- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 – Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.Filed by Robert92107 on 18:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC). Have you discussed this on a talk page?
Yes, I have discussed this issue on a talk page already.
Location of dispute
Users involved
Dispute overview
(1) The article "Energy catalyzer" (aka E-cat) is a hot topic, since it involves highly suspect claims that have not been 100% backed up. There is also a long history of failures regarding statements of this device which have not come true. Hence, anything that does not bear directly on the validity of the device needs to be carefully weighed.
(2) Recently a large capital investment firm in the US created a company to acquire rights to this device so that they can attempt to make it a viable device. (They also are currently conducting a one year test of the device, attempting to run it 24/7.)
(3) I am attempting to add the investment information to a new section in the article (which I initially termed "Investment and commercialization"). I am willing to leave it only as "Investment" since the commercialization might be too forward looking at this point.
| Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
(4) A group of vociferous editors objects to any investment and device rights information in the article. I believe they have lost NPOV, since they mainly seem concerned about posting negative viewpoints about the device. They also deny the validity of the sources I've used, although they are good sources.
|
Have you tried to resolve this previously?
We've had repeated discussions in talk,
| Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
but they have no inclination to compromise or to post specific edits to improve the quality of the section (except for the section title, which I agreed to). Rather, they have completely rejected anything to do with this content, and say it promotes a fraudulent device, regardless of the fact
|
the posting specifically concerns only investment and patent rights. Nowhere does the material say the device works, is for sale, or they are seeking investors.
How do you think we can help?
| Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
One user characterizes these editors as a "cabal". I think there is blatant lack of NPOV. However, I am only one person.
|
I'd like some independent review of this matter. If I get a generally favorable response, I'm hoping that the weight of public opinion will allow me to post this data.
I believe that this is significant news re E-cat development. What are my other options? Create a new, associated article re E-cat investments? How could I believe they wouldn't go there and destroy it, too?
Summary of dispute by AndyTheGrump
The sources cited are a press release, and an article on a local newspaper website which makes it clear that it is itself citing the press release for the relevant material. Even if this were not a controversial article, it is unlikely that we would consider such sourcing usable, and if we did there is still the question as to whether something only discussed by local media is significant enough to merit inclusion. And when it comes to the E-Cat, there is a long history of announcements of 'investors' of 'factories', and of similar claims all clearly being pushed with the intention of adding credibility to a device which not only has had no scientific recognition, but which flies in the face of current scientific knowledge. As has been repeatedly explained to Robert92107, Wikipedia is not a platform for the promotion of unverifiable claims about devices supposedly holding the key to the world's energy problems. If and when the E-Cat ever recieves scientific recognition (as demonstrated through significant coverage in credible scientific journals) or if and when it ever becomes available for purchase (at which point, we can assume the scientific community will be scrutinising it intensely) it will of course be Wikipedia's responsiblity to report the matter. Meanwhile, this latest vague statement about unspecified 'intellectual property rights' being purchased for unspecified sums of money doesn't belong in the article. There is nothing substantive to report here, and nothing to indicate that this latest unspecified deal is of any more lasting significance than the long line of previous business arrangements regarding the E-Cat - all of which have proven to be illusory. Including this latest promotional puffery - devoid of meaningful content - while excluding the past similar claims (notably Defkalion, and the mysterious 'factory' in the U.S. which never appeared) would be grossly misleading. THe E-Cat is notable for the claims being made about the device itself, not the repetitive string of vague announcements concerning business deals that never result in anything - and per WP:CRYSTALBALL we certainly shouldn't be including the latest one just because someone expects it to be different this time. If it ever amounts to anything, we can write about it, but meanwhile it is just mundane PR, promoting a device for which there is zero scientific credibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:07, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- A comment regarding Professor Josephson's statement:
- Almost nothing he has written has any direct bearing on the dispute raised by Robert92107 - the question as to whether the article should include material on the business deal between Rossi and Industrial Heat.
| Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:37, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Instead, we have his personal commentary on the general plausibility or otherwise of the E-Cat (which is as he is well aware, entirely at odds with the relevant sources by Wikipedia standards - recognised current scientific understanding and consensus), interspersed with allegations of 'dubious exploitation of the rules', 'the usual excuses' and other assertions about the behaviour of contributors.
|
As is made abundantly clear at the top of this page, the dispute resolution notice board does not discuss behavioural issues, and nor is it a platform for general commentary about article content.
| Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
Professor Josephson is of course perfectly entitled to raise any supposed behavioural issues at the appropriate noticeboard, but I see no reason why he should be entitled to use this noticeboard as a soapbox, and accordingly wish to make it clear that, given that participation in dispute resolution is voluntary, I will have no further part in this process if it is to be sidetracked by such matters, and accordingly ask that Professor Josephson revises his statement so as to stay on topic, and to discuss the issue in dispute rather than repeating the same complaints that he has made numerous times before - complaints which the community has had ample opportunity to discuss, and has never given any significant credence.
|
Allowing this discussion regarding a specific issue to become sidetracked in such a manner would not only be a misuse of this noticeboard, but would almost certainly guarantee that no resolution could be reached. I have better things to do with my time than waste it on repetitive off-topic discussions in places where no resolution to such off-topic issues could be reached anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Brian Josephson
First of all, since I was the person who used the word cabal, the group concerned is technically not a cabal as they probably do not communicate directly with each. Nevertheless there is indirect communication on the basis of their seeing each other's edits and comments. In addition there is an element of secrecy involved in the way these individuals do not publicly announce what appear, on the basis of a study of their edits, to be their aims in the way that some other groups do. It is convenient to use the word cabal in the absence of any brief more accurate way to capture what I see happening. But let me get down to business. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
| Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
So sorry if my writings do not come up to AndyTheGrump's stringent requirements!! I suggest, though, that people who study what I have written carefully will see that in fact most of it is relevant, either to the point at issue or as a response to comments that others have made in this dispute resolution process (even if not so visibly relevant that AtG can see the connection). Perhaps the complaint should be that the others to whom I have responded have wandered off topic but I think that where appropriate what they say should be answered.
AtG also makes the point that what I say here are points I have already made. And why not, if whover is making the decisions isn't familiar with the points and they are equally relevant here?
And I think it also needs to be asked in what way AtG's criticisms advance the dispute resolution? What may I ask is the intent behind them, other than an attempt to discourage people from reading my summary?
By the way, JzG seems to be doing exactly the things that AtG is complaining about in my writings. Perhaps the two should get together and argue it out among themselves. Sorry to be commenting on other people, but I was not the one who started that process. Brian Josephson (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
|
- I should say first of all that I have no particular objection to Cullen's suggestion that press release language be transformed into encyclopedia language. However, such conversions might be attacked by some on the basis of being OR. An alternative, perhaps more in line with w'pedia's verifiability requirement, would be to quote the precise words, making it clear that it is a quote by putting it in quotes.
- In response to a comment by Johnuniq, there is an interview with Darden of IH that makes it clear that he believes, on the basis of evidence that he has been involved in, that the e-cat has a lot more than 1 in 100 chance of success (he says for example 'we’ve seen some really good stuff'). That interview could well be included but in any case it renders that criticism invalid.
- There is a lot of talk (e.g. by Guy/JzG) of 'consensus'. That's a tricky word that disguises the fact that there is a considerable range of opinion as regards LENR in general, rather than there being almost total agreement that there is error, from those who have looked properly into the experiments. This not at all like the N-ray situation, where a problem was found with the experiments, following which research in the area was dropped by scientists as it was clear the flaw explained everything. With cold fusion/LENR, there is no corresponding flaw that makes the effects go away, and experienced scientists still get effects (though not with total reproducibility, which may be expected sometimes where materials are involved).
The e-cat is different in that the situation is not clear-cut in the same way, but that is only to be expected where we have a to some degree paranoid individual who sees people trying to steal his intellectual property everywhere. The idea that this is fraud is just hypothesis, no more than that. Of course, if one believes that LENR is impossible one will be led to postulate fraud regardless of lack of clear evidence, but the case of pyrofusion shows how difficult it is to be sure of anything in physics though of course in the LENR case we have no detailed theory (but the same applied to superconductivity for many years). Brian Josephson (talk) 14:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- The fact that 'a large capital investment firm in the US created a company to acquire rights to this device so that they can attempt to make it a viable device' may enhance the credibility of the device, but I cannot see inclusion of this significant information as being primarily with the aim of exploiting this to help marketing (though, as I have indicated above, appropriate rewording might be a good thing stylistically), and in any case there is absolutely no evidence that any editors stand to gain financially in this way. The primary purpose of including this information is to inform. Brian Josephson (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
| Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- What I find particularly bothersome here is that many of the edits involve what appear to be dubious exploitation of the rules and unconvincing arguments to remove useful information. Take for example the oft-repeated suggestion that some of the material cited is promotional in character. Almost all announcements are to some extent promotional in character, for example the announcement of evidence for the Higgs boson. There are plenty of reasons for making announcements and we should not assume that an announcement is primarily promotional (and there can be a case for including informative promotional announcements in any case.
- I'd like to mention In particular the stenuous attempts to prevent material being cited by Mats Lewan, who is conatantly described in belittling terms, such as that he is only promoting is book, and has only a Master's degree whose only value (it is suggested) is that of getting you a discounted cup of coffee. In fact, Lewan is very well qualified both in terms of his qualifications and the amount of time he has spent researching Rossi and the e-cat. In the real world, rather than the bizzare w'pedia incrowd that places dubious emphasis on irrelevancies, he would be regard as very well qualified and an excellent source.
- There is also the business of editors busy removing any suggestion that Rossi's patent has anything to do with the e-cat, conveniently using the usual excuses to explain that we cannot take into account Lewan's analyses. The fact that the patent does not refer to LENR or whatever is an irrelevancy for reasons that have been explained elsewhere.
- It is time I summed up. Quite simply, it should be clear to anyone who looks dispassionately into the matter that a group of editors are systematically working to remove any material that might enhance the credibility of the e-cat, citing reasons that are distinctly unconvincing. They seem to think this is a good thing whereas I see it as considerably diminishing the value of the article. If there are reasons for doubting the e-cat, these can be included and the reader can then decide how cogent they are.
|
Summary of dispute by Cullen328
In my judgment, the edits in question were an attempt to add promotional language to the article in order to state that the E-Cat device works as claimed and is on the brink of commercial success. We need vastly better sources for any such claims than a press release sent out by the investment company through PR Newswire.
The phrase "an accelerator for environmental startups" is promotional marketing jargon copied directly from the press release, and the phrase "noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased," also copied, strongly and falsely implies that the device has been proven to work. The fact that a local business journal repeated some of the statements from the press release in a little article does not transform the press release into a reliable source. That is what local business journals do most of the time as opposed to independent reporting. This reporter was careful to note that the press release was the source of the information, an indication that little independent reporting was done, other than to summarize and link to a story critical of the device.
Copied from that story is "Terms of the deal were not announced, but a US Securities filing reported that $11.6 million has been invested in the firm." Why should an encyclopedia be commenting on what was not announced? The amount of money mentioned is trivial in the world of technology start-ups and investment banking, and unworthy of mention in an encyclopedia in this context.
Then we have, "Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development", again copied from the news article and the press release and more promotional marketing language.
The edit warring to add this promotional material is just another episode in the long campaign to transform this Wikipedia article into a marketing brochure for the utterly unproven E-Cat device. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
| Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 14:55, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- I have been accused of being part of a cabal. If that is true, then I have not noticed my invitations to the cabal meetings, where I am sure the finest wines and hors d'oeuvre are served. Please forward those invitations to my email address. I love that kind of stuff and it seems like I have been missing out, much to my chagrin.
|
- Here is a comparison to the language that the OP has proposed to add to the encyclopedia, alongside language from the press release issued by the company in question.
- Proposed encyclopedia language:
- "Industrial Heat LLC acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi’s E-Cat."
- Corresponding press release language:
- "Industrial Heat, LLC announced today that it has acquired the rights to Andrea Rossi's Italian low energy nuclear reaction (LENR) technology, the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat)."
- Proposed encyclopedia language:
- "J. T. Vaughn, manager of Industrial Heat LL, and founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge (an accelerator for environmental startups), noted that performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of their staff and validated by an independent expert before the rights were purchased."
- Corresponding press release language:
- Mr. Vaughn confirmed IH acquired the intellectual property and licensing rights to Rossi's LENR device after an independent committee of European scientists conducted two multi-day tests at Rossi's facilities in Italy.
- The published report by the European committee concluded, "Even by the most conservative assumptions as to the errors in the measurements, the result is still one order of magnitude greater than conventional energy sources" [referring to energy output per unit of mass]. The report is available online at http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913. In addition, performance validation tests were conducted in the presence of IH personnel and certified by an independent expert.
- ...and later "JT Vaughn manages Industrial Heat. He is the founder of Cherokee McDonough Challenge, an accelerator for environmental startups, and a leader in the startup community in the Research Triangle.""
- Proposed encyclopedia language:
- " Vaughn said the firm is most interested in making the technology more widely available to universities, non-governmental organizations, and industry partnerships to further its development."
- Corresponding press release language:
- "They have committed to make it broadly available because of its potential for impact. IH is considering partnerships with industry participants, universities and NGO's to ensure the technology is developed in a thoughtful and responsible manner".
- This is not neutral encyclopedia writing, but rather overly close paraphrasing of a non-neutral promotional press release issued by the investing company. If this is neutral encyclopedia writing, then someone should code a "Press release rewrite bot" to automate the process. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by JzG
The statement of the dispute is not neutral. In addition to begging the question, the claims which have "not been 100% backed up" have, in fact, been approximately 0% backed up, if not entirely debunked, according to reliable sources cited in the article. The group of "vociferous editors" has. between them, well over a quarter of a million edits to Wikipedia going back over ten years and includes one of the 500 most active Wikipedians and an admin with a decade of mop-wielding. This is not a dispute between long-time contributors with equal experience, it is a dispute between a relatively inexperienced editor and a number of very experienced editors, where the inexperienced editor insists that his, and only his, judgement of the application of WP:PAG is correct. Those of us with much more experience than the filing party could legitimately consider this quite rude. Instead we have taken great pains to explain the situation, alas without success. We are, of course, entirely used to seeing a steady stream of newcomers arriving at contended articles to "fix" our "bias" towards scientific rationalism - the term of art I usually use is "rebunking". See Wikipedia:Lunatic charlatans for Jimbo's take on this.
The E-Cat is an implausible device which is promoted by Andrea Rossi, a convicted fraudster. He has failed to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the scientific community, that the device works. From the lede:
- The device has been the subject of demonstrations and tests several times, and commented on by various academics and others, but no independent tests have been made, and no peer-reviewed tests have been published. Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."[10]
The article has been the focus of assiduous, if well-meaning, attempts to promote the device, using irrelevancies such as the award of a patent and articles based on press releases, misunderstood as independent sources.
Per WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia does not give equal weight to mainstream and fringe ideas. There is a non-trivial intersection with cold fusion, another article that has been the focus of relentless attempts by True Believers to use Wikipedia to change the real world, rather than reflect the real world in Wikipedia.
Most of the parties listed have spent forever explaining this to the minority who are in favour of boosting the probably-fraudulent product. There is no dispute, as such, just a steadfast refusal on the part of believers to accept consensus and policy. Robert perfectly exemplifies this by claiming that "the article should have a NPOV": in fact, it already does (and do look at his shouty FACT and REBUTTAL comments on the Talk page: this is WP:IDHT writ large). What he wants is a sympathetic point of view, which is non-neutral in the case of extraordinary claims made by fraudsters and not backed by robust evidence. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Brian Josephson: There is no cabal. It is neither surprising nor sinister that a random selection of long-time editors of Wikipedia have a common understanding of policy. Guy (Help!) 18:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Robert92107
| Here at DRN we only allow comments on the content of the article. Do not under any circumstances discuss the behavior of other editors. --Guy Macon
|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
|
NOTE to participants: DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors here. See Focus on Content. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
(A1)(C1) Andy and Cullen incorrectly imply all data came from a press release. The news journalist interviewed personnel at the company to confirm data in the press release, and added other data. The fact this is a local business journal (which is part of a nationwide chain of business journals) does not invalidate it as a source.
(A2)(C2) Andy and Cullen say this is an improper attempt to sell a fraudulent product or company. However, nothing is being offered for sale, there are no inducements for investors (in fact, I talked to the company today and they are NOT accepting investors), and there are no promises of future sales. Thus, there is no financial promotion in the material I'm trying to post.
(A3) Andy is also prejudging the value of this investment, and implies that an investment of over $11 million in the company is not real, and the transfer of rights is worthless. The investment can be easily validated, and the company has already has filed an international patent, so it is in operation with the stated amount of capital. The company was formed specifically with respect to E-cat rights and development (although that of course does not preclude them from other types of investments).
(A4)(C3) Andy and Cullen also seem fixated on the fear that this is a surreptitious attempt to validate the E-cat as a workable system, or to say or imply that it is on the verge of being validated or made into a workable product. What the sources cited say is that some testing was done BEFORE rights were purchased. The article says they are doing further work on the system (specifically they are doing a one year test). None of this says it works or that it will be working shortly, only that they are working on it. This is certainly allowable. (To my mind, the proper Wikipedia course might have been to add a caution not to read too much into the company's work, since the E-cat may not be workable at all. Why didn't they pursue that instead of pursuing an extreme position?)
(G1) Guy says there are no independent tests of the E-cat, but that is NOT the dispute in question here. This is about business matters ... company, capital, goals, patent rights, etc. (One of the problems I've encountered is people trying to argue other issues in this section.)
(G2) The thrust of the article should have a NPOV; what I am seeing here is prejudging this section on irrelevant grounds. Further, there is a balance between consensus and validation of new concepts in science. If only consensus could be relied on, most of the advances in science wouldn't exist today. Thus, Wikipedia editors can't say something like "we won't allow information about ongoing research in a disputed area because the consensus is that it can't work"! (Anybody remember Galileo?)
Note -- I want this section to focus on only what is provable fact, and that includes company data as well as reasonable statements from company officers relative to the goal of the company. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't want people to read things into it that just aren't there.
(B1) Brian raises some important concerns, however, many of them go beyond the specifics of this dispute. At issue here is news relative to a different phase in the process of attempting to make E-cat a viable system. I maintain that a company (1) specifically created to work on the system (2) by people with a track-record of involvement in environmentally-oriented businesses (3) with a significant amount of capital and (4) also specifically acquiring legal rights to the system IS notable. Any company that is announcing it is working on a new product (for example, Elon Musk saying he is creating a company to develop HyperLoop and capitalizing it with significant capital) would deserve notice on the W page for "hyperloop" irrespective of the fact that it is not a proven technology. The basic facts of the attempt to work on the technology in a serious manner deserve notice. Such a notice should not be assumed to be "promotional", but rather specific, relevant news on the topic. Of course, later on there will be follow up ... either success or failure will be noted. 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 18:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
(J1) JzG is not on topic, since this is about the business posting, not proof of the system.
(J2) Past performance of any group of people does not prove anything in this specific context, so this is a flawed argument. It's not worthless, but the specifics of the case must be used and a past record may be relevant at times. In general, it is best just to look at the case in hand.
(J3) Likewise, allegations that this is a fraud or scam need to be substantiated. Wild assertions like this do more harm than good, and also reduce his credibility, since it shows lack of NPOV.
(J4) JzG says I am looking for a sympathetic audience. What I am looking for is feedback on whether my contention that this business effort working on E-cat is postable news. To me, the whole topic is not closed science as he (and others) seem to suggest. I think that the assertion that there is 0% proof of LENR is flawed, there is an implication that it could NEVER be substantiated that is unwarranted, and that there are a number of physicists who have examined the issue who are not dismissing the idea out of hand. I think the fact that someone is taking this seriously enough to put significant money into the research effort now is important. Few significant things have been accomplished without investment of time and money. Thus, to me this is the current state of the E-cat. Now, if we did not want to include current information in the article -- say post only data that was three years old -- then that would be a reasonable standard to omit this business effort. However, I don't see any notice at the top of the article that says "Data here is three years old; for more current information look elsewhere." Using that standard, users would know that the W article would be generally accurate, but not up to date. That is a reasonable compromise when you don't know how things will turn out. However, it seems to me that the company's existence and effort are very signifiant to the current state of the E-cat and the currency of the article. (I also have to wonder, would we even be having this discussion if the Dept. of Energy announced a year-long study of the E-cat and I was posting that? Would the objectors be saying that this wasn't relevant as they are now doing to a private company doing the same thing? I have to wonder.) 2606:6000:C882:6000:6418:5FAF:422:94D2 (talk) 19:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
|
- Could you please go through the above and remove the comments about other editors?
I started to collapse the comments about other editors but found that I would have to collapse a bunch of material, mostly consisting of a few words. I collapsed the material after giving you ample time to edit it. We take the "only discuss article content, never user conduct" rule very seriously, because we want to break the cycle of doing what didn't work on the article talk page. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Ronz
Please keep it brief - less than 2000 characters if possible, it helps us help you quicker.
As an editor that only recently became aware of the article (unless I've forgotten and the tools aren't working), I think the WP:BATTLE problems on the article talk page and here need to end, if we're to make any progress. I doubt anything short of bans/blocks will work. The article is under ArbCom sanctions, so such bans/blocks should be relatively easy through WP:AE. --Ronz (talk) 01:06, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Putting aside the WP:BATTLE problems, the dispute concerns what, if anything, to include in the article about the purchase of i.p. and licensing rights for the device. The relevant policies here are WP:SOAP, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:FRINGE; issues normally resolved by properly applying WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:RS. Note that there is no strong consensus (at least that I'm aware) for how to apply NOTNEWS - e.g. there is very little discussion on it at ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by VQuakr
This is a dispute about whether announcements regarding corporate investment from last year are relevant enough to the article to merit inclusion. Relevant policies/guidelines include WP:FRINGE, WP:DUE, and WP:SELFSOURCE. VQuakr (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary of dispute by Johnuniq
Re "so that they can attempt to make it a viable device ": Investment firms often use a small fraction of their funds for bluesky projects—they expect the money to be thrown away, but they invest anyway because 1-in-100 of their investments might hit the jackpot, and that would be rich reward for all the failed investments. Even if the device fails every test, the investment firm could still make money by selling their rights to yet another speculative investor. The topic is major WP:FRINGE and the article is not available to record every adjustment of the deck chairs—the topic of the article is a device that generates energy; it is not about the ups-and-downs of a company. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Energy Catalyzer discussion
Extended content
|
|
Please keep discussion to a minimum before being opened by a volunteer. Continue on article talk page if necessary.
Volunteer's Note: Welcome to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I'm neither taking this case nor opening it for discussion at this time, but just reminding the filing editor that it is his obligation to notify the other participants of this filing by leaving a note on their user talk pages. The template mentioned at the top of this page can be used for that purpose (just put {{drn-notice|Energy Catalyzer}} — ~~~~ at the bottom of their talk page) or a custom-written note. If those notices are not given in the next two or three days — and placing a notice on the article talk page will not suffice — this listing will be closed as abandoned. Also, it appears to me that there may be other editors who were involved in the discussion at the article talk page who have not been listed here. If such is the case, please list them and create opening statement sections for them. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Users all notified, one user added. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- I added myself; please consider me notified. Willing to recuse myself if that is procedurally favorable. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I am a dispute resolution volunteer here at the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. This does not imply that I have any special authority or that my opinions should carry any extra weight; it just means that I have not been previously involved in this dispute and that I have some experience helping other people to resolve their disputes. Right now I am waiting for everyone to make their statements before opening this up for discussion. in the meantime, I encourage everyone involved to review our Wikipedia:Dispute resolution and Wikipedia:Consensus pages. Thanks! There is one thing that I need everyone involved to understand right from the start; DRN is not a place to keep doing the same things that did not work on the article talk page. In particular, we only discuss article content, never user conduct. Many times, solving the content dispute also solves the user conduct issue. Do not talk about other editors. If anyone has a problem with this or object to my involvement for any reason, let me know and we can discuss whether I should turn the case over to another dispute resolution volunteer. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well, THIS is embarrassing... Before I wrote the above I checked to confirm that I had not edited the page or talk page in question, but I must have made a mistake, because it turns out that I have, back in 2012.[2] Because of this, I am offering to withdraw as mediator if anyone involved wishes me to do so. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:14, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- As long as (1) your earlier work was not closely related to this specific conflict, and (2) you believe that you can be neutral, I have no objections to you continuing to contribute to the resolution. In the interests fairness, you might want to disclose something about the earlier conflict. Robert92107 (talk) 22:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
- Same here! Brian Josephson (talk) 12:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your votes of confidence. For the rest of you, it really is OK to object, and I won't take it personally. I think I can be fair about the current dispute, but then again I may very well be blind to my own bias. As A DRN volunteer (as opposed to when I join a discussion on a talk page as an ordinary editor) I try really hard not to take sides but rather to facilitate discussion. And I will say that from what I have read so far I have a generally favorable opinion of everyone involved in this dispute.
- Re: disclosing something about the earlier conflict, I wouldn't really call it a conflict, because I thought both sides had some good points. As for specifics, in this edit,[3] I raised a question about sourcing for the claim of a factory in Florida. In this edit[4] I expressed an opinion on a proposed merge with another article. I would have to examine both articles as they exist now to decide if I still would support a merge. In this edit[5] I explained some common errors that people make when using "number of Google results" as evidence. In this edit,[6] I asked whether the Rossi energy amplifier is the same this as the Energy Catalyzer, and in this edit.[7] I defended Wikipedia's WP:OR policy. The two edits that seem most relevant to the current dispute are here[8][9] You can read the thread as it existed right before being archived here.[10] Search on the word "Macon" to see all my comments in context. Feel free to ask me "sharp" questions about any of the above edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
I am still waiting for one last participant to either comment or indicate that he will not be participating before opening this up for discussion. I collapsed a bunch of comments about other editors, Feel free to remove the collapse and rewrite your comments so that they focus on article content, not user behavior. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
|
OK, everyone has made their initial comment, and I am opening this up for discussion. Based upon reading the article talk page and what went wrong there, I am going to try limiting the discussion to one issue at a time, and I would ask everyone to keep the responses short and to the point. Responding is OK, but please try to avoid a long back and forth thread. Say what you want to say once, let the other fellow have his say with a minimum of rebuttal, and give me time to mediate. I want to keep this discussion controlled and guided. You can, of course continue doing what you have been doing on the article talk page if you think the results will be different this time.
So, let's start with a simple question. Other than primary sources such as press releases and sources that reproduce press releases, do we have any sources for the material in question? Please note that I am not at this time implying that a press release alone merits or does not merit inclusion. Also, there is no need to comment at this`time as to quality of the sources listed. That will be my next question if there are any sources listed. Right now I just want to list all the known sources. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:00, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- The answer to your straightforward question is similarly straightforward: no, we do not. Even if we did we would treat it with caution due to a long history of questionable claims by Rossi, but in this case it's not even borderline. The only source is a press release and churnalism based on that press release. Popular Science is an independent reliable source and finds no merit in Rossi's claims. They are extraordinary claims, of a kind that already ruined more than one career, and they are made by a convicted fraudster. It is right and proper to give more weight - substantially more - to this view than to credulous reporting or irrelevant factoids. The whole thrust seems to be to give an unwarranted impression of legitimacy.
- This is a historical problem with all articles related to cold fusion, and it is not evil as such - people sincerely want it to be true, and want to reflect that belief on Wikipedia, but we follow the scientific consensus which will inevitably take some time to review and assimilate each new claim. Many articles on pseudoscience are besieged by "brand new research" that "proves" the claims, and that "brand new research" always turns out to be full of holes and not to change the scientific consensus. That's why we don't look to "breaking news", especially breaking news sourced directly from proponents of fringe claims, but instead wait until we have non-trivial independent commentary from which we can show both the claim and its reception and validity. Otherwise we risk misleading the reader by presenting unreviewed claims and giving trivial facts equal standing with thoughtful analysis. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- If anyone thinks that Guy missed a source, now would be a good time to cite it. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Perhaps I've misunderstood the question, but the article Industrial Heat Acquires E-Cat Technology, Opening Commercial LENR Frontier looks pretty independent and it begins with the words A major development in the story of LENR. How about that? Brian Josephson (talk) 08:36, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- The article you link is written by "Frank Acland, Publisher, E-Cat World" - a website that exists solely to promote Rossi and his claims. It is sponsored [11] by 'LENR Invest' - "a startup investment company focusing on the LENR field". [12] This is not independant sourcing - it is promotion by concerns with a direct financial interest in the promotion of 'LENR'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Obviously the editor of the publication would choose someone knowledgeable about the subject, which rather reduces the force of this argument. The question we should focus on is whether oilprice.com, who chose to publish this article, is a good source or not. Brian Josephson (talk) 10:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Now I have a question for the other side of this dispute. This being an encyclopedia, the fact that some editors think that the press release is significant and other don't think so is irrelevant. Any arguments, no matter how good, for or against the significance of he press release are irrelevant. All Wikipedia cares about is whether a reliable, independent secondary source says that the press release is significant. See WP:WEIGHT and WP:PRIMARY. Can anyone name anyone not connected to the companies in question who has gone on record as saying that the contents of the press release are significant or even true? Again, at this time I am just looking to see if such a source exists. If one does my next question will be about the quality of the source. -Guy Macon (talk) 09:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- [13]
Thats a reliable, independent secondary source which says that the press release - or the underlying fact is significant. Fritz194 (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC) — Fritz194 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Only in a world where the words 'notorious' and 'dubious' are synonyms for 'significant'... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Now, now. As I said before, "at this time I am just looking to see if such a source exists. If one does my next question will be about the quality of the source." If I may digress, we have already had a bunch of back-and-forth comments such as the above on the article talk page, and they did not lead to resolving the dispute. Now we are trying something new: structured, mediated questions and answers. Please let me address the notorious/dubious/significant issue in my next question. I have a meeting so this will will take a few hours. meanwhile, keeping in mind that I am at this time just collecting a list of all known/alleged secondary sources and will evaluate the quality in my next question, are there any others or is that it? --Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- I've been searching, but not well enough to notice the popsci article until after it was posted above.
- I've found no reliable sources. I've been finding the press releases (sometimes presented as if they're something other than pr pieces), blog entries on what I assume are true believers' websites (though some look like pr campaigns), and skeptics identifying it as the latest news in an ongoing scam. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Do you think the popsci ref is enough to justify a brief mention of the acquisition in the article? Also, looking at the press release, the claim "Since acquiring Rossi's technology, IH has engaged in a broad-based effort to protect it by preparing numerous patent applications related to the core technology as well as associated designs and uses." caught my eye. Not much we can do with that at this point, but eventually we should see one of the following: [A] A bunch of awarded patents. [B] A bunch of rejected patents. [C] No evidence that any patent was ever applied for. If the result is C, that would tell us that the new owner is doing the same thing Rossi was doing (remember the automated factory in Florida?). If the result is B that will be nothing new, and of course if the result is A it will no doubt result in a lot of press. If it really happens, the transition from a trade secret to a patent would be quite significant, because a patent is supposed to contain enough information to replicate the design -- you can build one to see if it works but you cannot sell it if it is patented. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:29, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Much as it would amuse me to include yet another popsci article calling out the E-Cat as a scam, I don't think so. This is essentially a financial story - popsci has limited expertise in that area and we've seen commentary above along the lines that companies like this often invest small sums such as that noted in pie-in-the-sky ideas on the basis that a tiny minority might pay of spectacularly. Without the context of how significant this is as an investment, all we know is that popsci sees it as Rossi stringing his scam along a little longer. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I would like a one-liner, using only the Popular Science article. It is remarkable that they have active investments going on. Readers should be made aware that this invention is not buried and dead (yet?). --Enric Naval (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- [14]
- The french version of wikiversity offers comprehensive information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fritz194 (talk • contribs) 09:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- We do not cite Wikiversity articles, ever... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment by uninvolved but interested editor
There is greater consequence to this than initially meets the eye, and the wider picture needs assessment. Basically, Robert92107 advocates using the information because as he says above he believes "this is significant news re E-cat development". Significant to whom? Well obviously, to the E-cat developers. It is not significant to Wikipedia -- we are not in a hurry, and we aren't in the business of promoting something that might never work. The last thing we need is for Wikipedia to appear to be inferring that because venture capital has been invested the development/production of E-cat is assured. Gosh, look at the much touted orbital engine which the international media orgasmed over for years. Investors threw millions at the project, but the engine was a dud. Even so, the inventor became a billionaire, albeit though other ventures, but riding on that upsurge of free publicity. We have to make sure we are not about to do what the unconscionable media willingly did for the unworkable orbital engine. Moriori (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is a false comparison. Now we know that the orbital engine, whatever that may have been, didn't make it. We don't know what will happen in the case of the e-cat. If it becomes clear that it isn't going to work, then clearly its significance will drop to near zero and probably the article should be deleted and replaced by brief mention in the CF article.
With the e-cat article containing so much hostile to the e-cat as it is, the w'pedia article as such is hardly going to make people rush to invest! Brian Josephson (talk) 08:10, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Brian. We can't know in advance if this effort will be a dud. If the past is prologue, it will be -- but it may not. My issue is basically that I'm trying to keep the article current. Is the intent of the article to only list current events which relate to proving or disproving the technology? Why then are patents listed at all? If we list patents, then wouldn't it also be reasonable to list business issues (including patent rights assignments) re the device? 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- You both need to read what I actually said. I never said we couldknow in advance whether this is a dud or not. I object to using questionable referencing to promote any unproved product, and believe in this particular case we could tread carefully and slowly. Moriori (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Comment by another uninvolved but interested editor
Withdrawal. Since it has become apparent that Guy Macon's ideas as to what constitute appropriate input from a moderator don't accord with mine, I am withdrawing from this discussion. Not only is it being unnecessarily extended beyond the original disagreement over specific text cited to specific sources, but we now have Guy engaging in off-topic speculation about the significance or otherwise of hypothetical patent applications by Industrial Heat. Such input can do nothing but muddy the waters, and make the prompt resolution of what should be a simple issue much less likely. Furthermore, I see no useful purpose in further participation anyway, since policy concerning promotional material is entirely clear - and statements about the purchase of unspecified 'intellectual property rights' for an unspecified sum of money can only ever be promotional, since they are devoid of meaningful content. This is puffery, and policy precludes it being added to the article. Policy which cannot be overruled by anything said here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please cite your specific reference in Wikipedia which shows this specific announcement is "promotional". As I said before, since I see no financial gain being able to be derived from this announcement, I do not see why it is not essentially a business news announcement, of which there are numerous ones in Wikipedia. Please do, since I really would like to understand why you say this. You appear to be much more knowledgeable re Wikipedia rules and standards than I. My argument is basically based on common sense and what I've seen in Wikipedia. 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:08, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I'm willing to leave the Moderator to decide whether the above assertion, Statements about the purchase of unspecified 'intellectual property rights' for an unspecified sum of money can only ever be promotional, since they are devoid of meaningful content, is a valid statement or not. In any case, the links give more detail. Brian Josephson (talk) 11:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Wikipedia policy on the above question is clear -- it depends. If unknown company one is buying the right to unknown product from unknown company two, then no. If Microsoft and Apple announced that Microsoft was buying the intellectual property rights to the iPhone for an unspecified sum of money, that information would have zero chance of being excluded from Wikipedia on the basis of being promotional. The material we are discussing in this case could go either way. On the one hand there is the argument that this is just the latest in a long string of promotional claims from a source that is notable for making previous promotional claims that were outright lies. On the other hand, Andrea Rossi saying that he has sold the intellectual rights to the Energy Catalyzer seems like a significant fact that our readers would want to know, just as Popular Science decided that it was a significant fact that their readers would want to know. I think we should discuss this a bit more. I am hoping that with a bit more guided discussion we can reach a compromise that is acceptable to all. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- Provided link [13] has an incomplete list of recent media coverage which might be useful.Fritz194 (talk) 16:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
- At a glance, I'm not seeing anything I didn't review before I made my comment above where I said I was unable to find other reliable sources. If I've overlooked something, please identify them specifically.
- As I noted on the article talk page, I think the new popsci article is enough for inclusion of some mention. I hope we can shortly move on to what is due for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 02:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I could not find other reliable sources either. As long as there is regular media attention/significance with this topic - I would vote for an inclusion.
- I also understand Andys and others POV that an inclusion would be "riding a dead horse". But there are too many riders and there is no consensus.Fritz194 (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (1) Andrea Rossi did not make the announcement. Some editors say he is unreliable, however, since he did not announce the sale, this objection is moot.
- (2) The sources cited in my text are a reliable business press release service and a component of a nationwide chain of local business journals which said they talked directly to the company. So, the bare facts are not in dispute.
- (3) Rossi has also indicated in interviews that now IH LLC is involved in the testing and work on the device, so clearly there is also direct confirmation from the inventor.
- (4) I could always contact the company and ask for a reconfirmation of the sale data. As I mentioned earlier, I talked to them about a week ago, and asked if shares in the company were for sale, and they said no. I will do so if others require this. 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- A question was raised re if IH LLC has ever filed patents. Yes, they did file one just recently. I posted an international patent IH filed under "Patents" (but don't know if its there now). 2606:6000:C882:6000:8041:861B:2B11:6BBB (talk) 04:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hmmm. IH LLC should not be able to file a patent on E-Cat technology if they haven't acquired the rights. I would like to see a link to the patent application, but it does appear to answer the "did the sale of rights really happen" question (which really wasn't at issue here). --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I think everyone has said pretty much what they wanted to say, so I am going to take a quick straw poll:
- A poll? I trust you will be doing more than simply counting votes. Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Is it possible to vote for "allow it" without being banned as "coldfusionist" ?Fritz194 (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Brian Josephson, yes I will be doing more than simply counting votes, but on the other hand the straw poll is not an RfC. It is for the sole purpose of telling me whether further discussion will be helpful or whether I should close this and refer the dispute to the next step in dispute resolution. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Fritz194, I realize that the above is a lighthearted question, but it does have a serious answer. When we set up DRN we purposely gave the DRN volunteer mediators zero power other than guiding the discussion on this page, collapsing or deleting comments made here, and in extreme cases such as persistent vandals asking someone to leave the discussion. If anyone ends up being brought up before ANI or arbcom because they, in good faith, expressed an opinion that the disputed material should definitely be included or excluded, I will ask the admins to please make a decision excluding anything said here, and in the past they have been really cooperative when a DRN volunteer mediator makes such a request. As I hope you can see from my comments here, I am not favoring either side in this dispute, and I really don't care what you folks agree on. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 001
STRAW POLL: SHOULD INFORMATION ABOUT THE ACQUISITION BE ALLOWED IN THE ARTICLE?
Keep it out
- Not covered in the financial press, sole independent source is PopSci (already cited as highly critical). Relevance has never been demonstrated, neither has objective significance. Guy (Help!) 23:28, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Compromise is not possible when a source is characterized as "a reliable business press release service" because press releases from any source are never adequate reliable sources for any significant assertions especially regarding highly controversial topics. Truly significant press releases generate significant coverage in independent, reliable sources which include original reporting. There are quite a few high quality national and international media outlets which do independent reporting on business developments, and so far, this specific investment has been pretty much ignored, and no independent sources describe it as important or significant in any way. If better quality sources are published, then, of course, I will reconsider. Until then, extreme caution about promotional editing of this article is entirely justified. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Prefer keeping it out, but willing to compromise and accept allowing it
- (Add a short comment and your signature here)
Prefer allowing it, but willing to compromise and accept keeping it out
- Add something about the purchase. Popsci documents it as a notable development in an ongoing scam. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- (I'm moved my vote from below) I'm certainly not against leaving it out until additional sources become available given the oppostion, WP:NOTNEWS, and WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Allow it
- This is a significant development (see my comment above).
- media that are in other respects perfectly respectable have seen fit to report on this development
- organisations do put out announcements of their business in this way and one should not see these as specifically promotional: the argument that it cannot be included as it is promotional material is of a convoluted/tendentious character.
-- Brian Josephson (talk) 09:21, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- IH is a legitimate company, registered with the SEC, connected to a highly respectable regional (if not National or International) businessman (Darden, Cherokee Investments).
- IH has been reported on by at least one reliable regional newspaper (Triangle News)
- At the very least, it either refutes the last sentence of the Lead Steve Featherstone wrote in Popular Science that by the summer of 2012 Rossi's "outlandish claims" for the E-Cat seemed "thoroughly debunked" and that Rossi "looked like a con man clinging to his story to the bitter end."" (which itself is NOT a good summary of the Featherstone article) ... OR it is newsworthy as evidence that Rossi has more recently "conned" a group of investors out of $11M. If the former, then the lead should also be changed as out of date. Alanf777 (talk) 19:31, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
After the straw poll, I plan of closing this as being either successful or failed. Please ask yourself whether you can bring yourself to putting your name in one of the "willing to compromise" sections; There is a rumor that Wikipedia will give me a 10% raise (from $0.00 to $0.00) if we can resolve this dispute. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
- The wording "willing to compromise" is offensive. It's fine to compromise about many things, but the above suggests that someone choosing "keep it out" or "accept" is a warrior who is unable to compromise. Actually, the situation is that puffery is not suitable in articles on WP:FRINGE topics—that position is standard and does not indicate an unwillingness to compromise, and you are offering false hope to people who are unfamiliar with how things are done here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- I think you should be willing to compromise over this, and not get involved with nuances. Brian Josephson (talk) 11:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
- Johnuniq, with all due respect, you are assuming as a fact something that there you appear to have no evidence to support. A neutrally-worded paragraph about the acquisition supported by a citation to the popular science coverage of same would not be puffery. (I am not taking sides on whether it should be included, just pointing out that the above argument for exclusion is invalid) If we were to just quote the press release, that would be puffery, but the answer to that is not to automatically exclude the information but rather to` report what reliable secondary sources say about it instead of relying solely on a self-published primary source like a press release.
- As one other DRN volunteer mediator recently observed[15] and as has been the finding in several recent arbcom cases, we don't just have one problem here (fringe proponents including poorly-sourced positive material against NPOV). We actually have two problems. The other problem is skeptics who exclude properly-sourced positive material against NPOV. As my fellow DRN volunteer mediator Robert McClenon wrote when commenting on this case:
- "We have uncivil or NOT HERE editors who want to insert fringe content, and we also have editors who are willing to be uncivil and to go to any length to defend against fringe content (never mind that there is a place in Wikipedia for the fringe) [and] to sacrifice other core principles [...]"
- I agree with the above, and I believe most or all of the other DRN volunteers would agree as well. Again, I am not saying that I favor inclusion or exclusion. I am just saying that there is no Wikipedia policy that requires us to decide either way, and thus it is an editorial decision to be decided by consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Question may be: is the source of the PR (Cherokee McDonough Challenge) a reliable source? Google search certainly makes it look like they aren't reliable . . . like they don't have any money, no track record. Raquel Baranow (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Excellent question. The source of the press release[16] appears to be Cherokee Investment Partners LLC, not the Cherokee-McDonough Challenge Team.[17][18] CIP is one of North Carolina's largest venture-capital firms [19][20][21][22][23][24](PDF). If you look at the bottom of [ http://cherokeechallenge.com/ ] you will see that a link to [ http://cherokeefund.com/ ]. Here is some info from a couple of non-reliable sources[25][26] that appear to have gotten the basic facts right. I think that Citrix and Red Hat might be involved[27] but I haven't researched it enough to draw that conclusion yet. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Judging by the interview at http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf, there is plenty of funding available. Brian Josephson (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break 002
Yesterday, TenOfAllTrades made an interesting argument for exclusion on the article talk page, which I am reproducing here with his permission. Please note that I am not taking sides or endorsing his argument, but I think he makes some points that we should discuss. Here is what he wrote: --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Earlier this year, I and other editors realized that this was a problematic state of affairs. Wikipedia was being used as a promotional (or at least highly-credulous) blog of announcements, rather than engaging in any sort of critical analysis or maintaining sensible editorial oversight and judgement. At the time, the article contained a claim that BlackLight Power (BLP) had reached a licensing agreement with an electric utility to supply up to 250 MW of electricity and/or cogenerated heat. Ultimately, it was decided to remove the claim from our article because there was very little information about the deal, and no evidence that anything meaningful had ever resulted from the licensing agreement in terms of energy production, installed equipment, or anything else. (And BlackLight Power is a paragon of openness and transparency compared to the E-Cat, Industrial Heat, and Rossi.)
- It looks like the E-Cat is carrying on exactly the same way: announcements followed by silence, over and over again, with no apparent institutional 'memory' of what they've announced before. We should treat their announcements in the same way—no additional coverage until their claims are independently substantiated. We're not the E-Cat blog. If an announcement isn't important enough to warrant follow-up my credible, major news outlets, then the announcement probably wasn't important to begin with. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is what I was working my way towards with the previous discussion about patents. It has been a while since the announcement we are discussing. What are the patent numbers? Where is the major coverage in multiple news outlets that a major development like this should generate? Where is the evidence that Rossi is acting the way people normally act when they sell the right to an invention -- either walking away or being hired by the new owners? Any evidence of the new owners taking over the existing web sites and redirecting them to their own sites? These are things I would expect to see.
- Again, please note that I recently asked similarly sharp questions of the other side in this dispute. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I would like to welcome Alanf777, who just added himself to this case (which of course we encourage) and made some insightful comments in the straw poll above. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- Comment by Uninvolved but Interested Volunteer - I have been reading this case for several days and the comment by TenOfAllTrades is an issue that bothers me with this case also. I grew up in the era of Encyclopedia Britannica, World Book etc, which have essentially been replaced now by Wikipedia as the number one most read Encyclopedia. One thing those encyclopedia's did, which I think Wikipedia also has a responsibility to do is they did not have content that could be construed as advertising or a blog, to use the modern term, even reporting products they did so from an historical perspective. So I agree with this users statements that before including information about such deals they should be history, not ongoing, not looking like marketing or a blog. As a scientist I do not find E-Cat convincing but the Fringe Science or whatever side of it is not my issue, but I do think it is important to stand our ground on these issues and produce encyclopaedic content, not a blog or series of news reports. Just my two cents. Faendalimas talk 02:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
We have lots of problems with articles about cold fusion and have for a long time. The main issues have migrated away from the cold fusion page and into the pages of scams such as this one and two others which have Wikipedia pages: Blacklight Power and Steorn. Neutral evaluations of these companies all show them to be shady and problematic, basically in the business of scamming investors, but that means that there is incentive for supporters to come in and try to skew content to fit a positive spin for these companies. We need to guard against this kind of hucksterism. jps (talk) 10:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
It does not look like further discussion will lead to an agreement, and while there is no policy-based reason for excluding the material there is clearly no consensus here or on the article talk page for adding the material.
There are other dispute resolution steps that anyone involved is free to try (see WP:DRR for a list). In my opinion the likely result will of any RfC will be that there is no consensus for adding the material. Anyone who wishes to pursue this further should be prepared to find a flaw in the the argument made by TenOfAllTrades on the article talk page or success will be unlikely.
I want to thanks all of the editors who made a good-faith effort to come to an agreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the dispute resolution noticeboard's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
– Closed as failed. See comments for reasoning.
– General close. See comments for reasoning.
