Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:55, 17 February 2009

Biography: Science and Academia Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the science and academia work group. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool as Stub-class because it uses a stub template. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

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 10m 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.

1. Fleischmann 2003, p. 1 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFleischmann2003 (help)
2. Fleischmann 2002 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFleischmann2002 (help)
3. ^ Fleischmann 2003, p. 3 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFleischmann2003 (help)
4. Leggett 1989 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLeggett1989 (help)
5. Lewenstein 1994 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewenstein1994 (help) p. 21
6. Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFleischmannPons1989 (help), Krivit 2008, p. 9 harvnb error: no target: Krivit2008b (help), Browne 1989 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFBrowne1989 (help)
7. Fleischmann & Pons 1989, p. 301 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFFleischmannPons1989 (help)
8. ^ Crease & Samios 1989, p. V1 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFCreaseSamios1989 (help)
9. Fleischmann et al. 1990, p. 293 harvnb error: no target: Fleischmann1990 (help)
10. ^ Lewenstein 1994, p. 8 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFLewenstein1994 (help)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Cold fusion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), see also Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages has been its webmaster, which has been abused to misrepresent references on Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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#By_Dyson (includes stuff like notes from a lecture) and Terry_Pratchett#Bibliography (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_announcement (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)

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 Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#JzG_edit_warring_on_Martin_Fleischmann. --Abd (talk) 14:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm relatively new to the details of this page, but, IMHO:

1. 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.
2. 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.)
3. 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)

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)

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)

• Stub-Class biography articles
• Stub-Class biography (science and academia) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (science and academia) articles
• Science and academia work group articles
• Automatically assessed biography (science and academia) articles
• Automatically assessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles