Misplaced Pages

Talk:Andrea Rossi (entrepreneur)

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LFaraone (talk | contribs) at 23:48, 31 May 2013 (→Petroldragon info being removed from lead: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 23:48, 31 May 2013 by LFaraone (talk | contribs) (→Petroldragon info being removed from lead: cmt)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
WikiProject iconBiography Start‑class
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

Please use a more specific OTRS template. See the Template:OTRS or below for available templates. Template:OTRS could refer to one of several templates related to the OTRS system. Instead of using this template, use one of the more specific templates listed below.

Commonly-used OTRS templates

See also

Topics referred to by the same term This is an unused template to list other templates associated with a similar title or shortcut.
If an internal transclusion led you here, you may wish to change it to point directly to the intended page.

{{Template disambiguation}} shouldn't be transcluded in the talk namespaces.

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

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':
  • 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.
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. Misplaced Pages 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)
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)

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 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". 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. Misplaced Pages 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)

Andy, I know that Misplaced Pages 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)
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 by all charges, if you have any proof that he isn't then write the sources here. 87.8.235.192 (talk) 23:43, 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 Misplaced Pages'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)

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:

--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 ] 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”)." 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)
Categories: