See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Cold_fusion
The authors are a group whose editing of the Wikipedia article on cold fusion (wp:Cold fusion) was so tendentious that one is banned from the subject and another is persona non grata for spamming and disruption. They have come here because their pro-cold fusion Wikipedia article is being reworked to more accurately and appropriately reflect the status of this field; this article, as with the Wikipedia article that Pierre Carbonnel wrote, is designed mainly as an apologia for the small group of individuals who are ardent believers in cold fusion. Whether they are right or wrong, the dominant scientific view as of this moment is that cold fusion is unproven and lacks any credible accepted mechanism. The pro cold fusion scientists see this as an emergent field, the mainstream view is that it is pathological science. Without judging which side is right, to write an article from the perspective of the minority side is a clear failure of neutrality. Unfortunately, the authors are "true believers" and thus not appropriate authors for an unbiased summary.
The authors are a group whose editing of the Wikipedia article on cold fusion (wp:Cold fusion) was so tendentious that one is banned from the subject and another is persona non grata for spamming and disruption. They have come here because their pro-cold fusion Wikipedia article is being reworked to more accurately and appropriately reflect the status of this field; this article, as with the Wikipedia article that Pierre Carbonnel wrote, is designed mainly as an apologia for the small group of individuals who are ardent believers in cold fusion. Whether they are right or wrong, the dominant scientific view as of this moment is that cold fusion is unproven and lacks any credible accepted mechanism. The pro cold fusion scientists see this as an emergent field, the mainstream view is that it is pathological science. Without judging which side is right, to write an article from the perspective of the minority side is a clear failure of neutrality. Unfortunately, the authors are "true believers" and thus not appropriate authors for an unbiased summary.
Jed Rothwell
This comment on Pierre Carbonnelle
The sources for this article are mainly from mainstream, peer-reviewed journals, and books published by mainstream publishers.
We feel that comments by anonymous authors such as "Just zis Guy, you know?" are inappropriate and contrary to academic traditions. The person who made this comment should use his or her full name, with contact information.
Sorry, that is just how it works: first fix the real-world, then Wikipedia can be changed to reflect it. And really you should not be asserting your views as fact, you should, in fairness to the reader here, be as honest as the Wikipedia article is steadily becoming.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window
The term "mainstream" is somewhat difficult to define, and the "views" of the mainstream are not known, because there have been no public opinion polls in the U.S. Indications are that the scientific community is sharply divided, perhaps 60 40 against cold fusion. All of the cold fusion scientists themselves are mainstream researchers, many of them distinguished scientists, so they are mainstream, albeit a minority within the mainstream.
Who are you, by the way? If you will not reveal your name and background, I will not communicate with you again.
EditSaveCancelDeleteDeleteBlock this userReport abusive commentHide report window