Talk:Martin Fleischmann/Archive 1

POV
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. -- Statsone  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". 128.147.157.133 (talk)

Postgraduate Lectures at Southampton University
During the late 1970s, when I was a postgraduate student in the department of Chemical Physics at Southampton University, I was privileged to attend a number of lectures on thermodynamics by Martin Fleischmann. I recall his precision and attention to detail. Somehow, the idea of cold fusion with its present connotations of pseudoscience do not fit in any way with his thermodynamics lectures. Hair Commodore (talk) 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 cold fusion, from the article. It is much too long, and it unbalances the article.

Fleischmann-Pons experiment
Fleischmann said that he began investigating the possibility that chemical means could influence nuclear processes in the 1960s. He said that he explored whether collective effects, that would require quantum electrodynamics to calculate, might be more significant than the effects predicted by quantum mechanical calculations. He said that, by 1983, he had experimental evidence leading him to believe that condensed phase systems developed coherent structures up to 10-7m in size. In 1984, Fleischmann and Pons began cold fusion experiments. 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.

In their original set-up, Fleischmann and Pons used a Dewar flask (a double-walled vacuum flask) for the electrolysis, 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 gaseous deuterium and oxygen resulting from the electrolysis reaction to leave the cell, along with some heat. It was necessary to replenish the cell with heavy water 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.

The cell was also instrumented with a thermistor to measure the temperature of the electrolyte, and an electrical heater to generate pulses of heat and calibrate the heat loss due to the gas outlet. After calibration, it was possible to compute the heat generated by the reaction.

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.

In 1988, Fleischmann and Pons applied to the United States Department of Energy 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 out-of-pocket. The grant proposal was turned over for peer review, and one of the reviewers was Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University. Jones had worked on muon-catalyzed fusion for some time, and had written an article on the topic entitled "Cold nuclear fusion" that had been published in Scientific American in July 1987. Fleischmann and Pons and co-workers met with Jones and co-workers on occasion in Utah 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 chemical reactions alone. They felt that such a discovery could bear significant commercial value and would be entitled to patent protection. Jones, however, was measuring neutron flux, which was not of commercial interest. In order to avoid problems in the future, the teams appeared to agree to simultaneously publish their results, although their accounts of their March 6 meeting differ.

In mid-March, both research teams were ready to publish their findings, and Fleischmann and Jones had agreed to meet at an airport on March 24 to send their papers to Nature via FedEx. Fleischmann and Pons, however, broke their apparent agreement, submitting their paper to the Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry on March 11, and disclosing their work via a press conference on March 23.

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 User:JzG deleted the links to a site with the source, and apparently added, same day, that site, to the Wikipedia 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, see also Requests for arbitration/Cold fusion. Links actively being promoted by the site owner (e.g. ) in continued furtherance of a real-world dispute which has spilled over onto Wikipedia.  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.  Guy (Help!) 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 Wikipedia from copyright violation, not the world. --Abd (talk) 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 genuinely significant content in this WP:BLP article is a site devoted to the advocacy of a fringe POV, whose major proponent on Wikipedia has been its webmaster, which has been abused to misrepresent references on Wikipedia, 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 Wikipedia 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.  Guy (Help!) 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 WP:IAR, 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 WP:UNDUE, 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. --Abd (talk) 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 with this edit. 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. User:Enric Naval went to the whitelist and, with considerable effort and delay, got the specific link on lenr-canr.org whitelisted (permanent link), then restored it here. 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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 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.  Guy (Help!) 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 WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but we actually make laundry lists on articles of scientists and writers, see List_of_scientific_publications_by_Albert_Einstein or Freeman_Dyson (includes stuff like notes from a lecture) and Terry_Pratchett (see the last section "Collaborations and contributions") --Enric Naval (talk) 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 WP:BLP1E and WP:COATRACK].  Guy (Help!) 23:07, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hum, that's an interesting point. This and Pons could be redirected to Cold_fusion (Fleischmann-Pons_experiment is already a redirect to Cold fusion) --Enric Naval (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So it seems to me, anyway. Per WP:PROF 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. Guy (Help!) 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar (the poor man's Science Citation Index) shows about 12,500 references to Surface Enhanced Raman Scattering; 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. Cardamon (talk) 09:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, if I'm correct, Fleischmann was well-known in the electrochemistry field before the Cold fusion 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 Cold fusion 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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Enric Naval (talk) 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 WP:UNDUE: 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 WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 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 WP:BATTLE. 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. --Abd (talk) 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 cold fusion; 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, WP:SELFPUB would support it, in this case the material is not an autobiography and it's not subject to objective peer-review so WP:SELFPUB 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 WP:ABF as the major justification for yuour actions and refusing to engage on the policy issues I have raised, please stop doing that.  Guy (Help!) 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 Tsinghua University, 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. WP:EDITWAR 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 dispute resolution, 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 Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. --Abd (talk) 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. Guy (Help!) 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.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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. Guy (Help!) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I looked at PROF, he meets points 3 and 7, and you only need one of them to keep the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 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: The fact that this paper is available on lenr-canr.org is: The purpose of including the paper in the publications list is: 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) A dubious cold fusion research paper, submitted to and published by a fringe (cold fusion) conference.
 * 2) 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.
 * 1) Because it is a cold fusion pushing, copyright violating website.
 * 2) 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.
 * 1) To cite a non-notable bad science article from a Wikipedia article in order to push the cold fusion POV. To generate traffic for lenr-canr.org.
 * 2) 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.
 * 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 [[User:Enric Naval|] requested whitelisting (permanent link) 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. WP:COPYLINK 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 Petri Krohn . However, he was copying the references from Cold fusion 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 Cold fusion October 8, 2008, by Pcarbonn (now topic banned for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. (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 User:Enric Naval, 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 Wikipedia 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 Tsinghua University, 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. --Abd (talk) 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 Cold fusion article. But it is not out of place here. --Abd (talk) 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".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 04:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I too support the removal of material from lenr-canr.org Cardamon (talk) 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.--Abd (talk) 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 Tsinghua University. 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 stonewalling and start responding to rational arguments with rational arguments rather than by closing your ears and repeating your one argument that has been dismissed for a good reason which you are not responding to. --Hans Adler (talk) 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 what I said the first time in this thread; it links to two previous discussions of the issue. Briefly, JzG caught lenr-canr altering a PDF. Cardamon (talk) 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 The WELL, 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 Wikipedia, 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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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 Cold fusion 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 Tsinghua University. 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 Wikipedia. Just below that is lenr-canr.org. I've typically found that, lenr-canr.org doesn't need Wikipedia 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 verifiability standards, which is true but obtuse, when it comes to the purpose of the project. --Abd (talk) 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. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

For anyone who is unable or does not have the time to follow links, this is what Guy wrote here:

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.

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 not 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. Cardamon (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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, Arthur Rubin 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 Cold fusion. 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! --Abd (talk) 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. User:Enric Naval specifically got this link whitelisted so it could be used here. To try to keep the dicussion specific, I'm starting a new subsection below. --Abd (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Should readers be given a link to the paper where they can read it?
No opinion was expressed to the contrary. --Abd (talk) 17:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 23:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This is the wrong forum for the discussion. WP:RSN seems more appropriate.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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 WP:RSN, I have no objection to that. --Abd (talk)


 * Objections to linking to it seem to be of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT variety; some people dislike that site because it's "fringe", so will keep coming up with every bogus objection they can in order to keep from linking to such a BADSITE. *Dan T.* (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lenr-canr.org allegedly hosts copyright violations
Consensus is that Lenr-canr.org should not be treated as clearly hosting copyvio. --Abd (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * After careful study, I consider the matter as open as to whether it has been established that they host copyvio. The phrasing seems to imply that it's established that it does not host copyvio.  Propose summary as:


 * Consensus is that Lenr-canr.org should not be treated as clearly hosting copyvio. Arthur Rubin 16:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've accepted this, unless someone else objects, even though I think the change is a distinction without a difference. There is only one editor who has alleged copyvio for lenr-canr.org based on personal experience, i.e., an opinion that a certain publisher does not grant permission, but who has repeated these allegations 46 times or more. But, in the end, the question here is copyvio for this specific link. Policy is clear on that. --Abd (talk) 21:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

old claim, and oft repeated. 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. --Abd (talk) 19:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Among the places this has been discussed is this, on the blacklist page. It refers to this opinion by DGG. JzG responded to DGG's comment, 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 requested blacklisting there. He reasserted the copyright issue. The request was granted before any contesting argument was heard. Discussion continued, however, with JzG arguing at length. DGG commented there as well, 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). --Abd (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions re copyvio
Lenr-canr.org should not be treated as hosting copyvio. proposed by Abd (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. --Abd (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC) per Phil, below, a decision here only covers the one link. --Abd (talk) 23:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, for this one particular link. Phil153 (talk) 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.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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?--Abd (talk) 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. DGG (talk) 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. No proof of copyvios has ever been given, just lots of hand-waving. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for now. If any evidence of copyvios is brought to my attention, I might contact the organizations involved (in cooperation with Wikipedians more experienced with copyright issues) to try to obtain clear information on this issue. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lenr-canr.org allegedly is a fringe web site or biased
Consensus is that For the specific purpose being discussed, allegations of "fringe" are not sufficient to exclude the link. As I am involved here, this is simply a proposed close, but will stand unless reverted, in which case a close would be requested from a neutral editor. --Abd (talk) 04:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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 Cold fusion, 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. --Abd (talk) 18:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

From CITE:
 * 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 Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability.

From this, "fringe" would apply to preference order, and suggests additional caution with regard to accuracy, but, by itself, doesn't prohibit linking. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions re Fringe
"Fringe" is relevant to WP:RS, not for convenience links to copies of documents otherwise usable. proposed by Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support --Abd (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose (not sure if this belongs here, please move if not) CITE seems to disagree with section somewhat Phil153 (talk) 12:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You would mean "disagree with proposed conclusion"? You are welcome to propose a different conclusion.--Abd (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * CITE does not mention "fringe," except when there are multiple sites hosting copies, which is not the case here. You are correct, would you support it if I add, "and if there is no more neutral site hosting a copy"? --Abd (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess the issue is with the current wording. I think it is relevant, but not relevant enough, by itself, to not include the link.  As with all these points, it's a question of balancing usefulness vs other considerations, and there are many.Phil153 (talk) 12:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The wording wasn't intended to be a vast general principle, but to apply to this article, this usage. Suppose a site alters text, but it's not a fringe site. That's just as much of a problem as if the site is fringe. Suppose a fringe site is responsible about text, and doesn't "alter" it, though it might have links to it, say, on a page saying "See bullshit here." When we link to the document, the reader doesn't see that context unless they look for it. My point is that fringe is actually irrelevant, and the claim about fringe sites being more likely to alter documents isn't based on any guideline or principle that I know of; note, as well, the recent ArbComm decision about Fringe Science. Editors have been a tad too aggressive about "fringe." Biased sites are a problem, but being biased doesn't make one into a forger or a fraud. --Abd (talk) 18:48, 26 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. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 16:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Uncertain I think it needs to be shown case by case. DGG (talk) 23:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Phil's point above, "fringe" could be relevant, but what's at issue here is this one link, where there is no more neutral site hosting it, and the "otherwise usable" qualification was important, an attempt to tease out the "fringe" issue from the "alteration" issue. --Abd (talk) 03:37, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Other sites aren't expected to have NPOV like us; just because a site is from some particular viewpoint doesn't mean it doesn't have any useful resources that can be used in a proper context.  Labeling anything as "fringe" is an unnecessary pejorative that doesn't need to play any role in this debate. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support second half of statement. I'm not sure I would support discounting some sources on account of their being labelled "fringe"; there is not necessarily consensus as to which sources are "fringe", whether something is "fringe" or not is not a binary function; we cite sources with a variety of POVs; when writing about "fringe" topics, use of "fringe" sources can be quite appropriate for some purposes; and in this case, as I understand the situation, the site is acting as a repository of documents rather than as a direct source of opinion, so the POV of the site itself is pretty much irrelevant. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Linking to fringe or strongly POV sites is slightly undesirable, but not enough, in this case, to support exclusion of sufficiently useful links. [Proposed by Phil 153, below, added here and made case-specific by --Abd (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC).] I see above that there are two Oppose comments; however, Phil153 made it clear that his oppose was to the statement as a general principle, and he may have overlooked the qualifer: "if otherwise usable." He stated that the fringe argument was "not relevant, "Not relevant enough, by itself, to not include the link." I am concluding that he is not opposed on this ground to including the link, and that some other argument of weight would be necessary for him to oppose, such as reasonable fear of alteration of the document.
 * Support. I'd say otherwise useful and proper instead of sufficiently useful, but at a certain point we must find agreement. We can argue later, if needed, about what "sufficiently" means. --Abd (talk) 02:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

This leaves the Oppose of Arthur Rubin, which likewise seems to be against the general statement rather than the specific application here. Arthur, will you withdraw your opposition to the proposed consensus, if it is clear that this is not a general argument that "fringe" is never relevant, but rather that, for this usage, where the fringe POV of the site is not reflected in the content of the paper (except, of course, that the site might have been granted permission for reasons connected with their POV), "fringe" may be set aside? This may still leave us with the question of alteration; setting aside the fringe issue, a history of alteration of content would remain a potential argument against linking.--Abd (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please be careful to accurately quote someone when using " ". You left out "enough", which changes the meaning.


 * As for excluding my view, this is not a binary issue, I'm afraid, and attempting to force it into one seems problematic. There are many of examples of decisions where one could list 10 points, none of them individually enough to support exclusion, but taken together do make a strong case for exclusion.  So we need to capture those points rather than using absolute language.  In this sense, I think the issue of linking to fringe sites does have some weight.  For example, if the source had little value to the article itself, then this consideration becomes far stronger, since linkfarming to POV pushing sites without need is less than ideal, for a number of reasons (some related to spamming and subtle forms of weight).  I would happily support a conclusion which said "linking to fringe or strongly POV sites is slightly undesirable, but not enough to support exclusion of sufficiently useful links", or something similar.  We would have to separately establish a consensus that this is a useful link and belongs in the article. Phil153 (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the misquote, it was certainly unintentional. While it does shift the meaning, your view was not "excluded," and I'm puzzled that you'd think it was. While it is theoretically true that 10 weak points may make one sufficient one, it's actually rare, and what happens more often is that by attempting to consider 10 points at once, clarity and consensus cannot be found, and so disagreement continues. The issue around fringe was whether or not it was relevant assuming that the link would otherwise be usable. Yes, if everything is right on the edge, then maybe it could be relevant, though I find even that doubtful. If everything else were on the edge, the overall question would still be on the edge, not resolved by "fringe." Now, your suggested conclusion is just fine with me, the difference between it and what I'd prefer is small, not worthy of extended debate. Remember, this discussion is all for a purpose: do we use the link or not? Even if we wanted to, we could not establish overall policy here! So, please take this discussion as being about this particular case, without insisting that every phrase proposed apply to every hypothetical situation.


 * To restate the issue: there is a paper which is currently cited in the article. Right now it's an external link, but it has been in the past used as a reference for text. It's a paper by Fleischmann, the subject of the article. Our apparent consensus at this point is to cite the paper. So the only question before us is whether or not to link to a convenience copy hosted by lenr-canr.org. The link was whitelisted on request (not an easy process) for this very purpose. Various arguments have been raised as to why we should not cite it. However, many or most of these arguments appear to be moot. On the narrow point here in this subissue, should the allegation that lenr-canr.org is "fringe" lead us to not provide our readers with a link to a convenience copy, there being no other on-line available, as far as we know?


 * To my mind, and from ample precedent in other articles, there is only one issue that is of weight, which would be the charges of fraudulent alteration. If there is reason to fear that this paper has been altered, that could be reason to avoid linking to it. So what I'm attempting with all the other issues raised here is to set them aside, assuming we can agree on that, so that we can clearly focus on the one issue of potential weight. Without this kind of step-by-step process, given the polarization that has arisen, we are unlikely to find consensus; instead, one side or another will wear out, perhaps becoming inactive for a time, until new legions replace them. There was major POV warring going on in the Cold fusion article; two major editors have now been topic banned (Pcarbonn and ScienceApologist) and other results like that might yet appear. "We can't use this source because (five arguments are listed)," with the other side saying "we need this source because (five arguments are listed)," and with no attempt to find consensus on each the ten points raised, before trying to resolve the overall issue, is what leads to long term conflict and damage. --Abd (talk) 02:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Lenr-canr.org allegedly alters documents
'No consensus was found as to whether or not lenr-canr.org alters documents. However, no opinion was sustained that the specific link under discussion was reasonably considered to be altered, and edits to the article found consensus with the link being used and tagged "unverified," which will presumably stand until the copy is confirmed or impeached.' --Abd (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

All claims of this nature, as far as I know, have been based on an editorial introduction given to one of the DOE reviews, either 1989 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. 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. --Abd (talk) 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 so 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 Cold fusion, 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. --Abd (talk) 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 Wikipedia, 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.  Phil153 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil. It's alleged, whether true or not. Please meditate on WP:NPOV. 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. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I could request that someone look at the original document from Tsinghua University, 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. --Abd (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions re document alteration
Only fraudulent alteration, not shown for lenr-canr.org, would be relevant. proposed by Abd (talk) 23:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Addition of content, but not fraudulent and clearly distinct, does not impeach the site.--Abd (talk) 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.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Rereading this later, I'm flabbergasted. The original claim of alteration was from a prefixed editorial comment on a paper, clearly separated from the original material (from the U.S. Department of Energy), the original text was on the site in that example. There was no deception of readers; the link was non-preferred because of the editorial comment, and properly so, but that established nothing to impeach "non-editorialized" papers hosted. I'm getting a bad feeling of argument from conclusions here. Tell me it isn't so, Arthur. --Abd (talk) 02:30, 3 March 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. --Abd (talk) 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.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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 Cold fusion 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. --Abd (talk) 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? DGG (talk) 23:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen it asserted. "Alters documents" has often been stated, i.e., in the plural, but I've seen nothing other than the specific example, I think this was simply hyperbole. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. It appears the only proven "alterations" consisted of them adding introductions or other commentary before or after a document, not fraudulently altering the document itself.  This has no particular relevance to discussion over links to documents in the site that don't even have this sort of "alteration". *Dan T.* (talk) 02:56, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many kinds of non fraudulent alteration would be relevant.  And site is guilty of at least one type of alteration, casting doubt on the site's accurate and unbiased presentation of original sources.  It also sets a bad precedent if we start using POV-inserting websites as a source for original papers. Phil153 (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember, we are discussing arguments relevant to a specific link for a specific usage. Introducing hypothetical possibilities that don't apply here can simply derail our process, forcing us to make decisions about moot situations. Was the alteration asserted such that one can call the site "guilty of alteration"? Remember, in the example asserted, there was no alteration of the original text. If a site, with a thousand papers hosted, takes one that is public domain and prefaces it with an editorial introduction, does this make the whole site "POV-inserting"? It has been acknowledged by all parties that the single paper with the editorial introduction should not be used if there is a copy without such an introduction, and that is what happened a long time ago, but please don't confuse that consensus with one that considers the site impeached. Phil, you are asserting here a standard that is far higher than is normal for Wikipedia, please see the page on convenience copies that you cited before. When a site hosts a PDF provided by an author, the whole argument about alteration becomes moot, as does "fringe" and "POV," unless there is an example (one? several?) of true fraudulent alteration. I noted above that if there is actual concern about alteration of the subject paper, we can verify the text. Does anyone here think that there is sufficient doubt about reliability to require that? I'm not going to do it unless this argument is the last one standing! Why waste the time, if it's just going to be denied anyway? (Just as I wonder why Enric wasted his time getting the page whitelisted, if it was just going to be tendentiously opposed anyway. Remember, the link was there before the blacklisting....) --Abd (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, in terms of improving the article, this isn't worth a fraction of the time spent on it. I've stated why I disagree with the conclusion you proposed.  Besides, there are far more important things to do to this article than adding an 8th cold fusion related paper to the 7 already there.  I'm going to go do some of them. Phil153 (talk) 19:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment In this case, I don't see any evidence or allegations above of any "alteration" other than adding an introduction, which apparently could be linked to separately anyway; so I see no problem. If there's another site hosting the article without the added introduction, that would be preferable, but I think it's better to provide a convenience copy even with additional commentary than no online copy.  This principle is followed, for example, at Circumcision, as is explained in a box there, where when no other online copy is available, copies at pro- or anti-circumcision sites are linked to, some of which have added highlighting; I think this serves the reader better than no link. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Addition of an introduction before a document, clearly marked as separate from the document itself, is not reason to suspect a site of altering the internal content of any document without marking it as such. proposed by ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: Adding commentary about a document, outside the document and marked as such, is a reasonable action which a website might want to do. Altering the internal content of a document and presenting it as if it's the original document would be dishonest. There is no reason to suspect a site of dishonest action if there is no evidence of any dishonest action but only evidence of reasonable actions.  Wikipedia might want to avoid linking to papers which do have such introductions added; that is a separate question from whether this impeaches the whole site; if the site has some papers with introductions and some without this is no reason not to link to the papers without introduction. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Link was allegedly inserted by JedRothwell, alleged POV-pusher and COI
Consensus is that Who added the link is irrelevant to its continued usage. --Abd (talk) 04:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 16:37, 16 December 2008 Petri Krohn (References: copied 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 Cold fusion? -- diffs from that article:


 * 14:57, 8 October 2008 Pcarbonn (+ Fleischmann 2002)
 * The link remained until it was removed:


 * 20:57, 18 December 2008 JzG (Unlinking a polemical site inappropriate for references (and in some cases hosting copyright material in violation of copyright))
 * At 21:13 that day, the site was blacklisted 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. --Abd (talk) 20:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions re original insertion
Who added the link is irrelevant to its continued usage. proposed by Phil153, see support !vote below. added by Abd (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Who added the link is irrelevant to its continued usage. Phil153 (talk) 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. --Abd (talk) 23:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. The link should be decided on its own merits, without regard to history or personalities. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. On its merits. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Links to lenr-canr.org were allegedly linkspammed
Consensus is Linkspamming is moot for content decisions. --Abd (talk)

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. --Abd (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Conclusions re linkspam
Linkspamming is moot for content decisions. proposed by Abd (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Similar to the issue of who originally used it. --Abd (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. The "linkspamming", which was not really proven anyway, is irrelevant to current discussion. *Dan T.* (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support for this one link, Oppose generally. We have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, and consensus supports the operation of the blacklist, which makes de facto content decisions for Wikipedia all the time.  But the whitelisting process is sufficient to overcome this opposition. Phil153 (talk) 03:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: whether something should be considered "linkspamming" or not is dependent on whether it's being added against consensus or not – not the other way around. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Overall Conclusion
Do we insert the link to http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf as a convenience link for the paper already cited under Conference proceedings in the article?


 * 1) Yes. No reason to not use it has been given that outweighs the value to the reader. It is not reasonable to suspect that this paper is fraudulently presented, nor that there is copyright violation. The link leads to the paper, not the site itself. As it is, if a reader wants to read this paper and searches for it, what they will find is this link, or pages above this link, i.e., the site itself, lenr-canr.org, perhaps the bibliography, where there may indeed be opinion not a part of this paper. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Since the paper is listed as a reference, it's a service to the reader to provide a link to it. No valid reason not to use the link has been provided; the alleged reasons seem to have been based on confusion. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. I have seen only very weak reasons for not doing it, and some of them were in addition self-undermining because of hyperbole. (One instance of adding what was easily recognised as an introduction that was added later became several instances of fraudulent manipulation.) --Hans Adler (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) No. For reasons I have already given. Cardamon (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Cardamon. On this point, you have written, , , prior to the beginning of the extended discussion here. You raise the issue of alteration of documents; this is directly addressed by Hans Adler above, and was extensively addressed in the full discussion. Adler's description is accurate; the kind of "change" made to the DOE document, which was not fraudulent, though it certainly deprecated that link for our usage, would not apply to the document in question here. You also raise the issue of conference papers, which also isn't relevant to this question. The paper is referenced, that is not at issue. The issue is the provision of a convenience link. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

General Discussion of this process
Abd, are you aware of Polling is not a substitute for discussion ?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:56, 23 February 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?


 * 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. --Abd (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Well-organized discussion. Focussing on subquestions leads to clarity and progress. Linking to subsections here will save time in later discussions. To facilitate such linking, I propose modifying the subsection headings so that no two are identical: for example, "Conclusions (1)", "Conclusions (2)" etc. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coppertwig. Conclusion sections have been given unique names. Since there seems to be no controversy on some of the issues, I'm going to "close" them. Any editor may revert this if they wish to add contrary argument, it would then take some neutral close; at least that's the way I'd want it. --Abd (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note: I have closed certain of the issue discussions above, in expectation of lack of controversy, due to the lack of dissent for the conclusions on those narrow issues that I proposed. If you disagree with this, you may revert my closure, but, please, state your basis and sign it. Otherwise we will be able to focus on the remaining issues where there may be some disagreement. There may not be as much as might appear, for some Oppose arguments were based on lack of generality for my proposed consensus when it was intended to be specific. I.e., "Fringe is not relevant" would be with respect to this particular link being considered, that is, the copy of the paper presented in China by Martin Fleischmann, hosted on lenr-canr.org, with apparent permission, and which is apparently not available elsewhere (except in a rare book), which was whitelisted specifically to be used here. I am adding to my argument above; please reconsider your comments; with the level of disagreement that exists, I would think of restarting the process ab initio on those points or file an RfC to get other editor opinion. --Abd (talk) 04:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Status of link in article after this discussion
I oppose this edit by JzG which deleted the link against the consensus demonstrated in the above discussion to keep the link in the article. I have reverted the edit. I request that no-one remove the link again unless or until that consensus changes. In the edit summary, JzG cites WP:C. In the section WP:C, it says "It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material" and "However, if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." To my knowledge, in spite of the lengthy discussion above, no evidence of copyright violation has been provided for anything anywhere on that website, and in particular no such evidence for copyright violation for this particular work. JzG, if you have evidence of copyright violation, please bring it to my attention so that I may investigate as I mentioned in the discussion above that I might. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I rather doubt that JzG read this discussion before removing the link, he was just doing what he's done many times with it. Beginning with December 19, 2008, we have (and if a removal was accompanied by previous or immediately subsequent discussion in Talk, that is shown):
 * (Inappropriate use of fringe advocacy site)
 * no discussion in Talk.


 * (this source appears to be self-published, the publisher has no other works listed in the ISBN database. WP:BPs need to avoid dubious sources.)
 * no discussion in Talk.


 * (not seeing any independent evidence of the significance of that paper)
 * no discussion in Talk.


 * (it's not a "publication" - conference papers are nto peer-reviewed.)
 * no discussion in Talk.


 * (reversion does not address concern raied on talk. Other edits left untouched.)
 * Talk:


 * (Abd asserts edit-warring, so edit-wars. Um, no. This is under active discussion on Talk.)
 * Talk:


 * (ISBN is included, publicher stated to be Tsinghua University Press, not $RANDOMWEBSITE. Do not cite papers from copies unless we have conclusive proof of copyright release (WP:C).)
 * no discussion in Talk.

JzG did not participate in the discussion here in the step-by-step examination of most of the issues he raised before his most recent removal. From many examples, his intention was long to remove every usage of lenr-canr.org from the project, and to prevent others from using it. In this process, he expressed many, many arguments to support removals and blacklisting. We examined every issue raised and reasonably relevant, to the best of my knowledge, and our consensus was reasonably clear to use the link. The position that the paper itself could not be cited was not supported, in the end, by any other editor. One editor did remove the whole reference, but then replaced it with the convenience link commented out, added a credibility tag, and then removed that tag. This editor was aware of the extended discussion, his most recent comment in it accepted that we could disregard the allegations of copyright violation.

The detailed examination here did not nail down every detail. At a certain point it became obvious to me that disagreement that remained was over details of how conclusions would be worded, but were not actually over excluding the link. So, 16 March, I added an Overall Conclusion subsection, and, given the history and expressed positions of other editors, I went ahead and asserted the edit. That day, signed on to this conclusion, and today Hans Adler did likewise. JzG has still not commented on the specific points, and simply repeated, today, the extensively discredited copyright violation claim. No further comment is necessary, whatever else I might say is obvious from the history. --Abd (talk) 21:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't worry. I've posted a message to User talk:JzG alerting JzG to the existence of this discussion, inviting JzG to participate in it, and asking JzG not to remove the link again unless the consensus here changes. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Coppertwig. The two removals of the link from this article and the link and source from Cold fusion, today, were JzG's only edits in the last two days. --Abd (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Coming into this a bit cold, I see at meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2009-01 and on the front page of lenr-canr.org that the site has permission to host the papers it does. Do we know for certain that they have permission to host lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf ? Can someone confirm this, and/or forward to me the email from Jed Rothwell confirming that this is not a WP:LINKVIO. While saving this post, I am confronted with a message that says lenr-canr.org is blacklisted. John Vandenberg (chat) 04:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to include the material within a Wikipedia article, we would need to know for certain about the copyright status. To provide a link to a site, the policy merely says "if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work". As far as I am aware, no reason whatsoever has been provided for suspecting that there are any copyright violations anywhere on the site, let alone that that particular work is posted in violation. I've volunteered that if any reason to suspect copyright is brought forward, that I might investigate, e.g. contacting the copyright holders (and, in fact, in that case, I was planning to contact you for advice, so it's interesting that you've entered this discussion); however, if there is no reason for suspicion, then this should be unnecessary; a Wikipedian's suspicion without reason that a link might be a copyright violation is not a valid reason for deleting a link from a page when other editors have expressed reasons for keeping it. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to include the content within a Wikipedia article beyond fair use provisions, we would need to obtain a free license for it. If we did obtain a free license for it, we could archive it onto Wikisource!  And we wouldnt be having this discussion ;-)
 * We know this content is copyright, and it is both commercial and is held in libraries. The proceedings after the 9th are even more commercial, and yet there is an almost complete 10th proceedings set available at www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/ICCF10.htm#Proceedings.
 * Whether or not WP:LINKVIO allows us to put our head in the sand isnt important; policy is descriptive. If we want to include a convenience link to an online copy, it is our duty to ensure we are not breaking the law.  We dont vote on whether we can break the law; on the contrary: a detailed discussion/vote about the link, such as the above, would put us more firmly into the territory of contributory copyright violation because we (the collaborative community) would have consciously chosen to continue linking to the website in spite of concerns being raised and would not have the defense of it being added by some anonymous editor.
 * There has been a lot of suspicion about whether that website has obtained permission to redistribute everything that they are publishing online, as they say, and I saw mention of an email to that effect. Given the amount of discussion about it, I would hope we have reached a definite conclusion, and would like to see it confirmed and put on file in OTRS.  If we dont have anything conclusive yet, I'll be happy to email Jed Rothwell in order to put this matter to rest.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 15:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I want to address some policy issues. We satisfy the law regarding linking by not knowingly linking to material hosted in violation of copyright. WP:LINKVIO doesn't allow us to put our head in the sand, any court might consider if a reasonable person should have known that the material was violating; however, to my knowledge (not an expert!) the case law is confined to situations where actual knowledge was reasonably established, that the linking was "constructive infringement." Here, we essentially have no reason to believe that the material is violating, once the conditions are known. Absolute proof of binding permission to host is impossibly cumbersome. What do we want? A notarized hard copy? A state certification of the notarization? Certification by an embassy that the state certifications were authentic? (I adopted a child from China, and China required that all documents have these three levels of authentication. I also adopted from Ethiopia which only required notarization, as I recall). What kind of permission is required? If lenr-canr.org wrote an email to the publisher and got a reply back granting permission, is that enough? (Legally, yes, it would protect lenr-canr.org against a prosecution; if there was something defective, lenr-canr.org might have to take the material down.) But there is no legal risk to Wikipedia from links like this. What we have seen and considered is about as conclusive as I could reasonably imagine. --Abd (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, John. I'm not sure what the email you're mentioning is; but unless it can be tracked down and helps answer the question, I would appreciate it if you would investigate as you propose; it would be good to have a definite answer one way or the other. Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of testimony already from Rothwell, cited in the discussion, as I recall, at Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. I'm a little surprised, John, that you weren't aware of the blacklisting. Enric Naval went to some substantial difficulty to get this particular link whitelisted. There has been extensive discussion on the matter of copyright. If one looks back at the record, the allegations regarding copyright have come consistently from one editor, admin JzG, others have voiced them, but seem to be repeating from JzG. They have never been supported in any discussion that focused on that point; I consulted admin DGG on the point, and he commented in several discussions. JzG blacklisted lenr-canr.org, here, December 18, 2008, without discussion, after having made edits to the articles (this one and Cold fusion to remove links; he had been alleging copyright violation for years. When the blacklisting here was challenged, during the discussion, JzG went to meta and requested global blacklisting and, with practically no discussion, it was granted. I discovered, in investigating this, that this is quite normal for blacklisting process. JzG made many allegations in the meta blacklist request, including copyvio, linkspam, fringe, and, I think, unreliable. The discussion here was closed as moot, since the site was delisted here due to the meta blacklisting. A delisting request at meta failed, it's not clear, but a typical argument was given by the close, as I recall: it's not a reliable source, therefore there is no reason to delist. That, of course, places content decisions in the hands of admins operating with a whole different purpose than optimal content. The alleged linkspamming was the signature of Jed Rothwell, in his posts to Talk:Cold fusion which gave his title as "librarian, lenr-canr.org," and which was not a link and the blacklisting did not and does not prevent that. It's a huge can of worms. However, in every single discussion of this which has focused on copyright, including the one here (did you read it?), the copyright argument was rejected. I can provide evidence and links to discussions if needed.
 * Specifically on what Rothwell has said, he has perhaps 1000 copies of papers on his site. He has copies of about 3000 papers in his bibliography. He only hosts papers when he has permission from both authors and publishers. He says that he'd love to host the rest, but he hasn't been able to get permission. There is lots of reason to accept this statement: He is highly reputable in the field, it's quite possible that he was the editor for the paper in question, he does editing for the annual conferences. His web site is highly visible; search for a paper that he hosts and lenr-canr.org will usually be high on the first page of returns. The question might be asked, John, why such special attention to copyright for this paper? --Abd (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't think it would be good to set a precedent that any one editor can keep any one link out of an article simply by stating, without providing evidence, that they suspect it's a copyright violation. Here, JzG did not provide diffs in response to a direct request to diff links to where evidence was allegedly posted; in the above extensive discussion, no one provided links to evidence there, either.
 * If Jed Rothwell has made statements about this already, I think it would be best to review those statements before (or instead of) contacting him. Abd, can you find diffs? ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, I am asking for that evidence. Of course I have read the section above, and I have read the meta talk page discussion, as I mentioned in my initial post.  I've seen mention of an email from Jed, and would love to see a copy of it rather than bother Jed unnecessarily.
 * Why this paper? Because given the excess of discussion about the link, and the "vote" to include it, this is a hot topic that I was asked to come and make some sense of it all.
 * Please stick to the facts and law, rather than worry about motives and previous personalities; that will mean we have less difficulty sorting this out, and shorter posts to read. In case I miss it, please ping me when the evidence has been collated. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jayvd. I provided some history because your comment above did not indicate how much you were aware of it, because it is relevant to understanding what has been happening here. I will compile evidence in a subsection here, I ask that it not be edited until I've completed it, except to add relevant evidence and guidelines that I may have missed (which is very welcome). I will include reference to history, besides "law" -- policies, guidelines, precedent -- but only by reference to discussions elsewhere. Actually, I very much appreciate your attention here, and will be careful to respect your (common) need for brevity. Inclusion was not based on votes, but on arguments and sense of consensus, which only guided my own action and anyone else agreeing or accepting. --Abd (talk) 13:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Here is the email I was asking to see. I had neglected to read the enwiki blacklist discussion.  Thank you for pointing it out.
 * I only care about the copyright aspect at present, so unless you are going to do an investigation into the copyright of the works on that website, I dont see what further evidence needs to be compiled at this time.
 * Note I have obtained the original DOE PDF and compared it with the lenr-canr copy, and found it to be identical. It is now archived the DOE report onto Wikisource.
 * John Vandenberg (chat) 14:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, John, both for looking into the copyright question and for checking the DOE report and putting it in Wikisource. I would appreciate it if you would further clarify: you said "I dont see what further evidence needs to be compiled at this time." This sounds to me to mean that, unless the situation changes, as far as copyright is concerned we can go ahead and use a link from this article to Fleischmann 2002 hosted at lenr-canr. Would you please confirm or clarify? Thanks. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 16:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see a conclusion expressed on the copyright issue, however, I'll be quite surprised to see John come back with a judgment that the site can't be used without special proof. Policy is clear that the link does not violate policy, i.e., we don't violate copyright law, not even contributory infringement, should somehow there be a problem with the permissions on the specific page. However, one of the guidelines (a "style" guideline!) does contain this: it is important to be reasonably certain that the convenience copy ... does not infringe the original publisher's copyright. There is an essay, WP:CONVENIENCE, which refers to Copyright policy and which contains similarly stronger language than what is in the policy; this essay refers specifically to the policy as the source for the claim about "reasonably certain." I checked, and the policy didn't read that way even at the time. What I derive from this is that there is a segment of the community that considers a stronger standard to be needed than mere absence of reason to believe there is violation. However, in my opinion, this is all moot. Because lenr-canr.org is a highly visible site, because they host papers from publishers known to be strict in protecting copyright, and because lenr-canr.org is well-known and notable in the field, and claims permission for all hosted documents, I am, personally, "reasonably certain" that copyright violation there, if it occurs, would be rare, simple error or oversight, and the convenience to our readers -- which benefits the whole editorial process as well -- outweighs the copyright argument by a large margin.
 * An anecdote: I was reviewing Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and noticed a claim in the article that seemed a bit odd to me, so I wanted to look at the source. I drove to the hospital library that had the journal and looked it up. The text in the article was radically distorted from what was actually in the source. The text had been in the article for over a year, supposedly reliably sourced. Nobody checked it because nobody had easy access to the source. Readers frequently look at sources for reasons other than verification, they look also for further knowledge on the topic. Along the way, if many readers are looking at the source, which we encourage by providing convenience links, failure of the text to correspond to the source will be readily noticed. Sure, a reader could google it, and maybe find it. However, by making it easier for the reader, we make improvements to the article easier, more likely to occur.
 * One more point: the allegation about alteration of the DOE document was about the 1989 report from them, not the 2004 report. The 1989 document hosted there has an editorial introduction, which does, in fact, deprecate lenr-canr.org for use for that document. However, it wasn't actually "alteration," it was addition of material, clearly distinguished from the source document, and, in fact, a cleaner copy was easy to find, because lenr-canr.org acknowledged where they had obtained it, and linked to that copy. No allegation of actually altering documents themselves has been credibly leveled at lenr-canr.org. --Abd (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Prior discussion and presentations of evidence
MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist:
 * : original thread with blacklisting admin justification by JzG.
 * : delisting request by Abd.
 * because the blacklisting was justified by many different claims, the discussion was wide-ranging. Returning specifically to copyright issues:


 * begins with the mail from Jed Rothwell.
 * Discussion was closed by Hu12 due to meta blacklisting, with Defer to whitelist.

Meta Talk: Spam blacklist
 * blacklist request by JzG. Copyright violation was asserted in the request. However, the only comment from another user was about "fringe."
 * Original closure by Erwin as Added. No reason given.
 * Extensive discussion ensued.
 * Conclusions byMike.lifeguard confirming continuation of blacklisting.
 * Reasons for continuation: Links not necessary, bias, reliability, local whitelisting available.
 * Copyright violation not mentioned.
 * Final paragraphs of closure, headed, To sum up:
 * The reason for my decision is primarily that the link is being pushed inappropriately on multiple wikis. Editorial reasons are secondary, and arguments concerning them are immaterial to the primary reason. That said, I think the spamming and editorial reasons dovetail nicely here, making blacklisting an attractive outcome for all. Those who rail against this decision simply fail to realize this.
 * Whitelisting specific URLs for specific uses as required and permitted by local wikis' policies should be sought. The domain will remain blacklisted on Meta until such time as the issues identified here have been resolved and the use of links to the domain are required by an established editor for the betterment of our projects. — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 04:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist:
 * : original request by Enric Naval for use at Martin Fleischmann. Discussion includes copyright issues. Closure by Beetstra with Added.


 * --above material added by Abd (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Policies
Copyright violation
 * Does not apply here because this is about an external link, not the copying of copyrighted content here.

Guidelines
External links For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception:
 * Restrictions on linking


 * 1) Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright may be considered contributory infringement. If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors.'' This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright.
 * 2) Sites that match the Wikipedia-specific or multi-site spam blacklist without being whitelisted. MediaWiki's code will automatically block any edits that contain such links.


 * What should be linked
 * 1) Wikipedia articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the subject's official site, if any.
 * 2) An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the "Links normally to be avoided" criteria apply.
 * 3) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.


 * Links to be considered
 * 4. Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.


 * Links normally to be avoided
 * 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".
 * [note by Abd: this is the "fringe" issue. It does not apply to links directly to convenience copies of articles published elsewhere, unless those copies contain added objectionable comment; with convenience links the original publication is the source and the web site merely a place where the content may be conveniently accessed.]

Citing_sources

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 Neutral point of view and Verifiability.

"disputed reprint" designation
I oppose this edit by Arthur Rubin, which adds the words "disputed reprint" to the citation. As far as I understand from the discussion above, there is no evidence of copyright violation, nor any valid reason to think that the contents of the copy have been altered; that the only complaint against the site was that it added editorial introductions, clearly marked as such, to some works, not including this one. I invite Arthur Rubin to explain the reasoning behind the adding of these words. Marking it as disputed may mislead the reader into thinking there are significant grounds for dispute about the copy. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 22:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "unverified" or "claimed" reprint would be better. No one has verified it, have they?  (There is reason to believe that the contents of the copy have been altered.  There's no proof, and the reasoning doesn't appear very strong, but there is some reason.)  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 01:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that no specific grounds to dispute this reprint have been presented. lenr-canr.org did, on at least one occasion, add an editorial introduction to a public domain document, something which is not uncommon, at the same time as they provided a link to a more original copy (which we currently use in Cold fusion and which also has a -- smaller, less POV -- change to the first page from the other hosting site). The subject page is a pdf of a paper from a book, almost certainly provided by the author, with a header showing the publication information. It is not utterly impossible that the pdf is different from what was published by Tsinghua University, though normally lenr-canr.org states that a copy they host is "pre-publication" in that case, and may differ, but, for our purposes here, what really matters is that the paper was authored by Fleischmann and approved by him. It could have been self-published just as well. Mostly likely, however, it's an exact copy. Lenr-canr.org is highly visible in this field, and would not be able to get away with fraud. Now, how many wikilawyers can fit on a pin?

However, I'm certainly not going to get exercised by a transient "disputed reprint" designation. Someone else might, though. --Abd (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And I have no problem at all with "unverified reprint" for the time being. I said I wasn't going to go to the trouble of verification if the link was just going to be removed anyway, and if I don't like the tag, well, I can make sure it is verified. --Abd (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for the change. "Unverified" sounds much better than "disputed": to me, "unverified" simply means we haven't looked at it yet or are not making any claims about its authenticity, while "disputed" could be taken as some sort of accusation against the site with possible BLP implications.
 * Arthur Rubin, you say that there is "reason to believe that the contents of the copy have been altered". I would appreciate it if you would tell me what the reason is, or provide a link to a specific comment with that information. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Notability
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. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  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. Guy (Help!) 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. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  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 this Google Scholar search could help to identify topics that one may look for.

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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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). --Enric Naval (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2009 (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 Cold fusion. 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, Ignore all rules, has gotten lost in all the wikilawyering and personality clashes and POV wars that have afflicted the topic of Cold fusion. It's time that it stops, and that we work together to find consensus, and, unfortunately, JzG has not been a useful contributor to this, he's started edit wars before in the Cold fusion article. See User:Abd/JzG for a history of his involvement, including the use of admin tools. This is not ABF, 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 User:Pcarbonn 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 WP:BATTLE, 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 DGAF, 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 WP:SPADE. 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 Cold fusion. Preposterous, just one more diversion. I'd suggest we close this section as resolved unless someone else, here, wants to support a merge. --Abd (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC) Strike unnecessary comment re an editor. Can't delete it because of response below. --Abd (talk) 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.  Guy (Help!) 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 Cold fusion 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. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Cold fusion publication decision
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 cold fusion) states the reverse. Either would be relevant to the men, as well as to cold fusion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 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 Cold fusion 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 Gary Taubes, 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?


 * What I do know is that we can resolve these issues if we hew to WP:NPOV, 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 creationist 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. --Abd (talk) 15:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 cold fusion.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. --Abd (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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) --Enric Naval (talk) 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." --Abd (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've now done much more reading on the topic than I had done when I wrote the above, so I want to add one further note: one critical factor in the palladium is claimed to be small voids or cracks left in the palladium from processing. These fill with deuterium under high pressure and cause cracking and propagation to the surface, allowing the escape of deuterium, which then reduces the loading factor, which is known to depress success. Further, exact surface conditions are important. With palladium foil, cleaning the foil with aqua regia, which would seem to be reasonable, deposits a thin layer of chlorine, which poisons the effect. --Abd (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Best-known for in lead
I have removed this from the lead per WP:PEACOCK. --Tom 16:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. It's not WP:PEACOCK.  It's what he's best known for, not necessarily his best work.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Per WP:BRD, leave it in place until some consensus is obtained. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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, --Tom 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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 WP:MOSBIO and WP:PEACOCK. If somebody would like to draft a proper lead, lets do it, reach consensus and move on. Does ever article require drama? --Tom 21:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

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.[1] 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. [2] [3]

What is his nationality? What is he known for? What are his major accomplishments? --Tom 21:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * "Please read WP:MOSBIO and WP:PEACOCK." — OK:
 * WP:MOSBIO: "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.
 * WP:PEACOCK: "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 WP:POINT. 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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 Cold fusion editorial nightmare. Let's try to make it better, not worse.--Abd (talk) 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 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, --Tom 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. --Abd (talk) 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"? --Enric Naval (talk) 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How about "known"? See

"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" --Enric Naval (talk) 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Okay, the original claim of WP:PEACOCK 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 Cold fusion. "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. Quantum electrodynamics, say whaaa? And I sat in Richard P. Feynman's lectures when The Feynman Lectures on Physics 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. --Abd (talk) 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 WP:RS have to say about the matter, not synthesis or original thought or personal experience, ect. --Tom 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! --Tom 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?? --Tom 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. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:59, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Please stop. I will add a fact tag, --Tom 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? --Tom 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 Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart? 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 Eureka (magazine) 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? --Hans Adler (talk) 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 WP:PEACOCK, 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 dispute resolution, 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. --Abd (talk) 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. Tom 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 WP:AGF 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. --Abd (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I have changed it to "gained national attention" is that better?

Tom 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. Cardamon (talk) 04:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Reverted. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

(outedent) Please see WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBIO. Anybody want to try to form a real lead and move away from what we have know? How about Fleischmann is a British chemist. Tom 01:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "real lead". Based on your absurd misreadings of WP:LEAD and WP:MOSBIO 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? --Hans Adler (talk) 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.--Tom 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. --Abd (talk) 14:43, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * How many accounts do you edit under? --Tom 19:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)ps Sorry, question is for both Hans Adler and Abd. Thanks, --Tom 19:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ok, thank you, --Tom 22:35, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 1. -- User:Abd. 3 letters. first edits in February 2005. After almost two years discovered ~ . Later the next year figured out how to grab and place a diff.
 * 2. -- User:Abd sock. Top Secret. Shhh!
 * 3. -- User:The Community. 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. --Abd (talk) 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.--Tom 19:58, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, folks? Anyone here read Fattypuffs and Thinifers? I changed it to "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."  How's that? Any better? Guy (Help!) 21:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. --Tom 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, --Tom 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! --Tom 22:56, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

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[1] 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.

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.[7] Those who failed to reproduce the claim attacked the pair for fraudulent,[7][8] sloppy[9][7][10] and unethical work,[7] incomplete[9] unreproducible[11] and inaccurate[11] results, and erroneous interpretations.[12]

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.

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 Cold fusion 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, Wikipedia, 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. --Abd (talk) 17:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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 cold fusion article, not to this article.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Arthur Rubin that this material is relevant to the cold fusion 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. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That might make sense, except that Fleischmann is indeed most notable for his role in the Cold fusion 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? --Abd (talk) 02:30, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Fleischmann is indeed most notable for his role in the Cold fusion 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 Cold fusion, not here. I suggest that rather than being beyond controversy, we should just avoid controversy here and make Cold fusion 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. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  03:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You may be right that we should point to Cold fusion 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 Cold fusion, 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. --Abd (talk) 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. DGG (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 01:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Splitting into subheadings should make this easier to separate - career first, then cold fusion announcement, then "later work" or something. Phil153 (talk) 02:09, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

please don't remove red links
if you will please read m:Help:Link: ""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 Red link "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 Wikipedia 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 Tsinghua University Press and professorial chair 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.

Also, Tsinghua University Press is a university press of a leading Chinese university, and professorial chair 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) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair enough. I am not a fan of red links, but if you truely feel they can be made into articles, then ok. --Tom 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" lead?
 * Yeah, it can be done --Enric Naval (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Professorial chair. Hmmm.  My friend Séamus who was in Fleischmann's lab in Southampton has one of those... Guy (Help!) 23:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this the same friend who was the basis for your opinion about Cold fusion? --Abd (talk) 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 :-) Guy (Help!) 21:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

possble source for article.
NNDB, 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. link to article. 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:

"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"."

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:

"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.

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. --Abd (talk) 19:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's been decided that NNDB is not a reliable source, even for non-contraversial statements. It's much worse than IMDB and IBDB.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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....)--Abd (talk) 01:27, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish I could remember. Is it possible to search the archives of the WP:BLP/N or WP:RS/N? — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 15:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Talk:NNDB suggests that they not only don't research their articles, but copy from Wikipedia and IMDB. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 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. --Abd (talk) 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. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  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. Guy (Help!) 15:49, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This is correct, I think. "Outside of specialist circles." I.e., those in the field of Electrochemistry. He was, apparently, more than adequately notable for a Wikipedia 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. --Abd (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

original name by Fleischmann, origin of "cold fusion" name
The section stating that the original name was "N-fusion" appears to be totally wrong, please see pages 39-40, too tired to change it myself. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Confusion about IMRA dates
According to the article, Fleischmann and Pons went to work at the IMRA lab in 1992, then "parted ways" in 1995, with Fleischmann returning to Southampton, before the lab itself closed in 1998. I thought they effectively were the lab and that it was the closing of the lab that caused them to leave and subsequently "part ways". Or were CF experiments still being carried on at IMRA after they left? By who? Or was it simply that Pons left the lab in 1995, with Fleischmann continuing until the lab's closure in 1998? But that logic leaves Fleischmann's return to Southampton still in 1995 and in the air. --71.126.48.78 (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Fixed. --Wfaxon (talk) 07:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)