are rejected, and it doesn't matter how "right" I am, if I push it beyond a reasonable limit, I'd be dead meat. I move on and make a different proposal, and the majority of the time, it works. But different proposals as, for example, changing "best known" to "known best" or "best known" to "most famous for" or "gained worldwide attention," even, after it's clear that "best known" is considered fine by most editors, all but one, and doing this through article edits, without gaining consensus first, accompanied by incivility, these are the elements of disruption. If it continues, my next step would be a warning on the editor's Talk page, and next step beyond that .... I'm not an admin but I know how to get administrative attention and even if I were an admin, I'd not use my tools here, I'm involved. Drop it, Tom, start collaborating instead of tossing grenades. Somebody please collapse this discussion as closed. We need to start doing that more. --] (]) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::How many accounts do you edit under? --] 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)ps Sorry, question is for both Hans Adler and Abd. Thanks, --] 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. --] (]) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::ok, thank you, --] 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::1. -- ]. 3 letters. first edits in February 2005. After almost two years discovered <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>. Later the next year figured out how to grab and place a ]. | |||
| :::2. -- ]. Top Secret. Shhh! | |||
| :::3. -- ]. Blocked. What else would you expect? Some day The Community may not be blocked. The Hour that the Ship Comes In. | |||
| :::I'd ask you the same question, Tom, except it's quite rude. --] (]) 03:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Thank you and How so? Feel free to ask me if you like, I don't find it rude at all.--] 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Link to U.S. Navy website where they are licensing their patent to use this same nuclear reaction to change nuclear waste into stable non-radioactive metals: | |||
| * Um, folks? Anyone here read ]? I changed it to "He came to wider public prominence following his controversial publication of work with colleague ] on ] using ] in the 1980s and '90s." How's that? Any better? <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/pacific/techtransfer/productsservices/Pages/Technologies.aspx | |||
| :Looks fine and better, imho. I am not sure that the folks who really really like "best known" will be to pleased. Also, the ANI report was over the top, seriously, they have much better or more serious fish to fry over there than me, but whatever. --] 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::ps, sorry to beat a dead horse, but can we please come up with a opening lead sentence that includes this guy's nationality and what he is, ie chemist, physicist(sp), or whatever, thanks, --] 22:37, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Lead looks AWESOME! I don't know who this Bduke fellow is, but sign him up for further work :) Thanks mucho! --] 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Misplaced Pages should stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki that imply that his most important life work was invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. | |||
| Yes, generally good work. I personally accept this statement, as it stands now: ''Martin Fleischmann, (born March 29, 1927 in Karlovy Vary, Czechoslovakia) is a British chemist noted for his work in electrochemistry. He came to wider public prominence following his controversial publication of work with colleague Stanley Pons on cold fusion using palladium in the 1980s and '90s.'' Except that "using palladium" isn't quite enough. "though electrolytic packing of deuterium into palladium electrodes" might serve. It's not just "using palladium." Palladium isn't fusing (well, not in substantial quantities, anyway, there is some evidence of palladium fusion/fission), if it's happening, it's apparently deuterium. | |||
| It is in fact highly repeatable. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)</span></small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| :You are forum-shopping. See my response on ]. --] (]) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC) | |||
| Request moving these links to the Main Page for Martin Fleischmann as NASA has very recently published 2 papers and filed an international patent application on the process of energizing deuterated metal to initiate nuclear reactions. The method of deuterating and the method of giving the process the energy it needs to start, are irrelevant. The NASA work is a continuation of U.S. Navy SPAWAR's work, and people who did the work at SPAWAR are in this patent and the 2 papers. The chief Navy researcher, Robert Duncan, has repeatedly given credit to Pons and Fleischmann for showing Navy how to create the reaction. The links below are definitive proof that Flieschmann's work achieved a nuclear reaction in a test tube, using no radioactive materials, and using deuterated metal. Links: | |||
| The next part needs some work. ''After a short period of public acclaim,'' I have replaced with ''After a great deal of attention from the media,'' which is from the source. Then comes, ''hundreds of scientists attempted to reproduce the effects, but more often than not they failed. Those who failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent, sloppy and unethical work, incomplete unreproducible and inaccurate results, and erroneous interpretations.'' | |||
| https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf | |||
| low energy photon exposure of deuterated metals | |||
| https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf | |||
| The source doesn't say what we have in the article. It doesn't say "more often than not they failed." Rather it says "more often than not, claims were made that the experiments were not reproducible." However, the context is such that those claims aren't just from those doing experiments. "Scientists were interviewed regardless of whether they did such experiments or not." Now, it's possible to read the source as it has been read. However, the whole section relating to cold fusion in the book should be read. The point is being made there that ''"in this case the process of scientific research failed in many ways."'' The announcement by press conference was outside norms, but so was the rush to judgment. ''"The parties demonstrated a lack of civility, respect for individuals, respect for society, and respect for science."'' They aren't just talking about Pons and Fleischmann -- and, as may be the case, the Pons/Fleischmann "violation" of norms, it's been claimed, was forced by the University of Utah administration for reasons relating to patent rights. But nobody was forced to lambast Pons and Fleischmann. (Or were they? Hundreds of millions of dollars in hot fusion research grants might have been affected.) Statements of skepticism were quite appropriate, in fact, but not personal attacks. Further, it turns out, the Pons-Fleischmann effect, under the experimental conditions they used, and if it is real, is still quite difficult to find, it doesn't always happen; with those experimental conditions, the majority of attempts will fail to find anything. (But increased reproducibility has later been found with different techniques, particularly electrodeposition by the SPAWAR group.) So what does it mean that "more often than not, they failed," if this is referring to those who did experiments? It simply means that they failed! It doesn't mean that the experiments were not reproducible, only that they -- with very limited information at the time -- hadn't succeeded. And until others succeeded, or failed, with sufficient time to retry with better conformance to the original research (same batch of palladium? length of loading period? current profile?) they should have published their results, formally or informally, and ''shut up'' about the conclusions, that would have been good science. They could have written, "This experiment, with these conditions, failed to find anomalous heat effects." Some experiments looked right away for the expected radiation signature associated with hot fusion, and when it wasn't found, concluded that fusion wasn't taking place. All bad science, in fact, when presented as proof and when used to lambast a highly respected researcher. | |||
| x ray exposure of deuterated metals | |||
| Whether or not cold fusion is real, the ''flap,'' the ''affair'' is real, and we need to start describing it as it is found in reliable sources, without simply continuing the old outside battle here. The description by Shamoo and Resnik could just as well be describing the history of the ] and related articles. Because I've been compiling evidence regarding the history of the article, I've been looking over those old edits in some detail. Shame on you, Misplaced Pages, for allowing this to go on so long, and I'm not singling out any particular editor; maintaining civility and consensus process is a collective responsibility; to that end, we all failed, though obviously the degree of individual responsibility varies. --] (]) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| International patent application on the process, like 120 pages long. | |||
| :The statement, as you object to it, is correct as sourced, although possibly misleading, and discussion of how it might be updated to be both sourced and non-misleading is constructive. But most of this last comment is relevant ''only'' to the ] article, not to this article. — ] ] 17:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf | |||
| ::I agree with ] that this material is relevant to the ] article. Let us try to write a straight forward biography of a living person and leave the details and controversy about CF to that article. --] ] 22:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{help me-helped}} Please move to main page and delete statements of doubt about the nuclear nature of Fleischmann's claims, add this to the Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischamnn pages also and remove the statements and claims that cast doubt on cold fusion, and the work of Pons and Flieschmann. | |||
| :::That might make sense, except that Fleischmann is indeed most notable for his role in the ] controversy. Yes, we should have a "straightforward biography of a living person," but what's that, when the person and the person's work is highly controversial? If we are going to say that ''hundreds of scientists attempted to reproduce the effects, but more often than not they failed,'' we have to address this claim, and not only reliably source it, but show that the sources are balanced. The claim itself, contrary to what Arthur wrote, is ''not'' true to source, but interprets the source. Remember, we are saying this ''now,'' twenty years later, when ''many'' scientists have attempted to reproduce the effects, not just those who tried, in a great rush, in 1989. Have the majority of these efforts failed? Got any source for that? (I think there are some reviews, and I'm not sure they say that.) What is clear is that a general opinion arose that this massive failure to reproduce existed. The book referred to discusses the problem. Because this is a BLP, what is in the article should be ''beyond controversy.'' Could we apply this principle? --] (]) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I agree that "Fleischmann is indeed most notable for his role in the ] controversy", but he would be quite sufficiently notable to have an article if he had not been involved in the controversy. I had certainly heard of him, for example, before he hit the news with the CF stuff and I am not an electrochemist, although I am a chemist. We should not give undue weight to the CF material as it is all there in another article, which this links to. ''hundreds of scientists attempted to reproduce the effects, but more often than not they failed,'' should be addressed on ], not here. I suggest that rather than being ''beyond controversy'', we should just avoid controversy here and make ] ''beyond controversy''. On general matters, could I suggest you slow down a bit. You have written hundreds of words here and many edits in the last few hours. Let people have time to absorb them or otherewise it looks as if you are trying to drive through an agenda by driving people away. --] ] 03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You may be right that we should point to ] for the controversy. As to slowing down, I set up a detailed RfC on what has been a highly controversial link, with edit warring here over it, an AN/I report (that I filed, and that did not end up addressing the issue on which it was filed), because there is a farrago of arguments presented, already, here and elsewhere, and without dealing with each one, it's impossible to find consensus. That, actually, isn't a lot of words, I sometimes use more words in one edit, but it's a lot of edits. Someone who doesn't support what I've said there can (1) ignore it, (2) oppose my proposals, or, better, (3) participate by discussing each point, where discussion isn't complete, and making alternate proposals if mine suck, and !voting. Otherwise we can, and will, go on about this for years. ''We already have.'' Most of these issues have been discussed ad nauseum before, ''but no resolution arose,'' probably because there was no process such as this. Editors simply got tired and gave up, then what was removed came back or what had been put in (sometimes as a compromise resolving an edit war) was removed. This was mostly with ], but it spilled over here, with the removal of the link that I and others have been trying to put back in. That link belongs here, I suggest, it is Fleischmann's own history of a very important series of events in his life. Thanks for your comment. --] (]) 03:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree with Bduke's approach here--there's no point in letting the controversy spread into multiple articles. A short indication here is enough, without the details. and I certainly agree the main but not sole notability is cold fusion--99% of the time that's why someone would come here. ''']''' (]) 00:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Fleischmann would have a decent article, with some considerable detail possible, without the whole cold fusion affair. That material shouldn't be lost or buried under the cold fusion flap. It should be clear that he was a seriously reputable electrochemist, before the controversy. Then we need to cover the cold fusion part of his biography. The reaction of the world to it is important, and the book cited above has some very good and balanced material on that, both critical of Fleischmann but not in any libelous way (and Fleischmann, I think, has agreed that the way in which his work was announced was regrettable), and pretty clear about the problems with the "scientific" reaction, in a way that is a bit refreshing, coming from a non-CF source, as far as I can tell. As it is a BLP, we should be careful about making statements out the reproduction of his work, when there is some substantial controversy about that, and lots of "impressions" not based in clear research that can end up in ordinary reliable source like newspapers. --] (]) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :No. The last time I checked, scientific progress was documented in peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Not in YouTube videos, not in patent applications. None of those are subject to anything resembling editorial oversight or peer review. Extraordinary claims, such as "cold fusion", require extraordinary evidence. There's also the slight problem, mentioned by Eggishorn at ], that your sources don't actually mention Fleischmann and thus don't have anything at all to say about the subject of this article. ] (]) 20:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == please don't remove red links == | |||
| So when NASA and Navy researchers say they are seeing nuclear reactions that isn't enough? I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time, but as you can see this work took more than a year just to verify lasting beta emissions. Will we give any credibility to U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Pacific Group and the U.S. NASA organization? Robert Duncan Of Navy SPAWAR clearly credits Pons & Fleischmann every time he has spoken on the topic. My link to SPAWAR does indeed include Robert Duncan giving credit to Pons & Fleischmann for starting the work, so Eggishorn perhaps didn't watch the SPAWAR video. The SPAWAR researchers who are part of the NASA work include Pam Mosier-Boss, and Larry Forsley of JWK International who collaborated with Navy. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| if you will please read ]: | |||
| :I have no idea what, exactly, those NASA researchers say, but their publication you linked to doesn't mention Fleischmann, and their publication wasn't subject to peer review. Science isn't done by press release, and Fleischmann is a prime example for the reasons against doing it that way. If there are peer-reviewed scientific articles, please point out those. ] (]) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| {{quote|1= "Red links" are useful in determining the current status of the page (created or not created), create links to future pages, and facilitate and encourage creation of new pages. Also, through "What links here" applied to the non-existing page they provide indirect links to other pages with the same red link}} | |||
| and ] | |||
| {{quote|1=Sometimes it is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because it would be notable and verifiable. Furthermore, academic research conducted in 2008 has shown that red links help Misplaced Pages grow}} | |||
| Explained on other words, you are supposed to link words that can have their own articles (or a redirect to the correct article) ''even if the article doesn't still exist'' in order to encourage its creation. So ''please'' leave alone the red links of ] and ] and specially links to journals with high-impact factor, because articles on them will never be created if nobody sees a red link and thinks "hey, why does this still not have an article?". Wikis are supposed to work that way, with people noticing redlinks, following them and writing something there. | |||
| Sorry you still view Fleischmann in a poor light when the physics world is beginning to see he was right. P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid the negativity that's wrongly associated with the P&F works. The papers will certainly be forthcoming, as the patent office and the research community become informed and a little less afraid to get published and/or receive funding. Getting nuclear reactions from deuterated metal is what Fleischmann started,, and nobody else ever thought it could happen. Now Navy and NASA are sure of it, as are hundreds of university labs, independent labs, and government labs all over the world. The Navy SPAWAR group has approximately 26 peer reviewed and published papers saying it's real, dating from approximately 1990. Their work was moved to NASA Glenn due to radiation concerns. ] (]) 03:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| Also, ] is a university press of a leading Chinese university, and ] appears to me like a perfect encyclopedic topic (the article probably exists already under a different name, if you know that name then please create a redirect) --] (]) 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :All this is no reason to include that stuff in this article. | |||
| :Sounds fair enough. I am not a fan of red links, but if you truely feel they can be made into articles, then ok. --] 21:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)ps, what is your take on the lead? Can't we clean that up into 2-3 sentences or more if needed and create a "real" ]? | |||
| :You say "I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time" and "The papers will certainly be forthcoming" - that's great! We will include it when taht happens, if it turns out to be relevant. | |||
| ::Yeah, it can be done --] (]) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :You say "P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid " That's possible, but it is original research on your side. I can pick any publication at random, pick any Misplaced Pages article on any subject at random, claim that the publication is about that subject, and invent a reason why the publication does not mention the subject. | |||
| {{hat|reason=off-topic discussion --] (]) 01:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Why the haste? Just build that working reactor, and you'll have an article saying it works. Misplaced Pages is for telling people how it is, not for telling them how you want it to be. --] (]) 12:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :: Professorial chair. Hmmm. who was in Fleischmann's lab in Southampton has one of those... <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::Is this the same friend who was the basis for your opinion about ]? --] (]) 00:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Yes. And as you will no doubt see, he is more than qualified to comment, being a highly regarded electrochemist with a lengthy publication history, the author of a standard undergraduate text on analytical chemistry, and was appointed a full professor before the age of 40. Oh, and on a purely personal note, Séamus is not only one of the smartest man on the planet, he is also an exceptionally nice man, so if you diss him I ''will'' have to kill you, which would be a terrible shame :-) <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| {{hab}} | |||
| Again , who wouldn't believe a 28 year body of research by U.S. Navy and now NASA scientists. Wiki editors appear to be knit picking the type of fusion or type of nuclear reaction in these papers and the patent. Did you miss the long discussion NASA gave to D-D fusion in this work? There is no "rush" on my part, and I'd add that wiki has ignored and made a longstanding action to deny that there is even a nuclear reaction taking place. Anytime , anyone, deuterates metal and adds an input energy and gets a nuclear reaction, you have to give credit to Pons and Fleischmann for starting the whole area of study. Many labs have duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work. Would you like links? Would you like links to the Nav's 26 research papers that say the reaction is nuclear, that transmutation of elements happens, that excess heat is produced, neutrons detected, gamma detected, x-rays detected,, etc? The cold fusion article should be removed from the pseudo science category and Pons and Fleischmann's articles should be updated to show that their work has been validated, replicated all over the world. Or do we wait till they win the Nobel? If Wiki is really for telling people "how it is",, why is the focus of the article on the scandal and not on the Navy's 26 papers. Why isn't the focus on the fact that M.I.T. falsified the results of their failed duplication efforts, to faslely show the reaction failed to produce heat? Why isn't Wiki even willing give top billing to peer reviewed and published work that streams back over these past 28 years, and even NAVY/NASA research that is only 3 months old? Please review the papers and the peer review of P&F and the Navy's many published peer review works, and the peer reviewed papers from over 100 government, university, and private labs from around the globe. If There is a bias here it doesn't serve anyone. This is not the place for bias that kicks scientific so many published peer reviewed studies to the curb. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
| == possble source for article. == | |||
| ] (]) 14:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| :We'll gladly update Pons and Fleischmann's articles if there are ] that have something new to say about Pons and Fleischmann. We won't update them based on sources that don't mention Pons and Fleischmann; that would be, at best, an ] of sources, something Misplaced Pages explicitly does not accept. ] (]) 08:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
| == External links modified (January 2018) == | |||
| ], which appears to be notable and edited, has an article on Fleischmann. Some of this might be usable. There is precious little recent information about him, there is a press release a few years ago from d2fusion.com, whose web site appears to be defunct. I think there are articles on this at newenergytimes.com, which I would consider reliable, but which, obviously, others disagree about. . This is hardly a pro-CF source, the "executive summary" is "cold fusion crank," which is a tad ... cold. However it also has this comment: | |||
| Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
| "Not long after Fleischman's retirement, the overall scientific evidence of the original experiment had at last shifted -- at least 50% of experiments duplicated his results, showing the anomalous heat reaction. More recently (March 2004) the U.S. Energy Department agreed to take a second look at the evidence for the cold fusion techniques originated by Fleischman and Pons, saying that the accumulated body of evidence made such a request "reasonable"." | |||
| I have just modified 2 external links on ]. Please take a moment to review ]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
| They did take a second look, as is mentioned in the CF article, and the conclusion was more or less like 1989, the "evidence was not convincing," .... but, there was difference of opinion on the panel and there was substantial opinion that something anomalous was going on in the electrolysis experiments. Note, on the negative side, "at least 50% of experiments" could have come to represent publication bias. It is ''very'' hard to tell. The line is also there: | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318215545/http://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/cldload/?collno=547 to http://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/cldload/?collno=547 | |||
| *Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415020818/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn033106.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn033106.html | |||
| When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
| "Martin Fleischmann is an electrochemist famed for his 1989 claim to have discovered cold fusion." I do think our "best known," which is not in conflict with this and says ''almost'' exactly the same thing, but is a tad more complete, is better. That is, even if not for the cold fusion affair, he'd be notable and deserve and article, from his other work. So he is not only "famed" for the cold fusion claim, it is really just what he is most famous for. Since we do have a source for "best known," we should leave that one alone. | |||
| {{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
| I want to also note that the most impressive recent work isn't using the Fleischmann technique, but rather palladium plated on the electrode, co-electrolytically with generation of deuterium, so the "loading" apparently takes place quickly, instead of having to wait months.... SPAWAR is claiming easy reproducibility, there has been some reproduction of results, but it hasn't percolated up much to peer-reviewed journals. --] (]) 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :It's been decided that ] is not a reliable source, even for non-contraversial statements. It's much worse than ] and ]. — ] ] 19:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::Can you point me to this decision? (I did search a little, and found discussion in various places, with different opinions. I'm making no claim that NNDB is necessarily usable. However, some of the same objections made about NNDB would apply to newspapers which use snappy headlines and include editorials....)--] (]) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::I wish I could remember. Is it possible to search the archives of the ] or ]? — ] ] 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::] suggests that they not only don't research their articles, but copy from Misplaced Pages and ]. — ] ] 15:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| :::For that matter, I've asserted that newspaper editorials are not suitable sources for ''facts'', but only for notability. Those assertions haven't been disputed, but I hesitate to call it "consensus". — ] ] 15:45, 19 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::::If I'm correct, they receive article submissions and probably fact-check and edit them. How deeply they check I don't know. The articles seem good, where I've looked, the article on Fleischmann seemed good, even though the "executive summary" was snarky. Newspapers use snappy headlines for ''news'' articles, some are worse than others. I've cautioned editors against using a headline as a source, the articles are written and fact-checked, then, when they goes on the page, another editor makes up headlines. Sometimes they don't understand the article or make assumptions about it. If I'm correct. --] (]) 04:08, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| I have tried to rewrite and expand the material on his career "pre-CF". I added about his Ph D from Imperial College and his post at Durham University as well as a few other things that I found in an article in the New Energy Times which is blacklisted. Yes, it probably is not a good source but in this case it was an interview with him taken from somewhere else and I'm sure the material I added is correct. Unfortunately his career "pre-CF" is largely before the internet and what little there is is swamped by CF stuff. We need some old paper sources here and not wait until he dies when the Royal Society biography will be full of material. --] ] 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| : A university library should be able to provide some material, but the fact is he was not well-known outside of specialist circles prior to the CF debacle. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is correct, I think. "Outside of specialist circles." I.e., those in the field of ]. He was, apparently, more than adequately notable for a Misplaced Pages article, and notability doesn't expire. But I haven't researched this issue specifically, I'm depending on many references in other sources that I've seen. --] (]) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 11:37, 15 January 2025
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
|
lenr-canr link
(Note: This is a separate issue to the above whitelisting discussion, and is about one specific case and point) According to Misplaced Pages:El#Restrictions on linking "Copyrighted material which is reproduced, without verified permission, by someone other than the copyright holder must never be linked." The link to lenr-canr included on this page is immediately followed by the text "(unverified reprint)". Should this link be included since the disclaimer (which we shouldn't have, as[REDACTED] shouldn't include disclaimers) suggests that the link is breaking this part of[REDACTED] policy? Verbal chat 17:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- Just noticed your edit, Verbal. The above discussion was about the specific link you removed, and the "unverified reprint" referred to the fact that ... it wasn't verified as a true copy. That phrase is unusual, but it was allowed because, with it, we had 100% consensus among those participating for inclusion, and this was reviewed by many experienced editors. Hence I'm reverting. It would be better, since you object to the disclaimer, to remove the disclaimer, so I'll do that, though I have no personal objection to it, it's true, and, in fact, it invites verification. I don't agree, though, that we don't allow disclaimers, a POV tag on an article is a disclaimer. Please don't disrupt a settled consensus without obtaining a new consensus. As far as I'm concerned, you would be welcome to reopen the discussion above and to present new arguments, but the issues you now raise were discussed above with respect to this specific link. It's not a separate issue, it is the same issue. --Abd (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Verbal, the "verified permission" phrase from WP:EL has been removed from the guideline. There was discussion of this section at , the language you cited seems to have only lasted a few weeks. It was removed the same day you cited it; however, this was reverted, then restored to the pre-April 11 version. Which is where it stands. Had you looked the next day, you would not have seen this "verified permission" thing. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
- Verbal took the entire reference out, in spite of massive discussion above. I've reverted. I've been a tad busy elsewhere, see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG. Cat away, mice play.--Abd (talk) 11:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did no such thing, I removed the link to a possibly copyright infringing copy, the reference remained. I have no interest in Abd's games. Verbal chat 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, "entire reference" meant the link to the page and the dislaimer about accuracy of copy, i.e., "unverified reprint." Yes, the original reference, the conference paper itself, is still there. Now, to the point. The issue of copyright was discussed above, and in many other places. See and open up the collapse to see the discussion. You are editing against consensus, Verbal, and this isn't a game. You've been asked to revert yourself, it seems you are refusing. Just so you know. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- Lenr-canr.org claims permission from editors and publishers on their site.. Numerous editors and administrators have agreed that lenr-canr should not be treated as violating copyright. There is no evidence of violation that has been asserted for any page hosted there, and any editor could easily develop such evidence by writing to a publisher, warning them about the copy of their material hosted on lenr-canr.org, and seeing what happens. Note that the link involved here was specifically approved by an administrator.
- Verbal is now edit warring to keep the link out, I just reverted it back in. Verbal has previously argued against lenr-canr.org links on the copyright claim, that argument was rejected at .
- It's been stated that any web site could claim permission, as if such a claim means nothing. However, a false claim subjects the maker of the claim to penalties under copyright law, at least in the U.S. It is, in itself, an offense, separate from the offense of copyright violation. The site owner here is a known individual with known location, the site is reputable and widely known and highly visible. It's preposterous to act as if we should assume copyright violation in the presence of explicit claim to permission for all hosted material. From other editorial activity of Verbal, I must assume that copyright violation claim is a red herring here, the real purpose is an anti-fringe agenda. I'll warn the editor. --Abd (talk) 04:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry, "entire reference" meant the link to the page and the dislaimer about accuracy of copy, i.e., "unverified reprint." Yes, the original reference, the conference paper itself, is still there. Now, to the point. The issue of copyright was discussed above, and in many other places. See and open up the collapse to see the discussion. You are editing against consensus, Verbal, and this isn't a game. You've been asked to revert yourself, it seems you are refusing. Just so you know. --Abd (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
- I did no such thing, I removed the link to a possibly copyright infringing copy, the reference remained. I have no interest in Abd's games. Verbal chat 13:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The relevant section in the Arbitration Committee ruling is this:
| “ | Blacklisting is not to be used to enforce content decisions. | ” |
| — Purpose of the spam blacklist | ||
-- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- That really has nothing to do with this. Verbal chat 13:14, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Petri Krohn, that remark works on the assumption that lenr-canr.org was blacklisted only to control content. Otherwise, that statement is totally useless in this case. --Dirk Beetstra 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- The assumption is valid, though. If you read Mike.lifeguard's decision at meta, cited from the current whitelisting discussion at WikiMedia:Spam whitelist, you can see that his decision to deny delisting was based on content argument. He made it look like it wasn't. Same as you attempted to do, in fact, before ArbComm. Basically, a conclusion that links are being "pushed," as distinct from simply being used appropriately, depends on a judgment that the links were inappropriate for the articles. No clearly inappropriate link was being used on Misplaced Pages at the time of the decision in December, a conclusion I can support by history of the articles and the obvious consensus on allowing them at that time, plus what has happened since. Verbal's attempt to remove this link on a copyvio claim is a direct denial of your prior decision to whitelist the link. Are you confirming that copyvio policy prohibits this link? If so, then you have changed your mind and you should remove the whitelisting and the offending links. As the deciding admin you can do that and are, indeed, obligated to do that or at least publicly recuse. In this case, Petri Krohn is serving notice that ArbComm is involved. That's valid. The strong attempts to remove this link, based on a farrago of arguments, presented one after another, are clearly POV-pushing, content disputes, and there are two related decisions, not merely the recent one I facilitated. There is also Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, which prohibits exclusion of content based on arguments that it's fringe. And that's the real issue here; Verbal is not obsessed with copyvio, there is a reason why he picked this particular link and this particular blacklisted site for his focus, and it's obvious from his editing history with Cold fusion, and, I assure you, it will be obvious to ArbComm. --Abd (talk) 14:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I just noticed that the above editor has been blocked for one year! That was either very fast (joke) or to do with something else. In any case I think which should just ignore the attempt to derail the discussion here and elsewhere. Verbal chat 15:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Blocked over something which has utterly nothing to do with this, and which block may be appealed and overturned, it appears to violate block policy, though that will be, I'm sure, debatable. What does this have to do with our purposes here, beyond a pure ad hominem argument? You may ignore the warning if you wish, and at your own risk. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- I would class this as disruption too, as it was a failure to assume good faith and brought an issue which is irrelevant. However, my point in posting was to alert people not to await a response as it would take a long time(!) and to ask to not derail the conversation. I should have made that clearer it seems. It is not an ad hom to let people know he's been blocked. Let's return to the issue at hand, please. Verbal chat 17:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Sure. Blocked over something which has utterly nothing to do with this, and which block may be appealed and overturned, it appears to violate block policy, though that will be, I'm sure, debatable. What does this have to do with our purposes here, beyond a pure ad hominem argument? You may ignore the warning if you wish, and at your own risk. --Abd (talk) 17:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
- Petri Krohn, that remark works on the assumption that lenr-canr.org was blacklisted only to control content. Otherwise, that statement is totally useless in this case. --Dirk Beetstra 13:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I removed 1 ref
- Covington, A. K. (1995). "Obituary : Harold Reginald Thirsk (1915–1995)". Electrochimica Acta. 40 (8): xii. doi:10.1016/0013-4686(95)90227-9.
The only reference to Fleischmann is: "Together with Wynne-Jones, he formed a strong electrochemistry group in Newcastle which included, notably, interlia: Ron Armstrong, Willy Beck, Alan Bewick, Geoff Briggs, Ray Brown, Arthur Covington, Tom Dickinson, John Dobson, Bob Grieff, Martin Fleischmann, and Keith Oldham.". --Enric Naval (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Grammar
“Fleischmann, Pons and the researchers who believed that they had replicated the effect remain convinced the effect is real, but the general scientific community remains sceptical.” “remain” should arguably be “remained” – Fleischmann himself is dead.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Stong Scientific Evidence Claims that "cold fusion" is reproducible, and nuclear
NASA Technology Gateway video on chief scientist Zawodny's work at NASA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBjA5LLraX0 American Chemical Society Press Briefing on Cold Fusion:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHc3jOTJYZA
The secret was and is to achieve a very high gas loading ratio into the metal lattice. (over 90%) Edits that claim an inabiliity to replicate P&F's results are simply incorrect. Hundreds of high level laboratories around the world now agree that it's a series of nuclear reactions. They are currently trying to correleate the energy released and transmutation results to match a theory that will let them profoundly exploit the reaction for our energy needs,,,that is to say,, ALL of our energy needs.
The labs which failed to duplicate Flieschmann's work, did not wait the hours or days or weeks required to load the D2 gas into the Palladium metals crystalline lattice. Some left the cathode exposed to air instead of immersing it fully into the heavy water. Using the F&P method, the reaction took a long time to start, because electrically loading the gas into the metal is very slow,, Using Navy's co-deposition of gas and metal onto the cathode, results are immediate. Navy in their video above, claim very high repeatability of their cold fusion cell.
U.S. Navy has two patents on the process that are not secret,, one is for the transmutation of nuclear waste into non radioactive metals. NASA has a patent on reliably starting and stopping the nuclear reaction. NASA has also started a seed project and funded an aerospace design company to build a spaceplane around this nuclear process, to take rockets to the edge of space for launching, where they would only need 20 to 40 thousand pounds of fuel to reach low earth orbit (LEO).
Link to NASA Patent by Chief Scientist Joseph Zawodny: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110255645%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110255645&RS=DN/20110255645
Link to U.S. Navy website where they are licensing their patent to use this same nuclear reaction to change nuclear waste into stable non-radioactive metals:
http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/pacific/techtransfer/productsservices/Pages/Technologies.aspx
Misplaced Pages should stop allowing edits to the Martin Fleischmann Wiki that imply that his most important life work was invalid, and implying that the "cold fusion" reaction is/was unrepeatable. It is in fact highly repeatable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
- You are forum-shopping. See my response on Talk:Cold fusion. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Request moving these links to the Main Page for Martin Fleischmann as NASA has very recently published 2 papers and filed an international patent application on the process of energizing deuterated metal to initiate nuclear reactions. The method of deuterating and the method of giving the process the energy it needs to start, are irrelevant. The NASA work is a continuation of U.S. Navy SPAWAR's work, and people who did the work at SPAWAR are in this patent and the 2 papers. The chief Navy researcher, Robert Duncan, has repeatedly given credit to Pons and Fleischmann for showing Navy how to create the reaction. The links below are definitive proof that Flieschmann's work achieved a nuclear reaction in a test tube, using no radioactive materials, and using deuterated metal. Links: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002584.pdf low energy photon exposure of deuterated metals
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20170002544.pdf x ray exposure of deuterated metals
International patent application on the process, like 120 pages long.
http://e-catworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/2017.09.14-Published-Application-1663.0002PCT3.pdf
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
Please move to main page and delete statements of doubt about the nuclear nature of Fleischmann's claims, add this to the Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischamnn pages also and remove the statements and claims that cast doubt on cold fusion, and the work of Pons and Flieschmann.
- No. The last time I checked, scientific progress was documented in peer-reviewed scholarly papers. Not in YouTube videos, not in patent applications. None of those are subject to anything resembling editorial oversight or peer review. Extraordinary claims, such as "cold fusion", require extraordinary evidence. There's also the slight problem, mentioned by Eggishorn at Talk:Cold fusion, that your sources don't actually mention Fleischmann and thus don't have anything at all to say about the subject of this article. Huon (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
So when NASA and Navy researchers say they are seeing nuclear reactions that isn't enough? I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time, but as you can see this work took more than a year just to verify lasting beta emissions. Will we give any credibility to U.S. Navy Space and Naval Warfare Pacific Group and the U.S. NASA organization? Robert Duncan Of Navy SPAWAR clearly credits Pons & Fleischmann every time he has spoken on the topic. My link to SPAWAR does indeed include Robert Duncan giving credit to Pons & Fleischmann for starting the work, so Eggishorn perhaps didn't watch the SPAWAR video. The SPAWAR researchers who are part of the NASA work include Pam Mosier-Boss, and Larry Forsley of JWK International who collaborated with Navy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Organiclies (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea what, exactly, those NASA researchers say, but their publication you linked to doesn't mention Fleischmann, and their publication wasn't subject to peer review. Science isn't done by press release, and Fleischmann is a prime example for the reasons against doing it that way. If there are peer-reviewed scientific articles, please point out those. Huon (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Sorry you still view Fleischmann in a poor light when the physics world is beginning to see he was right. P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid the negativity that's wrongly associated with the P&F works. The papers will certainly be forthcoming, as the patent office and the research community become informed and a little less afraid to get published and/or receive funding. Getting nuclear reactions from deuterated metal is what Fleischmann started,, and nobody else ever thought it could happen. Now Navy and NASA are sure of it, as are hundreds of university labs, independent labs, and government labs all over the world. The Navy SPAWAR group has approximately 26 peer reviewed and published papers saying it's real, dating from approximately 1990. Their work was moved to NASA Glenn due to radiation concerns. Organiclies (talk) 03:17, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
- All this is no reason to include that stuff in this article.
- You say "I'm sure the work will be peer reviewed in time" and "The papers will certainly be forthcoming" - that's great! We will include it when taht happens, if it turns out to be relevant.
- You say "P & F were likely omitted from the papers to avoid " That's possible, but it is original research on your side. I can pick any publication at random, pick any Misplaced Pages article on any subject at random, claim that the publication is about that subject, and invent a reason why the publication does not mention the subject.
- Why the haste? Just build that working reactor, and you'll have an article saying it works. Misplaced Pages is for telling people how it is, not for telling them how you want it to be. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Again , who wouldn't believe a 28 year body of research by U.S. Navy and now NASA scientists. Wiki editors appear to be knit picking the type of fusion or type of nuclear reaction in these papers and the patent. Did you miss the long discussion NASA gave to D-D fusion in this work? There is no "rush" on my part, and I'd add that wiki has ignored and made a longstanding action to deny that there is even a nuclear reaction taking place. Anytime , anyone, deuterates metal and adds an input energy and gets a nuclear reaction, you have to give credit to Pons and Fleischmann for starting the whole area of study. Many labs have duplicated Pons and Fleischmann's work. Would you like links? Would you like links to the Nav's 26 research papers that say the reaction is nuclear, that transmutation of elements happens, that excess heat is produced, neutrons detected, gamma detected, x-rays detected,, etc? The cold fusion article should be removed from the pseudo science category and Pons and Fleischmann's articles should be updated to show that their work has been validated, replicated all over the world. Or do we wait till they win the Nobel? If Wiki is really for telling people "how it is",, why is the focus of the article on the scandal and not on the Navy's 26 papers. Why isn't the focus on the fact that M.I.T. falsified the results of their failed duplication efforts, to faslely show the reaction failed to produce heat? Why isn't Wiki even willing give top billing to peer reviewed and published work that streams back over these past 28 years, and even NAVY/NASA research that is only 3 months old? Please review the papers and the peer review of P&F and the Navy's many published peer review works, and the peer reviewed papers from over 100 government, university, and private labs from around the globe. If There is a bias here it doesn't serve anyone. This is not the place for bias that kicks scientific so many published peer reviewed studies to the curb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.66.237.229 (talk) 14:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC) 71.66.237.229 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
- We'll gladly update Pons and Fleischmann's articles if there are reliable sources that have something new to say about Pons and Fleischmann. We won't update them based on sources that don't mention Pons and Fleischmann; that would be, at best, an original synthesis of sources, something Misplaced Pages explicitly does not accept. Huon (talk) 08:30, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Martin Fleischmann. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110318215545/http://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/cldload/?collno=547 to http://www.dur.ac.uk/library/asc/collection_information/cldload/?collno=547
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120415020818/http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn033106.html to http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/WN06/wn033106.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:47, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Categories: