This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: misleading descriptions of acquitted charges |
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: March 2019 requests; directed to post to talk page |
Has anybody else worked out that all articles relating to Mr Rossi or allied subjects seem to carry very many edits from an IP Address belonging to a DHCP pool in Bologna. That's Bologna as in the city Mr Rossi's current enterprise is operating in. The same Rossi who has faced legal challenges for < redacted - ATG>....... This article is legitimising and enabling < redacted - ATG > and reflects badly on Wikipedia. But hey, the David Icke page has been nominated for excellence so......
Have determined Engineer Rossi's notability yet? It would be nice to see it done before he becomes Time Man of the Year or gets a nobel or something like that. When either one of those happens, this sorry article will have to be pretty badly rerwritten, that's all I can say. My colleague below from 173.72.148.17 has hit every nail on the head. Well, maybe not everyone -- there's Cherokee and Woodford and the end of the one year test of Rossi's 1 MW reactor in collaboration with Industrial Heat, a Tom Darden startup. All in all this article is still already three years out of date at least. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is totally out of date and so biased it is a joke. Rossi's work has now been replicated by two researchers and they are publishing their results. Brian Ahern and a public group of scientists are also working to replicate Rossi's Hot Cat and are having some success. Way to go Wikipedia on affirming your status as the authority on facts of the public domain, trivia and always five years behind the curve on new advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.148.172 ( talk) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No kidding, friend, can you say "out of date and so biased" that it borders on libel? -- 76.100.170.62 ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually pretty pleased to see we finally have an article on Andrea Rossi, and that someone's done a bit of the legwork on researching some of his past...projects.
One of the major arguments at Energy Catalyzer has been regarding how Wikipedia ought to present the device. There's a serious shortage of secondary and tertiary scientific sources there. Virtually all of the technical information comes from a few primary sources—either self-published material from Rossi himself, or limited 'demonstrations' conducted for small groups of handpicked journalists.
The effective outcome is that – since reliable scientific sources are lacking – the Energy Catalyzer is (by default) presented principally as a social and economic phenomenon; we have an article because it has been deemed marginally newsworthy (garnering close attention from one magazine, Ny Teknik, and occasional passing mention from other outlets). While this may be the correct tack to take, there has been the unfortunate side effect that our article has become more like a blog than an encyclopedia article; each new mention in the press (however trivial) generates a new sentence or two in the article. Moreover, an article that primarily covers Andrea Rossi's business and media dealings is misleadingly titled as an article about a device.
The presence of this biography finally offers a solution to the issues of undue weight and lack of reliable sources about the science of the Energy Catalyzer. Merging the essential content of Energy Catalyzer into this article would place it in the correct context, alongside Rossi's other inventions and business ventures. When devices are actually sold to the public, and scientific publications about its mechanism of operation are published, then it would be appropriate for us to create an article about the technical aspects of its operation. Until such time, we're left relying on self-published reports and speculation.
Would such a merge be challenging? Yes. We emphatically shouldn't try to copy everything from the other article here. We need to make careful judgements about what are the best sources, and we need to refrain from the kitchen-sink-daily-blog approach that has bloated the other article. What do people think of that approach? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed Italian physicists, as there's no evidence that he is a physicist. This is similar to category removal in the E-Cat. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My careful edits were immediately deleted. It's obvious to me whomever is doing this is totally biased against Andrea Rossi. I'd like to draw this to the attention of realistic editorial management. There are always two sides to a story. Print them both. The current article is very close if not legally slanderous. I would suggest to Wikipedia that this needs management. Solmil ( talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I realize this comment was made in 2011, but it is now 2015. This article is so deeply prejudicial in 2015 that it reflects badly on Wikipedia. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
These claims are now being validated all over the web, in case you are still stuck in 2011. Unfortunately this article as it stands is at this point in time borders on DEFAMATORY of Eng. Rossi. Let's update it. We could start by providing a link to some websites, such as http://www.ecatnews.net/, where his work is regularly discussed and the latest findings of LENR research covered in detail. Or how about this recent Huffington Post interview with Rossi: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html. This article need a serious facelift. It is totally out of date and exhibits the specious "skepticism" that has brought so much well justified criticism on Wikipedia. Maybe those editing this page should first spend a few hours at e-catnews.com before making any further edits. This is just common sense. Don't edit based on your prejudices - follow the most current scholarship and news on the topic. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What utter trash. You are completely biased. Not worth wasting my time. Solmil ( talk) 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Andy, even the role of the US nation is somewhat controversial since we got those informations from Snowden. WP:CRYSTALBALL; I didn´t thought that its possible to have secret US torture prisons in europe - and I have no clue how you got an expert for italian politics and society within 2 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.102.109 ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So do you know why he wasn't doing anything with it? Have you figured that part out yet? Do you know what real historians actually do? Not this kind of cheapshot that utterly fails to contextualize the events in question.
Just to be more precise I added the fact the Rossi was FULLY acquitted.
( "Perché il fatto non sussiste" it is an Italian legal formula which litterally means "because the fact did not occur" and in English is legally translate this: "because there is no case to answer", see here
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/italian_to_english/law_general/4568729-perch%C3%A9_il_fatto_non_sussiste.html )
--
79.16.129.215 (
talk)
18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I know that Wikipedia is not considered as "reliable source", but you can find more on the issue here (in Italian): Formula assolutoria.-- 79.24.132.162 ( talk) 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a link to a document issued by the University of Milan designating the degree obtained by Rossi as "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" (Master's degree in Philosophy). The degree was not issued cum laude. There is no mention of such thing as a Master's degree in "Philosophy of Science and Engineering" in that document, and possibly such a degree doesn't even exist in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 ( talk) 02:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, AndyTheGrump promptly undid my edit. Even though my source is a scan of an official document of the University of Milan. He didn't even bother commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like ask, what type of degree is it? I know its different in Europe (I'm American), but is it the equivalent of a masters? A doctorate? Bachelors? When I read it from an American perspective, because it specifically mentioning a thesis, I assumed it was a doctorate. However, in Europe I believe theses are much more common at the lower academic levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.51.137 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
on 8 october 2014 eight Swedish and Italian professors concluded a test of Rossi's ECAT, which completely vindicates Rossi and makes complete fools of his distractors. ECAT works and will produce a technological revolution. Mark my words!!! Of course Wikipedia can not take the forefront in this revolution.
Lignomontanus ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Right you are Lignomontanus. You wrote those words nearly a year ago and this article STILL fails to mention Lugano. This is pretty shameless in my view.-- BenJonson ( talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The current title is Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur), we don't seem to have a reference that labels him as an entrepreneur. Is there such a reliable source? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Precise information here:
-- Insilvis ( talk) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This web page http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossis-Italian-Financial-and-Environmental-Criminal-History.shtml should be investigated as a potential source of information for the article, in line with WP:BLP. Petecarney ( talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that such tests ever took place. If you look at the DOD report cited in the reference, you will find that the statement about testing by U of NH is entirely that of Rossi and his associates. I see no names from U of NH nor any officially derived evidence that they ever saw or tested any thermoelectric devices from Rossi. Rossi has often claimed associations with universities (Bologna and Upsala) which the universities officially denied later. He also claimed association with National Instruments which proved false as well as per an official statement from a company representative. I suspect that the claim that U of NH got specific high power test results on any thermoelectric device from Rossi is another lie. I could find no evidence anywhere that Rossi *ever* made *any* thermoelectric devices that worked. It is possible that DOD screwed the pooch on this project to the tune of more than 2 million dollars for which Rossi gave them absolutely nothing.
Note that Gary Wright has promised to release his findings about this from an inquiry about this under the Freedom of Information Act. See http://shutdownrossi.com/ for more details when Gary makes them available--supposedly soon (it's now May 27, 2013). Maryyugo ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Petroldragon is mainly known for the legal problems. It was a huge issue in Italy. To not mention this would be a misrepresentation- It would be like saying Eron was an energy company and leaving it at that. Bhny ( talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added a notice here [ [5]] to get further input Bhny ( talk) 22:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
User:LFaraone has just posted an OTRS ticket template at the top of this page [10] - I have asked for an explanation as to its significance, [11] as without such an explanation, it is difficult to see the purpose of doing so. It certainly cannot be taken as any sort of indication from the WMF that anything should or shouldn't be done regarding article content - indeed we have no way of knowing whether it is actually of relevance at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur), English Wikipedia should absolutely have an article about Petroldragon rather than a redirect. There is an extensive article in Italian Wikipedia: it:Petroldragon. The material that we used to have in English was never more than 2.5 kilobytes (small), and it was transferred to the Rossi biography. The Petroldragon article was turned into a redirect on 4 November 2011, 5 November 2011, 7 November 2011, 10 November 2011, and 16 November 2011 (an IP editor from North Holland kept restoring it.)
The company meets WP:GNG because of the many Italian news reports about its failure, the state of emergency declared in Lombardy because of all the toxic waste from Petroldragon, because of the prominent court cases, and because of the costly and widespread cleanup effort. Binksternet ( talk) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
At present the article states that Rossi has been convicted of 5 charges related to tax fraud. Our source for that is New Energy Times. I gather that a number of editors don’t much care for New Energy Times:
“New Energy Times, again, is not a reliable source” – Arthur Rubin
“using "New Energy Times" as a source for anything is something to be laughed at” – Arthur Rubin
“I do think that if someone is published in New Energy Times, it is more likely than not that he/she is either a pseudoscientist or a fraud” – Arthur Rubin
“The new energy times does not look like a reliable source, why are we using it?” – IRWolfie
“among these sources there should not be a self-published blog, named NEW ENERGY TIMES, by Steven Krivit. It is absolutely nonsensical” – 79.24.134.75
“This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source” – IRWolfie
“new energy times, which is frequently accused of not being reliable” – POVbrigand
“New Energy Times is a load of crap” – me
While I appreciate the irony of using a pseudoscience magazine against a pseudoscientist, I think it would be wise to get a reliable source to support the claim that Rossi was convicted of five charges. After reading this [ [14]] (and laughing hysterically) it occurred to me that such a contentious part of Rossi’s article should be better sourced. So after searching the internet and then searching the internet with the aid of Google translate I have found absolutely nothing useful.
So if anyone has any ideas or knows Italian please speak up. It would be a shame if Rossi sued Wikipedia and won because our source was unreliable. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
After running it through Google translate and Bing translator I think you might be right about Italian Wikipedia’s source. If Rossi himself said he was convicted five times then he can hardly sue Wikipedia for agreeing with him. What I don’t understand is what the translators are translating as “prescriptions”. It almost sounds like Rossi’s legal troubles are still ongoing in Italy.
So, what do you think of changing the article to “Andrea Rossi (Criminal)” or “Andrea Rossi (Pseudoscientist)”? Petroldragon was a criminal enterprise and not really a business, so calling Rossi an entrepreneur seems a little odd. It’s like “Al Capone (business man)”. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, don’t be such a grump. It wouldn’t be inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies on disambiguation to refer to him in such a way. In Italy he’s primarily known for the Petroldragon debacle and the fact that the government had to clean up his mess, while in America he’s primarily known for his pseudoscientific activities related to the e-cat. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Though I was being glib about it, it was a serious suggestion Andy. If we’ve already established that Rossi’s a criminal it wouldn’t be a problem to describe him as such for purposes of disambiguation. WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit us from calling someone a criminal after they’ve been convicted. That said, I can see now that I won’t likely achieve consensus on this issue so I’ll let it drop……for now. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Are these "five convictions" just the minor fines that have been paid? According to the Prosecutor's office at the Court of Rome, Rossi has no history of criminal charges pending and the statement showing this is signed and certified. [1] Also noted in the Andrea Rossi pages, the reference to the facts are that he has been acquitted of all charges [2] The statements should be removed, at the very least until it can be determined what is being referred to. JFK Tesla ( talk) 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)(UTC)
References
I am looking to post some changes using the www.forbes.com article Independent Testing of Rossi E-Cat If these articles present Rossi in a positive light, it is because the source quoted does likewise. 'Taking sides' is irrelevant here - what we should do is report what the sources say - which is that Rossi has reliable sources NOW including the late Professor Focardi and ELFORSK and a history that includes validation of his invention, so the ball is in our court to allow people to know how to verify these assertions, and refer to the positive contributions that Rossi is committed to making. The OTRS agent who recently reviewed the ticket wants to make sure that editors are aware that there is non-public discussion occurring about the article. In this case, we should review new proposals rather than blindly erasing changes or contradicting alternative opinions. His concern is that people are stating to Wikipedia that "the article focuses too much on the negative side of events, portraying the subject in an overly negative light." ( ref:Legoktm ) Thanks in advance guys! JFK Tesla ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Lugano report
on 8 october 2014 eight Swedish and Italian professors concluded a test of Rossi's ECAT, which completely vindicates Rossi and makes complete fools of his distractors. ECAT works and will produce a technological revolution. Mark my words!!! Of course Wikipedia can not take the forefront in this revolution.
Lignomontanus (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lignomontanus ( talk • contribs)
New Energy Times is the source of the "five convictions related to tax fraud" information. As already discussed, New Energy Times is not a reliable source. If there is not a reliable source about these purported convitions, then this information has to be removed because it is unsupported by a reliable source.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This article:
states that Rossi has been acquitted from some accusations and that some other accusations are still pending, and does not talk about convictions. So it is unproper to use this source in the lede in order to support the statement that Rossi is a "fraudster".-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 10:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a well established fact, but when I added it to this article, including a link to the original press release from Darden's company, the edit was immediately reverted with a hostile comment about the generic insufficiency of press releases. There was no offering as to the substance of the problem. Multiple other online sources document the same situation. Rossi has now worked for more than seven months as lead R&D researcher for continued development of the e-cat under Darden's auspices. Yet NONE of this is reflected in the current form of the article. What gives?-- BenJonson ( talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Ronz, but that's not good enough. This article as presently constitutes presents Rossi as an unreformed fraudster. One of the most significant recent developments contradicting this dominant image is the fact that one of the most successful eco-entrepreneurs in the world, Tom Darden, paid an estimated 12 million for rights to his technology and that since then, as reported in numerous third party reports, Rossi has been engaged in a year-long test of a 1 MW (that's big!) E-cat in an industrial setting. In 2013 -- in another major development two years old but NOT EVEN MENTIONED in this article, a group of independent physicists worked for weeks to validate Rossi's results, and did so. This is the so-called Lugano Report ( http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/10/lugano-report-now-published-in-univ-of-bolognas-ams-acta-digital-library/). As I stated in other comments, this article is grossly out of date and simply not keeping pace with numerous third party reports about the development of the e-cat. As for the objection to a press release as a form of documentary evidence, there are many -- probably dozens of news reports covering the fact of the forming of Industrial Heat with Darden's backing. The company has been conducting well known r & d since then about which Rossi and Darden have both spoken in public. There is really no reasonable question about at least the general dimensions of the present situation, and yet when one tries to update a wikipedia page, one gets slapped for it. Not good. One of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia is that so-called "Skeptics" feel empowered to revert contributions made by persons who know more about a topic than they do. Rather than reversion, why not ask for different or better documentation?
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/tom-darden-reveals-why-he-backed-rossi http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html http://revolution-green.com/tom-darden-man-behind-rossi/ http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.htmlhttp://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html
Even *Fortune* magazine has covered this: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/27/tom-darden-on-lenr-interview-in-fortune-magazine/comment-page-1/
BenJonson ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. You're a real skeptic - do you even know the names and reputations of those swedish scientists? And whether you think they are "independent" or not, the Lugano report of 2013 is a FACT relevant to Rossi's biography. And yet it is still not mentioned in his bio. Talking to you it becomes pretty clear why. In the future, I'll leave the editing to really smart people like you, sit back, and enjoy watching you squirm out of your own documented positions, as "time brings in the whirligig of his revenges," to cite Feste from 12th Night. It's all yours. And that means you really own it. I tried, was reverted, and then filibustered by someone pretending to be an encyclopedia editor but really was someone just defending territory.-- BenJonson ( talk) 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this edit as the typical WP:SOAP- and WP:FRINGE-violating expansion that I thought we were past. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have checked the source located here, mentioning a different person name Nicolas Vaud Chauvin, which is a wrong source. Subsequently, i have found a correct source located in the same website here. It matches correct patent info. I'd like to replace the existing source with correct one. Erik Gatenholm ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I've debulked the negative BLP parts of the article. The lead contained statements not supported by the sources. Some sources I cannot read. This content must not be readded without high quality RS, preferably form more than one high quality reliable source.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: misleading descriptions of acquitted charges |
This article is the subject of a request emailed to the
Volunteer Response Team (VRT). Issues identified are: March 2019 requests; directed to post to talk page |
Has anybody else worked out that all articles relating to Mr Rossi or allied subjects seem to carry very many edits from an IP Address belonging to a DHCP pool in Bologna. That's Bologna as in the city Mr Rossi's current enterprise is operating in. The same Rossi who has faced legal challenges for < redacted - ATG>....... This article is legitimising and enabling < redacted - ATG > and reflects badly on Wikipedia. But hey, the David Icke page has been nominated for excellence so......
Have determined Engineer Rossi's notability yet? It would be nice to see it done before he becomes Time Man of the Year or gets a nobel or something like that. When either one of those happens, this sorry article will have to be pretty badly rerwritten, that's all I can say. My colleague below from 173.72.148.17 has hit every nail on the head. Well, maybe not everyone -- there's Cherokee and Woodford and the end of the one year test of Rossi's 1 MW reactor in collaboration with Industrial Heat, a Tom Darden startup. All in all this article is still already three years out of date at least. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This article is totally out of date and so biased it is a joke. Rossi's work has now been replicated by two researchers and they are publishing their results. Brian Ahern and a public group of scientists are also working to replicate Rossi's Hot Cat and are having some success. Way to go Wikipedia on affirming your status as the authority on facts of the public domain, trivia and always five years behind the curve on new advances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.148.172 ( talk) 02:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
No kidding, friend, can you say "out of date and so biased" that it borders on libel? -- 76.100.170.62 ( talk) 10:57, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually pretty pleased to see we finally have an article on Andrea Rossi, and that someone's done a bit of the legwork on researching some of his past...projects.
One of the major arguments at Energy Catalyzer has been regarding how Wikipedia ought to present the device. There's a serious shortage of secondary and tertiary scientific sources there. Virtually all of the technical information comes from a few primary sources—either self-published material from Rossi himself, or limited 'demonstrations' conducted for small groups of handpicked journalists.
The effective outcome is that – since reliable scientific sources are lacking – the Energy Catalyzer is (by default) presented principally as a social and economic phenomenon; we have an article because it has been deemed marginally newsworthy (garnering close attention from one magazine, Ny Teknik, and occasional passing mention from other outlets). While this may be the correct tack to take, there has been the unfortunate side effect that our article has become more like a blog than an encyclopedia article; each new mention in the press (however trivial) generates a new sentence or two in the article. Moreover, an article that primarily covers Andrea Rossi's business and media dealings is misleadingly titled as an article about a device.
The presence of this biography finally offers a solution to the issues of undue weight and lack of reliable sources about the science of the Energy Catalyzer. Merging the essential content of Energy Catalyzer into this article would place it in the correct context, alongside Rossi's other inventions and business ventures. When devices are actually sold to the public, and scientific publications about its mechanism of operation are published, then it would be appropriate for us to create an article about the technical aspects of its operation. Until such time, we're left relying on self-published reports and speculation.
Would such a merge be challenging? Yes. We emphatically shouldn't try to copy everything from the other article here. We need to make careful judgements about what are the best sources, and we need to refrain from the kitchen-sink-daily-blog approach that has bloated the other article. What do people think of that approach? TenOfAllTrades( talk) 14:22, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
I removed Italian physicists, as there's no evidence that he is a physicist. This is similar to category removal in the E-Cat. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
My careful edits were immediately deleted. It's obvious to me whomever is doing this is totally biased against Andrea Rossi. I'd like to draw this to the attention of realistic editorial management. There are always two sides to a story. Print them both. The current article is very close if not legally slanderous. I would suggest to Wikipedia that this needs management. Solmil ( talk) 05:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Huh? I realize this comment was made in 2011, but it is now 2015. This article is so deeply prejudicial in 2015 that it reflects badly on Wikipedia. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
These claims are now being validated all over the web, in case you are still stuck in 2011. Unfortunately this article as it stands is at this point in time borders on DEFAMATORY of Eng. Rossi. Let's update it. We could start by providing a link to some websites, such as http://www.ecatnews.net/, where his work is regularly discussed and the latest findings of LENR research covered in detail. Or how about this recent Huffington Post interview with Rossi: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.html. This article need a serious facelift. It is totally out of date and exhibits the specious "skepticism" that has brought so much well justified criticism on Wikipedia. Maybe those editing this page should first spend a few hours at e-catnews.com before making any further edits. This is just common sense. Don't edit based on your prejudices - follow the most current scholarship and news on the topic. -- BenJonson ( talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
What utter trash. You are completely biased. Not worth wasting my time. Solmil ( talk) 11:39, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Dear Andy, even the role of the US nation is somewhat controversial since we got those informations from Snowden. WP:CRYSTALBALL; I didn´t thought that its possible to have secret US torture prisons in europe - and I have no clue how you got an expert for italian politics and society within 2 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.96.102.109 ( talk) 21:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
So do you know why he wasn't doing anything with it? Have you figured that part out yet? Do you know what real historians actually do? Not this kind of cheapshot that utterly fails to contextualize the events in question.
Just to be more precise I added the fact the Rossi was FULLY acquitted.
( "Perché il fatto non sussiste" it is an Italian legal formula which litterally means "because the fact did not occur" and in English is legally translate this: "because there is no case to answer", see here
http://www.proz.com/kudoz/italian_to_english/law_general/4568729-perch%C3%A9_il_fatto_non_sussiste.html )
--
79.16.129.215 (
talk)
18:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Andy, I know that Wikipedia is not considered as "reliable source", but you can find more on the issue here (in Italian): Formula assolutoria.-- 79.24.132.162 ( talk) 16:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
I have added a link to a document issued by the University of Milan designating the degree obtained by Rossi as "Dottore Magistrale in Filosofia" (Master's degree in Philosophy). The degree was not issued cum laude. There is no mention of such thing as a Master's degree in "Philosophy of Science and Engineering" in that document, and possibly such a degree doesn't even exist in Italy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 ( talk) 02:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, AndyTheGrump promptly undid my edit. Even though my source is a scan of an official document of the University of Milan. He didn't even bother commenting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 ( talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like ask, what type of degree is it? I know its different in Europe (I'm American), but is it the equivalent of a masters? A doctorate? Bachelors? When I read it from an American perspective, because it specifically mentioning a thesis, I assumed it was a doctorate. However, in Europe I believe theses are much more common at the lower academic levels? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.238.51.137 ( talk) 15:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
on 8 october 2014 eight Swedish and Italian professors concluded a test of Rossi's ECAT, which completely vindicates Rossi and makes complete fools of his distractors. ECAT works and will produce a technological revolution. Mark my words!!! Of course Wikipedia can not take the forefront in this revolution.
Lignomontanus ( talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Right you are Lignomontanus. You wrote those words nearly a year ago and this article STILL fails to mention Lugano. This is pretty shameless in my view.-- BenJonson ( talk) 00:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The current title is Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur), we don't seem to have a reference that labels him as an entrepreneur. Is there such a reliable source? IRWolfie- ( talk) 13:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Precise information here:
-- Insilvis ( talk) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
This web page http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/RossiECat/Rossis-Italian-Financial-and-Environmental-Criminal-History.shtml should be investigated as a potential source of information for the article, in line with WP:BLP. Petecarney ( talk) 09:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
I can find no evidence that such tests ever took place. If you look at the DOD report cited in the reference, you will find that the statement about testing by U of NH is entirely that of Rossi and his associates. I see no names from U of NH nor any officially derived evidence that they ever saw or tested any thermoelectric devices from Rossi. Rossi has often claimed associations with universities (Bologna and Upsala) which the universities officially denied later. He also claimed association with National Instruments which proved false as well as per an official statement from a company representative. I suspect that the claim that U of NH got specific high power test results on any thermoelectric device from Rossi is another lie. I could find no evidence anywhere that Rossi *ever* made *any* thermoelectric devices that worked. It is possible that DOD screwed the pooch on this project to the tune of more than 2 million dollars for which Rossi gave them absolutely nothing.
Note that Gary Wright has promised to release his findings about this from an inquiry about this under the Freedom of Information Act. See http://shutdownrossi.com/ for more details when Gary makes them available--supposedly soon (it's now May 27, 2013). Maryyugo ( talk) 18:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
Petroldragon is mainly known for the legal problems. It was a huge issue in Italy. To not mention this would be a misrepresentation- It would be like saying Eron was an energy company and leaving it at that. Bhny ( talk) 21:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I've added a notice here [ [5]] to get further input Bhny ( talk) 22:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
User:LFaraone has just posted an OTRS ticket template at the top of this page [10] - I have asked for an explanation as to its significance, [11] as without such an explanation, it is difficult to see the purpose of doing so. It certainly cannot be taken as any sort of indication from the WMF that anything should or shouldn't be done regarding article content - indeed we have no way of knowing whether it is actually of relevance at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:57, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur), English Wikipedia should absolutely have an article about Petroldragon rather than a redirect. There is an extensive article in Italian Wikipedia: it:Petroldragon. The material that we used to have in English was never more than 2.5 kilobytes (small), and it was transferred to the Rossi biography. The Petroldragon article was turned into a redirect on 4 November 2011, 5 November 2011, 7 November 2011, 10 November 2011, and 16 November 2011 (an IP editor from North Holland kept restoring it.)
The company meets WP:GNG because of the many Italian news reports about its failure, the state of emergency declared in Lombardy because of all the toxic waste from Petroldragon, because of the prominent court cases, and because of the costly and widespread cleanup effort. Binksternet ( talk) 13:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
At present the article states that Rossi has been convicted of 5 charges related to tax fraud. Our source for that is New Energy Times. I gather that a number of editors don’t much care for New Energy Times:
“New Energy Times, again, is not a reliable source” – Arthur Rubin
“using "New Energy Times" as a source for anything is something to be laughed at” – Arthur Rubin
“I do think that if someone is published in New Energy Times, it is more likely than not that he/she is either a pseudoscientist or a fraud” – Arthur Rubin
“The new energy times does not look like a reliable source, why are we using it?” – IRWolfie
“among these sources there should not be a self-published blog, named NEW ENERGY TIMES, by Steven Krivit. It is absolutely nonsensical” – 79.24.134.75
“This article should not be using the unreliable New Energy Times as a source” – IRWolfie
“new energy times, which is frequently accused of not being reliable” – POVbrigand
“New Energy Times is a load of crap” – me
While I appreciate the irony of using a pseudoscience magazine against a pseudoscientist, I think it would be wise to get a reliable source to support the claim that Rossi was convicted of five charges. After reading this [ [14]] (and laughing hysterically) it occurred to me that such a contentious part of Rossi’s article should be better sourced. So after searching the internet and then searching the internet with the aid of Google translate I have found absolutely nothing useful.
So if anyone has any ideas or knows Italian please speak up. It would be a shame if Rossi sued Wikipedia and won because our source was unreliable. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
After running it through Google translate and Bing translator I think you might be right about Italian Wikipedia’s source. If Rossi himself said he was convicted five times then he can hardly sue Wikipedia for agreeing with him. What I don’t understand is what the translators are translating as “prescriptions”. It almost sounds like Rossi’s legal troubles are still ongoing in Italy.
So, what do you think of changing the article to “Andrea Rossi (Criminal)” or “Andrea Rossi (Pseudoscientist)”? Petroldragon was a criminal enterprise and not really a business, so calling Rossi an entrepreneur seems a little odd. It’s like “Al Capone (business man)”. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 16:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh, don’t be such a grump. It wouldn’t be inconsistent with Wikipedia’s policies on disambiguation to refer to him in such a way. In Italy he’s primarily known for the Petroldragon debacle and the fact that the government had to clean up his mess, while in America he’s primarily known for his pseudoscientific activities related to the e-cat. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 17:08, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Though I was being glib about it, it was a serious suggestion Andy. If we’ve already established that Rossi’s a criminal it wouldn’t be a problem to describe him as such for purposes of disambiguation. WP:BLPCRIME does not prohibit us from calling someone a criminal after they’ve been convicted. That said, I can see now that I won’t likely achieve consensus on this issue so I’ll let it drop……for now. 68.74.163.157 ( talk) 17:27, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Are these "five convictions" just the minor fines that have been paid? According to the Prosecutor's office at the Court of Rome, Rossi has no history of criminal charges pending and the statement showing this is signed and certified. [1] Also noted in the Andrea Rossi pages, the reference to the facts are that he has been acquitted of all charges [2] The statements should be removed, at the very least until it can be determined what is being referred to. JFK Tesla ( talk) 21:59, 19 June 2013 (UTC)(UTC)
References
I am looking to post some changes using the www.forbes.com article Independent Testing of Rossi E-Cat If these articles present Rossi in a positive light, it is because the source quoted does likewise. 'Taking sides' is irrelevant here - what we should do is report what the sources say - which is that Rossi has reliable sources NOW including the late Professor Focardi and ELFORSK and a history that includes validation of his invention, so the ball is in our court to allow people to know how to verify these assertions, and refer to the positive contributions that Rossi is committed to making. The OTRS agent who recently reviewed the ticket wants to make sure that editors are aware that there is non-public discussion occurring about the article. In this case, we should review new proposals rather than blindly erasing changes or contradicting alternative opinions. His concern is that people are stating to Wikipedia that "the article focuses too much on the negative side of events, portraying the subject in an overly negative light." ( ref:Legoktm ) Thanks in advance guys! JFK Tesla ( talk) 20:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
Lugano report
on 8 october 2014 eight Swedish and Italian professors concluded a test of Rossi's ECAT, which completely vindicates Rossi and makes complete fools of his distractors. ECAT works and will produce a technological revolution. Mark my words!!! Of course Wikipedia can not take the forefront in this revolution.
Lignomontanus (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lignomontanus ( talk • contribs)
New Energy Times is the source of the "five convictions related to tax fraud" information. As already discussed, New Energy Times is not a reliable source. If there is not a reliable source about these purported convitions, then this information has to be removed because it is unsupported by a reliable source.-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
This article:
states that Rossi has been acquitted from some accusations and that some other accusations are still pending, and does not talk about convictions. So it is unproper to use this source in the lede in order to support the statement that Rossi is a "fraudster".-- NUMB3RN7NE ( talk) 10:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
This is a well established fact, but when I added it to this article, including a link to the original press release from Darden's company, the edit was immediately reverted with a hostile comment about the generic insufficiency of press releases. There was no offering as to the substance of the problem. Multiple other online sources document the same situation. Rossi has now worked for more than seven months as lead R&D researcher for continued development of the e-cat under Darden's auspices. Yet NONE of this is reflected in the current form of the article. What gives?-- BenJonson ( talk) 00:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, Ronz, but that's not good enough. This article as presently constitutes presents Rossi as an unreformed fraudster. One of the most significant recent developments contradicting this dominant image is the fact that one of the most successful eco-entrepreneurs in the world, Tom Darden, paid an estimated 12 million for rights to his technology and that since then, as reported in numerous third party reports, Rossi has been engaged in a year-long test of a 1 MW (that's big!) E-cat in an industrial setting. In 2013 -- in another major development two years old but NOT EVEN MENTIONED in this article, a group of independent physicists worked for weeks to validate Rossi's results, and did so. This is the so-called Lugano Report ( http://www.e-catworld.com/2014/11/10/lugano-report-now-published-in-univ-of-bolognas-ams-acta-digital-library/). As I stated in other comments, this article is grossly out of date and simply not keeping pace with numerous third party reports about the development of the e-cat. As for the objection to a press release as a form of documentary evidence, there are many -- probably dozens of news reports covering the fact of the forming of Industrial Heat with Darden's backing. The company has been conducting well known r & d since then about which Rossi and Darden have both spoken in public. There is really no reasonable question about at least the general dimensions of the present situation, and yet when one tries to update a wikipedia page, one gets slapped for it. Not good. One of the things that is wrong with Wikipedia is that so-called "Skeptics" feel empowered to revert contributions made by persons who know more about a topic than they do. Rather than reversion, why not ask for different or better documentation?
http://coldfusion3.com/blog/tom-darden-reveals-why-he-backed-rossi http://www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/DardenInterview.pdf http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2014/10/raleigh-investor-darden-still-bullish-on.html http://revolution-green.com/tom-darden-man-behind-rossi/ http://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-h-bailey/interview-with-andrea-ros_b_8248624.htmlhttp://www.bizjournals.com/triangle/blog/techflash/2015/04/darden-cold-fusion-focused-industrial-heat-showing.html
Even *Fortune* magazine has covered this: http://www.e-catworld.com/2015/09/27/tom-darden-on-lenr-interview-in-fortune-magazine/comment-page-1/
BenJonson ( talk) 12:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Wow. You're a real skeptic - do you even know the names and reputations of those swedish scientists? And whether you think they are "independent" or not, the Lugano report of 2013 is a FACT relevant to Rossi's biography. And yet it is still not mentioned in his bio. Talking to you it becomes pretty clear why. In the future, I'll leave the editing to really smart people like you, sit back, and enjoy watching you squirm out of your own documented positions, as "time brings in the whirligig of his revenges," to cite Feste from 12th Night. It's all yours. And that means you really own it. I tried, was reverted, and then filibustered by someone pretending to be an encyclopedia editor but really was someone just defending territory.-- BenJonson ( talk) 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
I reverted this edit as the typical WP:SOAP- and WP:FRINGE-violating expansion that I thought we were past. -- Ronz ( talk) 15:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I have checked the source located here, mentioning a different person name Nicolas Vaud Chauvin, which is a wrong source. Subsequently, i have found a correct source located in the same website here. It matches correct patent info. I'd like to replace the existing source with correct one. Erik Gatenholm ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I've debulked the negative BLP parts of the article. The lead contained statements not supported by the sources. Some sources I cannot read. This content must not be readded without high quality RS, preferably form more than one high quality reliable source.-- Dlohcierekim ( talk) 20:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)