Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

John Vandenberg - why are you deleting this discussion which was posted? You are just fueling the fire and proving these rants as plausible....

Dear Everybody,

With utmost respect. From the beginning when I contacted Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli Foundation I always wanted to ask them some question that it delayed until I came here.

Now I have some questions from Mr. Arthur Robin:

1. Would you please let me know the definition of Scientific Community and Scientific Method as per what you have written here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli "Neither these claims nor the existence of magnecules have been accepted by the scientific community"? If you are so skeptical of Magnegas you may pay a visit to Magnegas laboratories or refineries in China, Europe or USA and inject some of that in your car and run some miles on MagneGAs even if you do not accept the articles published in IJHE or you may get some samples and test them in any of top laboratories all over the world and publish your own analysis in any prestigious peer reviewed and scientific journal you may prefer. Then it would provide a solid ground to discuss that further. So until now it seems that you have committed a crime against Prof. Santilli without sound reasoning to rebute Magnecules by writing as above: "Neither these claims nor the existence of magnecules have been accepted by the scientific community", if not please publish your own analysis of data in prestigious peer reviewed journals so that we will be able to discuss that solidly without prejudice.

2. If you would like to rebute any claim of Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli you would better choose a scientific community of your own preference (if scientific communities differ from each other as the definition of scientific methods may differ from person to person) and then we will go on with you and publish all of your reasonings in a peer reviewed journal. Undoubtedly publishing some nonsense about Prof. Santilli in a free encyclopedia would not rebute anything rather it will make a regrettable reputation for Wikipedia.

My friend suggested me to go on starting with what has been already discussed in Nepal Conference but I told him that it seems we should fundamentally start at mundane levels I mean asking a definition of scientific community and scientific method from dear Arthur Robin then go on with his sound reasoning and analysis of data.

Be careful that telling any nonsense would not damage Prof. Santilli but it would be a catastrophic damage to Wikipedia's scientific credibility.

At this mundane level it seems that we should start from Foundations of Physics,Springer, in my opinion, rather than Nepal Conference. Would you please rebute any of these articles available in this page (http://www.springerlink.com/content/?Author=Ruggero+Maria+Santilli)? You may start from this paper ""Elements of Iso-, Geno-, Hyper-Mathematics for Matter, Their Isoduals for Antimatter, and Their Applications in Physics, Chemistry, and Biology"". Your rebutal will be consequently reffered to the same journal for publication.

I am also translating that paper into Persian language and undoubtedly I will also translate and publish your rebutal.

Waiting for some reply if there is any.

Masood Sanati

Fellow of the University of Tehran —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.66.190.78 (talk) 08:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I asked John Vandenberg why he deleted the info, and while I wasn't entirely sure I agreed, his rationale was good enough for me. The problem is that you are talking about things that have nothing to do with the article. I'll give you some brief notes:

"Scientific community" means the majority of scientists in credible, reliable journals. We will not be writing any scientific journal papers, because that's not what we do. We write an encyclopedia. Furthermore, we aren't refuting magnecules--the mainstream scientific community has.

We have no interest in either supporting or rebutting Santilli's claims. In fact, if we wanted to, we would be forbidden to do so here by Wikipedia's policy forbidding original research. All we may do is report what others have claimed. So your call for us to rebut things really has nothing to do with this.

If you wish to dispute what should be in this article, you may do so, but you may not come here to defend Santilli, his scientific claims, or articles. If you can produce mainstream scientific sources supporting Santilli's theories, we may include them (if they meet WP:RS and WP:DUE). Qwyrxian (talk) 08:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It appears you wrote this a second (or third or fourth) time, mangling one of my replies, above. In any case, I concur with Qwyrxiam, with the exception that the springerlink link above does seem to list some papers in mainstream scientific journals, so we would need to determine if they are (1) peer-reviewed (as, opposed to, say, letters) and (2) favorably referenced by other papers. (I say, "favorably", because it's not impossible for someone to write a paper stating that S's paper is nonsense. A reference, alone, is not adequate to verify that.) However, if there are no references in mainstream scientific journals, other than by S, then we can safely say that his work is ignored by the scientific community. If there are some unfavorable references, then we could say his work is refuted by the scientific community. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Art, many scientists have some unfavourable references and the more you are pushing into new boundaries of science you will probably have more than most, that doesn't mean that someone's work is "Refuted". For example Einstein's qualitative theory of superconductivity which had an unfavourable reference (and was wrong) doesn't mean his "work is refuted by the scientific community". If your favourite words to communicate with are "Refute" and "Nonsense" then your editorial toolbox is full of hammers and broad brushes, you shouldn't be editing on the nuances of any scientist pushing the boundaries ... 87.64.5.130 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I replied to Masood Sanati at Special:Contributions/80.66.190.78. Whether or not his posts are plausible or not is not important. This isn't a discussion board about magnecules. We are here to discuss improvements to the Wikipedia article about Ruggero Santilli. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:57, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, "many scientists have some unfavourable references" and many scientists have no favourable references ourside of their cliques. Santelli seems to be the latter. I love when POV pushers whip out 'Einstein' . We have had exactly one Einstein and an almost endless parade of scammers, charlatans, and folks that were just plain wrong. But of course, "my favorite fringe babble must be from the next Einstein". 12.29.38.14 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. IP-X, I am very afraid you are firing blanks. Mr IP-Y is probably saying that a few unfavorable references doesn't mean one's entire life's work in worthless. I have no idea what you are implying with you post as nobody is comparing Santilli to Einstein, only that they have both had unfavorable references. Globalreach1 (talk) 19:30, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

: Whoops that was me... my bad... So wait... you don't see how Santilli is being compared to Einstien except for where he's being compared to Einstein? Ohhh.. that makes no sense at all. Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Archiving

I just set-up auto-archiving on this page; for those not familiar with it, it means that older threads on this page will automatically be removed to an archive. No posts will be lost--just moved from here for storage. This should help prevent people from mistakenly responding to long finished conversations, as Darth Sidious just did. I set the archive long, at 91 days. If anyone objects, let me know. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:33, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a Sunday paper?

It is unbelievable! Wikipedia is transformed into a Sunday paper?! Unknown names want to make polemics with Professor Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli using his work itself. Thus, they appeal to the trick of the connoisseurs mocking the work of a great man of science. It’s a shame that the people who manage Wikipedia allow such a thing! Professor Santilli is and will be a Great Man of Science. It is true that he has non-standard preoccupations, but this makes him even more different from others. His accomplishments in the theory of irreversible processes and in obtaining clean fuels are undeniable. The help of his family should be admired and not criticized so that he should devote all his time to research. The Third International Conference on Lie-Admissible Treatments of Irreversible Processes (ICLATIP-3 ), Kathmandu University, Dhulikhel, Nepal, January 3 to Friday January 7, 2011, thoroughly confirmed this. It has also shown that the group of young researchers of Santilli’s team is able to put into the future’s practice everything that this remarkable physicist has dreamt and thought. God save the creators and send the impostors away!

January 28, 2011

Prof. Dr. Constantin Udriste —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.25.175.27 (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have specific suggestions for how to improve the article, please provide them, along with the requisite reliable sources. At the moment, the most useful thing would be mention of Santilli in scientific reviews (what we call secondary sources) that discuss him or his work. If you do not have specific suggestions, then there's not really much we can do to help. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin is basically right that your post, IP, violates policy. Specifically, the relevant policy is WP:NOTFORUM. That is, you cannot use this page to discuss the subject (so, all of your praise of him, your comment about a conference, etc.). You may only use this page to suggest improvements to the article. If that is not your purpose, then your comments can be removed. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Since my fellow editors see fit to allow you soapbox here... please also read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. As you seem to be (from google searchs) a collaberator with Santilli. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Corruption by Wikipedia editors? The final test

Prof. Udriste, Prof. Sanati, Prof. Cox and many other serious scientists, please do not waste your precious time with Wikipedia as it stands now. The corruption by Wikipedia editors is beyond doubt because they dub as "fringe science" all theories beyond Einstein despite substantial mathematical, physical and experimental backing, while they dub as serious science all far reaching far fetched conjectures without a dream of experimental verification provided they are compatible with Einstein (big bang, dark matter, dark energy, neutrino jazz, etc.).

Prof. Santilli has already acquired a place in the history of science, and has already been formally acknowledge for that as being among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times (the list does not include Einstein since he made no mathematical discovery at all.....) because of the lifetime of studies that lead to Santilli's Lie-admissible invariant representation of irreversible processes for mater and antimatter (Nuovo Cimento Vol. 121B, page 443-485, 2006). These discoveries have already produced new fuels sold and known the world over, besides receiving international consensus at the recent Third Conference on Lie-admissibility. Dubbing these historical achievements as "fringe scientific theories" turns Wikipedia into a scientific Latrina because Einstein's theories are notoriously reversible over time, while Santilli's covering of Einstein's theories is indeed irreversible as nature is.

To prove the above, I have documentation showing the immediate trashing of my adding to the page on Steven Weinberg the dubbing of proponent of "fringe scientific theories" because of his scientific gyrations on the big bang, the ultra far fetched jazz on a crowd of neutrinos traversing entire planets and stars without appreciable collisions despite being ordinary massive particles (!!!!!!!!!) and similar scientific gyrations. The instant trashing was done because...., read Il Grande Grido, these scientific gyrations are compatible with Einstein. Similarly, informed people know the political gyrations Steven Weinberg and Shelly Glashow had to do with their ring of friends to get a Nobel prize. Yet, my adding the propaganda window to Weinberg's and Glashow's section on prizes is immediately trashed, and so are related comments in the discussions. As Santilli properly put it in his Il Grande Grido, it all boils down to "organized academic, financial and ethnic interests in the U.S.A. on Einsteinian theories."

Perhaps in a temporary moment of sanity, one of the editors asked Prof. Udriste for concrete suggestions. Here is the final test whether we are dealing with serious editors or just manipulators acting under orders by a ring:

ALTERNATIVE 1: remove from Santilli's page the dubbing of "fringe scientific theories" as well as the propaganda window, in which case I shall apologize for the misunderstanding and help the editors to identify documentation of Santilli's discoveries as well as the institutions in which they were achieved so that the latter can get their just reward, or

ALTERNATIVE 2: maintain said dubbing and propaganda window in Santilli's page, but add exactly both of them to the Wikipedia pages of Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow, Kaku & Co. by showing in this way a fully acceptable democratic handling of scientific information.

In the absence of both alternatives, the discrimination at Wikipedia is so vulgar and so damaging to the U. S. image throughout the scientific world to deserve indeed the qualification by Wikipedia as a scientific Latrina controlled by a ring. Richard Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't take well to threats. If you have sources, please add them. Right now, our sources say he's fringe. If you have sources that say otherwise, tell us. Otherwise, your best bet is to leave our "corrupt" site and go to another--there are many other places on the web where you can promote Santilli or anything else you like. Remember, I'm by far the most patient here when it comes to tolerating this type of soapboxing, and my patience is about run out. Either help us improve the article, or don't, it doesn't really matter to us. But you can't continue to come here and tell us how bad we are. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Comparing the 'Gold Prize Mediterraneo' to a Nobel? Conspiracy theories? -Ethnic- conspiracy theories? New fuels? LOL, you are a whole bundle of fun. Dude, you should totally cross post this on Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow, Kaku & Co's pages, because I don't edit them. I'm sure the editors there will be very interestd in your proposals! Can I delete the threats and soapboxing now? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Wait a sec... did you just address your rant to yourself? or are there two Prof. Cox here? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't even notice that. Maybe he's angry at himself for wasting his own time with us corrupt editors. <sarcasm>Oh, and I have to say, my check from the USA Einsteinian interests is late this month. They better get on that, or I'm going to stop protecting him against obviously legitimate scientific interests.</sarcasm> Qwyrxian (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Since you did not get a check from Einsteinian interests this month, could you please explain to the observers of this page why you are wasting so much of your time in something so blatantly smelly of dirty politics? What's in it for you? I shall let the the horrified visitors of this page know it soon.

Qwyrxian, why you twist denounciations into threats, quaklified scientists into associates, and do things like that? What do you gain short of maintaining your membership in a ring? I proposed an alternative to fringe science with independent verifiable documentation consisting of "proponent of new sciences for a new era according to I. Gandzha and J. Kadeisvili in their monograph Santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS-12-9-10(dot)pdf" You trashed it as usual and replaced it fringe science. In the event you provide a credible independent source qualifying in a refereed work Prof. Santilli's science as fringe, I will immediately upload apologies. However, in the event you do not have such a source and the fringe science business is your personal belief without documentation in clear violation of your own frantic request for independent documentations, you force me to confirm all allegations. Never forget that over over hundred recommendations of Prof. Santilli for the Nobel prize in Physics authored by major scientists belonging to major institutions often available per extenso in the web site of the Santilli foundations renders your request for documentation in this issue completely laughable. Richard Cox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs) 14:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Love it. "Einsteinian Interests" is actually a brand new conspiracy theory to me, and I love a good conspiracy theory. Can you tell me more? Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Just for reference, I'm not a scientist, and I have never been a scientist. I'm in a totally different field, with totally different interests. Regarding the nobel prize, well, this just makes me believe your other claims even less. Quoting from WP, which directly references material for the Nobel Committee, "All nomination records for a prize are sealed for 50 years from the awarding of the prize." If Santilli or someone else is self-nominating him, it has no validity, because the Nobel Committee self-selects those who can nominate, and doesn't accept nominations from those it hasn't solicited. The fact that Santilli's "nomination" is public clearly shows that it isn't a legitimate nomination. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia definition of fringe science

To the Editors of Wikipedia:

Having read carefully the Wikipedia article on "Fringe Science " and the recommendations of the Arbitration Committee on the presentation of topics as "pseudoscience" I reached the conclusion that it is not fair to define Prof. Santilli a proponent of some fringe scientific theories. He is a living person and his business could clearly be damaged by the definition of fringe scientist. In fact in the Wikipedia article the pejorative character of the definition of Fringe Science is evident in several cases. I below cite two, but more could be indicated: "The term fringe science is sometimes loosely used to describe fields that are actually pseudosciences, or fields which are referred to as sciences, but entirely lack scientific rigor or plausibility.".................. "Fringe Science is sometimes considered pejorative" The arbitration Committee proposed some definition exactly to avoid this pejorative character thus resolving the damaging ambiguities of the Wikipedia article on Fringe Science. One definitions which is fair for Santilli is: "Proponent of alternative theoretical formulations" See below the definition of the Arbitration Committee: Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Santilli has a definite following in the Scientific Community, since his "followers" have regular chairs positions at majors and minors public and private universities and his work has been published in many articles in refereed journals, his monographs have been published by Springer Verlag, Kluwer and Editori Riuniti. Please prove that the physicists and mathematicians who publish articles on his body of work and organize workshop and conferences on his theories are pseudoscientists and that the above publishing houses are not independent from Santilli and are not "notable" and that the referees of his work are not legitimate. In absence of these proofs by you, the definition of " Santilli as proponent of alternative theoretical formulations " is the only one describing Santilli in a fair way while maintaining the integrity of the Wikipedia process. Eurousa.

Eurousa, you are way too nice for these crude manipulators of serious evdience. The "editors" (read "members of a Nazi-kind of a ring") have trashed all Wikipedia editorial rules. Hence, they could not care less for Wikipedia's owns ruling on fringe science. I saw (and recorded for posterity) your change in Prof. Santilli's page and its immediate trashing by these guys. By keeping in mind the extreme rigor, kindness and legal content of your comments above, if the trashing by these Nazi-gurus of your very appropriate alternative definition 1000000% in compliance with Wikipedia ruling is not a proof of a scientific Latrina at Wikipedia, what else could it be? Come on! The truth is now so evident that it is now splashing in their face!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurousa (talk • contribs) 16:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

There is finally a rational post and it's just reverted and ignored. I would like to see a rational response to this post from EuroUSA because it makes sense and was rationally put together as opposed to a rant. So would someone please issue a point by point rebuttal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.154.68.202 (talk) 11:00, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see reference 1 in the article. According to court filings, as reported in that article, Santilli himself recognizes that other scientists call him a fringe scientist. Now, there's a lot of other things we could talk about, like the fact that while Santilli has published in mainstream journals, all of the Magnecule stuff has been published in fringe journals, primarily those published by Santilli's publishing company. If Magnecules, HHO gas, or any of those were mainstream, they would have been reported on in reliable scientific journals, covered in review articles, and, eventually, filtered their way into Wikipedia articles. However, they are not covered in such places. As such, Santilli exactly meets the definition of a fringe scientist. If you wish to debate this further, please go to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, which is Wikipedia's centralized place for discussing whether or not people should be classified as Fringe. While doing so, you must immediately cease all personal attacks. Calling others Nazis is a clear and direct personal attack, and is forbidden by policy. I'll put a warning on your page--any repeat of that action will result in a block of your editing privileges. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The above statement is a magnificent proof of the bad faith of Wiki editors, specifically and solely on Santilli's article. Besides patents and patent applications, there are various articles on magnecules in highly qualified refereed journals. here is one published in Oxford: The novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with increases s;specific weight and energy content, R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 28, pages 177-196 (2003) available in free pdf downloads from .Santilli-foundation.org/docs/ Santilli-38.pdf. santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-38(dot)pdf. I shall report the above statement to the editor as well as the publisher of the IJHE and their legal representatives. Richard Cox

And Eurousa just removed that reference. I've restored it, we shouldn't unsource statements. Dougweller (talk) 21:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

@"Richard Cox": Now that is actually the first helpful thing you've given us. Patent filings mean nothing, because they're not peer reviewed--heck, they're not even checked to work/be accurate. The only thing the Patent office checks is whether or not the same patent has been filed previously, and that the thing being patented meets certain minimum requirements for novelty. However, the IJHE reference is very helpful, and I was previously unaware of it. Can you please list other journal articles that Santilli has published about magnecules/magnacular chemistry that are in peer reviewed journals with which he is not directly associated? More usefully, can you please provide review articles written by scientists independent of Santilli in peer-reviewed journals that discuss Santilli's work or magnecules (thus verifying that they are considered serious, non-fringe work by the field)? Qwyrxian (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Concerns

I have concerns that an editor may be using multiple accounts to edit this article. Is there consensus to request a checkuser on Eurousa and Kaufman111?

Furthermore, I have to ask Globalreach since you claim to the copyright holder of the image of Santilli on the page: Do you have a personal, professional or other relationship with Mr Santilli?

Thanks!

 == Save your concerns=

I am one person only, I have only one computer, I have only one style of writing, I have a full time job so I have no time to bounce from one computer to another just to post or edit in Wikipedia. I am moving on.People here seem to have a lot of free time. I wish to spend mine in more valuable endeavors. I am shocked that my post was removed. It was very respectful, rational, well researched. It was totally removed, even from the history. I think it was really threatening. I have no other explanation! Eurousa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eurousa (talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You don't need consensus to ask for an SPI, just a good reason. I've been wondering myself. Dougweller (talk) 21:39, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but a single edit is tenuous. So looking for support. Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Guyonthesubway, Thanks for the concerns. You are not alone. Perhaps there is a slim hope for future clean reporting in Wikipedia in the event you are serious. However, the request to Globalreach for copyright ownership of Santilli picture is fishy because all informed people know that all pictures in the web site of the Santilli Foundations are available for free download and use jointly with all publications. Also your dubbing "Mister" a scientist formr member of major university and recipient of over 100 fully qualified Nomination for the Nobel Prize qualifies you fully. I am sure you will never call "Mister" Steven Weinberg.... So, the doubts on how serious is your concern. Just call him Santilli to avoid blatant discrimination. In any case, Wili editors are forcing the initiation of an enormous fuzz on one basic and central issue: Wikipedia editors must report documented facts and let the viewer reach his/her own conclusion. The editors of Santilli's page blatantly violate this basic rule and clearly try to influence viewers from the first lien in a vulgar discriminatory way, that is, solely for Santilli. This is deadly wrong and has to be challenged particularly for the anti-American vulgar discrimination. Your "concern" carefully avoids touching these substantial issues and deals instead with immensely irrelevant periferals,. so..... Richard [email protected] (Kaufman1111)

PS. Can I have a copy of my preceding posting that was erased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Look through the article history (it's the "View History" button on the upper right), then find your edit. In general, even deleted information remains in the article or talk history, except in extreme cases of grossly offensive material, strong personal attacks, contentious BLP violations, outing, etc. (in which case things can be deleted so that only admins can see them). Qwyrxian (talk) 12:38, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

This is another fake statement by Wiki editors amidst a plethora of fake statements. My upload if of February 2011 and the history has been intentionally stopped at January. When will serious people interested in America intervene to stop this farce??? Richard Cox.

The images may be available, but here globalreach is claiming that he is the copyright owner of the image. Which means that he has either reported the copyright incorrectly, in which case he should remove the image or correct the copyright. I haven't noticed that image in any public location... More likely he's connected to Mr Santilli in some way, which would of course mean under wikipedia's conflict of interest rules he has certain limiations. I'm curious about your terminology issues, and you behave in a way that suggests a -very- personal relationship with Mr Santilli. Also, get over it. I'll refer to him in any way I see fit.Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that the nobel prize doesn't release details of nominees or even who is eligable to nominate someone. The claims of noble prise nominations are therefore unprovable, and easily faked. I personally find the evidence presented no more convincing than something a person of average skills could replicate in a dull afternoon. Perhaps you can produce an independant verifiable source for these claims? Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Resolved

Gee, big surprise. Kaufman1111, Globalreach1, and EuroUSA are all the same guy. All three are blocked. Archive this mess and move on? Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Good work there. Sorry I didn't do it myself earlier. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Improved references

The two references 23 and 24 described as self publications of Cloonan and Kadeisvili in the section of HHO are not accurately defined, as everybody can see. These two contributions appeared in 2008 as Discussions in the peer reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. They are a response to the previous criticism of Calo to the article by Santilli which appeared in the same journal. Hope some of you will correct the inaccuracy in the spirit of editorial collaboration and will not remove this post, in the spirit of good and honest process. Justfairy (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)JustfairyJustfairy (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

FYI, I reported Justfairy as a likely addition sockpuppet of Kaufmann1111, and xe was blocked as such. I am, however, going to remove the word "self-" from "self-published," as the pdf themselves clearly show these to be journal articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Are they 'letters to the editor' which may not be peer reviewed? Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

They are in the Discussion section, a common feature of many journals. I do not know IJHE's specific standards on how much peer review is done of those statements. However, I don't see any fair justification in us trying to make some judgment about that, unless you have clear, documented evidence in a reliable source that says that those publications (or that Discussion articles in IJHE in general) were not peer-reviewed. In any event, they certainly aren't "self-published". Qwyrxian (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

"Overview and Honors" section, and the promotional tag

One of the concerns raised by User:Kaufman1111 above is the "promotional" tag on the "Overview and Honors" section. In a certain sense, this concern is correct, in that, if the section is promotional, we should fix it and remove the tag, and if it's not, we should remove the tag. I propose that we do the former. In fact, I think that what we should do is remove the section entirely, and disperse the relevant information throughout the rest of the article. Here's my recommendation:

"Santilli is the author of some 250 technical articles and 18 post Ph.D. level monographs in mathematics, physics, cosmology, superconductivity, chemistry and biology published the world over."

Move this to subsection "Work". That section needs a lead anyway, and this will make a reasonable one. I would rephrase it and update the numbers like this, though:

"Santilli is the author of over 300 publications in mathematics, physics, cosmology, superconductivity, chemistry and biology."

There's no reason to separate the "techincal" articles from the "monographs", as this isn't really a relevant distinction. The phrase "the world over" is promotional, and should be removed.

"He is the founding editor of three journals in mathematics and physics and editor of several others.[2][3][4]"

Move this to the end of the biography section, with the citations. Move only the "founding editor" part, as being an editor is not itself notable, and is a regular part of being a publishing academic. But, if others insist, we can leave in "editor of several others."

"Santilli was nominated by the Estonia Academy of Sciences as among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times; he received two gold medals for scientific merits; and the listing in 1992 of "Santilli Hall", a class room at the Science Art Research Centrer in Australia.[5]"

Remove this whole thing. We have no proof of any of this--the only reference given is from Magnegas, and I can't find any other besides the Santilli Foundation. Those are clearly not independent, and we need independent corroboration to include them. The first could be included if we can get a reliable independent source and if that source shows us that this "nomination" is notable (i.e., was he nominated and failed? How did they choose nominees? Where there a dozen, or several thousand? etc.). The second clause means nothing--what's a "medal for scientific merit"? Who awarded them? For what? And the third wouldn't be notable even if we found proof--having a classroom named after oneself doesn't necessarily mean anything other than that a grant was given to the university. This would only be notable if we had a news article explaining why this was named after him.

"Santilli was recently awarded the 2009 "Gold Prize Mediterraneo" for Science and Technology. According to awarding body Fondazione Mediterraneo (the Mediterranean Foundation),[6] [7]. "The 2009 Mediterraneo Prize is awarded to Santilli for his scientific discoveries and for his advances in mathematics, physics and chemistry that have made possible the development of new technologies for the benefit of a new and sustainable environment." [8][importance?]"

This is being discussed above; I think we should remove it until importance is verified.

So, the end result is that the stuff in the first paragraph is moved to other places, and the rest is removed until it is verified and shown to be notable. Then we can remove the section and the tag. As the article is clearly in dispute, I await comments before I make this large an edit. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Without a mention of the self-published nature of some of the journals, mentioning them gives them undue weight as they're indistinguishable from more notable publications. Otherwise, I'm happy to see some of the junk taken out. Guyonthesubway (talk)

Are you talking about the journals that he is the "founding editor" of? Wouldn't it always be the case that a founding editor is self-publishing, at least at first? I'm not very familiar with the process by which new academic journals get started, so I'm looking for clarification here. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not always the case that the founding editor is self-publishing. It is acceptable for newsletters of small learned societies to be self-published, at least for the first few years, however typically the founding editor of respected academic journals is a person selected by an independent committee for their eminence in the field. For these journals to still be self-published after 30 years is a big black mark: no publisher wants to pick them up, and the only people who consider the journal a worthwhile venture are the people who publish in these journals or their kin.

Moreover, I have never seen any evidence these Hadronic Press journals have been indexed/abstracted by any discerning independent party, other than their own assertion that "Hadronic Journal and Hadronic Journal Supplement are indexed/abstracted in Chemical Abstracts, I.E.E. Abstracts, I.S.I. of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Journals are also included in the Energy Science and Technology database produced by the U. S. Department of Energy in cooperation with the I. E. A. Energy Technology Exchange, I.A.E.A/I.N.I.S. and other international partners."

If the content published in these journals is not indexed/abstracted, nobody in the industry has any respect for the content published in these journals. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, that is very helpful. I didn't know if founding a journal was like starting your own 'zine (or blog), or if it implied something about funding and university acceptance and the like. In that case, we should probably either completely omit the mention of "journal founding," or phrase it something like "His publishing company, Hadronic Press, publishes several journals, of which Santilli is the founding editor of three." Personally, I'm inclined to just leave them out, especially since it seems that these journals aren't very important in the field (unless, of course, someone has access to one of the relevant indexing or impact rating services and confirms that one or more of these journals actually does have any clout). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:40, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

John why is Indexing important at all? I don't understand this mechanism in today's world of the internet... Globalreach1 (talk) 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Indexing is important because it is how people in the field find the relevant prior work. Publishing in a non-indexed journal is the next step up from blogging; it is a bit the same comparison as "why go to an accredited school". Medical Hypotheses, a bottom-tier journal, recently replaced the head editor in response to the possibility of de-indexing - it really matters. - 2/0 (cont.) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok so I assume that no un-accredited schools are listed in Wikipedia? Or does that not directly translate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.64.5.130 (talk • contribs) 2011-01-26T20:42:45

Wikipedia can have articles about un-accredited universities and it can have articles about journals which are not indexed. The requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia is our "notability" policy, which is orthogonal to acceptance by the scientific community. However, in cases where a topic is not accepted by the scientific community, Wikipedia will inform readers of that fact.

I suspect that "Hadronic Journal" is notable, and could have its own article on Wikipedia, however information about these journals can be added to Ruggero Santilli and Institute for Basic Research until the information about the journals becomes to voluminous and overwhelms these articles. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In the midst of all of that drama, I feel we kind-of lost our steam here. Is there anything from the overview and honors section that we want to save? I could live with adding the sentence "Santilli is the author of more than 300 technical articles and 18 post Ph.D. level monographs in mathematics, physics, cosmology, superconductivity, chemistry and biology" to the biography section, as it's a pretty factual statement. Yes, a portion of those are in journals he's associated with, but, still, no need to be too harsh, I feel. But since I don't think we've established that the journals or the prize are really important, they should come out, right? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I certainly agree. I don't know if any of the journals are indexed anywhere, that's apparently the standard for a journals importance. If they're simply effectively a newsletter that he publishes, then they're not worth mentioning. Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to remove the section. I'll put it here for reference in case anyone wants to source and demonstrate the importance of something I took out:

He is the founding editor of three journals in mathematics and physics and editor of several others.

Santilli was recently awarded the 2009 "MEDITERRANEAN AWARD" for Science and Technology. According to awarding body Fondazione Mediterraneo (the Mediterranean Foundation),. "The 2009 Mediterraneo Prize is awarded to Santilli for his scientific discoveries and for his advances in mathematics, physics and chemistry that have made possible the development of new technologies for the benefit of a new and sustainable environment." .

So, again, feel free to re-add any of that if there is a good reason to believe it's important. For instance, it sounds like the founding of at least one of the journals may be enough of an achievement that it's worth including, but I'll let someone else re-add if they think they can verify it. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:10, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Worries for the fuzz on Santilli's "fringe" science and "propaganda" prizes

I am concerned for the retaliation going on for the dubbing of R. M. Santilli's research as "fringe" science and his prizes as "propaganda." Allegedly, this fuzz was originated by Steven Weinberg with his friends Arthur Rubin and other editors of Wikipedia's article on Santilli. The retaliation is orchestrated by Santilli's supporters around the world, now too numerous to silence. I have just received a message from one of ours in the Baghdad intelligence telling me that Weinberg-Wikipedia profile (www||dot||scientificethics.org/Steven-Weinberg||dot||htm) is being circulated among Arab scientists, including Eastern and Western countries. I am told mirror sites are being built in in Arabic, and similar posts are appearing in Facebook etc. My senator has apparently received a request to solicit a senate hearing on the background of this fuzz and I assume other senators may have received the same. I checked things out, and it is true the Santillis saved Jews from the Nazis during WWII, the little boy R. M. Santilli being the food carrier in the hideout. Comparing this with Weinberg's treatment of the adult Santilli and his children, triggers "just anti-Semitism" in their view. Similarly, it is true that Santilli has worked for years with Pinchas Mandell of Tel-Aviv, President of Magnegas Israel, to set up grounds for a future fuel independence of Israel from Arab petroleum, their failure to date being mostly due to the profits fellow Israelis are making with Arab fuels, as Mandell may confirm. But then Rubin's dubbing as "fringe" the science for such an important fuel independence by Israel also triggers "just anti-Semitism" for some or be considered "shameful" by others. In the meantime, Santilli's science is gaining momentum world wide with international conferences, increasing experimental verifications and webctures (see www||dot||world-lecture-series||dot||org). I think we should stop the fuzz of "fringe" science and "propaganda" prizes until our damage is kind of containable. You got no advantage whatever out of this, while causing loss of credibility and anti-Semitism. What are you doing?? You know wrong deeds never pay!! WorriedLad — Preceding unsigned comment added by WorriedLad (talk • contribs) 20:16, March 3, 2011

Regardless, it is fringe science. I can't comment on the prizes, but they don't seem major.

If there are sources for the Santillis saving Jews from the Nazis during WWII, that might be suitable for this article.

If Santill's supporters are engaging in Internet terrorism (as you describe above), that should also be noted in the article, if sources can be provided. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh stop, that's just Cox again. Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this new tactic is amusing. Although, it kind-of contradicts the earlier ones. This message says that "wrong deeds never pay," but before I thought we were told that we were all getting paid by the secret Einsteinian conspiracy. In any event, none of what is being said above has anything to do with Wikipedia or our policies that determine what sorts of information to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Nuclear reaction

Part of Santilli's mainstream (or at least somewhat mainstream) work consists of developing a continued nuclear fission reaction in which waste isotopes from electric generator reactors would be consumed. In Santilli's reaction, a series of fission reactions would continue until the final waste products would be stable isotopes. I mentioned this in an alternative energy speech back when I competed in oratory, so I could track down a source from my old speech bibliography. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's an important part of Santilli's work, and if that work is well-accepted in the scientific community, we could add it to the Work section. Let us know more details and/or sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the seemingly serious intention. However, in the event my research is "well-accepted in the [contemporary] scientific community," I do NOT want it listed in Wikipedia because it would means lack real novelty. I dedicated my research life to NEW knowledge that, by definition, is against organized interests in pre-existing doctrines. Ruggero Maria Santilli ibr(at)gte(dot)net — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.120.18 (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand the WP:Verifiability guideline; we can only report what is said in reliable sources. Even if you were correct in your assertions, we could not say that without acknowledgement from others. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

ELSEVIER PUBLISHER

Dr. Rubin, if you click of the ref. 20 and 21 you will see that that these are the pdf file of two articles: one by Cloonan and one by Kadeisvili both published in the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, the same journal that published Calo's article. All three these articles are published by Elsevier and not by Hadronic Press Please correct the HHO section to reflect the fact that all three contributions are from the same peer-reviewed International Journal of Hydrogen Energy. Thank you Carla Santilli (talk)Carla SantilliCarla Santilli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Hmmm. It's not obvious, as they are (possibly illegally) hosted at scientificethics.com, which is Santilli's site, but they were probably copied from IJHE. I'll fix it, but I'll have to replace the references with proper citations. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Done, I think. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Looks good and more appropriate than the former link. Carla Santilli (talk)Carla SantilliCarla Santilli (talk)

Reference 19

I would like to report that ref. 19 is empty. Only the word"Popular Mechanics " appears. Carla Santilli (talk)Carla SantilliCarla Santilli (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC).

Looks OK to me; it links to the article. What browser are you using? Aside from that, it looks as good as the former 20 or 21. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Lawsuits

I think I am suggested to place this communication to Qwyrxian and Bm gub2 on the discussion page.

Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. First, you left me the same message you left another user (BM gub2). And I understand you're trying to explain something about the Ruggero Santilli page. If there is something specific you think needs to be added to that page, please go to Talk:Ruggero Santilli and discuss the issue there. Please explain exactly what source you think needs to be added, and what text you believe should be added to the text. Then we can discuss the issue. Of course, assuming you are using your real name as your username, you should not directly edit the article as you have a clear conflict of interest, but we can discuss the issue. Please note that there are no specific editors who "control" the page; all decisions are made by consensus, following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, this message went to you by mistake since you edited the section on Lawsuits. I was just thanking Bm gub2 (and congratulating him/her) on being able to add ref. 24 which several have tried to add before. So the consensus was not there before and it is there now....I think it is a favorable/useful addition to the page. No need to have more discussion or addition. Thank you for your time. Santilli.Carla (talk)Santilli.CarlaSantilli.Carla (talk)

A nice wake up at Wikipedia for science?

Dear Dr, Rubin, I believe you an your associates should remove the dubbing of "fringe" in Santilli's wiki-article following the recent announcements at CERN (killing supersymmetries, dark matter and the Higgs, plus faster than light particles) that confirm fully: the very successful San Marino Workshop (workshops-hadronic-mechanics-dot-org); the invited talk on the new math and its applications at the meeting CNAAM 2011 (cnaam-dot-org); the granting to Santilli of prestigious awards (such as the 1000 years ago Big Cross of the St. Agata Order, and others -see our web site); etc. As I assume you know, the central point of Santilli's studies (faster than light causal speeds within physical media, thus under contact nonpotential interactions) were experimentally verified decades ago, first suppressed by myopic guys, but they are now a reality to stay.

Additionally, I believe you and your associates should initiate the implementation of the real meaning and value of Wikipedia, that of providing scientific results published in refereed journals without your own comments to influence readers, but let them reach their own judgment. This requires abandoning your request (made directly to Santilli in these comments after which he run away) tat papers should not only be published in refereed journals, but additionally be accepted by your people, which request voided all credibility.

In the event the CERN confirmation of the San Marino and other results is a wake up call for science at Wikipedia and you are interested in cooperating, we shall gladly initiate specific presentations on the emerging new sciences. The irony is that, mostly due to lack of technical knowledge, your people have a lot to gain on this scientific process and a lot to lose in its absence. For instance, there are now frenzy of physicists the world over yelling at the "violation of Einstein theories." Santilli isomathematics is the ONLY ONE permitting the rigorous maintaining of the axioms of special relativity ("iso" stands for same axioms) for interior dynamical problems (particles and elm waves moving within physical media, as it is the case for Nimtz superluminal communications,. CERN neutrinos, etc.),) and merely use a broader realization (see the main results for matter in the San Marino web site, particularly the isomorphism between the covering Lorentz-Poincare;-Santilli isosymmetry and the conventional one).

The irony is that, up to now, you and your group has not seen the self-inflicted damage with the ongoing type of transparently adulterated reports, and the absence of any damage to Santilli (on the contrary, he receives hundreds of letters of support for your use of the budding "fringe," "propaganda," and the like on serious scientific matters).

For instance, the organized scientific crime in the U.S.A. has recently interfered with the publication of serious scientific works on faster than light particles by quoting precisely your "fringe" dubbing you have been so attached to maintain for so long. However, on September 23, 2011, these scientific gangsters were utterly disqualified by the CERN releases. Irate authors then hired an investigative agency (without any knowledge by the publisher), identified their name, affiliations and origin of their money, and, under a world wide wave of credible support for faster than light particles, are inflicting to them the biggest legally allowed pain where they expect it the least but hurts the most, as it should be the case under such vile misconduct, for we American are not servant to fringe organizations.

In short, it is truly incredible for me that you and your people do not see the self-imposed damage in manipulating knowledge for dreams of the past century. I home that the San Marino--CERN and more to come events may finally wake you up and understand that the best way to serve your interest is to serve Science, in this case, only Santilli can do, defend the validity of Einstein axioms under broader realizations for superluminal speeds you currently call "fringe" science with huge damages to yourself and to science and huge benefits to Santilli. Best wishes, Richard Anderson, the R. M. Santilli Foundation (board-at-santilli-foundation.org) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.68.105.25 (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

There have been evidence of FTL particles before; for that matter, one of the earliest measurements of $m_{\nu _{\mathrm {e} }}^{2}$ showed it was negative, with 3 σ accuracy, implying that the neutrino was a tachyon. Of course, the result was not confirmed. It should also be noted that the existence of FTL particles does not necessarily imply the possibility of FTL information transfer. In fact, there is nothing in the current accepted theories (as far as I know) which prevents $m_{\nu _{\mathrm {e} }}^{2}\leq 0\leq m_{\nu _{\mu }}^{2}.$

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

:: Dear Dr. Rubin, thank you for your respectful reply, which is reciprocated with my respect. However, allow me to bring to your attention that your view on the tachyon origin of the FTL particle measured at CERN is dismissed by all major press releases of these days, such as BBC, Nature, etc. In fact, it is known in serious scientific circles that no evidence has been published in refereed journals according to which tachyons can activate a detector. Tachyons are ultra hypothetical particles with imaginary masses im and the fact that their square is real does not change that evidence, since detectors measure the MASS and NOT their square. To maintain credibility, you should at least treat on equal footing th hypothetical tachyon and FTL physical interpretations.

In any case, the use of tachyons becomes far fetched for the numerous astrophysical measurements of immense masses expelled from the core of galaxies at FTL speeds, see Re. [1],, by remember that the organized anti-American interests controlling the journals of the APS have prevented the publication of numerous similar measurements in the past.

Your claim that FTL events cannot be used for communications is a personal opinion which is disproved by Nimtz propagation of a Beethoven symphony at four time the speed of light in vacuum, while independent experimentalists have built guides achieving 500 c (see Refs. [2-4]) which means that European science is making historical advances while American science is dieing. These FTL measurements cannot be credibly dismissed with political statements, since experiments published in refereed journals set the science of the moment and can only be credibly dismissed with counter experiments.

The reality is that the evidence requesting the surpassing of Einsteinian theories is now crushing, of course, NOT for the conditions stated by Einstein (exterior dynamical problems) but for structurally broader conditions, technically identified by Santilli in his fringe monographs with Springer-Verlag [5] (first releases as MIT preprints and the published while he was at Harvard..... all fringe, of course for Wiki interests...) as variationally selfadjoint and rudimentary meaning that they including interactions (such as those for Nimtz guides) not representable with the mathematics underlying Einsteinian theories. Serious scholars can see the technical presentations in the web site of the San Marino Workshop. Best Wishes, Richard Anderson

[1] A. Bunthaler, H. Falcke, G. C. Bower et al., III Zw2, The first superluminal jet in a Sayfert galaxy, A&A 2000; 357, L45.

[2] A. Enders and G. Nimtz, "On superluminal barrier traversal," Journal Phys 1. France 2 (1992), 1693-1698.

[3] G. Nimta, D"Do evaniscent modes violate relativistic causalituy?" Lectures Notes in Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg (2006).

[4] G. Nimtz, Experimental confirmation of superluminal communications, to appear in the Proceedings of the 2011 San Marino Workshop in Astrophysics and Cosmology for Matter and Antimatter
For a DVD in the lecture, please visit ibn mid OctoberLevel V of the www.world-lecture-series-dot-org/

[5] R. M. Santilli, Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics, Volume I (1978) [10a], and Volume II (1982) [10b], Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany,
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.18.36.182 (talk) 16:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Plus, of course, the fact that not only do numerous scientists outside of this group question the results, and they have yet to be replicated, even the scientists in the group are skeptical of their own results. So, once the bare minimum standard is met (repeated results and independent confirmation) then please come back and chat. Oh, and actually I should clarify: until such time as a reliable source explicitly retracts the clear consensus that Santilli is fringe, then, no, we can't change this article. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Do not worry Qwyrxian, fringe is good, fringe is getting better everyday (as more negative press in coming from Europe about the billions spent at CERN) , fringe is progress, fringe is new funding.--CarlaGSantilli (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Use reliable sourced references to back your potential contributions, not "I heard this" or some Truthiness ... WP:NOR. 141.218.36.50 (talk) 19:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

To whom was that directed. I would assume the anon, as he had two whole paragraphs referenced only to the subject of the article, but.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a general open comment, for the former. For the later sentence, I have no clue as to what you are referring. 141.218.36.50 (talk) 20:16, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I look forward to the appearance of a *mainstream*, refereed, cited & widely recognized paper which actually makes the statement "the new results from CERN have led to a reevaluation of Santilli". Until that happens, all of the above discussion is Original Synthesis. After all, any random crackpot can walk in off the street and say that "whatever CERN has found, if anything, validates MY theory, not the other guy's." Until there's a paper on it, Santilli's claim to be "vindicated" is on exactly the same footing as Time Cube's. Bm gub2 (formerly User:Bm_gub) 21:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Jeremy Dunning-Davies

I removed a list of works of Jeremy Dunning-Davies. He is of Santilli's Institute for Basic Research. Clearly, they cannot be a source of independent, NPOV information on the subject. Santilli-based research counts thousands of works. Why these? They are not even cited references to the article text. Last Lost (talk) 04:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Chair during studies?

The text claims that Santilli obtained the Chair in Nuclear Physics at the Avogardo Technical Institute in Turin while studying for his PhD. The only mention I found of an 'Avogardo Technical Institute' (or rather 'Avogadro Technical Institute'...) in Turin is that of a high school, which I rather doubt would have a chair in nuclear physics ;-) So unless there's a credible source for this, I will remove this sentence. Hairer (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The whole career blurb is taken from his cv. Where the institute is " the famous A. Avogadro Institute in Turin, Italy.", which is "Instituto Avogadro" whatever it is. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Sentence removed. Hairer (talk) 07:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Nobel prize?

Although there is no evidence that his "nominations" for Nobel prizes were considered by the committee, there really is no evidence that they were not considered (and rejected, perhaps due to the fact that none of his "discoveries" actually exist). Still, the paragraph includes facts not supported by sources. (It contains no reliable sources, but that's another issue.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the part out of the lead and the later section. What I was trying to say in my edit summary is that while WP:PRIMARY says that we can use primary sources in some cases, there's no reason for us to use them here when the claims are so patently meaningless. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. I wanted to do this myself, but got myself busy with other things. Staszek Lem (talk) 03:29, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

the Jews-and-journals thing

In Denunciation of Steven Weinberg's Scientific Gangsterism Santilli says "I am strongly against the above ethnic profile of Steven Weinberg because he is not representative of the Jewish physics community despite his undeniable sinister political clout at the Nobel Foundation, CERN, FERMILAB and similar settings. ", and others texts in the page are signed by other people.

This is backed by a note in one of his books Hadronic Mathematics, etc. "Numerous Jewish mathematicians, theoreticians and experimentalists have collaborated with and/or supported the author in the development of hadronic mechanics (...) As a matter of fact, the author has received to date more support from Jewish scientists than that from Italian colleagues, the author being a U. S. citizen of Italian birth and education. (...) Needless to say, the denial of a Jewish component in the scientific controversies raging on Einstein followers would be a damaging hypocrisy, but we are referring to a very small segment of the Jewish scientific community" (emphasis added)

The article implied that Santilli complains about all Jews. We should make clear that he complains only about some Jewish physicists. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the sentence "because they were controlled by a group of Jews" is highly misleading.

Editors of this page should read the WP:BLP - Content should:

1. Contain a neutral point of view (NPOV) and

2. Verifiability.

The posted third party quote is incorrect and damaging to Santilli's character. Prof. Santilli has only recorded complaints in his past about harmful individuals, and not a collective group. Invalid third party allegations do not belong here.

From the same WP:BLP page: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

-- 208.54.85.149 (talk) 14:31, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

"Jewish domination of APS' journals" is in the first source for that section, and "led by Weinberg" is in the second, both in his own words. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The first source that you are using is a Non-Neutral Point of View from a third party that was writing it in reference to a POEM attempting to be humorous that was published in a book. Just because it is in print does not mean it qualifies as being a verifiable, NPOV source to be used on wikipedia.

See screenshot of poem in third party book: http://imgur.com/u8Fqv

It's a contentious source, unjustly damaging to Santilli, and inaccurately shifts the blame from individuals to a collectivist group.

It does not belong here no matter how badly you wish to portray Santilli in a negative light. 208.54.85.149 (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't read the source in question, but I just want to point out that there is no requirement that sources be NPOV--only that the article itself be NPOV. Now, we, of course, wouldn't use an advocacy source to verify a statement of fact. But if, as others are saying, Santilli is actually quoted in the article, and it is not explicitly clear that the claim is a "joke", then the information should say. Wikipedia isn't portraying him in a negative light--it seems like, if what Arthur Rubin says is correct, that Santilli portrayed himself in a negative light. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I've looked at the sources. The first source by Lustig appears to be reliable. The other (scientificethics.org), does not. The latter is just a random third party group...and looking at their main page, one of their major purposes seems to be to criticize Wikipedia (which is fine, WP needs criticism, but that certainly doesn't give an indication that they are a well-written source with a history of reliable fact-checking). I'm going to remove the second source, but keep the first, which I think keeps the information intact. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:30, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Can we quote one of Santilli's books? He made a note in his book Hadronic Mathematics, etc. (I quoted the note in my first comment in this section). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2012 (UTC)