Talk:Ruggero Santilli/Archive 1

Nobel nomination
Proof that Magnecules do exist because Santilli has build a machine I Invite WIKIPEDIA TO SEND WITTEN AT MY EXPENSE TO CERTIFY SANTILLIS GREAT ARCHIVEMENTS

(WO/2005/076767) APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCTION OF MAGNECULES FROM WATERBiblio. Data Description Claims National PhaseNoticesDocuments Latest bibliographic data on file with the International Bureau

Publication Number:   WO/2005/076767    International Application No.:    PCT/US2004/012498 Publication Date: 25.08.2005 International Filing Date: 21.04.2004 Chapter 2 Demand Filed: 17.08.2005 Int. Class.: C25B 1/00 (2006.01) Applicants: KLEIN, Dennis, J. [US/US]; 66 Pellican Place, Belleair, FL 33756-1568 (US). SANTILLI, Ruggero, Maria [US/US]; 90 Eastwinds Court, Palm Harbor, FL 34683 (US) (US Only). Inventors: KLEIN, Dennis, J. [US/US]; 66 Pellican Place, Belleair, FL 33756-1568 (US). SANTILLI, Ruggero, Maria [US/US]; 90 Eastwinds Court, Palm Harbor, FL 34683 (US). Agent: LAPOINTE, Dennis, G.; Lapointe Law Group, PL, P.O. Box 1294, Tarpon Springs, FL 34688-1294 (US). Priority Data: 10/760,336  20.01.2004   US Title: APPARATUS AND METHOD FOR PRODUCTION OF MAGNECULES FROM WATER Abstract: An electrolyzer which decomposes distilled water into a new fuel composed of hydrogen, oxygen and their molecular and magnecular bonds, called HHO. The electrolyzer can be used to provide the new combustible gas as an additive to combustion engine fuels or in flame or other generating equipment such as torches and welders. The new combustible gas is comprised of clusters of hydrogen and oxygen atoms structured according to a general formula HmOn wherein m and n have null or positive integer values with the exception that m and n can not be 0 at the same time, and wherein said combustible gas has a varying energy content depending on its use. Designated States: AE, AG, AL, AM, AT, AU, AZ, BA, BB, BG, BR, BW, BY, BZ, CA, CH, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KP, KR, KZ, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LV, MA, MD, MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MZ, NA, NI, NO, NZ, OM, PG, PH, PL, PT, RO, RU, SC, SD, SE, SG, SK, SL, SY, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, YU, ZA, ZM, ZW. African Regional Intellectual Property Org. (ARIPO) (BW, GH, GM, KE, LS, MW, MZ, SD, SL, SZ, TZ, UG, ZM, ZW) Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO) (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, MD, RU, TJ, TM) European Patent Office (EPO) (AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IT, LU, MC, NL, PL, PT, RO, SE, SI, SK, TR) African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) (BF, BJ, CF, CG, CI, CM, GA, GN, GQ, GW, ML, MR, NE, SN, TD, TG). Publication Language: English (EN) Filing Language: English (EN)


 * Regarding the Nobel nomination for chemistry, it is apparently quite difficult to know about nominations but the article has a source. More investigation is reqd. John Vandenberg 07:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * REPLY TO JOHN Vandenbergh by Francesco Da Cosenza
 * Copies of the letters send to the so called "NOBEL" !! board........ are in good office !! dozens of the said letters are from outstanding living scientists !!! all can be shown on request !!! But if Santilli was to get the Nobel fo Physics Chemistry Math, Peace etc etc  the world of History and fairytales would come to an end and we would have start rewriting the so called " HISTORY OF OUR WORLD " !!! the said all being VIRTUAL at the moment !!  francesco Fucilla


 * PS: does Mr Vandenbergh know how to win the NOBEL !!?? Indeed .....does Mr Vanderbergh have any ideas how its won !!! but if I was to open my mouth,,,,,,,,,,,,i would be sacrified on the stake like my country fellow man BRUNO GIORDANO !!!
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 8 September 2007


 * Hi, please understand that I have no doubt that you know of letters that were sent to the Nobel foundation recommending that Santilli should receive a Nobel prize. However the Nobel foundation does not provide details on how they short listed people for each prize each year.  As a result, even if someone was to provide very clear evidence of a Nobel "nomination", the general public has no idea whether that candidate's nomination was discarded or taken seriously by the Nobel foundation.  However, if you know of any published discussion about the Santilli nomination, please let us know about it. John Vandenberg 21:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

eheheheheh to play the game you must know how to play the Game SIRS !! You called Santilli a PSEUDOSCIENTIST WITHOUT REMOVING THAT............"Professor of Physics at Boston University, teaching physics and mathematics, conducted research for the United States Air Force. visiting scholar at the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. and research at Harvard University !!! " how do all of these institutes survive the shame !!?? eheheheheh Here my dear BRUTUS we have by your own hand the demise of Boston University Dept of Physics and Mathematics The united staTE AIR fORCES and intelligence, The demise of the Massachuset Institute of Technology The demise of Boston University, the demise of the United States Air Force and the Institute for Theoretical Physics of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. and finally the demise of Harvard University !!!! ................inversely proportional stands the truth !! that this man is truly persecuted as he has stated over and over again !! What motive can anyone have ( aside from someone with a deep hatred toward the geniality of this man ) to writ such a pathetic word on his profile !!?? But the same goes for MEUCCI the father of Telephone, The poor Cristoforo Colombo that has lost the way to his beloved Genoa together with his brothers AND ON AND ON AND ON !!! When Hadronic Mechanic will be finally recognised..........Santilli will become rudy SaintHill Boarn in Boston or Paris from polish Parents !! or he will disappear and his work dilute and attributed to others and no one will ever know he ever existed !! eheheheheheheh  But if i was to open my mouth i would be standing on trial waiting execution !!! 86.133.114.47 21:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What santilli needs in order to see justice is to travel faster than light, get to marry Mrs Nobel, produce another Alfred Nobel, explain to him what is going on then return with nobel himself before the committee so that both Santilli and his Son Alfred can change the prevailing saga and get Santilli to get a noble price then the 2 can travel back before Santilli meet Alfred mother so that Alfred his Son can Marry His mother in the twighlight Zone and we all live happily everAFTER !!! THIS IS PSEUDOSCIENCE AT HIS BEST !!! eheheheh what a comedy !! But i shall enter the 11d where all of the possibilities are there including me being Alfred Nobel in one of them endless realities and do justice to Santilli !!! EHEHEHEHEH I was whatching a program were they were interviewing the fathers of the so called new science and i could not believe the levels of MADDNESS !!! I studied the facial movements of them Physicists and the motions of the iris and i can absolutely state that they belong to an assilum !! to say the list !! as a result I have produced the mother of all satires !!! BUT DO NOT BELIEVE A WORD I SAY COLLECT THEM I PAY ALL OF THE EXPENSES INCLUDING DINNER AND I WILL FIND THEM GUILTY AS CHARGED !! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.114.47 (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

section 2

 * From francesco Fucilla to Spacepotato
 * Why dont you write to me or call me and have a discussion on Quantum and relativistic physics, chemistry, Biology, economics, cosmology, law, philosophy etc etc !!?? your crusade toward keeping the people at large in the dark, can only be compared to middle ages incquisition !! Shame on you !!  the data I am supplying on Santilli ITS ALL TRUE !!!   YOU KNOW IT !! If you are a man...............enter into an open discussion with me on line !!! We will then discover who is telling the truth and who is supplying false informations !!
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fucilla francesco (talk • contribs) 09:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear Space Potato What do u mean by " UNSIGNED " !!?? if I am not using the entry correctly you can contact me on 07894262399 or you can email me @  fucilla@electrosilicagroup.com  or   anthony.fucilla@btinternet.com or you may write to me at 14 Verulam avenue Purley Surrey CR8 3NQ    as u can see I do not hide "UNLIKE YOU MR POTATO " !!!


 * PS: The Estonia Academy of Sciences has placed Ruggero Maria Santilli among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times jointly with Newton, Weyl, Hamilton, Gauss, poincare, Euler, Archimedes, Euclid, and Liebniz.


 * Honors Santilli has received GOLD MEDALS for his achievements in Science and various similar honors from scientific academies worldwide. He has been recommended for the NOBEL PRIZE IN PHYSICS by numerous scholars around the world since 1985 for his construction of Hadronic mechanics and other scientific contributions, and he has been recently recommended by many scholars around the world to be assigned the NOBEL PRIZE IN CHEMISTRY for his construction of Hadronic chemistry and his discovery of the new chemical species of magnecules.


 * Santilli has developed novel fuels, named MagneGas and MagneHydrogen.[2][3][4][5] These fuels are composed of magnecules, which are atoms and molecules bonded by "toroidal polarization of the orbits of [at least] the valence electrons."[6][7][8] ALL TRUE !!!  but if Santillis name was  " WITTEN " or  " einstein " then, we know that he would have received 12 Nobels uncondicionally and statues erected allover the wester world and beyond AND BE KNOWN AS THE GREATEST SCIENTIST IN HISTORY !!! Newton did not do half of what Santilli has done let alone Einstein that has done nothing !! Newton stole the Calculus from liebnitz, and sat on Galileo shadow !! not to mention that his work on Optics was done in Albazra 900 years before him !!! eheheheheh   read my books and you will open your eyes to the truth !!
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.66.41 (talk) 10:00, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * When you leave messages on talk pages, you should sign them by adding a series of 4 tildes, &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;, to the end of your message. They will be automatically replaced with your name and the date and time.  Spacepotato 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * REPLY
 * Who are you !!?? 86.151.66.41 23:30, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What possible reasons can there be for you to place so much effort in telling lies and keep changing santillis TRUE story !!!!???? Every single data supplied by me its true, instead of changing the true story of Santilli why dont you list WHAT ITS WRONG WITH THE DATA SUPPLIED BY ME !!??~ what EVIL Drives you !! Francesco Fucilla
 * Signor Fucilla, it is a regrettable fact that ascertaining the truth is very difficult. You may say that Santilli is one of the greatest scientists of all time, but other people may differ violently with this, and there will be no clear way of settling the argument.  Because of this, the policy on Wikipedia is to stop short of the truth and restrain ourselves to restating the world's opinion in an unbiased manner, as verified by reputable sources, and, unfortunately, many pieces of your edits fail to meet these criteria.  For example, you cite no source for the claim (which, frankly, I am skeptical of) that the Estonian Academy of Sciences has called Santilli one of the "most illustrious applied mathematicians of all time". Spacepotato 18:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

dear Mr Space Potato ok I understand that I will see no justice, Unfortunately when I Lecture to Scientists Politicians Lawyers, Economists ( ON A DAILY ROUTINE AND I CAN SEND YOU ALL OF THE REFERENCES YOU MAY REQUIRE to that effect ) i do so face to face !!! Unfortunately your defence falls short of the required explanations as to why this Great Giant of Science cannot be vindicated by his fellow scientists !! Your reply to me can be defined as a love letter, because it has no solid foundations !!! You need to provide facts to me not hear say !!! such as " OTHER PEOPLE MAY DIFFER " !!! lets us talk about the impact of Santillis mathematics to SCIENCE..........and give me evidence that Santillis contribution to Mathematical sciences its less than Poincare or Lie or anyone for that matter !! then my dear friend I would offer my apology and walk away !! this is what I do daily !! for example few eminent Geoscientist have recently proposed to me a new Geophysical project prepared over many months of hard work, it took me 10 minutes to bin it and give the evidence for the WHY it had to be binned !! THIS IS SCIENCE !! This is how you or Mr witten has to talk to me !! You must enter into a discussion on Relativity and I will do what I always do Destroy the argument with FACTS !!! We indeed in the dark ages !! This is the reason why I wrote my universal satires that emberace all of Human knowledge !! Let Mr Witten do half of that !! then we talk !! But please do not be;lieve a word can and meet me, so that you will never doubt !!! 86.151.66.41 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia will record whatever information is published in conventional sources such as journals, newspapers and books.  As a result, sometimes the information is not up to date.  This is especially true for new scientific theories, because Wikipedia needs to wait for critical review to occur.   Are there any errors in this Wikipedia biography? John Vandenberg 22:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

dear Space Potato I have received written confirmations by the Estonian Academy of Science Secretary that CLEAR STATES THAT THE INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS IN ESTONIA has issued the document produced by SAntilli !! From my conversations and cross examination of the people at the accademy........I AM SATISFIED that not only he was given the honors but that when the Great maN PRODUCED THE DOCUMENT TO his enemies " ......the dark forces that decide who has to get what.........."THEY" ( in my interpretation as a result to my cross examination ) decided to give the academy an offer they couldnt refuse and the saga goes on " !!!! dURING MY FIRST CALLS TO THE ACADEMY THERE WAS TURMOIL AND HE TOOK THEM 30 HRS TO COME UP WITH A FAIRYTALE !! aT FIRST THEY WERE RELUCTANT EVEN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE DOCUMENT LISTED BY sANTILLI IN HIS cv WAS REAL, WHEN i TOLD THEM i WOULD CALL THEM IN TO TESTIFY TO THAT EFFECT...............THEY TOLD ME THAT THE DOCUMENT IS REAL !!! bUT LET US NO GO FURTHER AND GET ME THE BEST MATHEMATICIAN KNOWN TO YOU TO CONFROND A DEBATE IN OPEN COURT !! YOU WILL THEN NO DOUBT SEE THAT tHE gREAT SANTILLI IS THE GREATEST MATHEMATICIANS ever !!! NOT A PSEUDOSCIENTIST as you labelled him !! DO U WISH ME TO FORWARD THE CONFIRMATION BY THE ESTONIAN ACADEMY OF SCIENCE THAT INDEED THE DOCUMENT IS REAL !!?? give my your email MR Potato !! I PAY FOR ALL EXPENSES TO FLY YOU WITTEN ET ALL TO MEET WITH ME TO DISCUSS THESE MATTERS FURTHER !! fRANCESCO dA cOSENZA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.114.47 (talk) 15:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We only accept information that has been published in journals, newspapers, books, etc. None of us can break that rule, so unless your information is published, we cant use it. John Vandenberg 00:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The issue I was concerned about was not whether the document in from the Estonian Academy of Sciences is real, but whether it was a list of the "most illustrious applied mathematicians of all time".  To me, it appears to be merely a list of mathematicians and physicists who have worked with various kinds of algebras (associative, Jordan, Lie, etc.) Spacepotato 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

recently added info
This diff contains some new information that could be useful. It did not include any reliable sources so I have reverted it for the moment. John Vandenberg 23:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Do the moderators tolerate this ???
A debate such as above is a shame for wikipedia : I came here by chance and if it had been the first time I visited Wikipedia, I would have left immediately, believing this is not a serious site. Philipum 13:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should consider it one of the strengths of Wikipedia, that it can handle discussions like this and come up with a sensible result, with justice not only being done but being seen to be done. Accounting4Taste 14:48, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to Santilli being included in a list of notable crackpot/"fringe" scientists, but there should be no question about the believability of his claims. I discovered this page through cleaning up Oxyhydrogen. The lack of strong rebuttal to Santilli's claims shows one of Wikipedia's flaws in being able to rebutt beliefs that are strongly held by a fringe minority of individuals. I have attempted to balance this with a paragraph outlining criticisms made by other scientists. If such criticisms cannot be kept here, then Wikipedia will be better off if this article does not exist as Santilli's theories are the basis for a number of "free energy" and "drive your car on water" frauds which unwary internet users might mistakenly believed Wikipedia to verify.Long Island Expressway (talk) 17:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Fucilla francesco
Please could this user should stop using London sockpuppet IP's to add the same inane remarks periodicially to this article. Yes, Edward Witten is one of the greatest theoretical physicists alive; no, Ruggiero Santilli is not. Stating the opposite on WP is disruptive contentious editing. --Mathsci —Preceding comment was added at 16:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC) Thers a "DAYU" devotedf to nrew energy concepts Global Enegry Indepoendence Day Jul.10th the birthfdate of ngreat energy pioneer Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreisme (talk • contribs) 21:46, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Hadronic Press
The statement "Hadronic Press, a firm of which Santilli's spouse Carla Santilli is the sole officer/director" seems incorrect and inadequately sourced. The reference is to an SEC filing by a company "Earthfirst Technologies Inc" about a legal dispute that compnay was having with Hadronic in 2001/2. This cannot be a reliable source. A 2009 filing by Hadronic Press itself with the State of Florida here states that Ruggero Santilli and Carla Santilli are both directors. However this latter url seems to violate no.9 of WP:ELNO, namely "Links to any search results pages". How to proceed? 213.48.162.2 (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Link this. What the heck is the title PDS? Cacycle (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

additions by 98.251.106.167
These changes are far from neutral, however there are some useful facts which can probably be sourced in there. I have tagged it as disputed. We can work through the problems. I'll start with some simple ones:


 * as "Santilli Hall" of a class room at an Australian research center.

Which Australian research center?


 * According to awarding body Fondazione Mediterraneo (the Mediterranean Foundation),

Is this organisation notable?

John Vandenberg (chat) 13:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems there has been some bad-faith editing here. I think there should be a complete roll-back to about half a year ago. For example, the complete thrashing of Santilli's work in a scientific journal by J. Calo is removed by an anonymous without explanation.
 * This sentence that was there in august but is removed now:
 * "Santilli's theory has been discredited by other scientists as having 'many serious misinterpretations, and misunderstandings of the “data” presented... [the paper] creates some doubt as to whether [the author] actually knows the difference between a gas chromatograph (GC) and a mass spectrometer (MS).'"


 * The source for it: J. M. Calo (November 3, 2006). "Comments on “A new gaseous and combustible form of water,” by R.M. Santilli (Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2006: 31(9), 1113–1128)". International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 32 (32): p. 1309–1312. doi:10.1016/j.ijhydene.2006.11.004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.214.78 (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


 * These two whitewashing and non-NPOV anonymous edits have to be reverted:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Santilli&action=historysubmit&diff=323853181&oldid=323803339 by Special:Contributions/98.217.144.238
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Santilli&action=historysubmit&diff=323468434&oldid=320458850 by Special:Contributions/98.251.106.167
 * Cacycle (talk) 14:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Cacycle (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed
This is unlikely Magnecules have also been invoked to justify novel unverified claims about oxyhydrogen gas, a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, which he calls "HHO gas". Mion (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Overview and honors
The entire section is sourced only to Santilli's many web sites and companies. It probably should be summarily deleted, and the creating edit warned. Does anyone recall whether another user has been banned from this page? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Just explain it to him, I think he's editing in good faith. It isn't obvious to a new editor what sources can be used. He's been responsive on my talk page. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This one is real, and the Fondazione Mediterraneo seems genuine enough, do a news search on it. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Forbes
I'm afraid background reference information, even in normally reliable sources, is not adequately checked for accuracy. In most publications, it's only checked for potential libel. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Institutional Paradigms with Established Theories
Rubin, I see another example of non-neutrality, I am happy to allow the posting from Il Grande Grido but without background it is useless and one sided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The title is non-neutral; the "background" contains (potentially) libelous material, and it's relevance to the subject is questionable, except as it may indicate Santilli's mental state. I've tagged it for relevance for the moment, but we also need to make it clear that the libelous statements are Santilli's.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look, I didn't add the background info only the Santilli's overall opinion regarding institutional paradigms... Globalreach1 (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fondazione Mediterraneo
Is this organization really relevant? Looking at their website doesn't give me a clear picture of whether or not this award actually means anything. A lot of what is on the website is clear puffery (like claiming that they are recognized as a legal organization by a variety of cities and states someone means they are "recognized by 200 million people). I'm concerned that highlighting this award might be WP:UNDUE if the awarding body isn't sufficiently important to make the award important.  However, I could certainly be wrong on this, so I'd like to hear other's opinions.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Calo and peer review
It doesn't seem to me that the article review section of International Journal of Hydrogen Energy is peer-reviewed. It is hard to tell, but I think the anon has the right of it, on that point. Of course, Calo is an expert, and Santilli is not, so the review is still usable as a reference. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's true that Calo's comments were published with no acceptance date at the top, which suggests that they may not have been reviewed.  On the other hand, Santilli's original paper  also has no such date, and neither does this research paper  in the IJHE.  By the way, the IJHE also published two rebuttals of Calo's remarks (, .) Spacepotato (talk) 02:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

PseudoScientist
I have a problem with this tag for Santilli, he is a living person and therefore is afforded some protection from damaging or incorrect information. Apart from that looking at the list of Psuedo Scientists Santilli doesn't belong with the list of snake oil salesmen. Fringe is more accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.254.83.50 (talk) 12:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems justified, by the archived material on his web site that he (intended) to sue everyone using a particular transformation, even if his actual work weren't crazy. The current claims on his web site of a conspiracy to suppress his material seem to lead in that direction, as well.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Conspiracy theorists seems clearly justified by the former and present state of his web site. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 13:07, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Conspiracy theorist I think is accurate and will accept, Pseudo Scientist I will not. Rubin this is a living person and you need to exhibit more neutral editing on this:

Purpose: Because living persons may suffer personal harm from inappropriate information, we should watch their articles carefully. This category exists to help Wikipedia editors improve the quality of biographies of living persons by ensuring that the articles maintain a neutral point of view, maintain factual accuracy, and are properly sourced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Defining Ruggero Santilli a Pseudo-Scientist is NOT correct. Actually, he published papers in various international peer-reviewed journals, like Phys. Rev. D 1, 2753 (1970), Phys. Rev. D 7, 2447 (1973), Phys. Rev. D 10, 3396 (1974), Phys. Rev. D 20, 555 (1979), Phys. Rev. D 22, 892 (1980), Found.Phys.Lett. 10 (1997) 307-327, Found. Phys. 37, 670-711 (2007), Nuovo Cim.B 121, 443-486 (2006), Nuovo Cim. A12,185-204 (1972), Nuovo Cim. A5, 551-590 (1971), Nuovo Cim. A2, 965-1015 (1971), J Math. Phys. 11, 2297-2301 (1970), Int. J. Theor. Phys.3, 233-241 (1970), Annales Fond. De Broglie 29, 953-966 (2004), Found. Phys. 33, 1373-1416 (2003), Found. Phys. 32, 1111-1140 (2002), Int. J. Mod. Phys. A14, 2205-2238 (1999), Int. J. Mod. Phys. D7 351-407 (1998). A recent review of Santill's research work has been published in The Open Astronomy Journal, 2010, 3, 126-144. All these journal are recognized by the Scientific Community and have nothing to do with the Hadronic Journal, where Santilli is founder and Editor in Chief, thus they have been surely accepted by independent editors and reviewers. - Darth Sidious — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Sidious 69 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Darth, this is already resolved, he is listed as having some Fringe Theories. Globalreach1 (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Il Grande Grido
Art, I am not really sure why you have started to tinker with "il Grande Grido" after it was already reviewed several times and then stabilized. Il Grande Grido is not about scientists, it's not about people but it's about Dr. Santilli's theory regarding the inability of Academic organizations to support novel theories which would prove some of Einstein's Theory of Relativity inapplicable in certain specific cases. I did not add this section but I agreed that it would carry a tag of conspiracy theorists, if you keep dumbing it down and focusing on individuals I will totally remove this section but it would be a shame. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 07:09, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that's nonsense. I accept your interpretation of "il Grande Grido", but the section head should still be conspiracy theories, rather than "paradigm shifts".  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 08:02, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Art, you didn't read the title properly or you read it too fast, it is "Institutional Paradigms with Established Theories and Conspiracies" no idea where you got "Paradigm shifts". A Paradigm is "A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline." I already added Conspiracies to placate other editors, the point of Il Grande Grido is to indicate that for certain Academic Institutions to break from their own paradigms they would in effect have to act disruptively to their own success and support structures which is difficult for any large organization to do. To imply that the book is purely to present a conspiracy theory is incorrect, as I said I already added that to the title based on other inputs, just trying to keep it balanced and keep everybody happy.. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 09:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Globalreach1, when you add a comment to a talk page, please add four tildas ( ~ ) at the end--this signs your comment, which is better than Sinebot doing it as that confuses the history and Recent Changes.
 * Second, I went ahead and also reverted the title. The previous title actually doesn't even make grammatical sense (even in the limited way that titles need to, as they don't need to be whole sentences).   The closest you could get to making it make sense would be "Theories about conspiracies and paradigms at scientific institutions".  Personally, I find that a little clumsy, but it would be workable.  Please note that the title right now doesn't imply what you're saying it implies about the book.  It simply puts it in the context for which that book is notable to readers.  However, let me propose a few alternatives that might achieve a compromise:


 * Theories about conspiracies and paradigms at scientific institutions
 * Views on scientific paradigms and conspiracies at scientific institutions
 * Conspiracies and paradigms at scientific institutions
 * Scientific paradigms and conspiracies to resist change
 * Theories on the resistance of scientific paradigms to change
 * Institutional conspiracies and scientific paradigms


 * I actually like the last one the best--it's concise and captures both parts of the issue, I think. Any chances that any of these might be a fair compromise? Qwyrxian (talk) 09:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Was just posting similar title while you were in the talk pages: Academic Paradigms and Conspiracy Claims ````


 * If I had to chose from your excellent list I would go with: "Scientific paradigms and conspiracies to resist change" as that captures the spirit of Il Grande Grido while balanced with Conspiracy statements... ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Globalreach1 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The author's actual work is a reliable source for it's content (quotes and paraphrases), but not for interpretations, and the section referencing Il Grande Grido is mostly interpretation. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 09:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of information by Wikipedia editors
Wikipedia was supposed to be an arena for the best possible presentation of facts and for the release of judgment to viewers. In reality, in most cases the information is manipulated by Wiki editors to influence judgment by viewers for personal aims. As one example among several, the presentation by Wiki editors of the work by R. M. Santilli is a documentation of the deplorable departure of Wikipedia from a serious scientific documentation. Let's review the background and then pass to a few documented cases of adulteration of the scientific information. Following 50 years of research, Santilli has amassed mathematical, theoretical, chemical, experimental and industrial evidence according to which Einstein's special relativity is confirmed as being exact for the conditions of its original conception and experimental verification (exterior dynamical problem of point particles and electromagnetic waves propagating in vacuum), while said relativity is only approximately valid for interior dynamical consideration (extended and deformable particles and electromagnetic waves moving within physical media). While being members of outstanding academic institutions, Santilli has discovered coverings of 20th century mathematics and has consequently built covering of physical and chemical theories for one specific scope: conceive and develop much needed new clean energies and fuels. these studies are [resented in monographs [1-33] below as well as in the fascinating lecture series http://www.world-lecture-series.org/ that I tried to list in Santilli's page to see instant rejection, of course, excessively convincing on scientific grounds. Note that the generalization of 20th century theories for much needed new clean fuels and energies is incontrovertible because all the former theories are reversible over time while all the latter events are irreversible. hence, in opposing Santilli research, Einstein followers oppose the laborious process of trial and error to solve major social problems. While repeatedly honoring Einstein in his works, Santilli has criticized "Einstein followers" (from which he set the title of Il Grande Grido, "Ethical Probe of Einstein Followers in the USA: An Insider's View) because Einstein followers extended Einstein's theories much beyond the conditions of their original applicability without a serious theoretical and experimental scrutiny, thus abusing the name of Albert Einstein to secure chairs, grants, prizes, etc. I believe the way Santilli is treated by Wiki editors is a reflection of the fact that the editors themselves are Einstein Followers, thus opposing the above findings for the intent in Santilli works of "maintaining the validity of Einsteinian theories for all possible conditions existing ion the universe, expectedly until the end of time." The evidence supporting such an allegation is significant. Here are a few "pearls" of blatant adulterations of evidence: (1) The very quotation of Il Grande Grido in Santilli's Wikipedia page is blatantly manipulated, In fact, Wiki editors have elected to quote in Ref. [25], http://telesio-einstein.com/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf, a complete electronic re-writing of Il Grande Grido by a strange guy, F. Fucilla, in London, a rewriting known for numerous adulterations of the original version. In view of that, I tried to quote the correct original version of Il Grande Grido including its three volumes of documentations as well as the 1985 review by The Harvard Crimson, all available in pdf original versions from the link http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm. Yet, Wiki editors rejected this proper quotation and re0instated the fake one. Why? The only credible explanation is to prevent viewers from inspecting the four volumes of th complete work and/or prevent the knowledge that The Harvard Crimson had reviewed Il Grande Grido in a quite supportive way beginning with the title denouncing "The Politics of Science." If the reiterated suppression of the correct information is not a blatant manipulation of evidence by Wiki editors to derail; viewers from facts, what else could it be? The usual "explanation" via the need of quoting independent views does not clear the editors fro, wrongdoing and merely aggravates their stand because in this case they should have at least quoted the original extended work jointly with the notoriously partial rewriting by Fucilla. (2) Consider Ref. [26] (Farrell, John (6 July 2000). "Did Einstein cheat?. Salon. Retrieved 30 August 2010) who claims that Santilli moved in Il Grande Grido "hysterical attacks" on special relativity without any technical identification of such a heavy claim. In reality, Santilli has always claimed that special relativity has a "majestic axiomatic structure and an impressive body of experimental verifications under the original conditions assumed by Einstein." Santilli criticizes instead Einstein's followers for abusing Einstein's name in extending the applicability of special relativity under conditions for which there is rather large evidence of lack of exact applicability,. If this type of quotations by the "free encyclopedia" is not a manipulation of evidence for predetermined personal aims, what else could it be? The intentional character of the misinformation is then sealed by the lack of quotations of at least one of dozens of quite authoritative statement of support for Santilli. (3) Wiki editors state "Most of his work on this theory has been published in Hadronic Journal, a journal of which Santilli himself is the founder and chief editor. Santilli has also established the journals Hadronic Journal Supplement and Algebras, Groups and Geometries, in which he publishes papers by himself and others. These journals are published by Hadronic Press, a firm of which Santilli's spouse Carla Santilli is the sole officer/director." Santilli has published some 300 papers of which about 30 or so are indeed published in the Hadronic Journal and about 270 papers or so have been published in Phys. Rev D, Journal of Physics G, J. of Math. Phys., Nuovo Cimento, Rivista Nuovo Cimento, Nuovo Cimento letters, Found. of Phys. Found, pf Physics Letters, J. Moscow Physical society, Intern J. Modern Physics, Modern Physics letters, JINR Rapid Communications, (MIT) Ann. of Physics, Fond. L. de Broglie, Circolo mathematics Palermo, J. quantum Physics, Hyperfine Interactions, Modern Phys. A, Acta Applicandae mathematical, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy, J. New Energy, J. Dynamical systems and Geometric Theories, Open Astronomic Journal,. New Advances in Physics, Proceedings at the American Institute of Physics, J. Indian mathematical Society, J. Physical Society, East Journal of Algebras, and several other journals. Do Wiki editors really thing then viewers and inferior in brain capacity? Santilli's CV is listed in Google under the Wiki listing and the great majority of viewers check the latter out of the former to conclude that,,,,, the editors are acting in a self-disqualifying manner because excess of fanatic academic interests are he fastest route to oblivion. (4) In regards to Santilli's honors Wiki editors add the box stating that "This section may contain wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information. Please remove or replace such wording, unless you can cite independent sources that support the characterization." What's the reason of this box? Is the intent that of denying the existence of or casting shadows on the credibility of the honors? But then why a similar box is not included in the honors listed by Wiki editors, e.g., for Steve Weinberg? His studies ad related honors have been grossly criticized as being paradoxically consistent, as it is appropriately the case for the hyperbola of the big bang. Arguably, Wiki editors consider Wikipedia a property for a kind of supremacy of one set of theories over others. In turn, blatant suppression f scientific democracy is evidence of an apparent convincing of impunity that naturally follow fanatic beliefs of superior beings. (5) After the above introductory remarks, the posturing by Wiki editors that is very damaging to Wikipedia as well as to the U. S. scientific community is the statement at the beginning of the page to the effect that Santilli is a "proponent of fringe scientific theories." Since Santilli have been circulated by very distinguished universities (the University of Torino, Italy, The University of Miami, Boston University, MIT,. Harvard University and otters), a high school student can see that Wiki editors accuse of these distinguished university of having release reprints on fringe science. Similarly. Since Santilli's papers have been published by the following journals Phys. Rev D, Journal of Physics G, J. of Math. Phys., Nuovo Cimento, Rivista Nuovo Cimento, Nuovo Cimento letters, Found. of Phys. Found, pf Physics Letters, J. Moscow Physical society, Intern K. Modern Physics, Modern Physics letters, JINR Rapid Communications, (MIT) Ann. of Physics, Fond. L. de Broglie, Circolo mathematics Palermo, J. quantum Physics, Hyperfine Interactions, Modern Phys. A, Acta Applicandae mathematical, Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy, J. New Energy, J. Dynamical systems and Geometric Theories, Open Astronomic Journal,. New Advances in Physics, Proceedings at the American Institute of Physics, J. Indian mathematical Society, J. Physical Society, Eastern Journal of Algebras,Phys. Rev D, Journal of Physics G, J. of Math. Phys. and others a person with a high school diploma can see that the Wiki editors accuse all these distinguishes Journals of publishing fringe science. About one thousand papers have been written on Santilli's theories by various scientists in various countries. hence, anybody can see that all these scientists are dealing with fringe science. Additionally, Santilli has published some 35 monographs [1-35], (yes, my God, what a problem!) a few with Hadronic Press of which his wife is the publisher, but the others have been published by the most prestigious scientific publishers on Earth, such as Springer-Verlag, Kluwer Academic Publishing, Springer, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, International Academic Press and others. Again, a high school can see Wiki editors implying that these authors have written monographs on Santilli's studies (see refs. [26-33]) equally published by prestigious publishers. t can see that Wiki editors accuse all these major houses of publishing fringe science. Yet additionally. hence, the dubbing of fringe science by Wiki editors is equally directed to all these scientists. In short, accusing Santilli of doing fringe science is the climax of the intention by Wiki editors of misguiding viewers away from Santilli real research, identifying limitations of Einsteinian theories., and constructing covering theories necessary to develop new clean fuels and energies, for the intent of continuing to maintain the validity of Einsteinian doctrines for personal benefits in such a disrespect of the need by our society to require denunciation in order not to be accomplices..

[1] R. M. Santilli, Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics, I: The Inverse Problem in Newtonian Mechanics, Springer-Verlag (1978), http://www. Santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-209.pdf. [2] R. M. Santilli, Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics, II: Birkho�an Generalization of hamiltonian Mechanics, Springer-Verlag (1983), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-69.pdf. [ [3] R. M. Santilli, Lie-Admissible Approach to the Hadronic Structure, I: Nonapplicability of the Galilei and Einstein Relativities? Hadronic Press (1978), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-71.pdf. [4] R. M. Santilli, Lie-Admissible Approach to the Hadronic Structure, II: Coverings of the Galilei and Einstein Relativities? Hadronic Press (1982), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-72.pdf. [5] R. M. Santilli, Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View, Alpha Publishing (1984), http://www.scientificethics. org/ilgrandegridoedfig.pdf. [6] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of the Ethical Probe: Vol. I, Alpha Publishing (1984), http://www.scientificethics.org/Volume1.pdf. [7] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of the Ethical Probe: Vol. II, Alpha Publishing (1984), http://www.scientificethics.org/Volume2.pdf. [8] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of the Ethical Probe: Vol. III, Alpha Publishing (1985), http://www.scientificethics.org/Volume3.pdf. [9] R. M. Santilli, Isotopic Generalizations of Galilei's and Einstein's Relativities, Vol. I: Mathematical Foundations, Hadronic Press (1991), http: //www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-01.pdf. [10] R. M. Santilli, Isotopies of Galilei and Einstein Relativities, Vol. II: Classical Foundations, Hadronic Press (1991), http: //www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-35.pdf. [11] R. M. Santilli Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vol. I: Mathematical Foundations, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1993), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-63.pdf. 486 I. Gandzha and J. Kadeisvili [12] R. M. Santilli Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Vol. I: Mathematical Foundations, 2nd edition, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1995), http: //www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-300.pdf. [13] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics. Vol. II: Theoretical Foundations, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1994), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-02.pdf. [14] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics. Vol. II: Theoretical Foundations, 2nd edition, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1995), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf. [15] C. R. Illert and R. M. Santilli, Foundation of Theoretical Conchology, Hadronic Press (1995), http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/ Santilli-109.pdf. [16] R. M. Santilli, Isotopic, Genotopic and Hyperstructural Methods in Theoretical Biology, Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (1997), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-67.pdf. [17] R. M. Santilli, The Physics of New Clean Energies and Fuels According to Hadronic Mechanics, published in a special issue of the Journal of New Energy, Vol. 4, pages 1-314 (1999), http://www.santilli-foundation. org/docs/Santilli-114.pdf. [18] R. M. Santilli, Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, with Applications to New Clean Energies and Fuels, Kluwer Academic Publishers (2001), http: //www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-113.pdf. [19] R. M. Santilli, Isodual Theory of Antimatter, with Applications to Antigravity, Grand Uni�cation and Cosmology, Springer (2006), http://www. santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-79.pdf. [20] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry, Volume I: Limitations of Einstein's Special and General Relativities, Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Chemistry, International Academic Press (2008), http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/HMMC-1-02-26-08.pdf. [21] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry, Volume II: Isodual Theory of Antimatter, Antigravity and Spacetime Machines, International Academic Press (2008), http://www.i-b-r.org/ docs/HMMC-II-01-19-08.pdf. [22] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry, Volume III: Iso-, Geno-, Hyper-Formulations for Matter and Their Isoduals for Antimatter, International Academic Press (2008), http://www.i-b-r.org/ docs/HMMC-III-02-26-08.pdf. [23] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry, Volume IV: International Academic Press (2008), http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/ HMMC-12-15-08.pdf. [24] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry, Volume V: Experimental Veri�cations, Theoretical Advances and Industrial Applications in Chemistry, International Academic Press (2008), http: //www.i-b-r.org/docs/HMMC-V-01-26-08.pdf. [25] R. M. Santilli, The New Fuels with Magnecular Structure, International Academic Press (2005), http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/ Fuels-Magnecular-StructureF.pdf; Italian translation \I Nuovi Carburanti con Struttura Magnecolare" by Giovanna Bonfanti and Michele Sacerdoti, published by Editori Riuniti, Roma, Italy, and available at http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/Carb-Strutt-Magnecolare.do

[26] H. C. Myung,, Lie Algebras and Flexible Lie-Admissible Algebras, Hadronic Press (1982), available as free download from http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-107.pdf [27] D. S. Sourlas and G. T. Tsagas, Mathematical Foundation of the Lie- Santilli Theory, Ukraine Academy of Sciences 91993), available as free download from http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-70.pdf [28] J. L^ohmus, E. Paal, and L. Sorgsepp, Nonassociative Algebras in Physics (Hadronic Press, Palm Harbor, 1994), available as free download from http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Lohmus.pdf [29] J. V. Kadeisvili, Santilli's Isotopies of Contemporary Algebras, Ge- ometries and Relativities, Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Second edition (1997), available as free download from http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-60.pdf [30] Chun-Xuan Jiang, Foundations of Santilli Isonumber Theory, International Academic Press (2001), available as free download from http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/jiang.pdf [31] Raul M. Falcon Ganfornina and Juan Nunez Valdes, Fundamentos de la Isoteoria de Lie-Santilli, International Academic Press (2001), available as free downlaod from http://www.i-b-r.org/docs/spanish.pdf [32] B, Davvaz, B., Hyperrings Theory and Its Applications. International Academic Press (2008), available as free download from\\ \url{http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Davvaz.pdf}

[33] I. Gandzha and J., kadeisvili, New Sciences for a New Era" Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Rug- gero Maria Santilli, in preparation, preli,kinary versionm available in the website http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/FoundationBook-12-10.pdf


 * Okay, first of all, your comments are far far too long. It would be far easier to parse this if you didn't write several pages worth of concerns in a single thread. Second, you're unlikely to receive a favorable response if you come in here accusing us of bias and repression and misrepresentation. Instead, why not just tell us, calmly, plainly, and in an unbiased way, what you see the problems as being? Remember, all of us are volunteers, and many of us (like myself) don't even know enough to be biased in the way you say. Our job here is not to determine whether or not Santilli is "correct" in his theories, but merely to summarize what reliable sources have said about him. If the scientific establishment has generally rejected his theories, then we must report that. If they have ignored them, we must similarly report that. And if they have supported them, we must report that. But we are bound by WP:NPOV and WP:OR not to interject our own opinions (i.e., you can't use Wikipedia to Right Great Wrongs). Now, there may be problems with this article--just because we have our ideals, doesn't mean we always reach them.

That being said, I'll try to wade through your various points. The first one that caught my eye was #3, because I think you misread the article. You are correct that Santilli has about 300 published papers. I don't think you're right about the 30, because a quick Google Scholar search shows Santilli with 60 papers published in Hadronic Journal or by Hadronic Press. But, more importantly, you're misreading the claim. You are saying that the article says that the "majority of his publications are in Hadronic Journal (etc)." Actually, what the article says is "the majority of his publications that are about Hadronic chemistry are published in Hadronic Journal (etc.)." That's a big difference. Now, again, I don't know too much of the detailed physics necessary to understand, but what I do know, combined with some relatively quick searching, is that the second statement is, in fact, correct--that most Santilli's publications outside of his own publishing company have been on non-Hadronic issues. In other words, the thrust of this section is not that Santilli is just a self-publishing fringe scientist, but that his theory about hadronic chemistry is considered to be a fringe topic (which is why it appears to not be being published in other refereed journals). I'll try to come back and address some of your other points later. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * It may be the case that the majority of his papers are not in his journal(s) and publishing house(s), but some of the others are not peer-reviewed, or are not otherwise considered reliable (or, possibly, are in a language the reviewing editors do not understand.) In any case, the best resource would be papers about his work, but not by him, published in journals generally considered well-reviewed. I would like to see such articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Qwrxian, I suspect one key issue here is the label "Fringe Science" which he probably feels is unjustified. What is the definition of when something moves from "Fringe" to "Mainstream". Additionally it seems arbitrary for example Michio Kaku http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michio_Kaku/ should also carry a "Fringe" science tag as well, no? Globalreach1 (talk) 10:36, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Request of intervention by Wikipedia Editor in Chief
I confirm my view on the intentional and organized manipulation of scientific information by Wiki editors for the intent of delaying, obstructing and disqualifying quantitative mathematical, physical, chemical, experimental, engineering and industrial evidence establishing the merely approximate character of Einsteinian doctrines within physical media. The manipulation is done for evident personal aims against the need for the advancement of scientific knowledge. Rather than participating in this world wide new scientific renaissance, Wiki editors prefer to live in the illusion of controlling it and in so doing they "make a gift of scientific priorities to others" (quotation from Santilli 2004 memoir at Nuovo Cimento on the Lie-admissible invariant treatment of irreversibility for matter and antimatter at the classical and operator levels). The above comments prove that Wiki editors are masters in wordings and derailing of serious but undesired scientific issues in favor of preferred political tangents because all the above statements have been ventured without any documentation at all, just to misinform the viewers by intentionally creating doubts. This is the case of the wording that the majority of Santilli's papers in hadronic mechanics have been published in his journal (which statement is intentionally false because proffered without inspecting the evidence). The same holds for the statement that the papers on hadronic mechanics published in other journals, thus including papers in Phys. Rev D., J Phys. G, Nuovo Cimento, K. of Moscow Phis. Soc. etc. etc., were not peer reviewed (which is also intentionally false and blatantly thrown to derail a serious scientific process, the monographs published buy Springer Verlag, Kluwer, Springer, etc., being intentionally ignored), etc. The climax of the manipulation is reached buy Wiki editors in the definition of "fringe science" because the real definition, or the definition equally applying is the referral of science based on hyperbolic conjectural assumptions without any direct verification. Hence, to achieve a minimum of credibility and dignity, Wiki editors should dub in the top line as fringe scientists all authors who work on the expansion of the universe, the biog bang, dark matter, dark energy, quark and neutrino ultra hyperbolic conjectures, etc. etc. The equal treating of all fringe scientists is indeed democratic and acceptable. By contrast, Wiki editor implement a blind and blatant discrimination (blind because they do not realize the damage they cause to themselves and to Wikipedia) according to which certain fringe science is dubbed as such and other science is not. Where is the separating line? Read Il Grande Grido. All most far fetched hyperbolic conjectures are dubbed as science under the sole condition of verifying Einsteinian doctrines. The sole sciences dubbed as fringe are those identified in Il Grande Grido, namely, perfectly sound quantitative sciences establishing the limitations of Einsteinian doctrines. It's all equivocal fringe science in the dream of controlling the minds of others. It has been going on with complete impunity since its denunciation by Santilli in Il Grande Grido (1984) and by the review in The Harvard Crimson (1985). I request the intervention of the Editor in Chief of Wikipedia to cut the political fat out of all scientific pages, including but not limited to Santilli, and present the evidence in an un-adulterated form and let the viewers rather than the editors pass their independent judgments. Expecting the routine instantaneous removal by Wiki editors, this page is being copied and posted in some mirror site for due submission to Wikipedia editor in chief at the appropriate time and in the appropriate manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs) 10:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * First, there is no such person as an "Editor in Chief". And, even if we believe Santilli's articles to be correct, we still can could only report what is said about him and his work in reliable sources. Il Grande Grido is Santilli's, and perhaps a reliable source as to his opinions, but, is not, itself, "reliable". Italics and strike-outs are my modification of my own posts — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I decline comment as to any conjectures as to whether Santilli's article would remain if "the fact" was cut out of Wikipedia. WP:FRINGE is a guideline (rather than policy), but it's clear that much of Santilli's work (but perhaps not all) qualifies as fringe, while much of the work he criticizes (but not all) is not fringe. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I also oppose deleting this section; although it appears to be a rant about editors, it does have suggestions for changing the article in a way the poster believes an improvement. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Fine Arthur Rubin. But then, to prevent additional law violations, I request "you" disclose the name, address and email of the person(s) responsible for libel, discrimination and other action that could be filed by publishers and reviewers you have intentionally injured. I also request information to become (non-pair) editor or co-editor of a Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs)
 * If you file a "John Doe" lawsuit, or a summons against Wikipedia (address for service available on the site), requesting my identity and contact information, I'll be happy to comply. However, WP:NLT requires that you cease editing Wikipedia while the lawsuit is threatened or in progress. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Arthur Rubin, you distort again my statement, again with blindness (typical of academic greed) for the damage you cause to yourself, to your brothers and to Wikipedia. I DID NOT state or implied that I want to file a lawsuit. You state so. I do not have the time. Besides, I believe the best victory for Professor Santilli is the blatant disqualification you and your brothers are suffering the world over for dubbing "fringe science" highly professional and qualified studies on the inapplicability of Einsteinian doctrines for conditions much beyond those of their original conception, especially in view of the well known evidence that these "fringe studies" are necessary for and in any case have already produced now clean fuels and energies. Such a transparent disqualification is much better than any judicial verdict! I did imply and I confirm it here that I know of various publishers as well as reviewers of various journals who feel have been deeply offended by your fringe behavior. It appears you have not yet learned that misconducts, whether scientific or otherwise, are sooner or later met with the proper and just response. . Cheers Richard cox6797@gmail.com.

PS. Thanks to all colleagues who have contacted me for support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaufman1111 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Right... ok... so cox6797@gmail.com is associated with the "International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability" which shares the address of the "INSTITUTE FOR BASIC RESEARCH", which is "funded by The R. M. Santilli Foundation". So, sir you are an involved party with the subject and therefore should probably not be editing this article. Cheers. Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Manipulation of information by Wikipedia editors
Conflict of interest
 * Right... ok... so cox6797@gmail.com is associated with the "International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability" which shares the address of the "INSTITUTE FOR BASIC RESEARCH", which is "funded by The R. M. Santilli Foundation". So, sir you are an involved party with the subject and therefore should probably not be editing this article.  Cheers.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a misleading claim about WP:COI. In fact, this editor has done exactly what WP:COI tells them to do: rather than editing the page directly they, have brought their concerns here and raised them.  Sure, they weren't raised very nicely, but that's a different issue.  It is completely and totally appropriate for someone with a COI to use the article's talk page to suggest changes.  That doesn't mean that such changes will be made, or that the page will reflect their preferred version, but we want and encourage the involvement of subjects with first hand knowledge, so long as they are willing to work within our policies.  Heck, WP:COI actually doesn't even forbid them from editing the article--it just says that they probably shouldn't because it's hard to follow WP:NPOV and WP:OR when you have a COI.  Qwyrxian (talk) 03:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks to the IP for adding back the discussion above--I didn't even notice that that had all been removed by Guyonthesubway. That removal was completely unacceptable.  The information was very directly related to suggestions for changes to the article. Removal of information from talk pages is only acceptable under very narrow circumstances like WP:VANDAL or WP:NOTFORUM, which definitely don't apply here. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh please. Why on earth would you coddle a ranting SPA that works for a foundation paid by the subject of the article?  Guyonthesubway (talk)
 * Because that editor has not yet done anything to the article, and hasn't even been really disruptive here. This is no different than my desire to have living people who have BLPs on them discuss the article on the talk page; or with corporations seeking to have input via the talk page. I'd far prefer that to the COI editor either sending daily complaints to OTRS, or engaging in disruptive sockpuppetry, etc.  And, in any event, you may have your opinion, but your opinion runs contrary to our COI policy. Furthermore, your attitude is likely to drive the editor (and those xe represents) to attack the article, and Wikipedia in general.  If you're not comfortable with the way our policies work, you are, of course, welcome to try to change them, but you're not welcome to just unilaterally rule who may speak and who may not. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have a lower tolerance for astroturfing than you. Assuming he confirms his connection to the article, have you met many zealots that follow the rules around here?  Did you miss the thinly veiled legal threats?   Guyonthesubway (talk)
 * Even if everything you say is true, WP:TALK does not allow the removal of those comments. You can warn the editor, you can respond to the concerns, and, if the person actually does something like make a legal threat, you can report them and get them blocked. But removing comments is rarely (but sometimes) appropriate.  And, yes, I do have a higher tolerance for astroturfing, because I sincerely believe that a small but non-zero number of involved subjects can learn enough about the project and how we work to be productive members of the community.  And, I think the right think to do now is for me to leave this and go look to see if any of xyr concerns can/need to be met.  Qwyrxian (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested help at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard
So, there's a whole noticeboard dedicated just to Fringe issues. I haven't worked with them before, but I've heard they've had quite a bit of success. I've just gone and posted a request at WP:FTN for other editors to weigh in on whether it is appropriate to label Santilli a "proponent of fringe scientific theories" as well as anything else relevant. Let's see if the input of the uninvolved can help us. Qwyrxian (talk) 15:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Gold Prize Mediterraneo
Please explain the importance of this award. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A Google search on "Gold Prize" "fondazione Mediterraneo" Santilli turns up 42 hits. A Google search using -Santilli turns up none. A Google news archives search on "Gold Prize" "fondazione Mediterraneo" Santilli turns up no hits. This appears to be a very minor award and I see no justification for it being here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Doug and Art, the Gold Prize Mediterraneo is significant in Europe and abroad, google.it for "Gold Prize Mediteraneo Ruggero Santilli" has over 30 hits. Sarkozy and others are recipients Globalreach1 (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Doug I quote you: "This one is real [4], and the Fondazione Mediterraneo seems genuine enough, do a news search on it. Dougweller (talk) 17:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)", apart from the rants of Kaufmann what has changed? Globalreach1 (talk) 19:47, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because I hadn't considered whether it was significant or noticed how little mention of it there is. The fact that Santilli and friends are publicising it to get 30 hits doesn't make it significant. We don't normally include minor awards. Please stop replacing it until you can show it is an important award. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Number of hits is not at all a useful measurement. I just did a quick search under both the English and Italian (?) names, and don't see any information proving the importance of this award that I can understand.  However, maybe that's because there's useful non-English information that I can't find.  Globalreach1, can you please provide specific links to news articles or any other sites? I'm looking at the Foundation's English website, and it doesn't even look like the foundation itself is that notable.  Yes, it mentions that some universities and regions have "recognized" it, but that actually doesn't mean anything. If I found a charity in the United States and fill out the proper paperwork, the U.S. government will "recognize it" as a charity, but that doesn't mean that it automatically gains notability in the eyes of all 300+ million residents.  And, anyway, that cite itself isn't independent.  So we need some independent corroboration that this award is notable; it doesn't have to be notable worldwide, but it needs to have some sort of significance, at least regionally/nationally.  Lots of charities give awards--what makes this one important? Qwyrxian (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I think I've found the problem, the original poster of this got the name wrong there is no "Gold Prize" its Premio Mediterraneo, google search under "Premio Mediterraneo ruggero santilli" and you will find more quality linked, I'm correcting the name to "Premio Mediterraneo". Globalreach1 (talk) 11:47, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually "Premio Mediterraneo" is a French literary award. If you take a look at Premio Mediterraneo or, through Google translate, here), you can see that award is strictly literary, is given by a totally different organization, and has no Science and Technology award. According to Fondazione Mediterraneo, the awarding body, the correct English name of the award is the "Mediterranean Award."  I see a small number of links to this, but not many (be careful when searching, because there's always a "Blue Mediterranean Award", a "Women Writers of the Mediterranean Award", and other awards with the words Mediterranean Award in it.  I can't clearly determine that this is a notable award.
 * More important, Globarlreach1, you didn't do anything to establish the notability of the award. At this point, consensus is that the tag stays on until we establish the award's relevance and importance.  You cannot remove that tag until consensus is clear it should be removed.  Continuing to remove it without consensus can be considered disruptive, so please just wait until we've hashed this out.  I believe that if we can't establish shortly (a few days? a few weeks?) that the award is important enough, we'll actually take the whole paragraph out.  But until the point where consensus concurs that the award is notable, please do not remove the tag.  Qwyrxian (talk) 13:52, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Premio Mediterraneo which is released by the Fondazione Mediterraneo and which has been assigned to Ruggero Santilli for the category Science and Research IS NOT the French literary award. Please, kindly check within the official website of the Fondazione Mediterraneo, i.e. http://www.fondazionemediterraneo.org/. In this website it is also claimed that "rappresenta uno dei più prestigiosi riconoscimenti a livello mondiale" i.e. by traducing from Italian "it represents one of the world's most prestigious distinctions". You can also check that during the 2004 the Fondazione Mediterraneo added the category of Science and Research. The importance of the Premio Mediterraneo is also emphasized by various recognized and famous people Awarded, examples are the Patriarch of Jerusalem Mons. Fouad Twal, the Queen of Jordan S.M. RANIA AL-ABDULLAH, the Nobel Price for Peace SHIRIN EBADI, the movie director RERZAN OZPETEK, the Germany's Premier Angela Merkel, the Portugal's President Anibal Cavaco Silva, the France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, the Turkey's Premier Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, the scientis Antonio Iavarone. On the other hand, you can also check that the Fondazione Mediterraneo label the Prize EXACTLY "Premio Mediterraneo" in Italian language. — Darth Sidious 69 (talk)
 * I gave my best director award to Spielberg, and my best president awared to Sarkozy, that doesn't make my award notable. Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, Guyonthesubway. Just because the Fondazione Mediterraneo says its Premio Mediterraneo "represents one of the world's most prestigious distinctions" doesn't make it so.  I could high-five Vladimir Putin or Barack Obama and it wouldn't make either of them particularly prestigious in world politics; my opinions regarding Michio Kaku have no leverage at all on his place in the world of physics.  And just because some foundation in Italy says that Ruggero Santilli is thus-and-such has no NPOV significance at all.  It's window dressing until objectively proven otherwise.  If the Nobel Prize committee took notice of Santilli, I'd be slightly more interested, although their undeserved lionizing of Barack Obama, Yassir Arafat and Al Gore has done much to draw the prestige of the Nobel Prize into dispute.loupgarous (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)