"
What would make you think that would be supported by many users here? Multiple people have pointed out that Storms draft is unnaceptable. At best I said it was better than Jed's version, but since many problems with it have been pointed out. Not only does it violate NPOV by making way too many opinions stated as facts, but giving that much space in the article to a view clearly shown to be the minority also violates NPOV by giving it undue weight. Just for specifics ""The source of tritium is still unknown although it clearly result from a nuclear reaction that is initiated within the apparatus."", ""Clearly, unusual nuclear processes are occurring in material where none should occur."", ""In spite of these well documented and replicated observations..."" (POV), ""In contrast, other prestigious journals such the Japanese Journal of Applied Physics continue to publish well done studies on the subject."" It has already been discussed that the peer reviewed status of the citations in Sotrms draft is very weak compared to other areas of science. So yes this is just another example of trying to tilt the POV towards pro CF. -  Talk "