This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from the Venus project has been put forward. Most of this article already appears in The Venus Project. Obviously Fresco should have an article of his own, if there is anything to say about him that isn't connected to the Venus Project. So far the only thing that has appeared is that he possibly supports Ku Klux Klan (or not), which hardly should be included on such loose grounds because of WP:BLP. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
After inquiring about why this article about Jacque Fresco has be merged into The Venus Project, it is clear it was done as some sort of edit war or was based on a very weak arguments. I infer this from the lack of credible answers and references that should be quite easy to provide.
I have also examined the reasons behind some arguments using Wikipedia rules and they appear to be ignored or misinterpreted.
Refusals to answer simple questions and being extremely evasive while not being neutral, or disobeying rules about biographies are offensive and provoking to me and to other Wikipedians. I intend to start tagging material shortly if rules and questions are blatantly ignored as they obviously have been.
Before I tag stuff, I will go into the details here about observations (that will be fully referenced) about why I feel the way I do. if debate here is to furious, I will produce another heading and heading plus related text (article) will be referenced from here.
I want to avoid tagging stuff, but if this sort of evasion of questions continues, I will do whatever is necessary to make this talk worthy of something that belongs in Wikipedia. --( Gharr ( talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
- do** it [1], Ku Klux Klan (propagating poorly referenced material that goes on for far too long about the subject) [2], it's nothing but a neologism for technocracy,Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page)., it was obvious that there was no basis for an article. It doesn't matter how many sources you have, unless these sources are about things he [Jacque Fresco] did outside of The Venus Project [I believe this sentence it totally false, it lacks understanding of Wikipedia rules] [3], But "resource based economy" is on the other hand just another name for technocratic communism, so does it really need it's own article? [4], Technocratic communism only means that you want communism… What makes TVP technocratics? The fact that they want the whole society run by technology and computers . That is per definition technocratic… TVP want to abolish ownership of the means of production, which is pretty much the definition of communism… In all cases, communism, resource-based economy, technocracy, it's based on a fundamental lack of knowledge on how economy works, and what the problems in economy is. [5], The system is the goal, in both communism and TVP. The means/goal are in also the same: The practical abolishment of ownership of resources and production. [6]
I don’t know how people can argue that logically separating an article into smaller parts will reduce notability. Nor can they argue lack of references in such cases. Dividing a article into three parts does not mean that you suddenly need to find three times as many references—that’s ridiculous.
If people from Wikipedia are driving for smaller articles in Wikipedia it is probably to make the articles more accessible to the mobile telephone network. In fact Wikipedia says straight out it has no practical limits to the number of articles that it can contain [7]. BELIEVE ME, SPLITTING THE VENUS PROJECT INTO SMALLER PARTS IS NOT A CRIME!!!
I don’t think listening or trying to discuss anything with a person who sees The Venus Project and by definition its creator Jacque Fresco as a threat—(if he/she saw it as a salvation they would be as appalled as I am about the state of the Jacque Fresco talk page) will benefit you and they may even end up giving you very questionable advice.
You have sought advice of someone who is biased and has put forward to a poorly made argument that Jacque Fresco can not be accepted as a biography because:
“In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from The Venus project has been put forward [8].
I have tried to ask for a clarification on this matter, but nothing happened. So I am going to clear it up, as I have already done above in my so called attack.
The augment that Jacque Fresco is notable for only one thing (and I am not conceding that he is) and thus can not be separated from The Venus Project is FALSE!!!
Please don’t believe me, read the information for your self: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event . The-people notable-for-only-one-thing rule is designed to stop people from getting into the biography section of the Wikipedia if they won the dart competition that month and ended up in with their name and/or photo in the local newspaper for example. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO JACQUE FRESCO.
If this was the major argument for merging the Jacque Fresco article then a serious wrong has been done when you add it state of the talk page. --( Gharr ( talk) 04:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
The Venus Project and the The Zeitgeist Movement are being edited. It might be useful to coordinate edits in such cases or people might end up wasting time doing stuff that is not needed—for example to prevent duplication of work or adding of work to wrong sections. –( Gharr ( talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Has the article Jacque Fresco been removed... WHY OH WHY!!! Now I don't have his picture anymore on facebook! Goddamit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.15.192 ( talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from the Venus project has been put forward. Most of this article already appears in The Venus Project. Obviously Fresco should have an article of his own, if there is anything to say about him that isn't connected to the Venus Project. So far the only thing that has appeared is that he possibly supports Ku Klux Klan (or not), which hardly should be included on such loose grounds because of WP:BLP. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
After inquiring about why this article about Jacque Fresco has be merged into The Venus Project, it is clear it was done as some sort of edit war or was based on a very weak arguments. I infer this from the lack of credible answers and references that should be quite easy to provide.
I have also examined the reasons behind some arguments using Wikipedia rules and they appear to be ignored or misinterpreted.
Refusals to answer simple questions and being extremely evasive while not being neutral, or disobeying rules about biographies are offensive and provoking to me and to other Wikipedians. I intend to start tagging material shortly if rules and questions are blatantly ignored as they obviously have been.
Before I tag stuff, I will go into the details here about observations (that will be fully referenced) about why I feel the way I do. if debate here is to furious, I will produce another heading and heading plus related text (article) will be referenced from here.
I want to avoid tagging stuff, but if this sort of evasion of questions continues, I will do whatever is necessary to make this talk worthy of something that belongs in Wikipedia. --( Gharr ( talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC))
- do** it [1], Ku Klux Klan (propagating poorly referenced material that goes on for far too long about the subject) [2], it's nothing but a neologism for technocracy,Cite error: A
<ref>
tag is missing the closing</ref>
(see the help page)., it was obvious that there was no basis for an article. It doesn't matter how many sources you have, unless these sources are about things he [Jacque Fresco] did outside of The Venus Project [I believe this sentence it totally false, it lacks understanding of Wikipedia rules] [3], But "resource based economy" is on the other hand just another name for technocratic communism, so does it really need it's own article? [4], Technocratic communism only means that you want communism… What makes TVP technocratics? The fact that they want the whole society run by technology and computers . That is per definition technocratic… TVP want to abolish ownership of the means of production, which is pretty much the definition of communism… In all cases, communism, resource-based economy, technocracy, it's based on a fundamental lack of knowledge on how economy works, and what the problems in economy is. [5], The system is the goal, in both communism and TVP. The means/goal are in also the same: The practical abolishment of ownership of resources and production. [6]
I don’t know how people can argue that logically separating an article into smaller parts will reduce notability. Nor can they argue lack of references in such cases. Dividing a article into three parts does not mean that you suddenly need to find three times as many references—that’s ridiculous.
If people from Wikipedia are driving for smaller articles in Wikipedia it is probably to make the articles more accessible to the mobile telephone network. In fact Wikipedia says straight out it has no practical limits to the number of articles that it can contain [7]. BELIEVE ME, SPLITTING THE VENUS PROJECT INTO SMALLER PARTS IS NOT A CRIME!!!
I don’t think listening or trying to discuss anything with a person who sees The Venus Project and by definition its creator Jacque Fresco as a threat—(if he/she saw it as a salvation they would be as appalled as I am about the state of the Jacque Fresco talk page) will benefit you and they may even end up giving you very questionable advice.
You have sought advice of someone who is biased and has put forward to a poorly made argument that Jacque Fresco can not be accepted as a biography because:
“In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from The Venus project has been put forward [8].
I have tried to ask for a clarification on this matter, but nothing happened. So I am going to clear it up, as I have already done above in my so called attack.
The augment that Jacque Fresco is notable for only one thing (and I am not conceding that he is) and thus can not be separated from The Venus Project is FALSE!!!
Please don’t believe me, read the information for your self: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event . The-people notable-for-only-one-thing rule is designed to stop people from getting into the biography section of the Wikipedia if they won the dart competition that month and ended up in with their name and/or photo in the local newspaper for example. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO JACQUE FRESCO.
If this was the major argument for merging the Jacque Fresco article then a serious wrong has been done when you add it state of the talk page. --( Gharr ( talk) 04:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC))
The Venus Project and the The Zeitgeist Movement are being edited. It might be useful to coordinate edits in such cases or people might end up wasting time doing stuff that is not needed—for example to prevent duplication of work or adding of work to wrong sections. –( Gharr ( talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC))
Has the article Jacque Fresco been removed... WHY OH WHY!!! Now I don't have his picture anymore on facebook! Goddamit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.15.192 ( talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)