Jump to content

Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Questions/Suggestions Round 1

Again I am new to Wikipedia so please be gentle with me. I have read through the Wikipedia guidelines but figured it best I ask for the interpretation here on the talk page before I try editing the actual article.. (yikes! with great power, comes great responsibility.

So the article here does reference the 1984 review published in the Harvard Crimson about Santilli’s book, Il Grande Grido ("the great-ornery") : Ethical Probe on Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A, an Insider's View

I will provide a quick excerpt from that review [1] to lead into my questions:

“..The book's title is well chosen, for it is really written as a cry in the wilderness. Faced with systematic rejection from what Santilli claims are vested interests that exercise almost monopolistic control over physics research in the U.S. he saw no other option but to make a public appeal for recognition and redress of what he calls "scientific corruption at the highest levels of academia.
It is not unusual for visionaries or malcontents in the scientific community to make outrageous claims about disproving established theories, but Santilli's credentials are far too respectable and his claims too simple and well-documented for him to be dismissed as such a crackpot.
There is no denying that II Grande Grido is a polemic. Santilli is clearly outraged and puzzled by much of the 'scientific corruption' about which he writes-his appeals to the reader often betray a naïve faith in the inherent fairness of American society. Above all however Santilli is sincere. He has never learned formal English and admit from the start that his book is written in "broken" and "crude" language, but the issues he raises are so serious that they speak for themselves.
Santilli does not make outrageous claims about physical theories. Rather, he explains:

This book is, in essence, a report on the rather extreme hostility I have encountered in U.S. academic circles in the conduction, organization and promotion of quantitative theoretical, mathematical, and experimental studies on the apparent insufficient of Einstein's idea in the face of an ever growing scientific knowledge.

II Grande Grido is divided into three parts in the first part Santilli tries to explain in layman's terms some of the physical problems that he feels are being ignored. In the second part he recounts his personal experiences with leading academic institutions including Harvard and MIT with physics publications such as the Journal of the American Physical Society with U.S. government laboratories and with government agencies like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy. In the third part he presents some tentative recommendations for improving intellectual freedom in the U.S. physics community.” – Harvard Crimson''
  • 1 Would it be ok if I added a link to the actual book? (which is publically available for free pdf viewing on various servers)
  • 2 Could I add something about how, according to the book’s publisher, several bookstores in the Harvard area refused to carry Santilli’s book ?
“You may find it difficult to find II Grande Grido in Cambridge. According to the book's publisher, several area bookstores have refused to carry Santilli's book for fear of alienating their Harvard customers. It would be a shame if after all his efforts. Santilli's case were never heard. However, the book can be purchased at the I.B.R. at 98 Prescott St. in Cambridge. If Santilli is right, it is a place a lot more people should be visiting.” - Harvard Crimson
  • 3 As mentioned in the book review, there are 3 supporting volumes of correspondence from which the source concludes that Santilli’s charges were not made frivolously.
“Santilli's charges are far reaching--from the misconduct of individual physicists regarding his own work to general and perhaps conspiratorial activities at many institutions throughout the U.S. These charges are not made frivolously, he has amassed three volumes of correspondence, referee reports, and official documents corroborating every factual statement in his book.” – Harvard Crimson

This should be mentioned for balance.
These three supporting volumes print out into 3 large phone book sized documents that contain photocopies of years of correspondence between Santilli and several major players in physics (including Steven Weinberg) and every major laboratory around the world.
  • 4. The authenticity of these photocopied records has never been called into question so I am wondering if we could cite them in the main article?

At the very least, this collection of correspondence should put a nail in the coffin of the camp currently trying to claim Santilli is not a notable scientist.

IL GRANDE GRIDO: ETHICAL PROBE OF EINSTEIN'S FOLLOWERS IN THE USA, AN INSIDER'S VIEW.(in English) -Ruggero Maria Santilli Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA,ISBN0-931753-00-7 http://www.scientificethics.org/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf

Here are the links to the documentation:

If a second tap is needed for some reason, the following “Poem” about Santilli by Harry Lustig (Secretary‐treasurer at APS from 1985 to 1996) has been listed in the references of this article for some time:

H. Lustig (2005). "A proper homage to our Ben". In H. Henry Stroke. Advances in Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics: 51 (Advances in Atomic, Molecular, & Optical Physics). Academic Press. p. 26. ISBN 978-0120038510. "Ruggero Maria Santilli of The Institute for Basic Research, who complained bitterly about the rejection of his papers 'disproving' Einstein's relativity, which he attributed to Jewish domination of APS' journals."

I don’t see how anyone can credibly attempt to claim that Santilli is not a notable scientist when he is the punchline for jokes told between American Physical Society members.

As a concluding remark, I think it is important to debunk the rather widespread myth that Santilli is claiming to have ‘disproven’ Einstein Special Relativity’. I have been diligently reviewing his papers and lectures for some time and Santilli clearly states that SP is exactly valid for the conditions it was conceived for and verified to work in, by Einstein et al. In fact, he calls it the “rock” or foundation of modern physics.

Even valid theories have limitations though. For example, C is hardcoded into E=mc2 as a constant So the equation is limited for use only under conditions where C is traveling at constant speed in vacuum. Santilli’s covering preserves the axioms of SPR and lifts it with new mathematics which allow for C to be local variable. Nothing wrong with doing that if you can solve the historical Lorentz problem.

The rejected paper discussed in the article with the APS was titled “A possible, lie-admissible, time-asymmetric model for open nuclear reactions”. This paper was under tax payer support from the DOE. You can find the published paper (published outside of the APS journals of course) on Springer website: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02887014

Santilli had been petitioning for more scientific experiments to further confirm/deny Rauch’s 1976 (Determination of Scattering Lengths and Magnetic Spin Rotations by Neutron Interferometry Author(s): H. Rauch, G. Badurek, W. Bauspiess, U. Bonse, A. Zeilinger ) which showed the deformation of the neutron under sufficiently strong nuclear forces.

Remember, there can be no such thing as deformation (in QM) as the theory simplifies things by representing physical particles using dimensionless point-like structures that are perfectly ridged and can’t cannot undergo deformation (which doesn’t stop nature from doing what she does regardless of how complete we think our theory is ) Once you have deformation, symmetry is broken and QM is no longer exactly valid under those conditions.

The concepts are fairly easy grasp and definitely not anything someone should summarily assume just has to be “quack” “flim-flam” without any inspection. I am here to help with the info/science – hopefully others here can help with the technical editing side of things. I am really looking forward to contributing time to Wikipedia and help making things better! Thanks! Maester Anderson (talk) 07:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Rather than asking other editors to respond to each of your suggestions for additions to the article, you should educate yourself on our guidelines for what is a reliable source for a fact cited in a wikipedia article WP:RS, the guidelines for which sources of information establish notability for our articles, WP:NOTABLE, and the guidelines which govern biographies of living persons in wikipedia WP:BLP. It's what we'll do in evaluating any changes you make to this or any other wikipedia article, so you'd save your time and ours by reading these guidelines, and evaluating each of your suggestions yourself before changing the article.
Informally, having read your comments, they go to points which are irrelevant to the article. The article concerns Dr. Ruggero Santilli, not his theories. His theories are already mentioned in the article to the extent allowed by the WP:FRINGELEVEL guideline: "Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. If proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance; ideas should not be portrayed as accepted unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources."
One of the points made and documented by reliable sources in the article as it stands is that the subject has complained about difficulty in having these ideas published in journals which carry peer-reviewed content which is accepted by the relevant academic community in question (that of physics).
You apparently wish the subject's theories to be covered in greater detail than the WP:FRINGELEVEL guideline permits. Unless you can find sources which comply with WP:RS showing that these views enjoy general acceptance among the physics community (in other words, those physicists whose views form the generally accepted consensus on the matters you discuss), you should not modify the article to include those views. loupgarous (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You realize the Harvard Crimson is a student newspaper, right? And that the paper's author (judging from the dates of his other writings for the Crimson) appears to have been a college sophomore at the time of writing this piece? Why should we take it seriously as a reliable source about a scientific issue? —David Eppstein (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Maester Anderson, please re-read the list of references to the article, the list of "Selected Publications", and our guideline WP:RS very carefully. You seem to have overlooked that the former Reference 2 did actually cite Il Grande Grido (page 6) to support the first line of the article's "Biography" section. It was not a direct link to the book, but instead points to the third entry under "Selected Publications," a direct link to the Internet Archive's copy of Il Grande Grido's Web page. To save us all some trouble, I deleted reference 2, as the page it cited in volume 1 of Il Grande Grido didn't point to the subject's early life (which it was cited to support in the text), but was a photocopy of a short memo from Dr. Steven Weinberg dated 1977 confirming the subject's acceptance as a research fellow at Harvard University.
The logical place for Il Grande Grido to be cited would directly after an assertion of fact it is cited to support. As a primary source, it should not be cited as the sole support for any fact in the article for which there is no reliable secondary source (see WP:WPNOTRS for how we define that term). Neither the subject nor anyone else should cite the subject's books as sole support for statements about him, other physicists (see WP:BLP), or his theories. That includes the subject's own publications listed under "Selected Publications" - the fact of their existence is already acknowledged there, but you shouldn't do what the editor who cited Il Grande Grido after the first line in the "Biography" section did, and use any of those "Selected Publications" as the only reference cited in support of a fact in a wikipedia article, under WP:RS. There ought to be a reliable secondary source which by itself is sufficient to support the fact. If the primary source material does anything but confirm what the secondary source establishes, it shouldn't be used to as a cite to support a statement in a wikipedia article (please see WP:WPNOTRS).
While we use the terms "should" and "should not" in our guidelines to avoid inflexibility where situations aren't anticipated in the guidelines, one situation very explicitly anticipated in the guidelines is the subject of a biographical article or one of his supporters or detractors inserting information in that biographical article which cannot be proven by an independent source. It's as much for the subject's own protection as to keep wikipedia from being used as a free public relations firm (see WP:PROMOTION).
I hope you do exert the required effort needed to edit wikipedia articles in a helpful manner, and are successful in doing so. Welcome to wikipedia! loupgarous (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
My apologies for an oversight - our guideline WP:SELFSOURCE does allow editors to use self-published material as sources of information about themselves, but there are limitations:
  • The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim. (for example, no claims to having discovered special cases in which general or special relativity don't apply, as you proposed, unless you can cite reliable secondary sources saying these claims are generally accepted by the physics community)
  • It does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities - in other words, you can't cite Il Grande Grido for its intended purpose as an indictment of other physicists (see WP:BLP as well), or "to put a nail in the coffin of the camp currently trying to claim Santilli is not a notable scientist").
  • It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject (arguably, the subject's statements about his own theories of "magnecular bonds" can't be cited beyond the existing documentation in our article that the theories exist and a very brief description of them - we can't have walls of text in this article about the exceptions the subject says exist to relativity, for example).
  • There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity (no one can produce inauthentic evidence into the biography of a living person, in any case, under WP:BLP).
  • The article is not based primarily on such sources. (another objection to citing Il Grande Grido and other of the subject's own works here).
I hope this information helps. loupgarous (talk) 18:09, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had articles on every person with an idea, it would be overwhelmed by crackpottery - should they be consolidated?

It is unclear to me why the person this article appears to be about merits mention in an encyclopaedia. While he appears to have some - novel - concepts, it does not appear that these have been supported by evidence or by peer review. No evidence is presented of why the subject is more than a theorist whose theories are unproven - many of these exist, as you can see simply by reviewing self-published books on Amazon, but it is not clear that their inclusion in an encyclopaedia adds value to that collection of useful information.

I see from the article that the subject is apparently of the view that the entire world is against him - and has used lawyers to try to push his case against those who disagree with his 'novel theories'. I even see from an article on Popehat that the subject is suing Pepijn van Erp; a Dutch sceptic who expressed a negative opinion of his work.

One worrisome part of this Wikipedia entry is the suggestion, in section 3, that "papers he has submitted to peer-reviewed American Physical Society journals were rejected because they were controlled by a group of Jewish physicists led by Steven Weinberg". So the subject is not only suggesting that the scientific community is systematically ignoring "novel theories which may conflict with established scientific theories", but he appears to be extending this into an anti-Semitic argument.

The article makes clear that the subject's work has not been peer reviewed; it implies that he has built an institutional apparatus around himself in order to boost his perceived importance; an alleged supporter (J V Kadeisvili) may not even exist; and while he appears to have published a lot there appears to be no evidence supporting his theories. Given the subject's apparent lack of importance, and the lack of independent links supporting the subject's science, should this article be subsumed into another Wikipedia entry (e.g. List of pseudoscientific water fuel inventions)?

While I note that there have been two nominations for deletion - with the second considered in August 2016 - I am not convinced that these have adequately considered the concerns raised by those who were pro-deletion. Additionally, the options of retain vs. delete are very black and white - there is no 'middle path'. Maybe Santilli is 'notable' according the dictionary encyclopaedia definition. I suggest that by providing scientists whose work is unsupported and unproven with the same status of scientists whose work has been used for decades or centuries, Wikipedia becomes less useful. Should articles such as this maybe be placed as sub-articles in a category of (e.g.) 'Unproven scientific ideas and scientists'? That is, retain the article but make clear that its importance/significance does not match that of proven science and/or the proven work of scientists. In two weeks (or twenty years), when the subject of an article within that category is proven/peer reviewed/accepted by the scientific community, then it can be 'promoted' to the main encyclopaedia. In the meantime, readers are not left confused by the lack of relative importance of such subjects.

I look forward (hoping it is not simply ignored and forgotten) to the well-considered and quite possibly well-deserved opposition this suggestion will hopefully draw from the myriad Wikipedians who have used and developed Wikipedia for many years now and have very good reasons against such a concept of rating an entry's 'relative merit'. Ambiguosity (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

See WP:PAPER. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, our policies do not permit editors to use their brains to determine the relative merit of articles for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The merits of an encyclopedia article are determined exclusively by one's ability to locate sources, being performed largely by search engines to probe the obscurest nooks and crannies of the internet. Most thought process involved in "content generation" has now been forgone in deference to the editorial impositions of mindless droids and bureaucrats. The barest suggestion that one is supposed to use any kind of judgement in content matters is denounced as heresy nowadays. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
That you disagree with the outcome of a discussion is not indicative that the discussion lacked brains or judgment. The first time around, people agreed Santilli was notable. Second time around, it's a no-consensus. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 11:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
"That you disagree with the outcome of a discussion is not indicative that the discussion lacked brains or judgment." No, the fact that such discussions are usually predicated on mindless deference to the rules, combined with uncritical acceptance of the output of Google searches, often without reading and evaluating sources, is indicative that the process is fundamentally broken. Of course, I happen also to disagree with this particular outcome, but that's merely a symptom of the larger rot of Wikipedia. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the 2nd AfD on this article was marred by acceptance of the subject's personally-owned "scientific journals", his pay-to-print journal articles, palpably gamed Google Journal h-index scores and his corporate press releases filtered verbatim through churnalistic "trade journals" as proof of his notability. But the findings were not that the subject of this article is a notable physicist with any impact at all on physics. The conclusions of the 2nd AfD were that the subject was notable for his activity in fringe science. loupgarous (talk) 01:38, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Precisely because certain kooks, crooks and swindles make lots of noise we have to have NPOV wikipedia articles about them. 02:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The OP in this thread had an idea worth considering, though - consolidate all the fringe science-related articles into a single one, and redirect, say, Wilhelm Reich, Ruggero Santilli, Joseph Westley Newman and all the other fringe theorists to a new section of our existing article Fringe science called Notable fringe scientists. It'd be work, sure, but less work than curating every separate article on these people and their theories and mounting vigilance against the editors who want to insert the subjects' narratives about themselves into our articles. This isn't just about this article, it's about giving fringe theory and fringe theorists' stories due weight in wikipedia, and giving readers a clear idea of where these subjects stand in the marketplace of ideas. loupgarous (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The idea may be good, but inapplicable to Santilli, who notorious for several things: two crackpot theories, a number of noisy establishments, aggressive behavior against other scientists, he fooled Italians to give him an award. IMO that's more than enough for a standalone page. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

2014 patent

It's always interesting when a scientist like this gets a patent like this: http://patents.justia.com/patent/9700870 US Patent for Method and apparatus for the industrial production of new hydrogen-rich fuels Patent (Patent # 9,700,870) Apr 3, 2014 - MAGNEGAS CORPORATION "A method with various related apparatus polarizes the orbits of atomic electrons by strong magnetic fields creating in the atomic structure a magnetic field. The polarized atoms are introduced onto fuels, improving an efficiency of the fuels, including but not limiting to, new forms of gaseous, liquid and solid fuels with a bonded-in content of Hydrogen, Oxygen and/or other gases to enhance energy output and decrease contaminants in the exhaust. Further, methods of coating computer chips and other surfaces for their protection against oxidation, new fuels with energy content and flame temperatures greater than those of the conventional form of the same fuels, etc." FYI GangofOne (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Why Wikipedia does not list this important patent in Santilli's article? Is it because it proves the politics of Calo's criticism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joseph9871 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

@Joseph9871: We would need several sources meeting WP:RS discussing it in some depth. Please dont suggest that editors are blocking something for nefarious reasons. Doug Weller talk 21:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Would the patent number and the pdf of the entire patent be sufficient to provide a reliable source? Editorialeffort (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2018 (UTC) Editorialeffort

In a word, no. If the patent is 'important', its importance can be demonstrated by evidence that it has been discussed in depth by third-party reliable sources. 86.169.142.110 (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
That's the gist of it. Yes, you can prove that the patent exists, but why would it be mentioned in an encyclopedia? A claim that it proves something is what we call original research and not allowed unless you have multiple reliable sources showing that it is significant. Doug Weller talk 08:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
So Pepijn van Erp blog is more important and reliable than the US Patent Office?Editorialeffort (talk)editorial Editorialeffort —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

(cur | prev) 20:50, 15 August 2018‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (15,265 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (Undid revision 855083228 by Editorialeffort (talk) I don't think this is an improvement) (undo | thank) (Tag: Undo) David Eppstein, if you look at the source, that is the only line that reports, no other criticism is listed , so it seems to me that it is an improvement since it is accurate and specific.Criticism is a legitimate activity, calling someone stupid is not, no matter how Pepijn van Erp and cohort pretend that it is freedom of speech. You can leave it, but it is not the reason there is a law suit and you bear the responsibility of the information. Not that it matters, it is just question of integrity of the processEditorialeffort (talk)Editorialeffort

  • Interesting word choice. Is that a Capracotta accent I hear? 21:24, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Capracotta does not have an accent, it is only my trying to pick the best words among the three languages I am fluent in..so far it served me well

The published source is the Villamedia article and you need to ask Pepijn van Erp.By the way the article is in Dutch and it is not a good service for the readers of WikipediaEditorialeffort (talk)Editorialeffort
The Villamedia article says that the suit is over a critical article, and in a separate part of the Villamedia article it gives the title of the critical article. Nowhere does it say that the cause of the suit is purely the title of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
[Copyright violation suppressed]
"It is not that I sleep badly, because I have confidence in a good outcome. But it costs a lot of energy. I am most surprised about the fact that such a court in the US does not immediately put such a matter aside. "
Well, it is the standard story of Mr. Van Erp. Always play on the man behind the subject. Discussing and mocking the subject in a blurry way and if possible, the man / woman behind the derided story may also be popular. Boontje comes for his wage ..?
And yes, choose from now 'something more subtle' your words .. ;-)"Editorialeffort (talk)Editorialeffort

Improving this BLP article

Sock puppet initiated discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I see that JZG just deleted my edit without providing any rationale whatsoever. My rationale was simple, improve this article of a biography of a living person by adding the fact that this former Harvard scientist’s book, which allegedly documented potential scientific corruption / abuse of tax payer funds at US universities and physics laboratories, was banned from Harvard area bookstores. It clearly states that in the Harvard Crimson article which has been cited as a valid source on this article for years. [1]

The only thing I can think of that is more intellectually dishonest than banning a book, is banning the mention of the banned book.

I am reverting the edit I made to the article and I kindly ask anyone who feels the BLP article, about a dissident scientist who claims his work has been suppressed, would not be improved by allowing a cited reference about the actual suppression of his criticism against those he alleges suppressed his work, to make their case here in the talk section before undoing my edit. Thanks. DCsghost (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Wow, what a nice welcome to Wikipedia.

(cur | prev) 20:34, 5 December 2018‎ David Eppstein (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,827 bytes) +526‎ . . (Undid revision 872199123 by DCsghost (talk) continued attempt to remove sourced information, by likely block evader) (undo | thank) Tag: Undo Within 1 minute user David Eppstein completely ignores my request to discuss any changes on this talk page prior to making an edit, reverts my edit, accuses me of “continued attempts to remove sourced information” and then accuses me of being “block evader”. Which is as totally false and insulting.

1 – “continued attempt to remove sourced information?”. I deleted an edit (and re-deleted it once) which falsely stated a.) Ermanno Santilli is the CEO of Magnegas Corporation, b.) Carla Santilli is a director and c.) the bit about “the Santilli Family has the ability to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by stockholders of our company” because it is inaccurate information according to recent SEC filings which I would be more than happy to add to the article

a) “On November 2, 2018, Ermanno Santilli voluntarily resigned as the Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of MagneGas Applied Technology Solutions, Inc. (“Company”).” [2]

b.) “On June 30, 2018, Carla Santilli provided MagneGas Corporation (the “Company”) with written notice of her resignation as a member of the Company’s Board of Directors.” [3]

C) "On November 2, 2018, the Company repurchased all of the outstanding shares of its Series A Preferred Stock (“Series A Preferred”) for total consideration of $1 million cash and 5 million shares of the company’s common stock on November 2, 2018. The Series A Preferred was a super-majority voting class of stock that gave complete voting control to its holders. Upon completion of the repurchase, the Company terminated the Series A Preferred class of stock and returned voting control of the Company to its common stock shareholders. Negotiations for the repurchase began in October 2018."

[4]

Jytdog’s source for his edit with inaccurate information was from a SEC filing that is over 1 year old. So I deleted the inaccurate information. Do you desire for Wikipedia to contain inaccurate information? I certainly hope not so please consider the facts before going in and undoing my edit again.

I am new to Wikipedia and I will be bold, and not be bullied. DCsghost (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Following Wikipedia Guidelines

hatting sock puppet discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Below is a copy of a talk I have been having with editor David Eppstein (on his talk page). Despite my requests to discuss things here in the article talk section before reverting edits, David continues to deny that request and revert edits.

As quick summary of what transpired and the issue at hand:

Jytdog determined it was relevant to this BLP that readers be informed that the Santilli family had 100% control of the voting matter of MagneGas (The Company) thru a Preferred Class A shares. He also added that Santilli’s wife Carla is a director of the Company and their son is the CEO and their daughter also sits on the board. Nobody had objected to this, including David Eppstein.

Here is jytdogs edit that David and JzG won't allow to be removed:

“due to their holdings of preferred stock, "the Santilli Family has the ability to significantly influence all matters requiring approval by stockholders of our company." His wife Carla is a director. Their daughter and Ermanno's sister, Luisa Ingargiola, is a director and was formerly the CFO.”

Jytdogs information was properly cited but the SEC filings he was using is outdated as Ermanno has since stepped down as CEO, Carla and Lusia resigned from the board, and the controlling Preferred Class A Shares were eliminated on Nov 2nd, 2018 according to current SEC filings.

My take was the whole edit, including mention of the preferred stock should be removed since it is now indisputably inaccurate information.

After removing it, David and JzG kept reverting it. As a work around to make sure the reader was not receiving inaccurate (which is false) information, I came up with what I thought was an amicable solution (first suggested in section below and then ignored) where I leave their edit about the Preferred A control shares intact, but add the accurate information that Preferred A controls shares were eliminated.

That is where the talk from David’s page picks up. DCsghost (talk) 16:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

David Eppstein I have asked you repeatedly to please discuss the improvements we are working on in the talk page of the Ruggero Santilli article before you go and start reverting edits again. Please respect the guidelines of Wikipedia and your fellow editors. The BLP in question stated the subjects son is currently the CEO of the company and that his wife and daughter are both directors and the family controls all voting stock of the company. That is no longer true, meaning it is false. I deleted all of it then you reverted my edit. I reverted your edit and JzG then reverted it back to your edit.

In an attempt to make an amical resolution (as I detailed in talk section of the page I encourage you to visit), since you and JzG insist that inaccurate material information about the stock of publicly traded company remain in public view, I suggested I add the accurate current information from SEC filings which contradicts the inaccurate disinformation. And then you reverted that! asking “are we really here to breathlessly repeat a blow-by-blow description of all their stock shenanigans?” No I first tried to delete all that stock talk and you refused to allow the edit.

I think this is why it is important that you participate in the dialogue on the talk section as I have been requesting before reverting. Please, lets discuss it on the talk page before reverting comments. ThanksDCsghost (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

You are very longwinded and persistent in defending your edits and running down anyone who disagrees with them, but also inaccurate. The part that I reverted most recently, with the edit summary that you quote, had nothing direct to do with which Santillis are currently running the company. It was uninteresting trivia about converting one kind of stock to another, not relevant to a biography of Santilli. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

::David in this instance I am being persistent in preventing Wikipedia from disseminating materially inaccurate (which means false) information about a publicly traded company.

The explanation you just provided to why you reverted my inclusion of materially relevant (and current, and accurate) information (a change in ownership resulting in a change of control of a publicly traded company is deemed by the United States Securities Commission as material information) was that it “had nothing direct to do with which Santillis are currently running the company.”, when in fact the recent elimination of the super-majority Preferred A shares (previously giving the Santilli family 100% control of all voting matters) has absolutely everything to do with who controls and runs the company.
If who runs and controls the stock of Magnegas is irrelevant or “trivial” as you now protest, then why did you insist on reverting my previous edit where I removed all mention of the controlling Preferred A series stock, originally added by jytdog, from the article? Something is not adding up here David. Can I ask if you are editing in good faith? DCsghost (talk) 15:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
Please don't copy and repeat discussions from one page to another. And also, I don't see a lot of justification for including intricate details of the stock manipulations of a related company on Santilli's biography: what do those things have to do with Santilli himself? The company itself, Santilli's connection to it, and its commercialization of Santilli's pseudoscience, are clearly relevant. The day-to-day details of how the company manages its investors, after Santilli has supposedly become detached from it, not so much. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Back to the banned book

Sock puppet initiated discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry but not sorry for bringing this up again as I feel that instances where an author’s book was banned are an essential mention for the BLP of that author. In Ruggero Santilli’s case, we have a former Harvard scientist, once under funding by the Department of Energy (a sourced fact previously removed from the article for some reason unknown to me), who published a book alleging suppression of his scientific work. Then his book documenting this alleged suppression is then banned from Harvard area book stores. How does this BLP only include the first part about the book being published and the allegations against Nobel Prizes winning scientists, but then totally glosses over the second part about how it was banned? For any editors new to this talk, the ‘second part’ I am recommending be included about the banning of the book is from the exact same source already used as a ref for the ‘first part’. The reference I am referring to[5] is an article that appeared in the Harvard Crimson. Here is ending of the article which mentions the ban.


“It would be easy to dismiss Santilli's claims as the dissatisfied grumblings of a misguided physicist, but his story is too well documented and his charges too serious. While Santilli might have aroused personal opposition in the physics community, the events he relates are too glaring to be attributed to mere personality conflicts. His case is compelling and deserves to be heard--that it has been suppressed so far is undeniable.You may find it difficult to find II Grande Grido in Cambridge. According to the book's publisher, several area bookstores have refused to carry Santilli's book for fear of alienating their Harvard customers. It would be a shame if after all his efforts. Santilli's case were never heard. However, the book can be purchased at the I.B.R. at 98 Prescott St. in Cambridge. If Santilli is right, it is a place a lot more people should be visiting.” [5]

Pardon me, but it is almost as if the editors here over the years have intentionally suppressed any fact, no matter how well sourced and/or relevant that might not make Santilli come across like a complete “crackpot”. Does mentioning that his book was banned afford Santilli some credibility to his case? Maybe it does maybe it doesn’t. But that is not our job. We cite what the sources say and nothing more. I am putting mention of the ban back into the article. If anyone has a compelling reason why it should continued to be suppressed, please make it here. I promise I will revert it out myself if anyone can produce a rationale case.DCsghost (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

A student newspaper is not a good source for this sort of material. As we have agreed over and over already. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

::So the Harvard Crimson is suddenly not a good source or just not a good source for “this sort of material”? What: ”sort of material” is that? So your case is that the Crimson is a good source of material for the part about a scientist leveling crazy sounding allegations of misconduct against two Noble Laurates, but falls into total unreliability in regards to the really important “sort of material” like whether or not a student can find a particular book in a bookstore around campus?

And no, we have not agreed “over and over” let alone once on any of this. If someone else agreed with you on this please provide me a link/source. I found an older comment from you on the same topic back then you somehow tried to argue that the reporter must have been in his sophomore at the time of writing (are you implying only juniors and seniors know where the bookstores are?) and thus “should not be taken seriously as a reliable source about a scientific issue?” Nobody agreed with you
And what scientific issue is that? A bookstore carrying a book or not is NOT a scientific issue by any stretch, particularly because this is BLP which is not some “scientific issue”.
I will ask you for the 3rd time, have you been editing this article all this time in bad faith?
Here is a compromise, it goes back in but instead of using the term “ban”, I will just stick with what the source stated. “Several area bookstores have refused to carry Santilli's book for fear of alienating their Harvard customers”DCsghost (talk) 07:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
Your suggested text and the student-newspaper story both credit this story to "the publisher", Alpha Publishing of Newtonville MA. As far as I can tell that publisher has only published books by Santilli (there are other Alpha Publishing companies from which it should be distinguished). Do we have any evidence that Alpha Publishing is in any way distinct from Santilli himself? —David Eppstein (talk) 08:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
What David said. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Not much question about it. A Google search on "Alpha Publishing" Newtonville -Santilli shows up and 1890s company, nothing suggesting it exists today outside of Santilli. Doug Weller talk 13:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

:::::The argument that The Harvard Crimson is not a reliable source because it is a “student newspaper” fails since the source has already been deemed valid by all editors involved in this discussion and is has been used for years as a valid source of a large portion of the article. Do we now go back and remove all parts about Santilli’s allegations against Prof Weinberg since the source was just a “student newspaper”?

I see the last time someone tried to remove edits sourced by the “student newspaper” David Eppstein immediately reverted adding this comment.
Revision as of 21:39, 4 June 2014 (edit) (undo) David Eppstein (talk | contribs) (Undo whitewash of Santilli's toxic views)
Apparently questioning the ethics of someone in power is a “toxic view”? David Eppstein have you been editing in good faith?
So now we are left with this objection/unfounded conspiracy theory of a bias editor[s] which in my opinion are not acting in good faith, “Do we have any evidence that Alpha Publishing is in any way distinct from Santilli himself?” So, do we have any evidence that Alpha Publishing is any way distinct from Donald Trump himself? This is just nonsense. We are not here to hatch conspiracy theories and edit based upon want we want to believe. Unless someone can produce a verifiable source that states explicitly the book publisher cannot be trusted to know which bookstores wouldn’t carry the book, you have nothing.
Editors here refuse to accept that the Hadronic Journal (founded by Santilli while at Harvard under support from the DOE) existed outside of Santilli’s “vanity press” even though I can show you CVs of well establish mainstream scientists like Howard Georgi who published papers in the Hadronic Journal.
The cherry-picking by editors here is truly unbelievable. For example, Santilli was labeled here as “pseudoscience” (which later morphed into “fringe scientist”) with zero source or reference for over 3 years; until Doug Weller finally stepped up and used a self-quotation from Santilli to justify that label.
(cur | prev) 15:10, 3 February 2011‎ Doug Weller (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,517 bytes) +322‎ . . (I agree, this needs to be sourced, it's Santilli himself who is the source in this case) (undo)
So if I provided a good source to Santilli saying that his book was banned, do we get to use that then? Or is he not to be quoted on things editors don’t want to believe? Even worse, that self-quotation has been twisted into a clear misrepresentation. This is the exactly what Santilli told the reporter.
"You call the famous professor and the famous professor will say, 'Oh, Professor Santilli is a weirdo. His science is not accepted by the establishment, ' " Santilli said.
To stretch that into justification for a derogatory label like "pseudoscientist", which again was applied to him for 3 years without even an attempt at a citation, borders on misconduct in my opinion. Here is one example of how that source does not support what the article says.
"He told the reporter from St. Petersburg Times that the scientific establishment has not accepted this work."
No, he told the reporter that if you called the “famous professor” that is what this famous professor would tell you. That needs to be changed. Is Santilli’s science currently accepted by the scientific establishment? I would say most likely not (particularly if any established scientist read this slanted article on him), but what I say doesn’t matter. Wikipedia isn’t about writing what we just know must be true, it’s about citing valid references. Find one or remove it, this is a BLP.
My interest in this article is improving it. This is in my opinion one of the most clear cut examples of bad faith editing by a group of senior wikipedians I have ever seen. I am going to focus on improving this article further and welcome the dialogue we are having here even though I clearly disagree with the validity of the arguments I have seen here so far. DCsghost (talk) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
The source does not say the book was banned, why is "banned" even being discussed? Doug Weller talk 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Indeed, it's very unsurprising that a self-published and fringe book had difficulty getting distributed to bookstores. So I don't see why conspiracy theories of a "ban" need to be invented. And certainly a student newspaper uncritically reporting Santilli's own theories are not adequate sources for this material. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/
  2. ^ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353487/000149315218015237/form8-k.htm
  3. ^ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353487/000149315218009503/form8-k.htm
  4. ^ https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353487/000149315218016071/form10-q.htm
  5. ^ a b https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2021

known by: "Fringe Science" that is not accurate for this excellent researcher, academic and scientific mind .That should be changed or removed 201.207.239.15 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

This characterization is properly sourced, and should not be changed to reflect your opinion rather than the opinion of reliable sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruggero_Santilli/Archive_4&oldid=1058373279"