User:Rabbiz/cfdrafts

Lead section
1) This is a much simpler lead that introduces the lay readers to the subject and defines what it is, without entangling them in the political arguments.

2) The lead in wiki is similar to the abstract in professional journals. Having read hundreds of professional articles, I cannot recall a mention of citations and references in an abstract. Journal editors are very much against it. The place for citations is in the details which follow.

3) I suggest separating the research from the politics. Again, the lay readers want first to know what it is all about. they don't care for the politics of it. That's why, I believe, the lead should avoid all references to political arguments. The laws of physics are not going to bend because a zillion papers were published in support of one argument or another. similarly, the laws of physics are not going to bend because the DOE panel decided one way or another.

Having said that, we cannot avoid the reality that the field is loaded with politics. Therefore, I suggest to collect all the political arguments near the end, under a heading like: "The politics of cold fusion research". That's where we can mention numbers of publications, DOE panels, etc.

--Rabbiz (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I just discovered that in Pcarbonn's favorite version (dated 19:09, 25 November 2007) the lead statement also refers to "cold fusion" as a name. "Cold fusion is the name for effects supposed to be nuclear reactions occurring near room temperature and pressure..." --Rabbiz (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)