Misplaced Pages

Talk:Ruggero Santilli: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 19:53, 9 December 2018 editDCsghost (talk | contribs)43 edits →Back to the banned book← Previous edit Revision as of 20:10, 9 December 2018 edit undoDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,417 edits →Back to the banned book: no source for "banned"Next edit →
Line 235: Line 235:


:::::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. ] (]) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost :::::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. ] (]) 19:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

::::::The source does not say the book was banned, why is "banned" even being discussed? ] ] 20:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:10, 9 December 2018

Articles for deletionThis article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ruggero Santilli article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 3 months 

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography: Science and Academia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
Note icon
An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconPhysics: Biographies Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by Biographies Taskforce.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
[REDACTED] Alternative views Low‑importance
[REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconChemistry Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contents of the Magnecule page were merged into Ruggero Santilli. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The following Misplaced Pages contributors may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Misplaced Pages:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Improving this BLP article

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.

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 Misplaced Pages.

(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”).”

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.”

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."

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages and I will be bold, and not be bullied. DCsghost (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Guy thank for the courtesy of commenting here after reverting my edit and completely ignoring everything I have had to say. As newcomer here, I would really like to understand what “years-long whitewashing attempts by Santilli and his acolytes” has anything whatsoever to do with whether or not Ermmano Santilli is currently the CEO of MagneGas? Answer - nothing. Ermanno is not the CEO of Magnegas as I told you and cited with current SEC flings, Scott Mahoney is the CEO of Magnegas Corporation. https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1353487/000149315218015237/form8-k.htm
You are now responsible for knowingly reverting back false information on Misplaced Pages about a publicly traded company. Your rationale/excuse of “you probably don’t understand FRINGE” makes it clear you are the one that should not be editing Misplaced Pages.
Please correct the false information you just reposted on[REDACTED] posthaste.
Thanks DCsghost (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost
That is precisely the sort of language that gets people banned. The information int he article is correctly sources, the fact that it conflicts with Santilli's marketing message is not really our problem. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
JzG I am really do my best here trying to improve this article. Since you will not allow the article to be improved by removing inaccurate information, like how Ermmano Santilli is the CEO of Magnegas Corporation (again, he is not, and technically the company changed its name to MagneGas Applied Technology Solutions, Inc.) by claiming they are correctly sourced – (which is basically like me saying Ronald Regan is the president of the US because my 1984 Encyclopedia book says so.) I think I have found amicable solution.
I am going to go in and add what the current SEC filings say after the part where the inaccurate information you will not allow to be removed is. It might be clunky but it is the only way (due to obstructions not on my part) the reader will not be subjected to old and now inaccurate information. Please engage in a discussion with me here on the talk page before reverting any of these new edits. Thank you DCsghost (talk) 01:22, 7 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

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

Following Misplaced Pages Guidelines

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
The justification of my edit was the article states the Santilli Family has “the ability to significantly influence all matters requiring approval..” via a preferred stock. I deleted that because that is no longer true. You reverted my edit and accused me of “continued attempts to remove sourced information” adding a false allegation that I was “likely a block evader” (which again I am not, as I am sure you will come to see). So I added the sourced SEC filings which factually represent that the controlling preferred A series stock were eliminated. Meaning control of the company is now with the shareholders and not the Santilli family. This is hardly “day to day detail”. It is a very material event. I wouldn’t argue that the preferred series A elimination need be mentioned in article at all, if it weren’t for the fact that the preferred stock had already been referenced when I got here and you refused to allow it to be removed. David Eppstein, as a newbie here I don’t want to step on any toes, but I am going to ask you again if you have been editing this article in good faith for all these years? DCsghost (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)DCsghost

Back to the banned book

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 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.”

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 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. Misplaced Pages 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)
  1. ^ https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1985/3/20/the-politics-of-science-pbmbost-ameficans/
Categories:
Talk:Ruggero Santilli: Difference between revisions Add topic