Jump to content

Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 3

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

Page seems to be giving credibility

Wikipedia Fringe theories policy - states:
...and reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner.
Are this man's claims that his ideas are being suppressed because of scientific magazine ownership by Jews, and that he was on his way to refuting Einstein's theory, but was stopped by Jewish scientists the way to affirm the marginal idea to the mainstream ideas?
It seems to me the way the article is written now, it is giving the man full credibility. There is no mention of fraud or refuted science in the headlines till the last one, so his biography and subjects of research, discovery and theories are all adding to his seeming credibility. Finally, the section about conspiracies (even that section is called: 'scientific paradigms AND conspiracies') is read as if the scientific establishment is just another POV. Or rather "Point of Jew".
I'm not sure what policy should be flagged on the page, but I'm sure some wp editors can help me find it.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 12:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
When it comes to that kind of stuff, what usually happens is that someone swoops by and marginalizes the article by removing about 3/4ths or more of the material even when there are sources. I don't really like it when that happens, but then again, there are better sources than Wikipedia for fringe theories with merit. I understand that he has had others verify a process of nuclear fusion undergoing some of his latest reactor designs (http://www.world-lecture-series.org/) but the conservative nature of academic science doesn't really allow for hypotheses in an alternative mainstream-dismissing paradigms with the same respect. I am neither surprised nor charmed that little attention has been paid to this man's ideas about physics.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 17:15, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
First, Kmarinas86, I think you're confused, because Pashute is arguing that there should be less information on the page, because she/he considers all of Santilli's theories to be WP:FRINGE. Pashute, the situation we have is that even though Santilli's theories have been either ignored or rejected, they were reported somewhat widely in the popular press. Thus, they deserve coverage here, but not anywhere else. That is, it's not promoting Santilli's theories to describe them on the page about him, so long as we don't include his theories on any actual articles about science. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
What do you think I am confused about?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 14:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Request to change the editors of Santilli's article

I request a change of the editors in control of my article because of excessive biased abuses of authority and violation of scientific dignity, let alone the violation of basic rules at Wikipedia. As last the example among too many, my article was edited this past weekend with a series of papers published in refereed journals but their content opposes the interest of the editors and they were totally removed via excessively dishonest motivations. Since most of the editors such as Arthur Rubin and his known supervisors are Jews, my continued mistreatment and discrimination by Jews initiated by Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow when I was at Harvard thirty here ago (Il Grande Grido and three volumes of documentation) and increased rather than decreased in time, is causing a world wide wave of "justified anti-Semitism" in the scientific community of which I do NOT want to be responsible.

In the event the editors of my article have any dignity, let alone honesty, they should add the dubbing of "fringe scientist" to the article on Steven Weinberg for his support of the farfetched big bang conjecture, and add the same dubbing in the article on Sheldon Glashow for his known support of the extremely farfetched conjecture of dark matter, both proved to be structurally inconsistent, unable to represent the data for which they were ventured, and disproved by years of experimentation on earth (how can anyone want more!). Additionally refereed papers should be equally removed from their articles. It is unfortunate for the Jewish people at large that, as it happened so many times in their history, they do not see the damage they suffer because of this continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists such as myself for so many decades just because we have technically expressed dissident view3s published in refereed journals.

Above all, following about a century of imposing scientific theories in all fields based on organized ethnic interests on Einstein, rather than physical reality, until they are permitted to remain in control by the silent majority, Jewish physicists will unlikely see that they are heading for their sealing in the dark side of scientific history because scientific truth always emerges, and the later it will emerge, the bigger the historic damage. Ruggero Maria Santilli, email: basicresearch(at)i-b-r9dot)org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.25.14 (talk) 16:17, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion closed. This off-topic and ugly debate about who is or isn't an anti-Semite has little to do with improving the content of our Wikipedia article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I hadn't realised that you were the IP editing. More importantly, I hadn't know what a truly unpleasant and bigoted person you are. Like all bigots, you think you know the truth. You should not be editing the article, both because of your conflict of interest - see WP:COI but also and linked to that your obvious belief that you represent the truth and everyone else is an evil Jew or controlled by evil Jews. Dougweller (talk) 17:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
With invalid allegations toward Santilli such as "your obvious belief[, Santilli, is] that you represent the truth and everyone else is an evil Jew or controlled by evil Jews" you aren't helping either. Why not address the points he is making? In any case, how is a statement such as "It is unfortunate for the Jewish people at large that, as it happened so many times in their history, they do not see the damage they suffer because of this continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists such as myself for so many decades just because we have technically expressed dissident views published in refereed journals." racist or bigoted? Have we become so politically correct that any mention of race whatsoever, even if it is sympathy for members of that race, is nevertheless racist and bigoted?siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 17:49, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Just to realize that Santilli resents the "justification of Anti-Semitism", all you have to do is read the following, especially what is written towards the end, "Since most of the editors such as Arthur Rubin and his known supervisors are Jews, my continued mistreatment and discrimination by Jews initiated by Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow when I was at Harvard thirty here ago (Il Grande Grido and three volumes of documentation) and increased rather than decreased in time, is causing a world wide wave of 'justified anti-Semitism' in the scientific community of which I do NOT want to be responsible." Please keep in mind that there is indeed a subculture of Jews that isn't identical to the whole Jewish people, just as there is a subculture of Italians (example: Italian Mafia) that shouldn't be equated with all Italians and a subculture of Japanese (example: Yakuza) that shouldn't be equated with all Japanese. I understood from the start that Santilli is talking about a subgroup of Jews, yet people want to interpret his comments as some kind of broad spectrum Anti-Semitism, and that is absolutely ridiculous. Personally, as a member of a newer generation I would be more careful and always add a qualifying adjective in such circumstances, but I cannot demand that a person from previous generation do the same as standards will change even beyond my own generation.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 18:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
He groups people by their religion - or rather by whether or not they are Jewish, and sees the most important characteristic of those he doesn't like as their Jewishness. That is anti-Semitism. Dougweller (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"He groups people by their religion" .... Does he talk about "Christian physicists", "Islamic physicists", or "Buddhist physicists"? Didn't think so.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
"the most important characteristic of those he doesn't like as their Jewishness" Nonsense. What he doesn't like is their clannishness, it just so happens that they are Jewish physicists, so that's what he calls them. It's not that hard to understand.siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 21:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
What I understand is that you are saying that his critics are all Jewish, or perhaps rather that they are all clannish Jewish physicists. That seems unlikely but I'm not an expert on all his critics, but I'm sure since you are supporting this that you can prove it. And it certainly seems that he is claiming that people like Sidney Coleman, Sheldon Glashow and Steven Weinberg say he's wrong not because he's wrong, but because they are Jewish and he isn't. He wrote that above: "continued discrimination by Jewish of non-Jewish physicists". That's pretty explicit. Dougweller (talk) 21:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be under the false impression that there is a process for choosing Wikipedia editors for topics, and for changing editors when one set is unsatisfactory. There is not. The set of editors for this article is entirely self-selected, and consists of whoever finds the topic to be an interesting one to edit. Additionally, see WP:SOAPBOX, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NPOV: Wikipedia is not a forum for promoting your beliefs, but should only be for material that can be sourced to reliable publications that are independent of the subject and discuss its merits objectively. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
We need to bear in mind that so far we have no way of ascertaining whether the IP is Santilli. Though in practice it makes no difference. Wikipedia does not pander to the prejudices of article subjects, or to contributors, and we sure as hell aren't going to exclude people from editing on the basis of ethnoreligious affiliation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Equations give credibility?

There cannot be equations in this article (cf. this revision) because that would give Santilli too much credibility‽--Geremia (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

No, you are misinterpreting. There cannot be assertions that Santilli proved important theorems without reliable secondary sources (i.e. published works by other people) saying that the theorems are important and that Santilli was the one to prove them. If the equations are there only as part of the explanation for the theorems, they need to go too. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
In any case why would we have equations here? This isn't an article on mathematics, and the average reader wouldn't understand them. David's explained that having them there as an explanation isn't a good reason and we certainly can't have them here as some sort of proof. And if we had his equations we'd have to have equations from other people discussing his, etc. Dougweller (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Geremia, David and Dougweller, please do not derail the issue to prevent further damage t us (Wikipedia). We are under attack at scientificethics(dot)org, and I am told elsewhere abroad, not on the issue of equations, that is normally decided by the editors, but for removing from the article the quotation of refereed papers, particularly for removing the experimental refereed papers authored by independent scientists. Also, with due respect, Wiki's rule of equanimity prohibits your argument that a certain refereed quotation cannot be accepted because it gives too much credit to Santilli, because then we should remove the quotation of Nobel Prizes in other articles. Please do not assume that everybody out there shares your derailing or intent because too clearly specific for this article..... Then people then ask Why? What's under this? and you end up fueling credibility to scientificethics(dot)org. Zkurcko. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 19:34, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I personally don't care that a bunch of crackpots think our coverage of fringe topics is unfairly dismissive of their fringe nature — if anything that adds to Wikipedia's credibility rather than requires us to defend anything. And I am a little bemused by your use of "we" to represent Wikipedia when as far as I can see you have done nothing to actually improve Wikipedia's coverage of anything. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
David David, why are you bemused at my use of "we" intended in your friendly support? By asking you provide support to the crackpots view that you and Rubin have a tight control of all "we" handling this article thus supporting Santilli's request for a change to stop all the jazz. I can provide you evidence of other articles I have edited under a different nickname when Wiki was much more pleasant and less fanatics than today, with all these endless debates on individual words such as "fringe" when, let me say to stop the jazz, everybody knows that its use is in violation of Wiki's rules and 'political'. You should know that if I provide you that info I would give credit to the crackpots because that's derailing the scope of these comments. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Fringe

HEAR THIS! HEAR THIS! Santilli's criticisms of Wikipedia have been uploaded at scientificethics(dot)org. I plan to send in a rebuttal and hope other will too but, to be credible, changes are in order. For instance, "fringe" is very damaging to our credibility (see the post) because Wikipedia rules specifically require to inform visitors without pre-judgments. Also, papers in refereed journals should be quoted without excuses otherwise, quite honestly I would feel uneasiness with any rebuttal. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC) — Zkurko (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Who is 'our'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
At http://www.scientificethics.org/Wikipedia-corruption.htm, look up the word "fringe".siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 18:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy, do you have any more interesting staff to use your time and mine? Thanks. Zkurko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I inspected the attacks to Wikipedia at www(dot)scientificethics(dot)org and, after dumping the trashy language, I have to admit that keeping the "fringe" bash in Santilli's article causes serious credibility and other damage to Arthur Rubin and his associates such as Geremia, David and Dougweller while providing no benefit I can see. Zkurcko did square the issue of reporting without pre-judgments. Additionally, I studied for weeks the experimental papers on Santilli isoredshift, magnecules, and nuclear fusions. Please cut out the issue of acceptance because premature even to discuss it. However, I regret to see that, in my small view, calling all these measurements "fringe" science while praising farfetched and unverifiable conjectures in other articles, can be easily interpreted as huge confirmation of the attacks. Also, in Google the Wiki's article and the other references appear next to each other, so people compare with easy conclusion certainly not in favor of "fringe" and the editors who force it to stay there against Wiki rules of avoiding pre-judgments..... LouisTheSmall. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisTheSmall (talk • contribs) 20:15, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the slightest bit interested in the opinions of random new accounts clearly created solely to promote Santilli's theories. Wikipedia describes these theories as fringe because that is what they are, according to multiple published reliable sources. Our policy on such matters is not open to negotiation here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:24, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
SPI opened. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Andy (??) and company, I am afraid that with your statement you have confirmed all claims I saw at www(dot)scientificethics(dot)org because you call "random new accounts clearly created solely to promote Santilli's theories" experimental papers published in reputable refereed journals by independent scholars. Equally outrageous is the posture of "non-negotiable" on open scientific issues. This is passing all levels of decency into clear BS. I have to agree with Prof. Santilli that you act like Nazis, you make me puke, and that "America is doomed" because of your organized schemes. Goodby all of you anti-American crackpots since you forced me to be hereon an open Santilli supporter beginning with the passing of screened copy of your trash to the criticized journals and their editors. LouisTheSmall — Preceding unsigned comment added by LouisTheSmall (talk • contribs) 22:14, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
I've become an associate? I don't think so. Dougweller (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Six months ago, our committee hired an Investigative Agency (comprising former CIA and Massad operative) to peek into your operations. I copy their report below. Luca Petronio luca(at)scientificethics(dot)org "hi luca / we have completed our investigation over wiki's scam on dr santilli / all editors are jews / all non-jews are cut out / all decisions are made privately via emails now monitored / talks are just a smokescreen / the boss is the level six zionist weinberg s / rubin a is just the puppet executioner / the fringe dubbing is their slimy signature prohibited by wiki's rules calling for response in kind / we provide in attachment names and profiles of all these scammers and their nicknames so that your committee can deliver a legal punch in their most tender personal and academic spots / adnan — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientificEthics (talk • contribs) 16:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC) — ScientificEthics (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Santilli's Lie-admissible treatments of Irreversible systems

Comments by blocked WP:SPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Allow me to report that I personally received at my lab rather serious criticisms against "us" (or "you" if you elected to cut me out editing against Wiki rules) on "our" ("your") removing from Santilli's article the quotation of his initiation in the 1960s with papers at the SIF/IPS of the Lie-admissible treatment of irreversible processes as a covering of the usual Lie treatments of the usual reversible processes. The grounds of the criticisms are: A) these Lie-admissible formulations are the best known for the field; B) they are much needed to start, after one century of reversible theories, quantitative studies of combustion and energy releasing processes; C) the opposition of "our" ("your") friends Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman at Harvard in the late 1970s against these studies is well know world wide from Il Grande Grido; D) everybody also knows, let's stop again this fuss at least for important aspects, that the opposition at Harvard by "our" ("your") friends was due to the fact that Lie-admissibility implies the opposed surpassing Einstein's theories by quite a lot; E) the need for basic advances in irreversibility is set by just looking at what's happening in the environment. Thus, the grounds of the criticism are that, by trashing out Santilli's 1960s papers published at the SIF/IPS "we" ("you") confirm the opposition to these studies by Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman of three decades ago by therefore providing a huge credit to scientificethics(dot)org. You know, there comes a point in life when realities have to be faced to avoid self-destruction and unjustifiable abuses such as this one cause serious damages you better take into consideration because, after all, you seem to forget or do not care that the image America is at stake here. Zkurcko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

The image of America? Wikipedia is a privately owned website, owned by a non-profit foundation. The editors are found in countries all over the world. it has no connection with either the US government or its agencies. In any event, almost nothing in the rest of your post has any value for us; you seem to be arguing about the actual physics involved, and/or something about the personalities. This is the wrong website for that. All we do here on Wikipedia is take what reliable sources say, summarize them, and put them into a coherent article. This is not the place to try to either promote or denigrate someone's theories (and, in fact, I can't even tell which one you're doing). Qwyrxian (talk) 15:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian, thanks for the clarifications. If truly implemented, they will trash out all criticisms in Wiki's favor, To test your Foundation, I am working to add a short section to Santilli's article entitled "Lie-admissible formulations" without equations and with the quotation of Santilli's paper at the SIF?IPS of the 1960s, his latest also at the SIP/IPS of 2006 and the proceedings of the 2011 Nepal Conference. In accordance with Wiki rules, I "request" that this section is not abusively trashed out, but editing be discussed in these comments without, this time, the usual abuses. Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 15:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand you better. Now, before you do that, could you please provide some reliable sources that discuss the papers in question? Keep in mind that conference papers are not that regularly cited by other writers, especially since most conferences don't peer review them, the main exception being if they were published in the Conference Proceedings. We need some evidence that these papers are of interest to the mainstream scientific community; just because Santilli wrote them does not mean that we should devote any space to them. Academics of all types publish numerous papers and usually present at countless more conferences, and we don't routinely include details about all of them. Heck, we don't even usually list all conference papers a person has made (that's what CV's on university/institution websites are for). So before you go to all the effort to draft up those sections, let's first establish that they are "important". Qwyrxian (talk)15:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
You can't test the foundation by editing here. Wikipedia doesn't have that sort of hierarchical structure. They don't control editing here. And I have no idea what this business of friends is about. And I endorse what Qwyrxian says above. Dougweller (talk) 16:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Qwyrxian (and Dougweller), sincere thanks the comments. Your points are sound and legit. I will do as suggested, i.e., identify and suggest main references in these comments prior to creating a new section in the article (which new section is suggested to be short in any case). However, I have to lament self-damaging abuses in the past, such as the removal in Santilli's article of a refereed paper by Prof. J. Dunning-Davies of the University of Hull, England, and others on grounds that "he is a friend of Santilli." But then most independent references in other articles must be eliminated to prevent violations of Wiki's rules. Also, allow me a slight divergence of views. Wiki correctly quotes important statements even when there is no refereed publication because the content in physics is more important than its conduit. Note, sorry!, from scientificethics(dot)org the invitation for Santilli to come to the USA because his studies on irreversibility were and are important for NASA during spaceship reentry, and that the Department of ""Energy"" invited Santilli when at Harvard to do the same because of evident need of irreversibility treatments for all energy releases. This national relevance alone, allow me that because true, is sufficient, in my view, for a short section. Its content is up to you and the other editors. Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving! Zkurko November 26, 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkurko (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Any content added to the article will have to comply with Wikipedia's rules - which don't make exceptions on the basis that something was supposedly "important for NASA". If NASA considered it important cite a reliable source which says so. And no, scientificethics(dot)org isn't a reliable source as far as Wikipedia is concerned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Zkurko/Santilli, your website is not a reliable source, and with the threats of lawsuits contained on it, we wouldn't dare touch it with a ten foot pole.
Zkurko/Santilli, why can't you even spell your sockpuppet's name consistently? Your account is Zkurko, yet you repeatedly manually sign both Zkurcko and Zkurko. Seriously, how many socks are you using now? This one needs to be blocked as well. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I am not Zkurko. I offered to info(at)wikipedia(dot)org his real name and email but his block was maintained even though his message were quite decent, the only credible explanation being that the "administrators" did not like his promised addition of refereed publications, thus providing huge support for Scientific Ethics that, in my view, should have been avoided. Zkurko is now disgusted and wants totally out of this. Ruggero Maria Santilli basicresearch(at)i-b-r(dot)org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.125.25.14 (talk) 21:26, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Comments by blocked WP:SPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I took the liberty of moving the paragraph on the HJ to the Biography section since it does not appear to fit under Hadronic Mechanics in my view. Sorry for starting a new section here but I do not want to be associated to the preceding exchanges. Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 16:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I took the liberty of completing in the HHO section of the article Refs. [28], [29], [30] because any doubt of their serious refereed nature is damaging to all. In any case, the same journal had been accepted as refereed in quotation [24] of Calo's views. Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 19:13, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This is to file a complain for truly excessive dishonesty by the administrators of Santilli's article. As indicated above, I turned the references

Santilli, Ruggero Maria (2006). "A new gaseous and combustible form of water| (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2006: 31(9), 1113–1128)". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 31 (9): 1113–1128. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2005.11.006.

R. M. Santilli. "The novel magnecular species of hydrogen and oxygen with increased specific weight and energy content". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 28: 177–198. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2007.10.030.

Y. Yang, J. V. Kadeisvili, and S. Marton. "Experimental Confirmations of the New Chemical Species of Santilli Magnecules". The Open Physical Chemistry Journal. 5, 2013: 1–16. Retrieved

into regular quotations because their refereed character is beyond any possible doubt, but Rubin and/or the other administrators have re-instated these references in an intentionally misleading fashion. Also, I corrected the authorship of the second paper because Santilli is not the author and placed the correct authors as per verifiable publication, but Rubin &/or Co have reinstated the mistake ! In regard to Calo, Santilli's HHO paper is EXPERIMENTAL, while Calo comes out with nonscientific trash without any value. Also, the above three refereed experimental papers proves that Calo is a member of this dishonest conspiracy at Wikipedia. The price for all of us Americans to pay is the discreditation and prevention of so much needed new technologies because unwanted by a sectarian few. I am sorry but this is way too much dishonest. How can I or anybody else do any clean scientific work for Santilli's theory? Aabrucadubraa

Fringe Dubbing"

Comments by blocked WP:SPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Arthur Rubin, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Samuel Thing. Gabbriele Veneziano and other known physics administrators of Wikipedia,

I have removed the "fringe" dubbing in the heading of the Santilli's article on the following grounds you should consider seriously:

1) The "fringe" dubbing is in violation of the basic rule of Wikipedia to provide factual information without advance judgments that must be left to the visitors;

2) The "fringe" dubbing is in violation of the second rule of Wikipedia to avoid discrimination. In fact, the dubbing is used for Santilli's theories but not for other theories supported by the administrators such as the conjectures of big bang, dark matter, expansion of space itself, and the like;

3) The "fringe" dubbing violates the third Wikipedia rule of avoiding repetitions. The article is full of statement to the effect that Santilli's theories are not accepted by the physics community at large. These statements should stay because true. However, the "fringe" dubbing in the top of all these repetitions shows a malignant intent whose implications should be pondered by the administrators;

4) The "fringe" dubbing was appropriate indeed fifteen years ago, but now Santilli's main theories (Magnecules, MagneHydrogen, IsoRedShift, IsoBlueShift, isodual theories, nuclear fusions without radiations, etc.) have been experimentally verified by independent scholars in refereed publications, thus causing evident credibility problems that Wikipedia administrators should appraise. Additionally, Santilli's theories have produced technologies currently developed by U. S. publicly traded companies (magnegas(dot)com, thunder-fusion(dot)com, and others and their foreign associates) following millions of dollars of investments both in USA and abroad whose dubbing as "fringe" is clearly self-damaging;

5) The last event that triggered this intervention (in the hope of preventing a predictable reaction by Scientific Ethics because damaging to all) was the immediate removal without any due process by the administrator of the article on Hubble's Law two days ago of my uploading of independent refereed publications on Santilli's invariant derivation of Hubble's law on grounds of being "fringe." This provides documentation on the existence at Wikipedia of an organized conspiracy by the Wikipedia administrators for their personal political agenda against due scientific process on Santilli's theories and against their industrial development of munch needed new technologies, including nuclear fusions without harmful radiations. Wikipedia administrators should ponder whether their documented decades of opposition to Santilli's studies is worth maintaining in this internet era where the control of science is impossible.

Respectfully yours, Aabrucadubraa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabrucadubraa (talk • contribs) 14:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Simply put, you are wrong. Santilli is a fringe scientist, and all his ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, to the point that he needs to create his own journals to publish his ideas because he cannot get them published anywhere else. On the off chance that he manages to get through the cracks of peer review, like in the case of the HHO claims, he gets utterly scathing rebuttals such as "the author provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called "HHO gas"." [emphasis in original]. That Santilli is a fringe scientist is established by independant reliable sources.
Your understanding of Wikipiedia rules is also inaccurate. Wikipedia takes the point of view of the consensus of experts. If experts agree that something is black, Wikipedia says that something is black. If someone else think something is white, Wikipedia will not say "Something could be black or white, and this is up to the reader to decide" or "Something is gray, because some people think it's black, while others think it's white."
Until Santilli convinces the mainstream that his ideas are sound, Wikipedia will not side with him on those ideas. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 14:25, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Aabrucacadabraa, as someone who watches this page but who has only a fleeting grasp on the physics itself, could you please provide evidence for this claim: " but now Santilli's main theories (Magnecules, MagneHydrogen, IsoRedShift, IsoBlueShift, isodual theories, nuclear fusions without radiations, etc.) have been experimentally verified by independent scholars in refereed publications,"? What are the independent scholars who have verified Santilli's claims, what are the journals they have published in, what are their results, and what independent sources have commented on these claims that we might know that they are accepted in the scientific field? Qwyrxian (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Here is a source to address some of those concerns: http://www.santilli-foundation.org/Confirm-No-Exp.php

Recently published, comprehensive and independent experimental measurements conducted in the U.S.A and in Europe [15] have confirmed Santilli IsoRedShift (IRS) of Sunlight at Sunset and Sunrise discovered by R. M. Santilli (Curriculum) in mathematical, theoretical and experimental publications [7-14] initiated back in 1978 when he was at Harvard University under DOE support.

[....]

[7] R. M. Santilli. Foundation of Theoretical Mechanics, Volume I (1978) [7a], and Volume II (1982) [7b], Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-209.pdf http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-69.pdf

[8] R. M. Santilli, "Lie-isotopic Lifting of Special Relativity for Extended Deformable Particles," Lettere Nuovo Cimento 37, 545 (1983), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-50.pdf

[9] R. M. Santilli, Isotopic Generalizations of Galilei and Einstein Relativities, Vols. I [9a] and II [9b] (1991), International Academic Press, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-01.pdf http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-61.pdf

[10] H. Arp. {\it Quasars Redshift and Controversies.} Interstellar Media, Berkeley (1987).

[11] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verifications of IsoRedShift with Possible Absence of Universe Expansion, Big Bang, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy," The Open Astronomy Journal 3, 124 (2010), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-isoredshift.pdf

[12] R. M. Santilli, "Experimental Verification of IsoRedShift and its Cosmological Implications," AIP Proceedings Vol. 1281, pp. 882-885 (2010) http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Isoredshift-Letter.pdf

[13] G. West and G. Amato, "Experimental Confoirmation of Santilli's IsoRedShift and IsoBlueShift," Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 12, 169 (2012), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Confirmation-IRS-IBS.pdf

[14] R. M. Santilli, G. West and G. Amato. "Experimental Confirmation of the IsoRedShift at Sun at Sunset and Sunrise with Consequential Absence of Universe Expansion and Related Conjectures, " Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, 12, 165 (2012). http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Confirmation-sun-IRS.pdf

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 20:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the fusion claims, here is a paper (http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/ICNF-Conf-2013.pdf). It cites the following references:

REFERENCES

[1] Santilli, R.M. Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, with Applications to New Clean Energies and Fuels, Kluwer Academic Publishers: The Netherlands, 2001.

[2] Day, D. Report on GC-TCD analysis and density measurements of Santilli Magne-hydrogen; Laboratory Report; 2011. http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Eprida-MH-Certification-10-11.pdf

[3] Yang, Y.; Kadeisvili, J.V.; Marton, S. Experimental Confirmations of Santilli’s MagneHydrogen: Int. J. Hydrogen Energ., 2013, 38, 5002.

[4] Yang, Y.; Kadeisvili, J.V.; Marton, S. Additional Experimental Confirmations of the New Chemical Species of Santilli Magnecules. Open Phys. Chem., 2013, 5, 1-16.

[5] Santilli, R.M. Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Volumes I and II. 1st ed.; Ukraine Academy of Sciences; Ukraine, 1994-1995.

[6] Santilli, R.M. Apparent consistency of Rutherford’s hypothesis on the neutron as a compressed hydrogen atom: Hadronic J., 1990, 13, 513, http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-21.pdf

[7] Santilli, R.M. Recent Theatrical Experimental Evidence on the Apparent Synthesis of the Neutron from Protons and Electrons. Chinese J. Sys, Eng. Electron., 1995, 6(4), 177.

[8] Borghi, C.; Giori C.C.; Dallolio, A. CENUFPE Communication, 1969, Number 8 and (Russian) Phys. Atomic Nuclei 1993, 56, 205.

[9] Santilli, R.M. Apparent confirmation of Don Borghi’s experiment toward the synthesis of neutron from protons and electrons. Hadronic J., 1997, 30, 709.

[10] Kadeisvili, J.V. The Rutherford-Santilli Neutron. Hadronic J., 2008, 31, 1.

[11] Santilli, R.M. The novel Intermediate Controlled Nuclear fusions, a repor for its industrial realization. Hadronic J., 2008, 31, 15.

[12] Santilli, R.M. Experimental Confirmation of Nitrogen Synthesis from deuterium and Carbon without harmful radiations. New Adv. Phys., 2011, 4, 29.

[13] Brenna, R.; Kuliczkowski, T.; Ying, L. Verification of Santilli intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusions without harmful radiations and the production of magnecular clusters. New Adv. Phys., 2011, 5, 9.

[14] Santilli, R.M. Additional Confirmation of the “Intermediate Controlled Nuclear Fusions” without harmful radiation or waste: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Lie-Admissible Treatment of Irreversible Processes, C. Corda, Editor, Kathmandu University: Kathmandu, Nepal, 2011, pp. 163-177.

[15] Rossiter, D. ONEIDA gas chromatographic report. http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Oneida-analyses.zip

[16] Lynch, C.; Yang, Y. Collected recorded data on the Nitrogen synthesis. http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Collected-recordeddata.zip

[17] Panton, R.L. Incompressible Flow, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1996.

[18] Gandzha, I.; Kadeisvili, J. New Sciences for a New Era: Mathematical,Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Ruggero Maria Santilli: Sankata Printing Press: Nepal, 2011.

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 20:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
"Santilli is a fringe scientist, and all his ideas are not accepted by mainstream science, to the point that he needs to create his own journals to publish his ideas because he cannot get them published anywhere else. On the off chance that he manages to get through the cracks of peer review, like in the case of the HHO claims, he gets utterly scathing rebuttals such as 'the author provides absolutely no scientific evidence that supports the existence of a new form of matter called 'HHO gas'.' [emphasis in original]." Sayy what???
Haven't you seen the rebuttal to this rebuttal by Martin O. Cloonan (http://www.scientificethics.org/Cloonan.pdf). Examples:

Calo provides an alternative rational for the ‘‘widely varying thermal content’’ of the HHO gas on page 1310 but he does not apply this rational to explain why the HHO gas can reach a temperature of 9000 C [9]. A temperature of 9000 C is inconsistent with Calo’s claim that the HHO gas is a mixture of ‘hydrogen, oxygen and watervapour’ and is consistent with Santilli’s claim of anomalous behaviour from a gas derived from water. Calo has stated on page 1310 that a hydrogen flame in oxygen has a temperature of 3080K (2807 C) [9]. The presence of water vapour in a H2 and O2 mixture cannot account for this temperature difference of over 6000 C by any known law of science.

[....]

Calo states that the abscissa in Fig. 1 should be ‘m/e—mass to charge ratio’. This is not technically correct. It should be m=z not m=e based on the current IUPAC standard and most journals’ criteria. The ‘m=e’ was typically used in the older literature and the ‘e’ really refers to an electron stemming from Thomson’s work on the electron. This change from m=e to m=z can be seen by comparing the 7th edition (2005) of Ref. [13] to the 4th edition (1981).

[....]

Calo stated on page 1310 that ‘I cannot even begin to speculate on what adhesion of a gas to another gas means, since adhesion requires the interaction of a species with a bulk phase’ [9]. This is not technically correct as the term adhesion is not confined to the field of adhesives and sealants but is a broad term within science. Adhesion also means an intermolecular force of attraction between two different molecules. This can be seen in the following quote from the general and physical chemistry section of Chemical Abstracts 1885 ‘‘the author has more particularly studied the phenomena of cohesion and adhesion of liquids, a subject of interest to the chemist as dealing with the attraction of homogeneous and heterogeneous molecules’’ [20]. A further example is also found in the general and physical chemistry section of Chemical Abstracts 1887 ‘‘solution results from the tendency towards equilibrium of three forces, attraction of water for water, and of salt for salt (cohesions), and attraction of salt for water (adhesion)’’ [21]. Robinson, in his electronic theory of organic chemistry, developed concepts based on scientists who used the term adhesion in relation to the chemical bond and dipoles [22]. London used the term cohesion in his theory of molecular forces [23]. Furthermore adhesion in the field of adhesives and sealants relates to the interaction of species at their surfaces [24] and not at their bulk phase as Calo states [9]. In fact the surface can be chemically different from the bulk of the material in some cases. Thus Santilli’s use of the term adhesion is technically correct.

[....]

Calo fails to discuss the effect a sufficiently strong magnetic field could have on electrons. Santilli clearly states on page 1122 that ‘an external magnetic field sufficient to create the polarization of atomic orbitals into toroids’ is used. The effect of magnetism on the electron is seen in the ability to run MS in the negative mode via magnetic focusing [32]. A given nucleus in NMR spectroscopy would exhibit similar signals if the applied magnetic field had no effect on the electrons in the molecules [33]. The effect of a magnetic field on the electron is also seen in ESR spectroscopy [34] and in Faradays law of induction [35].

[....]

Santilli on page 1121 clearly and correctly states [10] that the first publication cannot realistically be expected to explain a new concept in its full entirety and there is no reason why data in relation to this new concept cannot be published even if it cannot be fully explained. Many facts have been published in the scientific literature without a rational been provided. Products from organic chemistry reactions are routinely published without any solid evidence provided for the mechanism by which they are formed. In the case of magnecules the difficulties in full structural elucidation has been well documented [4,7,8].

siNkarma86—Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia
86 = 19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk 20:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You have listed lots of claims of verification, but this is proof of nothing. Fringe topics like homeopathy and cold fusion have hundreds of claims of verification.

Qwyrxian also asked for independent analyses of these claims. The only analyses published in journals seem to be Cato's critique, and the replies by Cloonan and Kadeisvili.

Even worse, when searching the name of "Yang, Y.; Kadeisvili", the first hit is a scientific blog claiming that Kadeisvili seems to be an alias of Santilli, and claiming that Santilli failed to provide any proof that Kadeisvili was not him. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

A reminder

This page is for the discussion of improvements of the article through reliable sources, not a forum to right the great wrongs or advocate on behalf of Santilli and affiliates (like the RM Santilli Foundation / IBR / etc...). Additions and removals from the article should be based upon reliable, independant, and mainstream sources. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Self-published books?

"Elements of Hadronic Mechanics" has a 1993 edition by Naukova Dumka Publishers [1][2]. Maybe later editions were made by Hadronic Press (self-published). But the first edition doesn't seem self-published? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

This is a post-Soviet publisher right after the collapse of the Soviet Union. I am pretty sure they published his book for $350 cash and no questions. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

"Elements of Hadronic Mechanics" were reviewed and recommended for publication in Naukova Dumka Publishers by famous Prof. A. Klimyk. On the other hand, the Naukova Dumka Publishers belong to the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. In Europa there are actually only three academies of sciences: Russian, Ukrainian and Austrian. The rest of academies are only clubs. Thus, claiming that "Elements of Hadronic Mechanics" was self-published is pure nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.253.85.69 (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps 91.253.85.69 can direct us to reviews of this book published in reliable journals -- say Proc. National Academy of Science or Proc. Royal Society? The Royal Society *is* a club -- good point -- but of course "only a club" is a bit silly in this case. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:30, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Actually, there are plenty of Academies of Sciences in Europe. Personally, I submit the Spanish Royal Academy of Sciences, founded in 1847. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, but presumably they are all just clubs for members of the evil global conspiracy against Santilli... I am afraid that rational arguments cannot win. Hairer (talk) 00:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Pepijn is not a skeptic scientist

Someone, please , provide evidence that Pepijn, the Dutch Skeptic, is a scientist. What did he published? What professional position does he have in science? He should be defined skeptic activist or simply owner of a skeptic blog. He reviews a variety of subjects in many field, including pig manure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic of skeptic (talk • contribs) 14:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The article no longer says he is scientist. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Is It Time To Consider AfD?

This article describes a fringe scientist, his speculations, and his quarrels with the scientific establishment. It’s not clear to me that the subject meets WP:GNG. Moreover, the article has a long history of attracting NPOV efforts to promote various commercial enterprises related to the subject or to advance his various claims and controversies, a number of which have an unsavory tone [3]. We might be better off without the article. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Dear MarkBernstein, deletion of page is out of question because the subject meets WP:GNG and WP:PROF very well. His several experiments and theories have been validated by other scientific community members so he doesn't come as fringe scientist as well. The criticism that he has received are found to have WP:COI with him. One such evidence is here. Writing any article neutrally without any bias from WP:NPOV is the ultimate Wikipedia policy don't you think? If you have any objection with any specific point on the page, please raise your concerns here so that they can be properly addressed in the whole Wikipedia community. Deletion of content or just reverting edits will not be a good approach. Cheers, Mr RD 07:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
He has a reasonable case for WP:PROF#C1 based on some well-cited publications. But if you think he is not a fringe scientist then you need to check your glasses. And the incoherent screed you linked to as evidence is at least milder than Santilli's usual antisemitic outbursts, but it is evidence only that he is capable of writing letters to newspaper editors under made-up names. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Which publication approaches WP:PROF? MarkBernstein (talk) 13:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
According to Google scholar, he has over 800 citations for "Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics I: The Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics" and three other publications with over 100. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics doesn't appear to meet WP:PROF#C1. It’s a convenient textbook, which does not typically satisfy "significant impact in their scholarly discipline". It’s also thirty-five years old, in a discipline the subject has not pursued in decades and that is scarcely mentioned here. The three 100+ citation papers are from Hadronic J, which Santilli founded and edits; its address is also the address used in the SEC filing for Global Beta, one of Santilli’s companies. MarkBernstein (talk) 19:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Sure, if you look deeper you can find reasons to question these, but AfD participants generally don't do that deeper look nor can we reasonably expect them to have the expertise to do so. Also, the 35 years old complaint isn't going to fly; see WP:NOTTEMPORARY. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
On the other hand, WP:PROF (a) explicitly calls for influence in the subject’s discipline, which the 1978 Springer book lies beyond, and (b) it specifically sets the bar above the accomplishments normally required for tenure. In point of fact, Santilli did not receive tenure -- or, as far as I know, a tenure-track appointment. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:21, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to state the obvious, if this article goes up for AfD, then the proposal should be very carefully and thoroughly written at the outset. In that way, casual reviewers can see a very clear case that considers all the points brought up here and (probably) more. Rklawton (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Reverting of edits

Dear David Eppstein, can you please let me know which are the primary references in this case? Mr RD 09:32, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

The ones written and self-published without peer review by Santilli. These are not acceptable. Rklawton (talk) 14:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. Also note that papers published in Santilli's personal fringe journals (Hadronic Journal or anything else from Hadronic Press) should not be considered here as independent of Santilli nor as mainstream academic works. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
How to find if a journal is peer reviewed or not? Mr RD 10:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Please notice that in D.E.'s reply the key word is "self-published". Please keep in mind that Santilli's hadronic "peers" are of the same invalid reliability as Santilli himself, even if a Santilli's journal self-describes itself as "peer-reviewed". The word "peer" refers to mainstream scientific community. And a scientific journal is peer-reviewed for wikipedia purposes, if (a) its editorial board says so and (b) this claim is corroborated by the opinion of mainstream community. In particular, since Santilli's hadronics and magnecules are recognized as kookery, anything published about them, with the exception of criticsm, is a lithmus test for the publisher. Finally, wikipedia is not a forum for detailed description of various kookery, unless this description comes from independent reliable sources. Therefore please back off, you will not earn your buck with paid editing here. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Santilli socks?

Is there a running page of probable Santilli socks? They seem to crop up like mushrooms. Rklawton (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Just use WP:DUCK; too much respect to maintain their Hall of FameSocks and waste of time. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice! Well, guess there's nothing to say to people like you, isn't it? We wonder if you've ever read at least something from him, some study he presented.. good evening (User:Vespro Latuna) 20:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

When I want to see the work of a clown, I go to the circus. Rklawton (talk) 01:22, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ruggero Santilli. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference #5, http://thunder-energies.com/company.html, is a dead link. If an alternative source for the information it supports inline is not produced within a reasonable amount of time, I'll another editor not involved in the current AfD discussion on this article should consider deleting the relevant section as unsourced per wikipedia guidelines. loupgarous (talk) 20:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

The proper way of handling this is to tag the dead links with template {{dead link}}; better yet, to execute due diligence and fix the problem by yourself. See WP:DEADREF for the guideline. Anyway, I fixed it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Waiting till we resolve the AfD issue here. but you're right. I need to curate the entire reflist and see what else is dead. loupgarous (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Whoops, didn't see you'd fixed it - thanks! I think it's probably good practice from here on in to defer any more changes till we get a "keep" or "delete" on the AfD discussion. That'd save us a little work and not cause anyone to think about our votes on the AfD discussion as potential CoI. loupgarous (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ruggero_Santilli/Archive_3&oldid=1252039387"