Talk:Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)

Untitled

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......

I have redacted part of your comment. Please do not post personal attacks on talk pages: WP:BLP etc applies here too. While it may be legitimate to ask about the neutrality of contributors, that isn't an appropriate way to do it. For what it's worth, I can see no justification for this article - Rossi is only notable (if at all) for the E-Cat, and doesn't need a separate biography. Or if he does, it needs to be properly sourced, from third party reliable sources, rather than from material generated by Rossi himself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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 All in all this article is still already three years out of date at least.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This article is totally out of date and so biased it is a joke.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No kidding, friend, can you say "out of date and so biased" that it borders on libel?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)

Merge from Energy Catalyzer

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)

Sounds good to me. But I probably would have !voted delete at the AfD.

And, no, I can't help. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed "Italian physicists"

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)

I tried making this article more balanced

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)

There's nothing favorable said about Rossi in a reliable source. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:16, 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)

Whether Rossi himself or you is the author of that material, it cannot be used, even as an external link. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

There is nothing 'slanderous' in reporting facts. As Rossi himself has acknowledged, incidents in his past may make people sceptical about his actions. As long as he continues to make implausible claims regarding his inventions, while refusing to allow independent scientific verification, it is entirely reasonable to draw attention to the fact that similar claims he has made in the past have led to legal actions, to failure, and to serious pollution problems, rather than to the marvels he promises. If our article presents Rossi in a negative light, it is because the sources we use do likewise. 'Taking sides' is irrelevant here - what we should do is report what the sources say - which is that Rossi has a questionable past, and a history of failed 'inventions'. Of course, he could be entirely correct regarding the capabilities of the E-Cat - but the ball is in his court, and as long as he continues to make unverifiable assertions, people are entitled to refer to his murky past record. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:47, 13 December 2011 (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)

Let's look at the website you claim adds 'balance': [1]

• It states that it is "© 2010 Andrea Rossi" - hardly a neutral source for anything.

• It states that Rossi studied at "Kensington's university" - which has been shown to be a discredited diploma mill.

• It makes a great number of assertions about the success of the PetrolDragon venture, but provides no verifiable sources whatsoever to back this up.

• It accuses the Italian state of being an "an accomplice in a conspiracy 'criminal association'", apparently for enforcing environmental regulations, and for collecting legitimate taxes, and goes on to make further wild claims about smear campaigns, and with "the Camorra organizations" and pretty well everyone else being involved in a conspiracy against him - again with no sources whatsoever.

Solmile: You Say, "What utter trash. You are completely biased. Not worth wasting my time." After this you go one for several lines to tell me in greater detail why you won't waste your time on me. Ever look in a mirror sometime? What I find really interesting is the way that you feel the need to launch a personal attack on me as someone "completely biased." That was totally uncalled for, and is an excellent example of why Wikipedia has a got problem with driving smart people away from it so that the dumb can lead the blind more effectively. Attacking someone who offers to help update a Wikipedia page that includes almost none of the real events that have taken place in the subject's life over the last five or six years for their "bias" when you don't know anything about them and have not made an serious effort to investigate the contemporary news stream about LENR and Rossi, is not a way to build a community involved in writing an encyclopedia.

Knowledge changes. It is changing right now. I came on saying "These claims are now being validated all over the web," and suggested the page be updated to include that new data as it has come in. That was true when I made my comment before, and its more true now: http://www.e-catworld.com/2016/03/29/e-cat-1mw-plant-test-results-watch-thread/. I wonder what will happen when the 350 day test report of Rossi's I MW reactor is finally released? My guess is that if it says that Rossi has been conning all along, then it will be judged an "R.S." -- but that if -- as presently seems much more likely -- it knocks the socks off saying that Rossi's reactor burned at an average cop of 20-21 for extended periods, then I'm pretty sure you guys will start jabbering about not being R.S. because its not a signed affidavit in triplicate delivered express to Wikipedia Central.--BenJonson (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

The whole thing looks like unverifiable spin. Some of it might be true - but there is no reason whatsoever why anyone should treat it as anything more than an attempt to shift the blame for the PetrolDragon failure onto others, given the complete lack of verifiable evidence. If it could be shown for sure to have been written by Rossi it might be valid as a source for his opinions - but it certainly cannot be cited for factual content. Wikipedia bases articles on reliable secondary sources, and not on the unsubstantiated claims of involved persons. Presenting such material as a 'balance' against material from other, more credible, sources is untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Solmile -- the problem with your entire approach to this question is that you don't even know enough to ask the right questions.

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)

FWIW, I checked factiva for mentions of Rossi and Petroldragon and the media reports I found didn't correspond with what Rossi's website states - by all accounts he was being paid to take toxic waste by companies, but didn't do anything with it. I also couldn't find anything which could be used to provide more balance to this article either. SmartSE (talk) 16:18, 13 December 2011 (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)

And I've removed this, because it is an unsourced assertion. In fact the source cited [2] doesn't even seem to support the claim that Rossi was acquitted of all charges (though I'm relying on Google Translate). This needs further research, but a statement by Rossi himself - on the New Energy Times website seems to suggest that he wasn't: "Of all 56 prosecutions, the ones which led to imprisonment ended with acquittals; only 5 of the prosecutions for tax crime ended with convictions (with some custody imprisonments). All of the other prosecutions ended with acquittal or for statute of limitation". [3] Though we wouldn't normally treat NET as a reliable source, I'd have though that we can assume that a statement by Rossi that he was convicted (and served time in jail) for "tax crime" is reliable enough. The simple statement in the article that he was 'acquitted' is in consequence unsustainable, and needs revision. Ideally though, we should find an independent source that actually tells us what the original charges were, and what the final outcome was for each charge. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No Andy, you are wrong on this issue. The other processes are related to fiscal problems that were consequential to the stop of the activity, i.e. the other processes are not directly related to waste or toxic waste. And the incarceration was "incarcerazione preventiva", i.e. incarceration without trial. When the trial was done, he was acquitted. What I specified is very important: "assolto perché il fatto non sussiste" is the MAXIMUM kind of acquittal you can obtain, it means that you are innoncent BECAUSE THE FACT TO SENTENCE DID NOT EXIST: in other words, the justice certified that no crime existed at all. It's like if in a murder trial the judge says that you are innocent because there was not murder indeed. Read the source (i.e. the Corriere della Sera article):
Assoluzione «perché il fatto non sussiste» per Andrea Rossi, accusato di associazione a delinquere finalizzata al riciclaggio di rifiuti tossici e nocivi
( http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2004/novembre/27/Riciclaggio_rifiuti_tossici_Assolto_Andrea_co_7_041127020.shtml ).
I am not telling you bullshits.--79.24.132.162 (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That article is actually quite clear as the other user here states. if AndyTheGrump can't understand italian it is not an excuse to not accept it as source or to refuse to write that Rossi has been acquitted from all charges related to pollution (the main reason why the whole Petroldragon legal issues even begun). --87.5.229.226 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You aren't providing a source for your assertions regarding Italian law. Wikipedia bases articles on sources, not on unsourced assertions. I note too that you seem to be ignoring Rossi's own statement regarding the issue. Even if Rossi was eventually acquitted of all the charges relating to environmental issues, he tells us that he was convicted of tax crimes in relation to the Petroldragon affair, and served time in jail because of it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to provide any source about it since this is not an article about the italian law. If you have any doubt or question on this matter just contact Rossi himself or someone from the italian press that can give you more insights. 87.8.235.192 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2013 (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)

Irrelevant. Even if it is correct that Rossi was acquitted on some of the charges, you have provided no source for an assertion that Rossi was acquitted for all of them. And Rossi himself says otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

As the other user said and as the article on the newspaper says: Rossi has been acquitted from all relevant charges ("associazione a delinquere finalizzata al riciclaggio di rifiuti tossici e nocivi" - "criminal association finalized to recycling toxic and dangerous wastes") and he has been acquitted with the formula "perché il fatto non sussiste" which rougly means "because the fact never happened". He has got a _fine_ for minor licensing and authorizations issues related to gathering waste and a judgment is still pending for "bancarotta fraudolenta" (financial issues: bankruptcy of Omar which went bankruptcy because of the legal issues that see him innocent so hardly his fault) where in first degree he has been found guilty (but in Italy you have 3 degrees before someone can say that you are guilty and it is not at all uncommon for the second or third degree to state otherwise). Rossi has been held 6 months in jail for the main issues that have now been cleared and found him not guilty. Beside _my_ consideration about the reasons of the bankruptcy of Omar and the 3 degree explanation all the rest is clearly written in the newspaper article that the other user linked here. --87.5.229.226 (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be saying that Rossi has been acquitted on all charges, is still waiting for a verdict for some, and fined anyway. That makes no sense at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:45, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Andy, this conversation illustrates very well why Wikipedia is incompetent to deal with authentically controversial issues involving such large questions as paradigm shifts. Anyone with half a mind as an editor could by this point in time proposed some language that would satisfy both sides in the discussion. But you are so sanctimoniously caught up your self identity as an expert, that you can't hear it when the real experts have something to say. Do you even read Italian?--BenJonson (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump i am just translating to you that article. If you don't believe me just ask someone you trust to make a decent translation of that page. Please note that that page is from 2004 so, by now, all the issues he had with the law are probably gone. Rossi clearly says that he has been acquitted from all the charges, if you have any proof that he isn't then write the sources here. 87.8.235.192 (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Rossi's academic degree

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)

See WP:RS: a scan of a document isn't a reliable source. We have no means whatsoever to ascertain whether it is genuine. I agree that, as with much else about Rossi's past, the exact details of his educational achievements are less-than-clear. We aren't going to make them any clearer by removing links to published sources, and replacing them with unpublished primary sources of unknown veracity. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. I agree that you have a point here. However the link that was there before didn't even mention the degree (well, perhaps I missed it, but it was a rather lengthy article). Also, most "secondary sources", and apparently Rossi himself, agree that the degree is a Philosophy degree and that no cum laude has been achieved by Rossi. Third, there is no university degree in "Philosopy of Science and Engineering" in Italy: that statement is totally implausible. Anyway, if that is Wikipedia's policy, I will not undo the undo of the undo... Sorry again for my intervention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.22.246 (talk) 02:35, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I finally solved the problem. Turns out that the old link (the one that I deleted) actually supports the new text (the text that I wrote). Actually the only mention of the degree is in a footnote (well, at the end of the article I mean) and it says "degree in Philosophy", also it provides a link pointing to the very same document that I linked. So my proposal is to keep the text that I wrote (no cum laude no Philosopy of Science and Engineering) and to put there the old link. Do you think that this would be OK? --89.154.22.246 (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks - yes, if that is what the source says, then our article should reflect it. Go ahead. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:49, 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)

A masters typically involves a thesis at some point. It's below a doctorate. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:06, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Rossi got the highest academic degree that was possible to obtain in Italy, see below. --Insilvis (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2012 (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)

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 reason why the Lugano report is not mentioned is probably that it has not been accepted by any peer-reviewed publication. And the reason why it has not been accepted by any publication is probably that the authors did nothing to rule out the possibility of fraud. They were merely there to observe Rossi manipulate the the experimental set-up, much like an audience watches a stage magician. However, they did make one measurement (current in the "C2" cables during the "dummy" run) that Rossi did not expect them to do and which actually proves that the electrical set-up was fraudulent.[4] This means that they could re-write their report to instead say that they have proof of fraud, but they have not done so. (The article on the Energy Catalyzer does mention the report, and also its rejection by the scientific community.) PeR (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

entrepreneur

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)

The fact that his group was awarded by the US govt with $ 4 249 269 for the development of his products is enough as reference?

http://www.nyteknik.se/nyheter/energi_miljo/energi/article3194216.ece Leonardo Technologies, Inc., web site, cited by Ny Teknik. Lti-global.com. Retrieved on 2011-07-10.

governmentcontractswon.com, Leonardo Technologies, Inc. (HC 331 Bannock, OH 43972-0178) 2008 Government Contracts Awarded to this Contractor/Location Defense Department.
Product/Service: RDTE/Energy - Applied Research.
Dollar Amount of Defense Contracts Awarded to this Contractor from 2000 to 2010: $ 4 249 269

--Insilvis (talk) 11:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Added them as references.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Neither of these sources call him an entrepreneur. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fixed.--NUMB3RN7NE (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Laurea status in Italy

Precise information here:

• http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Laurea#Former_status_of_the_Laurea_degree

--Insilvis (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

A section which has been unsourced for years is hardly convincing. Get a secondary source that says he has a doctoral advisor or remove the text. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You are out of the logic: check Fermi, Rubbia, etc... Moreover I AM ITALIAN and I know perfectly how the system worked.--Insilvis (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

You need a reliable source that says he has a doctoral advisor of that name. Otherwise it's unsourced original research. As it stands no source makes that claim. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Rossi's Italian Financial and Environmental Criminal History As Reported by Major Italian Newspapers (Allegedly)

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)

New Energy Times, again, is not a reliable source. However, if it really is in "Major Italian Newspapers", we could use them as references, even if not available online. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Alleged thermoelectric device tests by the University of New Hampshire

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)

Deleting it since there is no reference Bhny (talk) 19:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Petroldragon info being removed from lead

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)

This removal is a little puzzling and on several levels (in particular the implicit mention of OTRS in a way outside normal procedures). Also I think a translation of "Diversi arresti, cinque condanne alcune assoluzioni e diverse prescrizioni (pende ancora in appello il procedimento per il crack della sua “Petrol Dragon”)." [6] will prove fruitful. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

The "normal procedures" is to generally avoid bringing up specifics of communications (or initially that communications existed at all) if possible. The mention of OTRS was not implicit; actions taken tagged as OTRS should not be reverted without discussion beforehand.

I've added a relevant template to the article. While allegations of tax fraud and other crimes are interesting generally, in this case the subject was found not guilty of the crimes referenced. To discuss the allegations is misleading, especially in some of the more recent article revisions where the acquittal was not mentioned. The allegations did not appear to receive significant press coverage to be an important part of the subject's biography. LFaraone 23:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Source above says some of the charges are still in the appeals process. There are many sources about the Petroldragon issues (although in Italian). Removing all mention of it from the lead solely on the basis of an OTRS appears unjustified, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:03, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Since from my and others reading of the sources at hand, there seems to be some ambiguity as to what Rossi's actual current status is, I'll investigate further and post any more clear reliable sources on the subject, but I figure while such information is 1) disputed, 2) conflictingly reported by sources, it should be removed or at least discussed very carefully. At least, that's what WP:BLPCRIME indicates. LFaraone 00:04, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

What is "it"? Also note "For people who are relatively unknown, ...", Rossi is quite famous in Italy and beyond and there are a great many sources on this issue, IRWolfie- (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

As I understood it, Rossi has not been acquitted of all charges arising from the Petroldragon affair. The sources seem to say that he was acquitted on some of the more serious charges, but found guilty and fined for minor ones. It appears that there may also be charges outstanding. If this is not the case, can you please provide us with the necessary sources - i.e. ones that make the position clear regarding the current state of all charges relating to the Petroldragon affair. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

According to the Prosecutor's office at the Court of Rome, Rossi HAS been acquitted of all charges arising from the Petroldragon affair. As of 12 June 2013, according to the Prosecutors's office at the Court of Rome, the Chancellor of the Official Records, Armando Spina, states that Andrea Rossi has no criminal charges pending. [7] Also noted in the Andrea Rossi pages, the reference to the fact that he has been acquitted of all charges [8], is significant and should be considered with proper balance in public statements made about him. Even though he had significant if not monumental legal challenges, at the end of the saga he was shown to be 'not guilty' of ANY criminal activity. The verdict of 'not guilty', acquittal, and a certification of facts from the Prosecutor's office at the Court of Rome should be enough to remove the mention of Petroldragon from the lead statement of the Andrea Rossi Entrepreneur page. JFK Tesla (talk) 21:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Petroldragon should still appear in the lead section because of its very high prominence in Rossi's career. The status of his court cases does not change this. Binksternet (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

We cannot accept scanned documents as sources - though a statement that there were no charges outstanding wouldn't necessarily indicate that there had been no prior convictions anyway, as I see it. As for the link to Corriere Della Sera, we have already seen that - and it appears to state that Rossi was "sanctioned for minor events" (Going by Google translate - as I've stated several times, we need to get this properly translated) - this seems to accord with Rossi's own version of events: [9]. As for the suggestion that Rossi's acquittal would justify removal of mention of Petroldragon from the lead, that is frankly ridiculous. Rossi was deeply involved in a project that lead to serious pollution, costing a fortune to clean up. Any article on Rossi must discuss this, as a significant part of his life. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• LFaraone, Since you are quoting that dispute resolution policy, are you therefore claiming that this is an issue where "details and evidence are not accessible to all participants or to the community as a whole"? IRWolfie- (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

OTRS ticket

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)

See the discussion right above this one. Nobody asserted that it was an "indication from the WMF". If you have specific questions about the ticket, please feel free to ask an OTRS agent either privately or at the noticeboard, but this was added merely for informational purposes. I've also replied to the comment you left on my talk page. LFaraone 00:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The OTRS ticket template placed here on the article talk page appears to be intended to give a chilling effect. It makes more sense to me to place the template after some particular OTRS determination, not before. At that time the determination can be communicated. Binksternet (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yup - it looks that way to me too. I see no reason why we shouldn't ignore it entirely for the moment, and carry on as before discussing how best the article can cover the complexities of Rossi's career - which clearly includes covering his involvement with the Petroldragon affair, including the resulting environmental damage and legal repercussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:12, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

It was added specifically at the request of User:IRWolfie-. LFaraone 04:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Andrea Rossi himself involved in communications with OTRS? I would hate to see the article whitewashed in accordance with his wishes but against the many negative newspaper accounts about Petroldragon. Binksternet (talk) 04:25, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

No. Legoktm (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

He says his attorneys will contact wikipedia [12], and you are here. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Speaking as an OTRS agent who has reviewed the ticket, the intention of posting the ticket # is not to provide a "chilling effect", but merely make sure editors are aware that there is non-public discussion occurring about the article. In this case, we should aim to act a bit slower and more cautiously rather than blindly rush ahead.

As for the content of the ticket, it mainly is someone emailing that they believe the article focuses too much on the negative side of events, portraying the subject in an overly negative light. Legoktm (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

If all the e-mail is about is a 'belief', I have to ask why this couldn't have been handled in the normal way, by raising the matter here. Meanwhile, a question. At the time of this edit [13], had the e-mail been sent? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:37, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the Petroldragon sources? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Petroldragon article

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)

Five Convictions

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)

As has already been pointed out, the Italian Wikipedia has an article on the Petroldragon affair which appears to cite the necessary sources - what is needed is an Italian speaker to check through them and translate as necessary. As for the reliability of NET, personally I'd prefer that we didn't use it as a source, and I'm not convinced that we need to: the Italian Wikipedia cites Rossi directly for the assertion that he was acquitted of all but 5 of the 56 charges. [15]. I see no reason not to treat this as WP:RS under the circumstances, at least as an attributed statement. As for Rossi suing, he can hardly sue anyone for repeating something he himself has stated... AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:48, 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)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 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)

It would be a violation of WP:BLP policy - which incidentally applies on talk pages too. If you have no proposals regarding actual article content (which this clearly isn't) I suggest you find somewhere else to voice your opinions of Rossi. this is not a forum. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:13, 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)

He should be disambiguated based upon what he is most well known for. He is most well known for his businesses, not for crime.Martin451 (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

In Italy he is mostly known for his crimes. Outside of Italy he isn't notable. Also he doesn't have any businesses by most definitions of business. Bhny (talk) 21:33, 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. Also noted in the Andrea Rossi pages, the reference to the facts are that he has been acquitted of all charges 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

As I have already pointed out above, we don't cite scanned documents as sources - though 'no charges outstanding' doesn't mean 'no prior convictions' anyway. Rossi himself has stated that he was convicted on some charges - and if this resulted solely in 'minor fines', we have yet to be shown a source for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

huh? the ref doesn't say "acquitted of all charges" it actually says ... Rossi was finally sanctioned only for minor events related to non-compliance with the authorizations he had obtained for the disposal of waste. Appeal is still pending in the trial for fraudulent bankruptcy due to the collapse of Omar Bhny (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

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)

Good points, Tesla. Its a shame that so few here are listening to the substance of which you wrote. See my new comment below for how its working out. The prejudice runs deep, apparently.--BenJonson (talk) 00:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:FRINGE. And as for any OTRS ticket, I would be interested to learn how a new contributor, with no constructive edit history whatsoever, [16] could possibly be party to such discussions. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

WP : "Cold Fusion". You are right, Wikipedia does not blacklist "Cold Fusion" or updates from as recent as 2013! Here is the other link you asked for: RECENTISM " has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer." Affirmation! Anybody else? JFK Tesla (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about blacklists. WP:FRINGE however applies, is backed up by WP:PSCI policy, and in the case of the E-Cat, undoubtedly falls within the remit of Wikipedia:General sanctions as applied to pseudoscience. Unless and until the E-Cat (or the supposed science behind it) receives recognition in mainstream peer-reviewed scientific journals, it will be a violation of said policies to portray it as anything other than the fringe 'device' it clearly is. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:41, 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 not a reliable source

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)

There are a lot of sources on the Italian Petroldragon article.[17] Rossi admits to these five convictions on his person website.[18]. In Italy Rossi is known mainly for this "truffa" (scam). Bhny (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Unproper use of a source (Corriere della Sera)

This article:

• http://archiviostorico.corriere.it/2004/novembre/27/Riciclaggio_rifiuti_tossici_Assolto_Andrea_co_7_041127020.shtml

("Riciclaggio rifiuti tossici, assolto Andrea Rossi", English translation: "Toxic waste recycling, Andrea Rossi acquitted")

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)

Why Doesn't this article mention that Rossi's Technology Was Purchased by Darden Industries in 2014?

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)

Maybe because we have a separate article about the technology? Let me look over the edit summaries. --Ronz (talk) 01:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the concern was the use of a press release [19], unless there's another edit that I'm overlooking. Didn't we find some secondary, if local, sources that were being discussed for Energy Catalyzer? --Ronz (talk) 02:06, 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)

(ec) "Tom Darden, paid an estimated 12 million"—really? Not quite. All we really know for certain is that Tom Darden put $12 million dollars of his money into a company controlled by...Tom Darden. There's no information that Rossi received a single cent.

I was not attempting to document that fact, nor was I proposing that my specific words, written in currente calamo, were equitably for a wikipedia article. I was trying to engage a real discussion about an embarrassingly bad wikipedia article. --BenJonson (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"Well known R & D"—really? What have they spent money on? How many actual paid full-time employees have been hired? What equipment has been purchased? What scientific results have been published?

Why is that relevant? Is it Wikipedia policy to use this kind of petty filibustering in place of just agreeing to some accommodation so that the article can be rescued from its entirely out of date current state by acknowledging new developments in Rossi's biography. But perhaps seeing that the article still doesn't include the fact that Rossi when he was about 21 years old became a world record holder for the 24 hour run, I should expect less. This article is in this state one of those that leads University professors to prohibit their students from using wikipedia. Your absurd questions help to illustrate why.--BenJonson (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

"a group of independent physicists worked for weeks to validate Rossi's results, and did so"—really? Pretty sure they weren't really very independent, and even if they were this is the type of information that would be covered first in Energy Catalyzer, not this article.

"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"—really? Are those numerous reliable sources? Or just blogs, fringe papers, and the odd regurgitated press release on the edges of occasional more-reputable news outlets? (And it strikes me that a year-long test would be something to do after demonstrating conclusively that one had a device that worked properly for shorter periods.) And again, even if true, this is the type of information that would be covered first in Energy Catalyzer, not this article.

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)

Unfortunately, you're just repeating Rossi-related talking points that have already been hashed over multiple times on Talk:Energy Catalyzer. There's lots of claims being made by Rossi and friends, but very little reliable information. It would be a pointless duplication of effort to repeat the same discussions here, so I'm just going to encourage you to review the archives there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:21, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the "Lugano Report", I took the time this morning to read a good portion of it, and it wasn't terribly inspiring. Basically the researchers were given access to a lab containing two black boxes: one the reactor, the other the electrical controls for the heating elements inside the reactor. They were allowed to measure the wires between the boxes with current clamps and the temperature of the reactor (but without touching it), probe for radiation, and analyze the burned dust. Meanwhile Rossi himself was setting up the experiment, pushing the buttons, turning the knobs, and handling the samples. That's not what I'd call "independent". ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight: because you don't approve of the report, we should say it was not part of Rossi's biography like all the bad shit this article goes out of its way to lay almost exclusive emphasis on? I wonder why hundreds of informed internet readers do think that the report, whatever questions it may have left unanswered, was a significant historical event (its alleged or actual deficencies had been debated and discussed ad nauseum on multiple internet sites many months ago, which serves to confirm its importance, independently of any particular interpretation of the report's findings). What is wrong with letting wikipedia readers make up their own minds about the relevance of the report? Isn't that what NPOV means? --BenJonson (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about approval or disapproval. I just said I didn't find it terribly inspiring, and that I wouldn't count it as an "independent" verification. To me the relevant sentence in the article is, "Rossi claims that the device produces massive amounts of excess heat that can be used to produce electricity, but independent attempts to reproduce the effect have failed." Is that not correct? For the rest, I don't see the report saying much about Rossi himself, and since this article is about Rossi, I don't think that would be a good source for his biography. It would be very relevant at the E-cat article however. ~Awilley (talk) 06:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

A throw-away press release is not a useful source. The wording is lovely ("The world needs a new, clean and efficient energy source") but such releases should not be used to pad out articles as they say nothing about long term significance. What is needed is an independent secondary source with an analysis showing what acquiring "significant rights" means—is it an accounting exercise, or a gamble, or was it done in the belief that the magic box works? Johnuniq (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent attempt at highlighting a demo

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)

Current Reference number #8 is not belong to Mr. Rossi

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)

convictions

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)

I restored portions that did not mention the convictions and do not have BLP problems (I think). If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert or ping me to self-rv. Most of the reliably sourced content is related to the Energy Catalyzer with a bit of (mostly Italian language) coverage about it:Petroldragon. It may be better to just redirect this article to the ECat and possibly revive the article at Petroldragon. Thoughts? VQuakr (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I reverted an edit that restored the material without an edit summary or comment here. If there are references that verify any of the information, they need to be clearly identified either in this this discussion, or with small edits with edit summaries, but ideally both. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Just a note: being unable to read a reliable source in a different language is not a valid rationale for removal. Google Translate is widely available these days for verification. Here for instance is the Google translate version of an Italian newspaper article about when Petroldragon was shut down, confirming the bit about the improper storage and disposal of toxic waste. ~Awilley (talk) 14:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm working to restore some of the content, since I can read Italian and am able to verify the cited content. I'll try to add quotes and links to English content where possible. ~Awilley (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC)