" 
 :::If there was a review of the Berlusconi-Christ affair by (let's say) the Vatican, that would be in the intro, right?  That's a better analogy.    
 ::::Not unless it were a child article titled Berlusconi-Christ affair or something similar. It simply isn't central to the man, or the Vatican, and certainly not to Jesus.   

 :::KC, how do you propose to resolve the issue?   

 ::::There seems to be some confusion on this issue. I am not advocating the removal of the paragraph on the DoE's panel, I am making the case for leaving out the sentence about their recommendations to DoE policy until later in the article since there is no need to go into it in the intro. It is important, but this is an article about cold fusion, not DoE policy on cold fusion. This is primarily an aesthetic change but one which improve the way the intro reads greatly.   

 :::::If that is the case, then Wikipedia writing guidelines support you. The lead section is ""a definition or clear description of the subject at hand"". Hence, the DoE information would be appropriate to the lead section in an article on DoE policy on Cold fusion, but not the lead for this article, unless the DoE is the only person and/or organization in the world with a position on Cold fusion - or the primary ""player"" in the field. My understanding (and again, I know style, policy and guideline, not Cold fusion, so correct me if I am wrong) is that Cold fusion is a scientific endeavor, energy related, and hence various scientific authorities would be appropriate in the lead. Every country has some type of energy department or government position, so DoE should not be in the lead section on those grounds as well - it automatically biases the intro. Again, if my limited understanding of cold fusion has led to some misconceptions, please correct me.   

 ::::::""Primary player"" - in one sense, certainly, since they organized the early ERAS review of CF, which was probably the first of its kind, and widely cited.  Also, I don't think any other similar government agency has the reach or the funding or the credibility of the DoE (MITI in Japan?  maybe).  Considering that, the new CF report is extremely influential, an order of magnitude more than any other similar agency's report might be.    
 :::::::I'm not so sure that qualifies. Do they fund the only large serious research program in the world for Cold fusion, or anything like that?   
 ::::::::Better: they're not funding what would be the largest serious research program in the world if they did fund it ;)  So for them to make a statement that is even the least bit equivocal is highly significant.    
 :::::::::Ah, that clarifies thing beautifully, thank you! Then that information is certainly noteworthy enough to place in the article, but is inappropriate in the lead section.   
 ::::::::::KC, the issue is not whether DOE is a primary player (it is, otherwise we wouldn't report on its 2004 review), but whether its policy (and the one of Nature) is relevant in the intro.  

 ::::::Problem is, this leaves a lot of room for POV. let's see what the following discussion will bring.   

 ==Nature in intro ?== 
 The intro currently says: ""Cold fusion papers are currently rejected by major scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American"".  I have several issues with this statement: 
 * I've not found any source for this.  Maybe some one can supply one. 
 * This is not developed further in the artical. Yet the guide for lead sections says: ""The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article"".  Maybe someone can develop what we are trying to say. 
 * As it is stated, I do not see how it can be verifiable.  Unless the editors of these papers actually say it in their published policy, we can only say  ""papers HAVE BEEN rejected"", but then it does not belong in the intro anymore.  Unless the editors say otherwise, we have no reason to believe that they would not accept a significant paper on the subject, now