User:Cryptic C62/Cold fusion#Mention of patents

After much discussion on the matter, it is my opinion that the journal Naturwissenschaften should not be characterized as a "life sciences" journal. As evidenced by the volume of discussion generated, the phrase can cause doubt within the reader's mind as to the validity of the result and the ability of the Naturwissenschaften editorial team to review a physics-related article. This is not to say that I endorse the use of the paper as a source: If the source in question is included in the article and if there is reason to doubt the validity of the source, such doubts should be discussed in detail and attributed to reliable sources. They should not be vaguely implied by phrases such as "life sciences". This position has been supported by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=296470200&oldid=296464790 Enric Naval], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=296983242&oldid=296978437 Abd], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=297017839&oldid=296991225 GoRight], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=297200633 Objectivist] and, to some extent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=297040677 Kim D. Petersen]. This conclusion was later supported by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=300404171&oldid=300346905 Coppertwig]. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

:{{citation |last=Mosier-Boss |first=Pamela A.

|last2=Szpak |first2=Stanislaw

|last3=Gordon |first3=Frank E.

|last4=Forsley |first4=L. P. G.

|title=Triple tracks in CR-39 as the result of Pd–D Co-deposition: evidence of energetic neutrons

|journal=Naturwissenschaften

|year=2009

|volume=96

|number=1

|pages=135-142

|doi=10.1007/s00114-008-0449-x}}

A consensus was quickly reached that the above paper should be discussed in a News / History section due to the attention it has received in scientific media. It should not be presented as factual due to the lack of peer-reviewed secondary sources which discuss the paper. This recommendation also applies more generally to any other primary source papers which present cold fusion results without being discussed in other peer-reviewed publications. This position has been supported by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=298130568&oldid=298013708 Abd], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=298141094&oldid=298140031 Kim D. Petersen], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=298154487 GoRight], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=next&oldid=299303754 Enric Naval], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=299411037&oldid=299395432 Hipocrite], and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=299502563&oldid=299433194 Objectivist]. This conclusion was later supported by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cryptic_C62/Cold_fusion&diff=300404171&oldid=300346905 Coppertwig]. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

A discussion was held regarding the presentation of a patent (specifically U.S. Patent 7,381,368) in cold fusion. It is my recommendation that relevant patents be included in the article. "Relevant" in this case means that either the patent itself mentions "cold fusion" or a discussion in a reliable secondary source indicates that the patent is indeed related to cold fusion. To that end, there was a broad consensus against using New Energy Times as a secondary source. It is also my recommendation that cold fusion explicitly state that the US Patent Office automatically rejects patents claiming cold fusion so long as a reliable up-to-date source can be provided to back it up. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)