Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:59, 28 October 2008

Cold fusion

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page

Result pending

This article has been commandeered by cold fusion proponents to slant the entire article away from WP:NPOV toward a pro-cold fusion love-in. Editors who try to mitigate this problem are reverted on-sight and false claims of consensus are employed as tactics to try to prevent users from improving the article. The article as it currently stands is plagued by being overly accepting of cold-fusion-proponent claims and relegates criticisms (which are by most neutral accounts the major feature of cold fusion claims) to minority status in violation of WP:UNDUE. In short, the NPOV problems and the heavy-handed nature of pro-CF editors means that Misplaced Pages should not be endorsing this as a "good" article. It is manifestly not a good article as it uses unreliable, unverifiable, and non-neutral sources and sentences to create out of whole-cloth a new reality where cold fusion is not the deprecated and dismissed pseudoscientific endeavor it actually is treated by various government panels and the scientific community in general.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that ScienceApologist has not given any evidence from reliable sources in support of his rejection of cold fusion. The article was assessed as good as recently as May 28. Since then, it has still been improved by many editors, despite the heavy tactics of ScienceApologist. For a full history of the article and of ScienceApologist's dubious involvement in it, please readUser:Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that this page is under so many problems right now and is acknowledged by a number of editors to be problematic (including User:Eldereft (WP:FTN#Cold fusion conflict of interest report and User:Looie496 (Misplaced Pages:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Request_for_injunction_against_Cold_Fusion_investor). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

These challenges have been rejected by the[REDACTED] community. Why do you want to reopen them, without any new evidence ? Pcarbonn (talk) 06:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist cold fusion is rejected by the majority of the scientific community and our article should reflect this per WP:UNDUE. While these problems remain this should not be classed as a good article. Hut 8.5 10:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The "majority of the scientific community" is not a WP:reliable source according to wikipedia, because they don't publish on the subject in peer reviewed journal. Please find a reliable source in support of your opinion. Remember also WP:Parity of sources : if 2 peer-reviewed journals are favorable, you need another peer-reviewed journal to argue the contrary. Pcarbonn (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely easy to find reliable sources saying that cold fusion is rejected by most scientists:

: cold fusion has been largely dismissed by the scientific community

: most scientists believe cold fusion does not exist

: most scientists regarded cold fusion as a discredited farce

: cold fusion has fallen into disrepute among scientists

: most of the scientific community no longer considers cold fusion a real phenomenon

It didn't take much effort to find these. Since the theory is a minority one, WP:UNDUE applies: the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The current version of this article is in violation of this policy and so should not be listed as a good article. Hut 8.5 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You missed my point: the sources you provide make reliable statements about an unreliable source. Furthermore, they are very old.

Please have a look at ArbComm's unanimous decision on NPOV for science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience. Cold fusion is a scientific controversy, as the 2004 DOE shows, and it deserves fair representation of both sides. The DOE was evenly split over the evidence of excess heat, and was unanimous in recommending publication in peer reviewed journals. Why don't we follow their advise, instead of representing the view of the uneducated majority of scientists ? Pcarbonn (talk) 16:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Also, please have a look at the book published by the Am Chem Soc and Oxford University Press.

Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors, Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8

Surely they consider the field worthy of publication in a positive way. Why don't we ? In some ways, the minority view has been the skeptics: the balance of publishing in reliable sources is way in favor of CF. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your bollocks reinterpretatation of the DOE report has been a thorn in the side of Misplaced Pages for years. More than that, your continued disdain toward conventional understanding of cold fusion is something that Misplaced Pages expressly forbids us from entertaining. Misplaced Pages is a mainstream encyclopedia, not a place to write great wrongs. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not reinterpreted the DOE report. I have only insisted for it to be quoted in full. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Selective "full quotations". We obviously do not quote the entire report in full. However, you cannot bear to see the summary of the report read anything but "cold fusion should be supported" which is manifestly not what the results of this report are. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Delist. I have only reviewed the lead, and while I have no competence to judge what is mainstream in modern physics, I am very concerned about the use of sources.

• Why is a specialist journal, Surface and Coatings Technology, with impact factor less than 2 given such prominence at the end of the lead?
• The footnote "e.g. Mosier-Boss et al. 2008" is used to back up the claim "Since 2004, additional supporting results have been reported in peer-reviewed journals". This is a primary source for a claim like that.
• The lead should mention the current scientific status of cold fusion. Just as for global warming and evolution, this is not based on specialist journals, but rather general purpose high-level journals and magazines, e.g. Science or Scientific American.

In general, the lead of this article seems to over-emphasize the acceptance of cold fusion by their own original research using articles published in fairly low-level specialist sources, rather than relying on high level coverage of the topic in general purpose science journals, popular science magazines, and statements by scientific organizations. These are better sources on the general acceptance of a theory, while specialist journals are more reliable for technical details. Based on this, I think the concerns above are justified. Vesal (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Just confirming that by my assessment (mentioned above in reference to my participation on the talkpage some weeks back), the article (averaged over editwarring) is in gross violation of WP:UNDUE. It misrepresents the consensus among physicists that cold fusion research as it is currently (in 1989, in 2004, and ever since) practiced is not a promising line of research and no more money and time should be wasted on it. If cold fusion occurs, it does not do so in the systems being investigated. Presenting those scholarly articles which do appear has a place in the article, but until anyone outside of fringe proponents cares, this is not the place to right great wrongs. I have not reviewed the GAR delisting conventions, and so do not have a formal opinion on that matter. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. To read this article you would hardly realise that cold fusion is basically a laughing stock in the mainstream scientific community. The major author of the current version has openly admitted that he set out to better reflect a fringe view, and he is a single-purpose account; this is reflected in the article, much of which is argument from sources of highly dubious reliability or expertise and lists several fringe sources to "balance" every mainstream view. A comparison of this with the featured version form a couple of years back is instructive, you can see just how far it's been skewed towards the tiny minority position. It should never have been GA listed in the first place, to do so debases the already debased currency of "good" articles. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Revert to last definite GA version and restart work to reach FA. Pcarbonn helped arive at this version, so he should agree. Any recent changes to the text should be discussed before if still desired; refs added to the old version are available in the history and should be non-controversial. NJGW (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delist. This article gives undue weight to the point of view that cold fusion is not pathological science. This is in direct opposition to the overwhelming body of evidence among reliable sources. As an aside, the fact that a known POV-pusher is crowing about his triumph over the article on his user page and blog is a serious red flag that the article is slanted. Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

You are misinformed. Please have a look at PhysicsWorld showing that your statement is unsubstantiated. Pcarbonn (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously pointing us to a blog just because they share your misinterpretation of the DOE review? NJGW (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delist--Ipatrol (talk) 23:31, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

• Delist peer above reasoning. Help with a reasonable rewrite would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good article reassessment