Wikiversity/Cold fusion/The Wikipedia article/Comments on edits/Naturwissenschaften review/Reaction by Abd

From CFC
Jump to: navigation, search
Crystal discussion philosophy.png An editor has expressed concern that this article may not fit into the scope of Wikiversity. Do not use this template unless you have read and understand the Wikiversity project proposal.

You may wish to:

  • Move this page to a site where is is more appropriate.
  • Find a school or topic that this article belongs under.
  • Move this page into your userspace.

If a use cannot be found for this page on Wikiversity, then it may be deleted by a custodian after a period of 5 days. It may be deleted immediately if it meets speedy deletion criteria. If the deletion is contested, then please list the page at requests for deletion for discussion instead.

Tagged by This page is under review per recently closed WV:RFD. Please ignore the 5 day deadline above, as the review will take longer than that. Mu301Bot (discusscontribs) 22:55, 28 December 2017 (UTC) (signed on behalf of User:Mu301)
PrirodneNauke.svg Resource type: this resource may consist of Fringe science.

I'm starting with the entire wikitext from the section, permanent link, history is on en.wikipedia. enwiki links have been change to point to enwiki pages. I will now add commentary, indented and in bold italics, to distinguish it, and will create subsections (the original is one section, no subsections). These insertions may break up original comments, so signatures for a comment that I am responding too should be seen below. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a paragraph on Reproducibility


I would like to add this:

A review of the subject by Storms in 2010 suggests that the reactions do not occur uniformly throughout the electrode but rather in small sites referred to as ‘Nuclear Active Sites’, the exact nature of which is not well understood. “Because the number of these sites is variable, many failures are experienced when no active sites are present… Often, failed replication results when important nano-structures are not present, conditions that are very difficult to reproduce reliably.”

to the bottom of the section on 'Reproducibility', anyone have a problem with this? source is: Storms, Edmund, "Status of Cold Fusion (2010)," Naturwissenschaften, 97:861–881, (2010) [[1]]Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The proposed text is common knowledge in the field. There is very little, if any, controversy over it. There is no contrary reliable source on this topic, and this is a peer-reviewed secondary source review of the entire field, in an academic journal. However, for easier consensus, it could be written, "According to a review by Edmund Storms in 2010, ...." --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection by jps

This text and source are not okay. The source is not an independent source as would be required for such a claim. Naturwissenschaften's editorial review of cold fusion is controlled by Storms himself which means that there hasn't been adequate peer review of this statement. jps (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
These issues were brought up years ago, when the Storms review came out, see Reliable source noticeboard].
The editor now known as QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV, who then displays it as "jps," was involved then, known as Science Apologist, and he commented, quite the same as now: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#The author sits in judgment of his own work. This was misleading then, and it is more misleading now. He clearly saw that response. Yet he makes up a story, the same story he made up then, and reports it as a fact.
Storms did not control the editorial review of his article. He was LENR editor for Naturwissenschaften, at the time, but his review was solicited by the managing editor. His position as LENR editor meant that he would review other papers, perhaps selecting what would go out for peer review. NW had started to publish quite a few papers on cold fusion, some quite notable ones. So they obviously needed some expertise, and they engaged him for that. However, his paper was independently reviewed. The idea that a journal like Naturwissenschaften, at the time the "flagship multidisciplinary journal" for w:Springer-Verlag, one of the largest scientific publishers in the world, would allow an author to control review of a paper he authored, beggars belief.
There is no actual objection to the content of that article, no comparison of what is reported in it with other secondary source reviews of quality, just an accusation that is really circular: we can't use this source because the author is fringe, and the author is fringe because he has done research in a fringe field, and the field is fringe because it is not accepted, and we know it isn't accepted because there are no independent publications.
No, there is a radical misinterpretation of w:WP:FRIND, here. "Independent" does not refer to authors, but to publishers. Naturwissenschaften and the publisher, Springer-Verlag, were and are independent. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Biological journal

(ec) I would be reluctant to give much weight to this publication. It appears in a journal with a relatively modest impact factor (2.278), but more troubling is that the paper appears to be well outside the journal's usual scope and competence; w:Naturwissenschaften is specifically dedicated to papers in the general biological sciences. If you look at other papers published by this journal, this one is pretty emphatically an outlier.
That journal underwent a long-term shift, completed after the publication of the Storms review. At the time, it was still a clearly multidisciplinary journal, with access to excellent peer review resources in all the sciences. By 2010, almost all articles were relating to biology as one of the related fields. However, they had not yet abandoned general science. See the revision of Naturwissenschaften as of October, 2010. Maybe a year ago, they did. They now are only seeking papers where one of the related fields is a life science field. They dropped the position of LENR editor from the review board. The editor is here giving an opinion related to weight, as if the publication could be entirely rejected based on speculative arguments. But "weight," properly, refers to "due weight," it's not an absolute. So this paper would be compared with other reviews. If there is a controversy, the controversy would be reported. These editors don't do that. There is no other comparable general review of cold fusion, ever, in any peer-reviewed journal. The field was largely rejected without such a review, very early, before there was sufficient evidence to have much of an opinion, as to what would be based on experimental evidence rather than theory and some very excited claims -- in both directions.
There are, in fact, about sixteen secondary source, independently published reviews, on the topic, all positive, in recent years, they are covered on Cold fusion/Recent sources. There are no contrary reviews of equivalent reliability. Storms (2010) is in the publication of highest reliability and reputation, but there are many others. There is an encyclopedia published by Elsevier, there is a great deal more, systematically excluded from the Wikipedia article by arguments such as presented here. Instead, the article generally relies on much weaker sources, and behind all of that is an anti-fringe point of view, insistently pushed, for years.--Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe believer

'Moreover, Storms is certainly not offering an unbiased take on the field; he's a true believer who is using a review article to push his personal point of view. (And he's pretty far out on the fringe, even for a cold fusion proponent. About the only 'biology' aspect of his Naturwissenschaften paper – and presumably the wedge by which he managed to get the paper kinda-sorta in-scope for publication – is his enthusiastic embrace of the notion that living creatures have harnessed low-energy nuclear transmutation to produce required minerals—despite an utter lack of convincing evidence.)
TenOfAllTrades, quite simply, is asserting his opinion and point of view, and none of this is backed by reliable source, except certain facts that he presents in his synthesis. (I.e., Storms does mention biological transmutation, but his tone is neutral and academic. For TOAT to call it "enthusiastic" reveals his point of view and strong bias. I know Storms personally, face-to-face. He's a trained scientist. TOAT projects enthusiasm over a neutral report, and these editors have done the same for a long time. If the article is neutral, they see it as "enthusiastic promotion of fringe." I will cover Storms' mention of biological LENR on another page, Cold fusion/Biology; until then, it is mentioned at Cold_fusion#Other effects. Not enthusiastically.
Finally, experienced Wikipedia editors will also cringe to note that Storms specifically acknowledges the contributions of w:User:Abd and w:User:JedRothwell to his manuscript. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Experienced critics of Wikipedia will note how a user like TOAT brings up names like this as if they were proof of something. I suggested to Storms that he write a review of the heat/helium issue, because it had not received adequate attention within the field. Heat/helium is the only direct evidence that the anomalous heat effect found by Pons and Fleischmann is nuclear in nature; everything else is weak or circumstantial. So he wrote the paper, and asked me and others to look at it, I did, and submitted it. The editor of NW came back and asked for a review of the entire field. Personally, I wish he hadn't done that, for political reasons. This field is extremely complex, and heat/helium is relatively simple. But Storms is his own person, very definitely. He wrote the review, he sent me the draft, and again I made comments. He accepted some and not others. And he credited me. So I was credited for editorial work that I actually did, for a real scientific journal, a journal where Einstein had published. I'm proud of that. It's been a long journey, from sitting with Feynman at Cal Tech in 1961-1963, to a career and life outside the sciences (some of it in engineering), to returning to involvement with science, to the point that I can carry on conversations with top scientists in a field, recognized academics, and sometimes make positive contributions.
I did not make "contributions to the manuscript." I edited Storms' contributions, to a small degree, plus I may have triggered the creation of the paper that preceded it. Storms was responsible for the scientific content, and then the editors of the journal were. This is truly significant about that paper: the abstract. They would not have allowed Storms to present that abstract if they did not support it. We'll get back to that.
One more point about me. I was a Wikipedia editor and knew very little about cold fusion. I knew the basic history, from 1989, and I knew very well why cold fusion was considered impossible, because I did have a nuclear physics background. I came across an abusive blacklisting of Jed Rothwell's archive of papers relating to cold fusion (all he can get permission for, positive and negative). The blacklisting was contrary to policy. I requested that the administrator reverse it. He refused. Eventually, this went to the Arbitration Committee and it found that, indeed, this blacklisting, and possibly some other actions, such as the blocking of IP identified as Jed Rothwell (it actually wasn't his, but the admin thought that anyone with those opinions must be Jed Rothwell), were improper. In the leadup to that, I had asked TOAT to advise his friend about conflict of interest as an administrator. TOAT blew up. It became very clear that he was on one side of the whole dispute. And he still is. And Wikipedia tolerates that kind of POV-pushing, it is rare that it is confronted, among administrators.
Now, how was the mention of Rothwell and myself relevant to the article? When I was "community banned" from cold fusion, the claim was excessive writing on the talk page. However, I was actually working on suggestions for the article, not editorial personalities, making up interpretations of sources not based on what is in reliable source. I was negotiating consensus on a change to the article, and it was working. The admin who stopped me was desysopped over this and related actions.
There is a set of users who have, for years, made claims that have nothing to do with Wikipedia policy, as we can see here. They are personal opinions and synthesis. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Debate over why

Another issue is that an article at Wikipedia is not the place to debate why some experiments may have failed to reproduce results. The take-home message in an encyclopedic article like this is that there are no reproducible results, and there is no mainstream support for the reported phenomenon. The article may benefit from the addition of findings from an independent source, known for its reliability in the field, if that source were to assert that various reproducibility experiments were flawed for certain reasons. However, an article at Wikipedia is not available for the promotion of fringe ideas by diluting the fact that results have not been reproduced with suggestions for why such failures occur. Johnuniq (talk) 00:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment from the article is not a debate. It's well-known, among those who have, in fact, reproduced the effect. The claim that the effect is not reproducible is, quite simply, false. (There are specific protocols that have been reproduced, and these have been academically published under peer review, and there is a general result that is highly reproducible across all protocols for the Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect, and the NW review talks extensively about that. However the effect has classically been difficult to reproduce. Storms is simply explaining that. There is a great paper that was, unfortunately, not published yet under peer review, that shows how all the experimental work, including the so-called "negative replications," present consistent results. They look at conditions of each experiment and use Bayesian analysis to predict whether or not the results would be positive, with high accuracy. One of the truly telling conditions they look at is loading ratio.
Very extensive experimental work has shown that the primary effect, anomalous heat, doesn't show up below 80% and very little below 90% loading. At the time of the early attempts to replicate, it was a common idea that loading above about 60% was impossible. McKubre has written that, because he had done extensive work with the palladium hydrogen system (for completely different applications) that if Pons and Fleischmann were seeing anomalous heat, he knew immediately that they must be working in the unexplored and considered impossible territory, because 60% and below was well-explored, even with deuterium. And that is why McKubre, because he had high experimental experience, was able to get a contract to explore this, and he did. As Storms says, the effect is difficult to set up, even with high loading. But none of the early negative replications went about 70%. They didn't try to reach higher loading, it took Pons and Fleschmann months of electrolysis and other special conditions. They were doomed to show no heat.
The "cold fusion battle" is really over in the journals. There has now been continued positive publication for many years, and nothing on the other side, of weight. Naturwissenschaften published, even though they had by then converted to "biology," a critique of Storms. But it was from Steve Krivit, who is actually a "believer" in LENR, but thinks it is "not fusion," and he is, well, outside the mainstream on that, though "not fusion" is attractive to people who can say, "Well, maybe, okay, as long as it isn't "fusion," which, of course, is impossible. (We don't actually know what it is, but the fuel for the FPHE is deuterium, and the ash is helium. Looks like fusion to me, as to result, but there are no neutrons and there is no tritium, beyond tiny traces, and no energetic radiation above 20 KeV. All of which would be expected from the known fusion reaction.)
I am quite sure that if Naturwissenschaften had received a cogent critique of cold fusion, or even a half-cogent one, they'd have published it. I conclude that Krivit was the best they got. --Abd (discusscontribs) 22:19, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

standards of academic journals

First, I am 100% certain that nowhere in the world does the scientific review process does not allow one to peer review ones own work, despite Storms being on the editorial review board of w:Naturwissenschaften, due to ethics he personally would not have had anything to do with the peer review process for this paper, and to suggest so is at best original research on your part. I admit that him being on the review board would certainly have had an impact on the paper being accepted for review, HOWEVER, remember that Storms was put on the review board knowingly by the rest of the scientists at w:Naturwissenschaften and they personally OKed this paper. it is Original research to suggest that the article in question, from a reliable journal, is not a reliable paper. unless you can find a source that says so of course. Saying that he 'wedged' the paper in is literally accusing of academic misconduct, of which there is (to my knowledge) no evidence.
'The paper was solicited by the editor of Naturwissenschaften, from probably the world's foremost expert on cold fusion, author of an academic monograph published on the subject, so of course it was accepted for review. Storms has high scientific integrity, and this claim that he approved his own paper, or exerted undue influence, is a made-up accusation about a real-life person and a real journal of high integrity. And they have been claiming this, with no evidence other than from very weak evidence, in the face of the preposterousness of it, for years. --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

biased source?

User Johnuniq has a point however and I will not add this section, however Storms 2010 meets all criteria for a reliable source. to say otherwise undermines the whole idea of a reliable source in wikipedia standards. it is not YOUR job to decide whether an article from a reliable peer reviewed journal is a reliable source. It just is. If you are calling it a 'biased source', may I remind you that wikipedia policy recommends the inclusion of opinionated sources (w:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources). I am not convinced that it is a biased source but that is the only guideline that even marginally applies from w:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources that you might be using to call this source unreliable. Furthermore, avoiding 'undue weight' recommends the use of review articles, which this is, please read w:Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Scholarship and don't waste my time pushing your POV.Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:34, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
A discussion on whether this source is biased or unbiased would be useful as it bears importance on how information from it is written about in the article. However, this does not have any bearing on whether the source is reliable or not. please discuss to reach consensus. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 04:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
InsertCPH is correct here. Review articles published under peer reviewed are recommended for science articles, particularly in the Fringe Science guidelines, as I recall. I wrote, in that RSN discussion in 2010, that peer-reviewed reviews of a field were the "gold standard." That came from fringe science guidelines. I was not claiming that editors have to accept that what is in reliable source is "true," but what is highly offensive here is that non-policy arguments are being used, as they have been used for years, to exclude information from reliable sources, independent, while, at the same time, far weaker sources are often allowed by the same editors, obviously because those editors like what is in those sources, they think it is "true."
They assert undue weight, but don't compare sources, they raise the undue weight argument without the balance. What sources are opposed to Storms or disagree with him? When and where were they published? And were these peer-reviewed articles or were they editorials? --Abd (discusscontribs) 23:09, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
The question of whether a source is "reliable" always needs to be considered in context—what is the topic of the article? what text would be verified by the source? There is also the question of w:WP:DUE—even if a source is reliable in a certain context, how does the text/source fit in the article? Those lofty considerations are not required for the source in question because it is clear that the journal and the author are not independent from those who promote cold fusion, and the article already has sufficient coverage of that side. If this article concerned a scientific topic where 40% of those in the field support a particular explanation, 30% support something else, and the remaining 30% think various other things, a source like the one in question might be acceptable as showing the opinion of its author. However, this article has none of those properties. Johnuniq (talk) 06:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
The division of a topic into "sides" is characteristic of POV-pushers. Here, Johnuniq dismisses a completely independent scientific journal, published by one of the largest scientific publishers in the world, and a review article, peer-reviewed, that considers the work of hundreds of researchers, that does not contradict the experimental results of anyone, as "not independent." They are presumably "not independent" because they found they were getting decent papers from researchers and decided to engage a topic-matter expert, Storms.
John seems to think he knows how many in "the field" support a view. But what Storms presented, for the most part, wasn't a view. That was not an editorial. It was not an opinion piece. It was a review of the research in the field. What view? The review is essentially uncontradicted, except in a response in the same journal, on points that are not important here.
This is the problem: first of all, there is no definition of the "field" for cold fusion. There is the field of Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (which is not just about cold fusion). What usually happens is that people think this is a nuclear physics field. But the nuclear physics of cold fusion is unknown. What we call cold fusion began as a chemistry experiment. Aside from an error made by Pons and Fleischmann, the known major effects, quantitatively correlated, are heat and helium. There are persistent reports of other effects, well above background, of tritium and other nuclear transmutations, but these effects are more than a million times down from helium and might be the result of a completely independent effect. So, experimentally, the field is chemistry, not physics, though they measure heat. That, however, is routinely done by chemists.
What Johnuniq is doing is what has long been done: a judgment is made that support for cold fusion is only present among a tiny band of "believers," coverage in the article should exist in proportion to their opinion about how large this group is. This has nothing to do with actual Wikipedia policy, where coverage is proportional to what is found in reliable source.
There is a lot of material found in media sources and the like that says things that are blatantly false, as shown by peer-reviewed and academic source, such as the claim that the cold fusion findings were never reproduced. That was true for a short time in 1989, there were a series of experiments where the workers had completely inadequate information about the work, but attempted to replicate anyway (under pressure from the U.S. Department of Energy, which had set a short, actually impossible deadline, and was pouring out money for research to be done immediately). As mentioned above, most of this work was doomed.
Further, Pons and Fleischmann had not been ready to announce, they were forced to announce for intellectual property reasons, forced by University of Utah legal. They were incorrect about many aspects of what they had discovered. They did not know how sensitive the experiment was to palladium condition. So, later, when they ran out of their original batch of palladium, they found that what had worked for them before, no longer worked. Creating the conditions for cold fusion remained a very difficult task. In recent years, methods of material process have been found that have better results, but it still can take months of material preparation to see the effect. Recent work by McKubre at w:SRI International has shown well over 50% of runs showing significant excess heat (greater than 5% excess heat). Only occasionally is it much, much more than that.
'But all this completely negelects heat/helium, which Storms covers extensively. There is no contrary experimental evidence. There is no contrary review, though some of the helium papers were critiqued. That whole process, which took place in a journal, isn't covered in the article. The central report in Storms (2010), which, again, is the only direct experimental evidence that cold fusion is a nuclear effect -- rather than some unknown chemistry, which is the general position of Kirk Shanahan -- is not even mentioned in the Cold fusion article, except very, very weakly, with no coverage of the actual evidence, only one of the objections (easily answered) and it is cited, not to a peer-reviewed journal or academic publication, but to a U.S. Department of Energy review, by an unknown author, not itself edited or reviewed. And ten years ago.
I agree entirely with you about the issue of Due and Undue weight, I 'am not' suggesting that this article be rewritten from the point of view of this review paper. this represents 90% of your last post. However, the question of whether the content in this paper is reliable is not affected by due or undue weight. That merely affects how much content in the article is written from the POV of CF supporters. I reiterate, Storm (2010) is a reliable source, and may be cited when weight is due. I think there are a few things in this article that could be a nice addition to the wiki, particularly elements of the conclusion, I'm talking 2-3 sentences, this is not undue weight. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
None of an article should be written from the POV of CF supporters. None. Nor from the point of view of debunkers and skeptics. The article should neutrally report what is in reliable source. The balance of the article should be determined by the balance of what is in reliable source. If reliable source is not defined, independently of opinions about the topic, then there is no way to resolve controversies by consensus, it all becomes a matter of opinion. That is why one of the editors in this discussion was so long banned, he insisted on what he used to call "SPOV," or "scientific point of view," which means, apparently, the opinions of scientists. There is, in fact, no SPOV. There are results of the application of t he scientific method, wherein we attempt to prove ourselves wrong. We can see, here, that these editors certainly are not attempting to prove themselves wrong! "SPOV" has been rejected by Wikipedia, but the faction promoting it is still quite active and dangerous. They arrange for those "pushing" contrary points of view to be blocked and banned, regularly.
InsertCPH is not reaching very high. Neither did I when I was editing the article. I made only the most conservative changes, and was slowly finding success in including more of the real, reliably-sourced research, when I was banned.
My comment, in hindsight, comes off a bit critical and reactionary. Thanks for your input on this matter. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
For years, anyone who pushed as hard as he is pushing has been in trouble on Cold fusion. So, is he in trouble? I looked. Sure enough, on his Talk page:
  1. A warning about disclosing paid editing, suspecting that he might be paid by Andrea Rossi for editing w:Energy Catalyzer (an alleged invention that might have something to do with cold fusion0.
  2. 'a welcome template followed immediately by a discretionary sanctions template placed by the same user, titled Cold fusion alert. This user is, so far, an SPA. He has only edited talk pages. He has not been disruptive, no revert warring, no incivility that I've seen, simply arguing policy. And that's worrisome, because new users do not typically know so much about policy, and the faction defending the article knows that.

Source for what proponents believe

The Storms review is only a reliable source for what cold fusion proponents believe and does not qualify as the highest quality source we would use for an evaluation of a subject by w:WP:FRIND. Note that the text you are advocating is basically a rehash of Storms particular idea that the lack of reproducibility is due to a phenomenon he, as far as I can tell, invented out of whole cloth and is advocated by no one but himself.
Storms did develop the concept of "nuclear active environment," but it is widely accepted, and, in fact, the contrary view, that the effect is in the bulk, is fringe, and contraindicated by where the helium is found. It is not found in the bulk. Storms, on this point, is on very solid ground. The other contrary view, that the effect is an artifact, is bankrupt, not even Kirk Shanahan goes quite that far. (Kirk believes the effect is surface, with some unknown chemistry, and that is, again, fringe and Kirk has been unable to find publication for his work for a long time, except for a Letter in the Journal of Environmental Monitoring, long story. His Letter was demolished and Shanahan was left sputtering that they refused to publish his rebuttal.
It's known that in the Fleischmann-Pons experiment, fresh, undisturbed palladium does not work. Basic point: this editor is asserting as fact what is only his speculation, his interpretation, his synthesis and opinion. However, make no mistake, this is jps, and he has more knowledge about cold fusion research than any of the other involved editors. I worked with him on a physics article. He knows his physics. Problem is, what is studied in physics courses provides no preparation for understanding cold fusion. It is not predicted by accepted theory. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That there has been no critical review of his claims is simply a side effect of the research into cold fusion being marginalized, but 1) as there was obviously no critical review in place for that article, 2) Naturwissenchaften certainly did not choose a critical reviewer for the article,
He made these up. Completely. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
and 3) the whole point of putting storms on the board was so that he could handle submissions of cold fusion papers and similar subjects to the journal, it's obvious to me that we have a situation where the journal was basically allowing cold fusion promotion to be published unencumbered by critical review.
He made this up. He is living in a fantasy world, and it's obvious why. The reality of cold fusion would be quite threatening to him, it would mean that something is missing from his understanding of physics. I'd suggest he get over it. I sat with Feynman, and though that was about fifty years ago, it is still largely true what he said in those lectures: we don't have the math to understand the solid state. Experts in solid state physics, and Nobel prize-winning physicists, said as much after the Pons and Fleischmann announcement. jps doesn't work with the solid state, most of his study would be in plasma physics, he is -- or was -- an astrophysics grad student.
This doesn't make cold fusion real. What makes the reality of it likely is the heat/helium evidence, and at this point, in this discussion, there isn't agreement even on the possible basis for agreement. It's essential that the concept of w:WP:RS be understood; rather, all these highly experienced editors like jps and TOAT are arguing truth. They are basing the concept of balance on what they believe is true. Not on what is found in RS.
Cold fusion is both an article about history, about what Huizenga called the "Scientific Fiasco of the Century," and about science. For the history, media RS and other similar sources are fine, with all the usual caveats. For the science, guidelines suggest using peer-reviewed secondary sources.
That's not uncommon for medium to low impact journals.
All original research, he's making all this up. Note I'm not saying it's not true, but he just invented a story about "no review" and then applied it to the journal that Springer-Verlag, at the time, considered their "flagship multidisciplinary journal," venerable (founded 1913). This is POV-pushing, pure and simple.
I can point to a number of journals which have done the same thing over the years from time to time in a lot of different areas. The idea is that if you relax your review standards you can get more papers published and perhaps increase the standing of the journal. This technique, however, tends to backfire after others notice the pattern.
All irrelevant to the cold fusion article and content. He made up a story, then backs up the story by citing unspecific examples of a similar story.
I see that Storms is no longer listed on the editorial board of Naturwissenchaften, for example. I wonder if they decided that this experiment was not in their own best interest. Well, this is speculation, but it is important to go through when evaluating whether sources are reliable for the approaches desired.
Quite the contrary. This entire line of approach is an attempt to defeat Wikipedia notability and verifiability standards. A reliable source is a reliable source, and that is determined, not by a lot of complicated reasoning and speculation, which he has just presented, but by independent publication. This paper was not published by the author, nor by some specialized cold fusion or fringe publisher (such as w:Infinite Energy.
As to Storms, it's obvious what happened. Naturwissenschaften, which had been a multidisciplinary journal from the start, changed the focus, to the life sciences. For whatever reason, the large bulk of papers being submitted were in that area. They thus no longer expected to need a LENR editor, and LENR, after all, is a highly specialized area.
In this case, I am pretty convinced that this is not a reliable source for anything but Storms' opinions, and you haven't made a convincing case that Storms' opinions should be included in this article. jps (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Essentially, to jps, the opinion of the world's foremost expert on cold fusion doesn't matter. Now, in a way, he's correct. Certainly we don't use "expert opinion" as source for Wikipedia, only in an article on Storms would we use self-published material, for example. But this was not self-published, and what he wrote there wasn't his opinions. I know his opinions, and they are not what he wrote there (though some are similar). What he wrote there was what is established in the literature he reviewed. The approach of jps can be used to discredit any peer reviewed source, just claim that the author was "biased." And he's biased because he writes about the topic. Only biased, fringe believers would write about a fringe topic, right? But that is totally circular. Naturwissenschaften started publishing peer-reviewed papers because they were within their stated coverage, they specialized in multidisciplinary articles. This was all covered in a mediation in 2009, as well as on that RSN page. Naturwissenschaften had access to peer review, apparently, from the w:Max Plank Institute.
Storms was a professional scientist his entire career. Yet jps dismisses him as a "believer," which is about the biggest insult one could issue against a scientist, short of "fraud." No, the "believer" here is jps. To him, though, what he believes is just "truth." Which is why he doesn't need reliable source, and why he dismisses reliable source, based on whatever excuses he can make up. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
OBVIOUSLY Storms review is only a reliable source insofar as it represents what CF proponents believe, i have already said this.
This user has just been warned about discretionary sanctions. First of all, "CF proponents" is undefined. What proponents believe is mostly irrelevant. Is there a peer-reviewed reliable source that says what "proponents" believe? The language itself is the language of controversy, not science. If one finds that language, it will not be likely to be in a strong source, but in a media source, where sloppy language is common.
No, the Storms review shows what passed peer review in an independent scientific journal. It's explicitly a review, in the journal. It was featured, by the way, I believe that this was on the first page. It's actually an historic paper, and so, too, the naming of a LENR editor was historic. jps got it completely backwards. He seemed to think that someone LENR proponents had taken over Naturwissenschaften, some set of clueless biologists or something. No, I'm sure biologists did not review any of the Naturwissenschaften publications relating to cold fusion. --Abd (discusscontribs) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

What evidence for self-review?

First 1) what evidence do you have for this? or is this your own opinion? 2) again what evidence do you have for this? I would like to know. 3) accusing someone of putting his own paper through without review is tantamount to accusing of academic misconduct, you had better have some evidence of this you your opinion means exactly nothing. Your wild speculations on whether the source is reliable based on your own POV makes no relevance on the subject at hand, see WIKI:POV and WIKI:Reliable source. I repeat: Storms (2010) is a reliable source insofar as it represents the views of cold fusion proponents. Stop pushing your POV, your opinion has no relevance on reliable source status, its a published paper in a reliable journal. So unless you have EVEIDENCE of professional misconduct and a lack of proper peer review stop waiting my time. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
He is right about what jps is doing, but incorrect about the Naturwissenschaften article, as is obvious from the article. The article does not describe what "cold fusion proponents believe," and I know a whole pile of people who might be considered that, and what they believe, in fact, is all over the map, and Storms didn't report on belief. He reported on experimental evidence, and then, in a section of the article, on theory. For that to be dismissed as if it were a mere recitation of the beliefs of some collection of "fringe believers" is outrageous. I don't think InsertCPH would disagree, he's now, writing this, under pressure to appear conciliatory, that's what I suspect.
I have already shown the evidence. That Storms sat on the very editorial board of the medium-impact journal in which he was published is a classic WP:REDFLAG especially when w:WP:FRIND is concerned. That's all we really need to do. What I'm asking for is for you to find a better source. This one isn't good enough and it is clear that you are the only one who thinks otherwise. jps (talk) 17:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
There is no better source, and no contrary source. If editors of the article want to report what is in the Storms review, with attribution, that's fine. However, an attribution that is, itself, original research would not be correct. Saying, for example, that the Storms review represents what "cold fusion proponents" believe, is original research. If some source said that, it would also need to be attributed, because that is also, obviously, opinion.
By raising these spurious arguments, over and over, even though some of them were exposed years ago, people like jps have been able to make coverage of cold fusion on Wikipedia a scandal among those who know the field. Quite simply, Wikipedia fails to cover what is found in the most reliable sources on the topic, while giving prominence to what is found in sources of lesser quality. What InsertCPH attempted to use was actually far from the most important information in the Storms article. Still, why cold fusion was difficult to control (the real question, not "reproduction," the effect has been massively confirmed) is of high interest, and Storms speaks to that point, writing, in the journal, what is essentially common knowledge in the research community. These are real scientists, not "believers." McKubre was a scientist first and remains a scientist, cautious, conservative, but not rigid. He knows that we don't know what we don't know. He's careful not to jump to conclusions. He's done resaerch that is the scientific foundation of much of the field, but it wasn't published under peer review. His work might be usable, and it might not. I never tried to cite it, because of the problem. His work was published by his client, the w:Electric Power Research Institute. It went through internal review at his employer, w:SRI International. That doesn't fit the Wikipedia model. But that work is primary source, anyway. Storms reviewed it!

Medical analogy

In Wikipedia's medical articles, where I often edit, this type of issue is common enough that it's actually addressed in the guideline for identifying reliable (medical) sources, w:WP:MEDRS.
Other indications that a biomedical journal article may not be reliable are [some medicine-specific points] or its content being outside the journal's normal scope."
That could be. However, what was the "scope" of Naturwissenschaften? I went over this in great detail in the mediation in 2009 and the RSN discussion in 2010. It was a multidisciplinary journal, and not some minor one. That is, it was established and had ample peer-review resources. This issue of judging the reliability of journals and papers is relevant when one must balance conflicting reports from different journals.
While not explicitly spelled out in the general WP:RS guideline, this type of publication certainly should raise a flag in any journal. When a biological-sciences journal publishes a fringe physics paper, it's definitely getting out of scope.
And here we hit the crux of the matter. Is cold fusion "fringe physics"? What is the "fringe theory"? The field is an experimental one, at this point. There is a large body of experimental data showing anomalous heat in palladium deuteride, under certain conditions, not all of which are understood well enough to control, but well enough that someone determined to reproduce the effect can do it. There is a substantial body of data, Storms covers this, showing that the heat is *correlated* with helium measurements, at a value consistent with the heat being produced by the conversion of deuterium to helium by whatever mechanism. It is the correlation, and the value of the correlation, the ratio of heat to helium, that is direct nuclear evidence. But that does not tell us much of anything about the mechanism. We know it's not ordinary deuterium-deuterium fusion, because if it were, there would be copious neutrons (dangerous levels from the heat) and plentiful tritium, and helium would be rare. We know it's not some trick that causes ordinary fusion to branch only helium (which is normally only about one reaction in 10,000, as I recall), because this would produce, gain, fatal levels of gamma rays. It is something else.
There is a Nobel Prize awaiting for the physicist who figures this out, because I don't expect the chemist Storms to succeed (though he is the best in the field at describing the conditions of cold fusion. This may take, in fact, a massive effort by many physicists, so it is no wonder that cold fusion isn't understood yet. I know a number of nuclear physicists working on the problem, but it is extremely difficult, because of what Feynman said so long ago: we don't have the math! Plasma conditions reduce to mostly two-body problems, the math can be handled. How many bodies are invoved in cold fusion? There is evidence from Takahashi that 3-deuteron fusion occurs at elevated rates in bombardment experinents (not cold fusion, but showing that something unusual happens in confinement in the deuterium lattice.)
It is reasonable for us to question whether or not the journal's editors have sufficient relevant expertise to select appropriate, independent peer reviewers and to properly evaluate such reviews as they received. (Remember, even in 'peer reviewed' literature the final decision to publish – or not – rests with the journal editor(s), not with the peer reviewers.)
They had those resources through the Max Plank Institute, if not elsewhere. Basicially, this editor is suggesting that one of the world's largest scientific publishers wouldn't know how to put together a proper peer review. He is undermining the entire basis of Wikipedia verifiability and neutrality, substituting the non-expert assessment of editors for that of experts and independent publishers. It may be reasonable to question something, but that questioning can and will lead to endless dispute. And these principles are easily abused by editors who use them to deprecate sources they don't like, while allowing sources they like. Here, some very high standard is proposed, but the article is not based on sources of as high a quality as the Storms review. Much of what has been in the article is synthesis, or depends on media sources.
I remember an instance a couple of years ago where w:intelligent design (anti-evolution) advocates were pushing for heavy coverage of a paper on irreducible complexity that appeared in the Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, a small medical journal. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 116#Baylor paper for one of the discussions. Two key concerns raised during that discussion were that the paper fell outside the journal's scope (why would a medical journal with a strong emphasis on clinical results publish a paper on evolutionary theory, and why would we trust it when it does?) and the fact that the paper's author sat on the editorial board, and would therefore have enjoyed more than the usual amount of influence over the decision to publish. (As I noted in that discussion, this type of problem isn't restricted to low- or even medium-profile journals; w:PNAS managed to publish this silly thing in 2009, for instance.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, an analogy asserted as if evidence. Yes, Storms being on the editorial board could raise eyebrows, but hopefully, then, people wouldn't just have distorted faces, they would look. The Storms paper was invited. Now I don't have reliable source for that, for Wikipedia purpose. But I know it for a fact, from Storms, and I was in communication with him through the entire process. The paper was solicited. The editorial board doesn't do peer review. That's done by independent peer reviewers. Key to Wikipedia RS is not independent authors, which is what these anti-cold fusion editors demand, but independent publishers.
The editors here might want nuclear physicists to be peer reviewers, but most of the material is outside their expertise. We have seen physicists, with the w:Energy Catalyzer fall flat on their faces from being outside their field. That is, the E-cat allegedly generates heat. Most physicists don't measure heat like that. They don't do steam engineering. And so they completely missed problems that other experts would have seen immediately. Now, in one place the Storms article might have needed a physicist. That would be his section on theory. However, he really just reports extant theories (most of which have been around for a long time, and there is another peer-reviewed review of cold fusion theory from the 1990s which is still quite good. Same conclusion: no cigar. Storms says that some theories are "plausible," which only means that one might not fall down laughing. Some people fall down laughing anyway, and that reaction is quite common among young, know-it-all physicists. However, these cannot explain the experimental data, so they resort to "they are believers, so they are imagining this, out of wishful thinking." In fact, I know the scientists, the actual researchers in cold fusion. They are careful, cautious, and highly trained and skilled.
However, the field also attracts "believers." I remember at ICCF-18, telling a young man that his favorite inventor might not have anything. He got quite angry. Notice: I just said "might," and I backed it with reasons why there might be problems. He took an assertion of possibility as a claim of fact. Believers do that. So there are "believers." But that is not Storms, and that is not those who have continued to be published under peer review.
I should say that I don't know who reviewed the Storms paper. I'll ask, if anyone is interested. I know that Jed Rothwell edited papers for submission to Naturwissenschaften, and he claimed that their review was the toughest he'd encountered. --Abd (discusscontribs) 21:48, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Natural sciences journal

Well reasoned but the similarities from that intelligent design paper and Storms (2010) are not analogous, the difference being that the ID paper was an opinion piece that was neither a research paper or review article, meaning that there was nothing to peer review. It bears many similarities to the case however, like you say he is on the editorial board, and an ID paper in a Biomed journal is (somewhat) similar to a CF article in a natural sciences journal.
Multidisciplinary journal, it was. "Natural sciences" includes physics.
However, the paper in question was seriously derided in two replies to the ID article, the CF review article was criticised only on the grounds that it was TOO critical of several areas of research by not including enough of an in depth discussion. Dr. Joseph Allen Kuhn also was previously the HEAD of the editorial board, meaning that he had a very large influence, Storms was promoted to the board knowingly by the other editors that he was a CF proponent (given that he already had a book written on the subject, meaning that the other editors must at least in majority support his views). I still support that Storms (2010) is a Reliable, Biased source that represents a reliable source of Storm's opinions and (as he is in good standing in the CF community) the larger CF community in general. Therefore the issue of weight due or undue should be heavily considered (at a later time given suggested content inclusion) and note that undue weight should not be given. However, his conclusions in the article could well be given weight of 1-2 sentences as this is the only review article on the subject that has been written in recent years, positively or negatively. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 00:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Fascinating. What InsertCPH is saying here are claims about this that I never heard. I've discussed Naturwissenschaften many times with Storms. I do not get the sense, yet, that CPH is highly informed on cold fusion. He might be. But here, assuming what he is saying is accurate, he might have inside information on Naturwissenschaften. I searched, didn't find this on, say vortex-l, where Storms sometimes writes. Storms also has a long history with the private CMNS list, and I have not read everything there.
"Biased" is unwarranted. Anyone who has spent 25 years working in a field is going to have some opinions. Who would you invite to write a review of a field? Someone with no clue? I found that it takes years to become moderately familiar with the research in this field. Even experts (i.e, experts in other fields, experienced scientists) newly exposed to it have lots of misconceptions. w:Robert Duncan (physicist had some misconceptions, some ideas that would immediately be rejected by anyone familiar with the evidence. But, quite simply, he was new, he had spent months reviewing data, and knew, then, a great deal about that data.

judging how important or how relevant a paper is

I agree that the situations aren't identical, but they're sufficiently similar to be instructive. On the other hand, since you did spend so much time closely inspecting that old discussion, I'm sure that you also noted another key issue that was raised. To wit, that intelligent design paper had been published only a few months before the discussion, so it was difficult to determine how important or relevant it was perceived to be by the 'experts' in the field.
That is, it was difficult to find reliable source on that point. However, this is all smokescreen, covering up that original research by biased editors is being used to reject reliable source. That happens with Intelligent Design and it happens with many fields that become battlegrounds. There are editors who want an article on Intelligent Design to reflect the point of view that this is pseudoscience and coverup for claiming religious belief as if it were science, and there are editors who want it to reflect the point of view that this is legitimate science. And both of these intentions, if reflected in editing, are POV-pushing. Rather, what is in reliable source? As soon as we try to judge reliable source using complex and subjective criteria -- and if the criteria are not specified in advance, but are invented, ad-hoc, for the process -- we have opened the door for POV conflict, and then the "resolution" may depend on which side has more editors or administrators, and especially which side has better connection with those who block, rather than negotiate consensus.
Reliable source covering the importance or impact of an article is just more reliable source, more material for potential inclusion. However, these editors use original research, and primary sources, to judge journals and papers and authors. It's all outside of policy.

considered useful?

In dealing with Storms (2010), we don't suffer from that handicap; we can actually look at how often his 2010 paper was cited, and in what ways, to get an idea of whether his perspective is considered useful. Doing a quick search in Google Scholar, we find 16 citations in the four years since publication: [2]. Most of those are not in peer-reviewed journal articles. 7 cites are just Storms referring back to himself in various documents. One cite is a direct response from Steven Krivit (a prominent cold fusion believer), criticizing the original paper; interestingly, Krivit didn't even notice the Storms paper to comment on it until 2013. Another one is Liu and Rousseau's paper on, ironically, citation trends over time ([w:]), which had nothing whatsoever to do with cold fusion. Even among the in-universe characters of the cold fusion world, Storms' paper seems to have attracted little attention or respect.
In other (fewer) words, then, we don't have to rely solely on our own evaluation of the quality of Storms' review article. The field of cold fusion researchers have done so for us—and despite being about as sympathetic an audience as Storms might ever hope to find, they have seen fit to ignore it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Once again, TOAT is making up arguments. Steve Krivit surely knew about the Storms paper immediately. Storms used to be on his organizational board, but Krivit went his own way, and began, about this time, heavily criticizing the rest of the field for allegedly suppressing an alternate theory explaining LENR, and attacking the research in the field generally. Krivit had written about the issues, the only thing that waited until 2013 was the publication of that response. So saying "Krivit didn't even notice" was completely made-up, but that should have been obvious already. How would TOAT know when Krivit noticed a thing?
What I suspect is that Naturwissenschaften may have been waiting for a better critique. But that is speculation.
TOAT does not know the reaction of the cold fusion community to the Storms paper. What Storms wrote about was common knowledge among cold fusion researchers. They would be unlikely to cite Storms, because practically nothing that he wrote was new. If researchers need citations, they will cite the original research, not that review. However, it had never before been collected in a single place to that extent. There are high levels of controversy within the community, and Storms argues privately with many. Including me, by the way. However, I've said this many times on the private list for CMNS researchers -- to which Storms invited me -- Storms is the world's foremost expert on cold fusion; that is, he knows the enormous body of research better than anyone else. There is very little disagreement on that.
What is the status of cold fusion in 2014? We don't know, but we have a paper that was requested and designed to show the status in 2010. It's the best we have, almost everything else is in weak sources, blogs, tertiary sources repeating very old opinions without actually investigating them, etc. Such as the claim that nobody could reproduce the findings of Pons and Fleischmann.

scientific community won't allow discussion

It seems clear to everyone that YES the only reason he could get this review published was because he was put on the review board which in my mind is sad. That the scientific community won't allow any discussion on a topic that has changed quite a lot in the past 20 years. I will note that the citation count is probably pretty irrelevant, as most CF papers aren't actually listed in google scholar. I'm going to give up now as I'm sick of arguing and its making me feel frustrated and i feel this has gone on long enough. Anyone who 'supports' CF even tentatively or sceptically has abandoned these wikipedia articles because of the difficulty of citing anything and don't blame them. I don't blame you guys either you are just following the rules.

I don't know how to take this. First of all, the scientific community allows discussion. It is only some journals that don't, that set up policies against publishing anything on the topic. Nevertheless, publication continued. And it still continues. The problems with the cold fusion article have existed since before I became aware of it in early 2009. So this editor shows up and edits for a little more than a week, and gives up? Here is what happens: the editors sitting on the article are mostly active Wikipedians, with other interests. There are exceptions, SPAs who are anti-cold fusion, but they could do little without that core of highly experienced editors. Someone shows up every few months who notices that, hey, this article is missing something! What they see as missing varies. It is often something that could not be included. This particular editor focused on one piece of information from Storms, and tried to get approval for it, but did not actually negotiate text. There are plenty of ways the user could have tried to find consensus. These editors come and go. There have been other experienced editors who tried to assist with the article, but they were generally outnumbered. There was a short time when enough attention was focused on the article to start to make progress, and that was exactly when I was first banned, by a single administrator's decision. What it takes, apparently, to make progress with the article is one or more users willing to work with the community, long-term, to address issues one at a time. Back in 2009, we had a user active on the article who was not really interested in cold fusion, his interest was obviously political. We went to mediation, and the mediation essentially decided on my position. That was made useless by my ban. Without some editor who knows policy and dispute resolution procedure and who will stick around, it's not likely to happen. Instead we get people like TOAT (who obviously knows little about cold fusion) who come in an squash what they see as fringe POV-pushing. Without knowing, really, what is fringe and what is not. They follow "common opinion," what they see as the "mainstream," even if the actual scientific community has very substantially moved on.

Is the article driving consensus

I want to ask a question though. What if this wikipedia article is affecting the 'consensus' or overall viewpoint of CF? Wikipedia has grown beyond being a simple encyclopaedia, due in no small part to great contributors such as yourselves. When people want an answer to a question, such as "is there anything to this cold fusion thing that I've heard about?" where is the first place they look? My guess, 90% of the time it is this article. (I wonder if there is a way to check via google records). With that sort of thing happening there isn't much chance of a change without some massive irrefutable event. I am not saying that anything can be done, it is just something to think about. Does wikipedia's stance on Fringe articles affect the entire evolution of that fringe environment given wikipedia's high status? Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 06:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia is not important to scientific consensus. There is a phenomenon that happens in science (and other fields) called a cascade. See [\. The subject of the article is the work of Gary Taubes, who is the same Gary Taubes who wrote Bad Science, an expose of allegedly poor and shoddy work in cold fusion. Cascades are based on an assumption that if someone who is reputable, etc., proclaims something, and if a few people agree, that they must know what they are talking about. Science and the scientific method are designed to bypass this. But the scientific method does not necessarily govern research funding decisions and, as well, journal policies. In 1989, the meme arose that the work of Pons and Fleischmann could not be reproduced. There were very few independent confirmations of anomalous heat before the US DoE ERAB Panel issued their report. So the cascade began with something that was almost true. In fact, we now know that Miles, whose negative findings were included in that report, had attempted to contact the Panel to say that he was now seeing heat. They did not return his calls. As scientists learned to create the conditions -- it is still difficult -- positive replications began to be published. But by this time the cascade was in full effect. Several prominent journals announced that they would publish no more papers on cold fusion. It became a common theme, a representative modern example of Pathological science, and still shows up that way occasionally, being compared with N-rays and w:polywater. However, from a scientific point of view, there was one problem: N-rays and polywater were rejected because controlled experiment identified the artifact. That never happened with cold fusion. The general public and many scientists assume that it did, and they assume that because people they know assume that.
However, research continued and publication continued. But there is then another problem. We don't know what cold fusion is, and we have an improving but still poor understanding of the conditions. Physicists like to study fusion under plasma conditions, because it's all in the open, so to speak. Cold fusion doesn't happen in the open. It happens, hidden, so to speak. Many of us involved the the field thing that there may be low-energy alpha particles and X-rays, but at energies where they would not normally travel far enough in the cells to be detected. (If the alpha particles were at higher than 20 KeV energy, they would produce observable effects. Without that, the energy is converted to heat.) What we know about cold fusion and the site of the reaction comes from helium evidence, and helium is, itself, difficult to study.
Without knowing the exact site of the reaction, the exact configuration of palladium lattice and possible surface contaminants that might be catalytic, creating reliable conditions can be difficult. It's taken twenty years to get to the point where protocols are reasonably reliable. And they are nowhere near reliable enough to scale up to practical energy generation.
There are commercial efforts claiming reliability, but if one looks closely, the demonstrations don't focus on reliability, they focus on absolute power output, and there are, in addition, severe problems with confidence in those demonstrations. At least one major demonstration, last year, purporting to show high heat release, has been shown to be almost certainly the result of an unexpected behavior of a flow meter. So, as to the science, I place zero credence on the commercial efforts. I wish them well, because if they do solve the problems, this is huge for the future of humanity. For now, though, it's jam tomorrow.
The upshot of this, given over twenty years of effort, including some efforts which were relatively well-funded, there is still no protocol that produces reliable heat under conditions that could be scaled up. Note that there are protocols that could be used, but they are expensive and impractical. There is no ready, cheap approach, guaranteed to work. And with the cascade still lingering in effect, obtaining funding is still difficult; and there are many researchers with different approaches competing for limited research funding.
These problems are slowly being overcome. Work is continuing.
But, no. An improved Wikipedia article would not make the difference. Consider this: when some judge somewhere cites Wikipedia as an authority in a decision, we laugh at how stupid this is. Wikipedia is not designed to be reliable! The best usage of Wikipedia is as a source for exploration and study, in the sources. By not pointing to the source of highest quality, Wikipedia is less effective than it could be in this, but the editors involved here don't care about that. They want the article to be "right" in their own eyes. We know that they don't care about the readers, because they have, over the years, consistently removed "convenience links," that is, links to legal copies of research papers. They claim that those are not necessary for verification of content. But I know personally how difficult it is to verify information if I can't get the paper. If one has access to a research library, or has on-line academic access to journals, that isn't much impediment, but remember the goal of Wikipedia, free access to knowledge? These editors don't care about that, and they do not trust the readership to be able to make judgments for themselves. That's true all through the activities of the "anti-fringe, anti-pseudoscience" faction.

equally cruel

Wikipedia is often a first stop for promoters of fringe ideas of all stripes.
This is a Wikipedian making up how important Wikipedia is to "promoters of fringe ideas." But what he actually does is to suppress and attack those who are simply scientists, or who want science to be covered according to policy. If there is a substantial "push" for some fringe idea on Wikipedia, it's not the "first stop." At all. There are isolated crazies who have attempted to promote their ideas on Wikipedia. They are not a problem for Wikipedia to handle. The whole concept of "promoters of fringe ideas" is a fantasy. There are people with erroneous ideas, and people with fringe ideas, and people with all kinds of ideas, and people with ideas tend to advocate for their ideas. The whole concept of depending on what is in reliable sources, rather than "truth," was developed to avoid imbalance from this normal advocacy. This user has long been a declared enemy of policy on Wikipedia, and he represents a determined minority. (He has covered his tracks with a series of account renamings, and other tricks.) He was at one time banned from all Fringe science articles, as well as from Wikipedia entirely, and how that ban came to be lifted is a story of its own. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Being completely ill-equipped to decide which idea is w:continental drift and which idea is w:N-rays, we are stuck being equally cruel to all novel ideas.
But, being ill-equipped to decide that, we don't. We depend on RS. However, if we then decide what RS is good and what RS is bad, outside of preset standards that are then evenly applied, we have returned to the problem of personal opinion and judgment. With consensus, editors are free, but these editors don't seek consensus, they seek control, and the faction readily warns and sanctions any user of lesser status who threatens their control of articles. The overall community doesn't approve of this, and won't support it, but "lesser status" editors don't know how to engage the larger community. Someone who does know that becomes the focus of an intense effort to get rid of the user. --Abd (discusscontribs) 00:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia, properly covers continental drift and N-rays in the same way. It is not cruel. New ideas are covered according to their prominence in reliable sources. Reliable is defined through independent publication. (Not "independent authors," they made that up.) With science, preference is given to peer-reviewed secondary sources (i.e., reviews) and academic publications. That is the policy, as interpreted by the Arbitration Committee, a policy which I supported and which this user rejected.
There are a bunch of Wikipedia policy arguments and essays with respect to this: w:WP:NOR, w:WP:RGW, w:WP:CBALL, w:WP:MAINSTREAM. The alternative is a free-for-all. That approach may be a good one too (e.g. [3]), but it is not the approach Wikipedia adopted for better or worse. My advice to cold fusion supporters has always been: go effect the change you want to see and come back. Submit your work to high quality journals.
Cold fusion researchers have almost never attempted to edit Wikipedia. Other people interested in the field have, with varying levels of knowledge. Pcarbonn is now working in the field, last I knew (yes, there are research jobs). Jed Rothwell is a writer and editor, but he hadn't actually contributed to the article for years before I showed up. I know a physicist who tried to edit the article, who was clueless about Wikipedia policies; and, of course, there is w:Brian Josephson. The people who have edited here, for the most part, have nothing to submit to peer-reviewed journals. (Which would include Josephson, he's not a researcher in the field, and the physicist I mentioned is attempting to do theoretical work.) Jps thinks the Naturwissenschaften review was "biased." Yet he has never, to our knowledge, submitted a paper showing the errors in this or any other cold fusion paper. He has not submitted his work in this field to any journal of high or low quality.
On the other hand, I know the researchers, I've met many of them face-to-face, and I've been following the field, now, for over five years. (I was a Wikipedian first, didn't believe that cold fusion was real, etc.) They submit their work to journals. Certain journals return anything relating to cold fusion, without comment. When it does go for peer reviews, comments come back like "reject, no explanatory theory" -- with an experimental report in a field where there is no explanatory theory that would satisfy such a reviewer -- or "why did you send me this garbage?" So these researchers submit the work to other journals and it's published. So what? It would be highly dangerous for science to depend on the honesty, integrity, and fairness of just a few gatekeepers. In the field of cold fusion, the biggest problems have to do with experimental technique, and approaches are shared over the internet, rapidly, and are presented at conferences, with a major conference about once a year, see w:International Conference on Cold Fusion.
Jps is an armchair critic, and so are most.
Address the reviewers comments if they come back rejected and keep pressing. If it is true and you convinced w:Robert Duncan on the basis of scientific work alone and not (as cynics have suggested) with the promise of bringing in a huge investment from Sidney Kimmel to Mizzou, you can probably convince some independent high-impact journal somewhere. jps (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
That was beautiful, I must admit, as an example of how to deniably defame someone. Hey, I didn't say it, "cynics" said it! That was not an "investment," by the way. Kimmel had funded Energetic Technologies, and Duncan was investigating cold fusion for CBS News, and he was told that ET had a reproducible protocol (they did, and I have the McKubre/ENEA paper on the replication, published by the American Chemical Society in the Low Energy Nuclear Reaction Sourcebook series.) So he visited them, and ultimately invited them to come to the University of Missouri, and they moved there. The ET approach was interesting, but probably of no commercial potential (like a lot of real cold fusion work), and so ET was shutting down, and Kimmel made that grant to Mizzou to continue work, in a lab I visited there last year, the Sidney Kimmel Institute for a Nuclear Renaissance. They are doing basic work, no longer focused on commercial applications, they have full access to nanotechnology there and there is exciting work going on. The idea that Duncan was "convinced" by the promise of a big donation is complete bullocks. Wrong timing entirely. Jps simpley can't believe that a knowledgeable physicist could be so dumb as to believe in cold fusion. But Duncan doesn't "believe in cold fusion." Duncan doesn't know what is going on in a Fleischmann Pons cell any more than anyone else. But he knows, because he checked the work carefully, that there is an anomaly.
The Fleischmann-Pons Heat Effect has been massively confirmed, in many ways and by many independent groups. Now what is causing it? Nobody knows, not yet. We do have a basis to call it fusion, as long as "fusion" doesn't mean a specific reaction sequence, but, instead, a result.
But important to me in Missouri was the opportunity to see w:Cherenkov radiation up close, something I'd read about as a subteen (yes, I was learning nuclear physics before I was a teenager). The w:University of Missouri Research Reactor Center may or many not have any importance to cold fusion research, but it was way cool.

the last word

On citation counts, I'm not asking you to take my word for it, or insisting that Google Scholar's index is the final word. (Though Scopus isn't kind to Storms' paper either; I haven't checked Web of Science because I'm out of the office and there's only so much time in my day.) If there are a lot of reputable papers that cite and endorse Storms' summary of the field, but which aren't captured by the usual publication indices, then by all means call attention to them. The problem is that Storms seems to be occupying something of an outlying position even within the world of cold fusion proponents – the fringe of the fringe, as it were – and we should be very reluctant to present such an individual's views as representative of the state of the field. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input, I've learned a lot about citing reliable sources. I think that this section can be closed now. Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
First of all, people interested in cold fusion are not "proponents." There are people who are proponents of this or that approach, or this or that theory. The whole idea of "believers" and "proponents" is part of a world-view developed by this faction. Science is not about belief and promotion. It is about testing hypotheses. TOAT knows nothing about the position of Storms in the world of "cold fusion proponents." My guess is he is looking at the Krivit response and thinking of Krivit as a "cold fusion proponent," and thus Storms as some outsider. It's entirely the reverse, in the field. Krivit was registered at ICCF-18, his badge was waiting on the table. But he didn't show. Most people in the field won't talk with him any more, because he takes what they say, and twists it and uses it against them. He's become a proponent, indeed, of Widom-Larsen theory.
Of what? Widom-Larsen theory has been published, though long ago, under peer review, and critiques of it have also appeared under peer review. So it should, in theory, be covered on Wikipedia. It has also been mentioned in media sources. It is not a "fusion" theory. Krivit, in fact, decided a few years back that he'd been deluded all along, and that "cold fusion" is impossible. Anyone who knew the physics would say, "Why did it take you so long to figure that out?" He uses a particular definition of fusion, thus aligning with many of the pseudoskeptics, who also think this way, i.e, if it is fusion, it would be d-d fusion, and therefore there would be dead grad students. Since there are no dead grad students from neutron radiation, it's not fusion, Q.E.D. However, that is trickery with definitions.
Widom-Larsen theory is covered at [[4]]. A strong majority of researchers in the field have a low opinion of this theory. It is popular with a few because it is a "not-fusion" theory. Long story. Storms is mainstream, in fact, as to what he wrote in the NW article. That article really wasn't controversial among those who know the field and who are stuck on some tangent, like Krivit (who is a journalist, not a scientist, and this is obvious in a lot that he writes.)
Bottom line: standards for reliable source have been developed by this faction and used to reject material for the cold fusion article, standards that are unworkable and that require original research and synthesis. With these arguments, they can snow any newcomer. Add to that the discretionary sanctions template dropped on this user's page, they have completely chilled a possible new participant.