Talk:Cold fusion/Archive 11

message: 7. The episode in 1990 when Gary Taubes and Science magazine made an accusation of experimental fraud at Texas A&M, which was proved false, needs to be covered.
8. A description of tritium results needs to be added.
10. Description of helium experiments needs to include hollow cathode experiments.
11. The skeptics assumption of hot fusion results need to be put in clearer terms. --Ron Marshall 18:06, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: To do items from an archive discussion

message: The article currently says : "Cold fusion is the popular term used to refer to what is now called "low energy nuclear reactions" (LENR), a subset of "condensed matter nuclear science"".  What are the other parts of CMNS ?  How do they differ from LENR ?  Do we have a source for this statement ? Because this is in the intro, we need to be absolutely sure of it, and avoid original research.  Pcarbonn 05:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: is LENR a subset of CMNS ?

message: Found in WP:QUOTE:
:Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."
Pcarbonn 06:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, this is only about writing a good wikipedia article.  I put the tag back.  Let's turn these quotes into statements, and we'll both be happy.Pcarbonn 14:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ron, I removed your statements about me: they are plain wrong and out of place (see WP:ATTACK), and I ignore them anyway.  My only concern is to write a good wikipedia article. Now that the history section has been moved to a sub-article, we have more room to discuss the fine points of the argument.Pcarbonn 07:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: about the "quotefarm" tag

message: Because it seems clear from his edits to this article that ScienceApologist had problems with its content before he reverted to the FA version of over two years ago, and because he doesn't provide any reasons that he thinks the old article is "better," and because the old article has only a tiny fraction of the number of links and references to more information, including completely ignoring the DOE review, the comments of which by M, above, he purports to be addressing with the revert, I believe ScienceApologist is simply trying to use the massive revert to push his own bias on the article.  Because the old FA version of the article completely ignores the DOE review, and contains uncited sources such as "Unfortunately, no "cold" fusion experiments that gave an otherwise unexplainable net release of energy have so far been reproduceable"[sic] which are plainly contradicted by the peer-reviewed sources in the present-day version, the old article is also inaccurate.  Therefore I have placed the  tag on ScienceApologist's version. GKK 08:15, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have we discussed any content? I'm waiting for you to begin discussing what you want to see included but I haven't seen anything. The reason the older article is better is because it was featured. The current article was delisted for reasons that can be read about in the review. If you disagree with those comments, you need to address them specifically. What we can start doing is adding citation tags if you think things are disputed. Let's start with the sentence you want to cite. I'll add the  tag. --ScienceApologist 08:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And now that I have a citation to this fact, I have replaced it with a reference. --ScienceApologist 08:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Part of your here-expressed disagreement with our starting position has nothing to do with neutrality and factual accuracy, it has to do with the lost work. | ScienceApologist has cited his source (and should cite the conclusion of the DOE report). This leaves you to provide sources that stand up to the DOE report - and it will not do to claim that a book authored by a cf researcher has equal weight to areport by the United States Department of Energy. The sources should show us that advancements actually have been made (in contradiction to the conclusion of the DOE report). At that point, this tag would be justified. Right now it is not. I suggest its removal. –MT 11:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually don't like to remove tags especially when the article is so clearly a "work in progress" as it is currently, but I am of the opinion that the totally disputed tag might be a bit misleading as to what the real issues are. What's going on is actually that the article may need a cleanup, expansion, and more consistent citation of references. I submit we change the tag to these three. --ScienceApologist 15:17, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The latter two seem right, though cleanup seems an odd tag to put on an article that was once featured. I think that tags should be used, but that 'totally disputed' is alarming and innapropriate. –MT 18:09, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation SA provided is neither peer-reviewed or particularly supportive of the statement citing it.  I am more convinced than I was last night that the reversion was done for illegitimate reasons of POV-pushing, so it is biased, and the contradiction of the 70+ peer reviewed references leaves the article inaccurate and out-of-date as well.  Please leave the tag on the two-year-old version until both of these issues are addressed. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've directly above pointed out that the conclusion of the report by the United States Department of Energy is a citation supporting his claim. You will have to point out exactly what you think is innacurate before you have justification for placing that tag. There is a different tag for out of date articles. –MT 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Totallydisputed tag

message: Please cease calling those that are reverting to featured article status biased. Scientific consensus [the DOA report and surely others] approximately states that cold fusion is where it was in 1989. Objections to this report may exist, but they do not deserve mention in this encyclopedia until scientific consensus veers to support them. The debate over cold fusion isn't somewhere in the middle, with many believing that it happened and many disbelieving - it's at one end, and the debate is over. Frankly, I find it hard to imagine what an anti-cf bias would look like - perhaps someone believes that no research is being conducted, I don't know. I do know that a bias exists that purports comparatively exciting innovation/advancement to be occuring in the field. I call this a bias because it contradicts scientific consensus. When we that are critical of the recent article start contradicting scientific consensus, inform us of the truths immediately, and if we continue regardless, then point out that we may be biased (and not just uninformed). Until then, please don't call us biased. It's innacurate and rude. And it's probably a personal attack. –MT 11:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false.  There is one sentence, clearly hyperbole, in the DOE report suggesting only that the matter has as much final resolution now as it did in 1989 -- i.e., that authorities are still split on the question.  That is not at all what you have included.  This kind of selective quotation is plainly and obviously counter to the creation of an accurate encyclopedia.  If you had quibbles with the term "excess heat" then by all means replace it with more accurate terms.  Replacing the entire summary of the report with the statement that the field is in the same state as it was in 1989 is bogus.  You should have explained that was referring to whether a consensus opinion was settled or not.  Claiming that the field is in the same state ignores hundreds of peer-reviewed publications.  You should know better. GKK 00:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Selecting the conclusion as the source of the quote is nothing but proper. It's the conclusion. Cite "hyperbole", and cite "still [are or were] split". I have nothing against the term "excess heat". That part of the summary was replaced because it misrepresented the report (details above). –MT 03:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tossing around "bias"

message: ScienceApologist and M, after having ample opportunity, have been unable to show that their reversion to the two-year-old version of the article was due to desire to make the article more accurate, and not just because of their bias against the present-day version.  No reasons have been given that the present-day version could not be improved by incremental changes, which is the way we improve every other article on the wiki, or that a monolithic revert eliminating two years of work and 70+ peer-reviewed science references is necessary for any actual reason.  My complaints about the lack of content, in particular those peer-reviewed references and the DOE review of 2004, were met with the absurd counter that I was not complaining about any actual content, and a hasty citation of a non-peer-reviewed hearsay statement to support the absurd hyperbole of the DOE report that the field is at the same state today as it was in 1989.
Therefore, I will be checking in on this article about once per day until a mediator arrives, and reverting to the present-day version unless the two-year-old version is improved with at least half the number of peer-reviewed science sources as the present-day version I prefer. If ScienceApologist and M are serious about improving the article to beyond its present-day state, then they ought to be able to cite at least half its number of peer-reviewed references. GKK 23:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Will be reverting

message: Should those unhappy with the current state of the Cold fusion article work incrementally from the present-day version which they believe is too long and has other unspecified problems, or should they revert to  and work from a two-year-old version which was once a Featured Article, deleting over 70 peer-reviewed references and the work of dozens of editors?
;Work incrementally from the recent version (0737,1 October 2006 by 75.35.76.29):
#Essentially every other article on Wikipedia is edited this way. GKK 00:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey (request for comment)

message: We are going to forward from the 9/27/06 or equivalent version in an incremental way.  This is an article about science and experiment is the reality check of science.  This article is and should be about the pro and con of experiments.  The article presents the skeptics and the experimenters point of view and will continue to do so. --Ron Marshall 17:20, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Going Forward

message: What in the world is going on here?
"Deleting over 70 peer-reviewed references and the work of dozens of editors" over a period of many months, with no notice, no warning, no discussion?
Someone asserted that being bold was in accordance with Wiki policy. This person apparently did not read the full instructions:
"'be bold in updating pages' does not mean that you should make large changes or deletions to long articles on complex, controversial subjects ... without carefully looking at your edit ... In many such cases the text as you find it has come into being after long and arduous negotiations between Wikipedians of diverse backgrounds and points of view. An incautious edit to such an article can be likened to stirring up a hornet's nest, and other users who are involved in the page may react angrily."
"M" wrote "We are starting from scratch and will allow you to help us getting in any information you wish to see in the article."
Who is "M?" I don't see that this poster has been a regular participant in this work. I don't see any previous participation from this poster. This is not to say that such is required, but my point is that we have a person who has taken it upon themselves to push their way in and bully others.
Who is "WE?"
Who provided this authorization?
As far as I can tell, this drastic set of changes was never authorized, in any way, and as such, does not even deserve to be voted on.
Now, after the fact, we see that "M" has several supporters. Is this the "We?" Can someone please explain to me why this doesn't appear to be an organzied behind-the-scenes effort to promote one POV?
Is this really how Wiki works? Use part of the rules, out of context, when it is to the advantage of some with one POV, but use other rules, such as pushing the Storms' edit to a separate page, when also, serves the purpose of that same group POV?
Ditto what another poster said, "Your attempt to destroy two years of edits isn't very much better than vandalism no matter how much you try to dress it up."
Shame on all those who are participating in this affront and who are permitting it.
I suggest that this article be reverted quickly to the "current (0737,1 October 2006 by 75.35.76.29) version." Such actions do not bode well for the reputation of Wikipedia.
STemplar 22:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that you stop crying over spilled milk, as it were, and help us make edits that improve from a version that was decidedly better than the "current" one. It is clear from above discussions that most editors agree we should be building from the 2-year-old version. Feel free to cite whatever statements you think should be cited in the article and to propose new wording as you see fit. --ScienceApologist 22:29, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CENSORSHIP, RECKLESS editing and SHAMEFUL behavior

message: ...on article content, structure, and the controversy.
I have this to say regarding the recent and upcoming changes:
* I support reverting to the featured article revision ("FAR"). However, I think that all concern over this issue is trivial. We'll be going through the article step-by-step regardless.
* The FAR has anti-cf bias. It's not as bad as the recent revision ("RR") bias, but it's there.
* The article should not be edited to state or imply that cold fusion is a real effect. This hasn't been proven. Doing so is liable to cast serious doubt on the motives of the editors, and polarize others into an opposing position. Editors should be very careful about stating anything that isn't proven. Be also careful in equating cold fusion to established sciences.
* Cold fusion is not a pseudoscience. It follows the scientific method. It has not been proven un-workable. There still seems to be an unanswered question (of excess heat). Editors should not mistake "has not been proven" with "is disproven".
The article itself:
* The current FAR lead is better than the RR lead, but can be improved.
* The history sections should both be considered, and carefully merged into something of equal or lesser size than what we have, but having the same subheadings. 'Continuing efforts' might be expanded. The department of energy review of the RR might be included here and not elsewhere, but it needs to be careful what it quotes, and must quote the conclusion of the report.
* The controversy section of the FAR is deficient, but in the RR it is overwhelming. It needs to be cut down to approximately equal the history section, probably more. If content exists in a 'sub-article' ("Main article:Cold fusion controversy"), then it should not be duplicated here.
* There should be a section on how cold fusion is expected to work, and how the experiments are being set up. Instead of this information being scattered throughout the article. There is a lot of history and arguing over the controversy, but the article does a poor job of explaining what cold fusion actually is in a simple way.
–MT 11:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Positions

message: I copied this section because I wanted everyone to see the disgraceful behavior of the some of the participants in this debate.  I will replace it if is deleted again.--Ron Marshall 14:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disgracefaul behavior on talk:WikiProject Physics

message: The stated issues:
# One party believes the article should have a neutal point of view by providing the point of view of both the skeptics and the experimenters. The other party believes only the point of view of skeptics should be represented.
# One party believes the experimental evidence and corresponding arguments for both sides should be represented. The other party does not want a detailed discussion of experimental evidence.
These are not the issues. I belong to the first party, but no doubt Ron Marshall thinks me part of the second. I am the only one of 9 that Ron mentions, and don't believe that this is between only him and I. I also don't think that it is yet time for mediaton: I've added a section above where people can explain their positions regarding this article, and Ron has not done so. All I know so far is that he doesn't like anti-cf bias and disagrees with the revision. I don't know the way in which he disagrees with my position, or what he'd like to see from the article. Provide your position and discuss here what you think the issues are, and when we agree on them, we'll take it to mediation.
The summary of events is that I examined the a recent revision (RR) of the article and provided some comments on the bias that I found. I changed the introduction of the RR. Seeing that it was once a featured article, but is now a delisted good article, I brought this issue up at wikiproject physics. ScienceApologist boldly reverted to the FA revision, and suggested that we work incrementally to make the article better, and include all information while making sure that anything untrue or with a strong bias (in either direction) was omitted. This was met with opposition and revision by Ron Marshall (and perhaps others), but a survey indicated 9:2 (2 opposed not counted due to 0 contributions) that this was the correct course of action. I don't believe that the revision to FA deserves mediation - the RR is not lost, pieces of it may be (and have been, by me) reinserted, and the survey indicates that there is limited opposition to the revision. Ron Marshall has done nothing to improve the article, though he has removed sections that state correctly that cold fusion has not yet been demonstrated. –MT 22:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: I would like to discuss the issues one by one that Ron Marshall has with the text he removed. If he could list all the material he removed and explained what about the material he disputed, then we can continue to address his concerns and move towards a cited and balanced article. --ScienceApologist 14:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry if your edits to the talk page were deleted, I am pretty sure that was an accident.  Please keep trying to work with us.  We really do want to hear the reasons why you want to make those edits; if you can put them in a form that fits with Wikipedia policies, we will very likely accept them.  --Ideogram 17:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The deletion in the talk page was no accident.  You do not seem to be grasping the problem or to have a problem with censorship.  The September version of the page has been vandalized by know nothing skeptics.  The featured version of the article was biased and not NPOV.  Now the page is locked in a biased state.  We are being told that experimental results and the scientific method are of no importance to a encylopedia article on a scientific subject.--Ron Marshall 13:53, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, please try to remain civil.  You seem to be new here, you don't understand Wikipedia policies yet or why we have them.  If you work with us we will try to explain to you how we do things around here and why.  If you cannot work with us you will not make much progress.  --Ideogram 17:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite frankly if they aren't from authoritative sources then they are of no importance. Even if research really is being suppressed, that's the line we have to stick to. Wikipedia isn't the place to try and enact a revolution in science, and it also isn't the place to flame. Jefffire 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  100% agreed. Wikipedia isn't the appeals instance of the scientific process. --Pjacobi 11:54, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text:  Sometimes I think it is more complex than that, consider this article on corruption of authoritative sources:1. Who is the authoritative source in this dispute, the 20 Nobel laureates or Scott McClellan? 2. "Leshner said there is a "frightening trend" in this direction now, in which scientists whose findings appear to run counter to the dominant political or cultural agenda are losing funding or appointments.", should Wikipedia take this into account when selecting sources? 3. ""This is dangerous," said Orians", should Wikipedia ignore or acknowledge this statement when applied to: "Even if research really is being suppressed, that's the line we have to stick to."? 4. Is the reliance on authority rather than evidence healthy and if so, who authorised this view?--Yeslove 12:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I believe the edits to which Ron refers (and please correct me and clarify if I'm mistaken) started with a comment he made followed by a cut and paste of a section of the [talk:WikiProject Physics] page here, reverted by M here.  Ron replaced this comment and the cut and paste here, Joke137 preserved Ron's comment but replaced the long cut and paste with a link here; Ron reverted the link to his cut and paste again here, Count Iblis reverted to a linked version here; Ron reverted again to the long cut and paste here, and Wangi reverted to the link again here. This is the present form of that subsection.  The first edit by M did remove text authored by Ron Marshall; the subsequent ones did not, as far as I can see.--Noren 14:58, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ron, it is not necessary to cut and paste large amounts of text from other pages to here.  Simply including a link to those contents allows interested readers to click on the link and read that text without expanding this page.  I hope you can understand that this is not censorship.  --Ideogram 17:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of material by Ron Marshall

message: Well while all of this settles, would anyone mind me doing style, layout and spelling/grammar edits? Maury 13:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still create a subpage and edit that, as I originally suggested.  It is my hope that protecting the page will motivate Ron and the rest to participate in discussion.  Let us give that a few days to work; if they still do not join the discussion, we can unprotect it.  --Ideogram 02:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You forgot the citation- that quote is from Discover Magazine in May 1997. (I think, if my web search is correct)  Usually cold fusion advocates prefer to use more recent quotes to avoid the 'but if this was the state of research years ago, what happened?' line of questioning. --Noren 01:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ummm...

message: Since the request for mediation on the censorship issue has been refused by M a request for arbitration has been made. --Ron Marshall 18:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is almost certainly going to be rejected.  You have not made any good faith efforts at discussion.  --Ideogram 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ideogram-- If you are attempting mediation I do not see why you are displaying such a strong bias toward one side. I worked on the article in good faith for several months. The editors working on it now have openly said they only want the skeptics position represented.  This is not a good faith position as far as I am concerned. My position is that we should be building on the September version because it had a NPOV and 10 times more information that the current version. There does not seem to be any hope of producing a fair and accurate article building on the current version with the current group of editors. No one has offered any reason that gives me any hope that working with editors dedicated to censorship of opposing ideas can produce a positive result. --Ron Marshall 16:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody said that they wanted only the skeptic's position... unless you mean "cold fusion has not yet been demonstrated", which is simply a fact, not a position. Ideogram is displaying no bias. You really havn't done anything to help us work through this: plenty of complaint and slander, but you won't take the time to communicate what you want the article to contain. –MT 21:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright put the nuclear transmutation section back in. Show your good faith --Ron Marshall 17:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: Both the Mediation Committee case and the Arbitration case have been rejected. The Mediation Cabal case is still open to those who wish to discuss the situation. Any neutral party is welcome to attempt to mediate the case. ~Kylu (u|t)  16:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for Arbitration on Censorship Issue

message: Proposed outline, omitting see also/refs/... :
*Lead (quick summary of what it is; summary of F/P, rejection, current status (doe report); summary of how it works)
*History (30%)
**Early work
**Pons and Fleischman (from its start to its rejection)
***Experimental set-up and observations (the actual experiment)
*Continuing efforts (30%, summary of various teams, experiments, etc. Should not be bigger than P/F section)
**Department of Energy Report (somewhat small section on the report)
*Theory/Mechanism (30%, the actual mechanism is described, with copious proper use of the word "hypothetically")
**Theoretical objections (targetting specific parts of the mechanism)
–MT 07:25, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where would Cold_fusion#Other_kinds_of_fusion fit in? I would think this would be important too for a proper perspective. (10-15% at least?)  Crum375 22:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a table at the bottom, with a row "Methods of fusing nuclei". I don't think a quick overview of the various methods of fusion really belongs in this article. In fact, it duplicates content in nuclear fusion. M 06:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this response before. My point was not to cover all fusion methods but only the easy table top kinds, like fusor and sonoluminescence (obviously the first proven/working the second up in the air). Crum375 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: You brought up Iwamura in response to "You say 'the finding of nuclear transmutations which proves nuclear reactions are going on' - please cite this. Who says that nuclear transmutations are occuring?". By filtered, I mean that your citation wasn't adequate. If you had cited a major government agency, and a few journals, which I didn't expect you to do, then you could make that statement.  Frankly, I doubt that "proves nuclear reactions" will be a phrase we'll see in this article at this point in time. –MT 02:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems like a reasonable misunderstanding.  I was just responding to your request for a cite, and yes, I do think the Iwamura report (and other similar ones) deserve a mention in the article, but I wouldn't even imply/write that the transmutation result is established in a bulletproof way yet, let alone that it proves anything.  "X and Y have reported transmutation" is about all I would want to say, and that is verifiable and neutral.  If the result is correct, it strongly suggests nuclear reactions, but we shouldn't say that since it is pure conjecture/original research.  For the record, I have not, nor am I likely to in the near future, try to insert a claim like "... proves nuclear reactions are going on" in the article.  I would be very skeptical of any "X proves Y" language outside of a direct quote anyway.  ObsidianOrder 06:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Outline

message: The current language in the intro does not allow for the existence of desktop fusion in simple devices, as in the fusor. Yes, it is not a practical way to produce useful nuclear energy, but it is nuclear fusion and must be accounted for in the intro, IMO. Crum375 01:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was not saying or implying it was 'cold' - only that by being desktop-like it did not need the complex and impractical confinement conditions previously mentioned in the lead. I guess the addition of the word 'significant' will do for now. Crum375 12:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro must encompass [[fusor]]

message: I'd like to propose a standard for the use of sources in this article.  Namely:
Reports of experimental results which meet the following criteria should be included:
* the result is important and contriubtes significantly to the understanding of the field (and is not a near-duplication of another result which is already in the article).
* result has been reproduced successfully and reported by at least two independent groups. (most results of interest have anywhere between 4-5 and 10+ reproductions, two is just an arbitrary number greater than one, to make sure it is not a fluke)
* the groups are led by qualified scientists (PhD in relevant field) working at established institutions (university, commercial or government lab).
* at least one of the reproductions has been reported in a peer-reviewed journal article.  (this may seem like a low bar, but there are so few CF papers published that the ones that get through tend to be extraordinary;  most significant work in this field is not published in journals at all, and is pretty much exclusively reported at ICCF; moreover anything in a peer-reviewed journal pretty much automatically passes the V RS criteria and so that would be normally sufficient by itself in any other article)
* the other reproductions have been reported as well in a verifiable source, such as conference proceedings (ICCF) or official technical report.
When results like that are included, the wording should be similar to: "X has been reported/observed (cite)" or "X has been reported by Y and several other groups (cite)".  The wording should not be "in cold fusion, X happens (cite)" (which implies a well established result).  Results which have a large number of reported reproductions and no negative/critical results may be considered for being reported in the latter way on a case by case basis (cautiously).
For each included result, if there are any peer-reviewed papers critical of the result or reporting no result/failure to reproduce, those must be mentioned as well immediately next to the result.  If there are many critical/negative papers, pick one/several and/or summarize, same as for the positive result.  For example "X has been reported by Y and others (cite).  the observation is disputed by Z (cite) who attributes it to W".
ObsidianOrder 01:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What, no comments?  Does that mean y'all agree? ObsidianOrder 18:36, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree.  Let's stick to official Wikipedia rules. --Noren 07:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  According to my understanding, the criteria I proposed above are substantially more strict than official Wikipedia rules.   Would you like to perhaps clarify official rules for us?  ObsidianOrder 20:20, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They aren't all that clear, but I don't think adding yet another set of rules that people can point to would result in more clarity.  Quite the reverse.  --Noren 23:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: proposed standard on sources