Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Cold fusion/1

Cold fusion

 * • Watch article reassessment page
 * Result: Delist. Considerable efforts were once made to steer this article towards good article status. They have been undermined. Editors supporting keeping this article now do so with the good faith intention that Wikipedia should represent the best sources. However, that is a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's mission and process. Who decides what is "best"? Wikipedia's neutral point of view is, first of all a, a point of view, but second, it is not the point of view of the "best sources". Instead it is a point of view which represents all widely held viewpoints with due weight. What is "due weight" can be argued ad nauseum, but fringe views cannot be given excessive weight on the grounds that they are the experts, or we would end up sourcing articles on dowsing primarily to dowsers. The consensus here is clearly to delist. Once the arbcom case closes, I suggest reverting to a more stable version, and renominating. This article should never have lost its GA status: there has been a failure to listen to Wikipedians who understand Wikipedia's mission. Geometry guy 22:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

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

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


 * It should be noted that ScienceApologist has not given any evidence from reliable sources in support of his rejection of cold fusion. The article was assessed as good as recently as May 28.  Since then, it has still been improved by many editors, despite the heavy tactics of ScienceApologist.  For a full history of the article and of ScienceApologist's dubious involvement in it, please readUser:Pcarbonn. Pcarbonn (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The very fact that this page is under so many problems right now and is acknowledged by a number of editors to be problematic (including User:Eldereft (WP:FTN and User:Looie496 (Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard). ScienceApologist (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * It is extremely easy to find reliable sources saying that cold fusion is rejected by most scientists:
 * : cold fusion has been largely dismissed by the scientific community
 * : most scientists believe cold fusion does not exist
 * : most scientists regarded cold fusion as a discredited farce
 * : cold fusion has fallen into disrepute among scientists
 * : most of the scientific community no longer considers cold fusion a real phenomenon
 * It didn't take much effort to find these. Since the theory is a minority one, WP:UNDUE applies: the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view. The current version of this article is in violation of this policy and so should not be listed as a good article. Hut 8.5 11:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


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


 * (edit conflict)Also, please have a look at the book published by the Am Chem Soc and Oxford University Press.
 * Marwan, Jan and Krivit, Steven B., editors, Low energy nuclear reactions sourcebook, American Chemical Society/Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-8412-6966-8
 * Surely they consider the field worthy of publication in a positive way. Why don't we ? In some ways, the minority view has been the skeptics: the balance of publishing in reliable sources is way in favor of CF. Pcarbonn (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


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


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


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


 * Are you implying that the report contradicts itself? Kevin Baastalk 15:14, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Delist. I have only reviewed the lead, and while I have no competence to judge what is mainstream in modern physics, I am very concerned about the use of sources. In general, the lead of this article seems to over-emphasize the acceptance of cold fusion by their own original research using articles published in fairly low-level specialist sources, rather than relying on high level coverage of the topic in general purpose science journals, popular science magazines, and statements by scientific organizations. These are better sources on the general acceptance of a theory, while specialist journals are more reliable for technical details. Based on this, I think the concerns above are justified. Vesal (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is a specialist journal, Surface and Coatings Technology, with impact factor less than 2 given such prominence at the end of the lead?
 * The footnote "e.g. Mosier-Boss et al. 2008" is used to back up the claim "Since 2004, additional supporting results have been reported in peer-reviewed journals". This is a primary source for a claim like that.
 * The lead should mention the current scientific status of cold fusion. Just as for global warming and evolution, this is not based on specialist journals, but rather general purpose high-level journals and magazines, e.g. Science or Scientific American.


 * Comment Just confirming that by my assessment (mentioned above in reference to my participation on the talkpage some weeks back), the article (averaged over editwarring) is in gross violation of WP:UNDUE. It misrepresents the consensus among physicists that cold fusion research as it is currently (in 1989, in 2004, and ever since) practiced is not a promising line of research and no more money and time should be wasted on it. If cold fusion occurs, it does not do so in the systems being investigated. Presenting those scholarly articles which do appear has a place in the article, but until anyone outside of fringe proponents cares, this is not the place to right great wrongs. I have not reviewed the GAR delisting conventions, and so do not have a formal opinion on that matter. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:52, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. To read this article you would hardly realise that cold fusion is basically a laughing stock in the mainstream scientific community.  The major author of the current version has openly admitted that he set out to better reflect a fringe view, and he is a single-purpose account; this is reflected in the article, much of which is argument from sources of highly dubious reliability or expertise and lists several fringe sources to "balance" every mainstream view.  A comparison of this with the featured version form a couple of years back is instructive, you can see just how far it's been skewed towards the tiny minority position.  It should never have been GA listed in the first place, to do so debases the already debased currency of "good" articles. Guy (Help!) 19:33, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Revert to last definite GA version and restart work to reach FA. Pcarbonn helped arive at this version, so he should agree.  Any recent changes to the text should be discussed before if still desired; refs added to the old version are available in the history and should be non-controversial.  NJGW (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. This article gives undue weight to the point of view that cold fusion is not pathological science.  This is in direct opposition to the overwhelming body of evidence among reliable sources.  As an aside, the fact that a known POV-pusher is crowing about his triumph over the article on his user page and blog is a serious red flag that the article is slanted.  Skinwalker (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You are misinformed. Please have a look at PhysicsWorld showing that your statement is unsubstantiated.  Pcarbonn (talk) 06:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you seriously pointing us to a blog just because they share your misinterpretation of the DOE review? NJGW (talk) 06:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


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


 * Delist peer above reasoning. Help with a reasonable rewrite would be appreciated.--OMCV (talk) 03:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. Reverting to the GA-passing version is a decision for the editors at the page - if they choose to keep a GA-failing version, it should be delisted (per all the reasons above).Yobmod (talk) 09:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is based on the best sources that could be found.  Pcarbonn (talk) 23:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. A dreadful article that is a serious disservice to our readers, for the reasons delineated above. - Nunh-huh 17:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist - too unstable to be considered a good article. IwRnHaA (talk) 19:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm concerned about undue weight given to marginal sources and their POVs. Majoreditor (talk) 21:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. All the "delist" have only one argument: that the article doesn't validate their POV.  and that's not a valid reason.  Kevin Baastalk 15:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC) - with the exception of the "too unstable..." argument, which is a stretch.  The article " does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.", and thus meets the good article stability criteria. Kevin Baastalk 15:48, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What is this if it's not a content dispute? -Malkinann (talk) 20:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question. Are you saying that my comment constitutes a dispute of some of the article's current content?  If I didn't think the article's content was up to par, why would I vote "keep"?  And I was talking about stability - how is my comment evidence of the article changing significantly?  I don't think I'm interpreting your question correctly. Kevin Baastalk 19:32, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for having the guts to ask for clarification. :) I'm curious as to how you'd describe the current struggle by editors to keep the article NPOV.  My interpretation is that spirited debate due to the inherent controversy of the subject matter is inevitable, but given that there seems to be acrimony between the editors that work on it...  I'm wondering whether that pushes it over into being a content dispute. --Malkinann (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * There is certainly acrimony. A lot of people accusing others of pushing a POV, and a lot of discussion about content.  But an "edit dispute" means a dispute on the article page, not the talk page.  i.e. an edit war of sorts.  And the discussion is usually focused on small pieces of text, and the content of the article doesn't change very much from day to day.  Here's a diff showing the most recent 4 days worth of changes.  Notice there are only two things that stand: The "In 2004, the US DOE organized another panel charged with examining cold fusion..." para having the last two sentences removed, and being moved up a paragraph.  And the short paragraph "In 1991, Eugene Mallove stated that the negative report issued by the MIT Plasma Fusion Center in 1989, which was highly influential in the controversy, was inaccurate." being removed.  In both instances, content of low significance was trimmed per consensus.  The rest of the changes were single-word changes or citation tweaks.  That four-day diff doesn't show any significant day-to-day changes in the article, nonetheless week-to-week changes.  So yes, there are disputes over content on the talk page all the time, as there will be on any active talk page for a controversial topic, but they are over small parts of text and the article itself is quite stable.  Kevin Baastalk 20:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Delist NPOV violations, weasel-ness, citation issues, what's there to keep it GA?--Ipatrol (talk) 00:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delist Statements such as "Most people attempting to publish anything about the subject faced rejection of their papers." are definitely not neutral. Captain   panda  13:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that not neutral? It's a pertinent, factual statement.  So let's say that people who try to publish a paper in a field almost always get it rejected, would you say that's pertinent?  How would you inform the reader of that in the article?  How should we?  Or should we just leave it out?  And if so, why? Kevin Baastalk 19:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "citation needed" tag right after that sentence not withstanding, the statement seems to suggest that there is some sort of conspiracy to prevent people from talking about cold fusion. Changing the wording to something like "Papers about cold fusion are generally not published in scientific journals" would help to make it sound more neutral. Captain   panda  21:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I did try and remove this statement on the grounds that it doesn't cite a source but I was reverted. Hut 8.5 21:15, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm available if people have questions about my GA review in May. I lean towards skepticism myself, for the same reason most scientists do: keeping something this phenomenal under wraps for 20 years would require a wildly improbable conspiracy theory. The Naval Labs in San Diego have claimed an experiment that happily emits neutrons for some time now; a neutron counter in a shielded room would answer the question instantly, but no one seems to be interested in arriving at an answer ... only at getting more funding to study the question, and it's pretty easy to detect a tendency towards disinformation by the U.S. and other governments (see the hopelessly mealy-mouthed 2004 DOE review). It's sad to see the world's dysfunction cause ill-will among editors at Wikipedia, who are, for the most part, accurately reflecting the FUBAR sources. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 19:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Another comment Note that Arbcom is now looking into this. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 15:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. Per concerns on undue weight given to fringe views and the disjointed pro/con forking within the article. Majoreditor (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delist. I (as 209.253.120.198) tried to stop it from being listed as a Good Article, but was overruled by Dank55. No article with this much ongoing conflict should be listed as a Good Article. Olorinish (talk) 22:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Your memory is slightly rusty, Olorinish. There wasn't this much conflict until the day after I gave it the green cross, and that was the problem.  Despite messages on many talk pages, most of the people who had been active during April's mediation took a vacation during my 3-week GA review.  The article was stable at the time and represented consensus, or at least, that month's consensus.  I would have loved to have seen the input we're now getting at Arbcom. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * My memory is not rusty at all, Dank55. This article had a messy mediation and one dissenter to Good Article status (me), which should have been enough reason to delay Good Article status. Similarly, it should be delisted now due to the ongoing disagreements. Olorinish (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay. My sense is that no one here is blaming me for the way things turned out with the article ... please correct me if I'm wrong.  Certainly, everyone who expressed an opinion at that time ... including Olorinish (209.253), Seicer the mediator, and Pcarbonn ... thought I had done an excellent job.  As I said at the time, Olorinish, your input was very helpful all during the review.  But it's bugging me a bit that JzG/Guy is implying in his Arbcom statements and you're implying here that I ignored an active controversy and passed the article over objections.  I've re-read the whole archive, and I'd love to talk about it, but it's not relevant to the current List/Delist question (that I can see).  I'll meet you guys over at User_talk:JzG. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 02:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Delist In my opinion this article needs to be delisted ASAP. I just read it for the first time and it's been badly hijacked by NPOV and unverified claims. One of the worst articles I've seen in wikipedia on a major topic. Phil153 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)