![]() | 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 |
1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. 2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. 3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. Notability is not about articles. Articles come and go. And Wikipedia as said previously is not a reliable source. Not a reliable source, can not be used as a reliable source and has no value in the discussion for sourcing anything. Googling the title of the article comes up with zero information of serious import but lots of things like this http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2012/02/pleiadian-gift-economy-an-equal-value-system-of-economics/ about blogs and space aliens and forums but no reliable sources except maybe people quoting excerpts of info from one fringe group of Zeitgeist people or Fresco people to another or reports sourced just back to themselves. 175.100.40.56 ( talk) 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Obvious that you are tandem editors from the history of the article and probably members of the groups in question. Also the article was deleted previously in an article for deletion because it is not a notable reference.
Also 1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. Wrong. Being on Wikipedia does not mean jack shit and it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. Wrong. You can not create an article and then add some phony internet group begging for money and call that notable.
3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. Wrong. Who knows? Its just another site or sites with pay pal buttons that might just be scamming little old ladies out of their milk money. This article probably merits a speedy delete.
I assume you are both involved with this group? 175.100.41.47 ( talk) 12:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Spare me the l.o.l please. Also I now assume you are involved with the resource based economy groups of one kind or another, probably both of you and that is why you are now ridiculing Fresco and Zeitgeist. Also the article is a clear candidate for a speedy delete. It has incarnated a couple of times by you and your editing partner. You originated it again and it is totally clear what you are doing here. Your promoting directly or indirectly a neologism phrase of words and here is the proof of that http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy
Mr. Fresco takes 100% credit for inventing the term. So its a neologism an invented word invented recently by a group that hounds people for money on the internet that no one has written seriously about except themselves and it obvious the two editors here have some stake in the information, maybe from another subgroup of resource based Fresco style group or another. Wikipedia a place to promote this kind of thing? No. 175.100.40.27 ( talk) 01:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys, stop this editwar here. Otherwise I have to report it, with all the consequences for the article and your editing-status. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I have fully protected this page for four days to force discussion. The IP's points seem reasonable to me, and therefore their edits are not vandalism. I would suggest that both parties to this dispute engage in a dialogue instead of reverting each other. -- Chris (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the Venus Project site.
Quote. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. End Quote.
Venus Project made up the term ala neologism phrase, I suppose in the last few years? It says on the Venus Project, J. Fresco site, it is 100% Venus Projects/Fresco creation and this link the two editors are giving as a citation proves that is the claim, whether true of false I don't know. Its not a reliable source only a promotion site for some theory by people that want other people to send in some money. ' http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy' The rest of the article is iffy also. Its not even a stub. It seems the article is an excuse to promote Zeitgeist and Venus Project for getting attention to resource based economics groups. Non notable. Self sourced. Neologism phrase. So called non profit that wants money. Promoting an idea that is beyond fringe. Article for deletion is appropriate or speedy delete. There is no reason this article exists beyond some kind of promoting of this term that is not being used in the context of mainstream use. The phrase being promoted maybe has a place in the article about Mr. Fresco. Maybe. Saying something in the J. Fresco article to the effect of, Mr. Fresco claims to have originated the term Resource Based Economics. 175.100.40.131 ( talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether your addressing this editor or one of the other comments I do not know but I listed my points above very clearly in several passages. Re-read this page possibly. The information is contrived to format a reference point using a phrase that is a neologism series of words that promote or advertise non notable ideas that have no serious commentary in general in the media beyond self generated spin off things.
The article is less than a stub with some filler information which is not connected to the main aspect of the article being to provide information to Venus Project and Zeitgeist.
I assume that people that will not budge about this and want to keep this exactly as is have some stake or membership in Resource Based Economics groups as they are inflexible about just having this phrased where it belongs and that is the J. Fresco article or Zeitgeist article with a disclaimer that the phrase was invented or originated by J. Fresco or claimed to be invented by said person. It has no business as an article in and of itself or can only be seen a promotional reference point to some internet blogs that promote this fringe material. I could go on... and I am repeating previous information now. 175.100.40.131 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I may not interact with you anymore OpenFuture since you think everything I said is irrelevant or have said that over and over, called information I am trying to get across ranting above and said I was using paranoi as an editing tool http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479258544 yeah that was you. And this was you calling an editor a vandal also for editing http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479344804 so, I am not finding you a person that is willing to put forth effort to compromise any point here. As to claiming I have some personal interest in you I don't, won't. I think you lost all the arguments here in general that have been made since mostly you are not providing notability of sourcing or a clear connection that the information belongs anywhere other than the Zeitgest or Venus Project or Fresco articles. An article created for the links and citations to those groups does not pass muster and no doubt previously this article was deleted as an article for deletion for that reason. I notice in the history that you created this article. 175.100.40.56 ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no citations or information sources to the phrase Resource-based economy other than the non notable and primary source. It appears that the phrase resource-based economy is a neologism phrase made by a commercial site so it appears that it is just a connector in the article to a commercial site and that site has not been seriously written about in connection to the questions raised. While the term resource based economy may have some value to describe some aspects of place like Russia that depends on resources to fund their government it is only a neologism phrase as it is being used in the disputed material, that only works in the context of group of bloggers on the internet and therefore not mainstream and has no value beyond maybe a mention in some existing article on Fresco, like maybe his bio article.
A speedy delete of the article or Article For Deletion seems in order as it was previously deleted. The person arguing so strongly here for the phrase in the article created the article and the disputed material, apparently he thinks the argument is about him when its not. The phrase is not notable. 175.100.40.113 ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. I addressed your issues. You soundly lost any debate here and did it in an overtly contentious way. 175.100.40.104 ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there are no sources for the disputed material being notable beyond self sourcing. Also it uses the same '-' between words which points it to only Fresco concept which is not notable for an article and not sourced here to anything beyond a closed loop, self sourced. It is not a neologism in a larger sense that other people use it minus the '-' in the word construct. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. Time line is wrong. Where in the source or citation does it document anything about the subject? Your two new citations are not connected to Zeitgeist, Venus Project or J. Fresco so why did you add them? I wrote most of the above before you added them but that does not make a difference since they are not citations to the subject anyway. Its a self sourced primary source that you wrote an article around, originating the article with just the primary reference. That is the original issue. Why would anyone lie over this kind of triviality? 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The article was made regardless of it being a copy vio and was speedily deleted previously for that reason ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economy#Resource-based_economy' It appears that the phrase is also a neologism phrase invented recently even to the point of the - (dash) in the title and is self sourced as a primary source. I do not know the mechanics of the process off speedy deleting the article again but assume that an admin person is watching this page and will put that information here or discuss that. ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G4' 175.100.40.104 ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The previous article was a copy violation, but some of the same issues of notability and lack of outside sources and spam were brought up here [1]
Defending something with no sources but to itself with no serious writing about it, creating this article as a vehicle or connector to Venus Project was done but it looks like this article does not deserve an article on its own because it is covered elsewhere. Starting an article over a neologism phrase? Looks like it. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to look at it. I see no reason or justification for deleting the present article, The phrase is certainly not a neologism, as the seems to be many hundreds of suitable references: Just looking in WorldCat, I find over 30 items, mostly books, with that phrase in the very title. [2] GScholar has over 2,000. Clearly, a proper sourced article can be written. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would propose the following be used to describe Resource Based Economy
-An economic system based on direct-common ownership of land, resources, production, distribution, and allocation, characterized through non-usury (monetary) intelligent management of resources for common consumer social abundance rather than profit-based scarcity (Capitalism) or need-based scarcity (Socialism).
I'm not familiar with how the process of citing sources and so on works but i would like to cite Distributism, Antigonish Movement (Resource Based Communities) and SCUM Manifesto “Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society”, Libertalia Pirate Colony. - 72.220.63.1 ( talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The context of Resource-based economics to Fresco, Zeitgeist, or Venus Project is not notable though a proper sourced article can be written using the many references to sources that are notable for the other concepts of that phrase which are not connected to those mentioned groups. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor added two reference citations to Venus Project and J. Fresco in the article. However there was no connection or mention of Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus Project in the references. The old primary source was also added again. I have removed the non notable primary sourced material and added some new information about resource-based economy in Australia. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lying? Where do the two sources you added recently mention Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus project?
^ John C. Danon (1994). Current world affairs, Volume 18. The University of California.? Where in that?
^ Professor Paul Pennings (2012). Herbet Marcuse – One Dimensional Man. VU University, Amsterdam. Retrieved 2012-03-05.? Where in that?
The other is just the same primary source from before. The self sourced one where Fresco claims to have invented the term Resource-based economy http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That reference by Phenning might work for Zeitgeist but does not work for Venus Project or J. Fresco. Also N.O.T.B.W. Open-Future removed some info and a source on Australian resource based economy. Also there is no page 24 in the pdf by Phenning. Because there is a second, third party source now for reference to Zeitgeist that can be included in the information on the article page, but the other reference to Fresco and Venus project still only are primary sourced. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As outsider with a rather limited knowledge of economy, I did my best to create a new draft to solve the problems on this article. You can find the draft here: User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage17. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added some sources, and tweaked it a bit. Any more comments? Night of the Big Wind talk 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I had a look at the first 40 hits returned by a Google books search on "resource based economy". It appears that the main definition contrasts resource-based economies with knowledge/human/service-based ones. The alternative definition is used in 4 books (10 %), 2 of which are by Fresco. That is very marginal especially concerning third parties, so the weight of the alternative definition in the article should be kept at a minimum and the article structuring/wording should not convey the impression that it is a majority definition. I don't think that the alternative definition should be completely removed, because it is still a borderline significant majority and a lot of people are probably going to be looking for that definition in particular. Olli Niemitalo ( talk) 22:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
'Okay, replaced "Economic model" by "economic theory/ideology". In fact, it is funny. I find thousands of links to Fresco/Venusproject/Zeitgeist-related items, but I can't find a definition of the "normal" use. Night of the Big Wind' From above.
Its pretty much all based on this biophysical economics with a strong dose of this history [3]. The original technocrats had nothing to do with Communism or Capitalism or Socialism etc which according to their information was not connected to resource based economics using an energy metric of value instead of money. Anyway that was the original meaning from the early 1930's, example link, [4] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found these two things http://technocracy.org/transition/economy/279-transition-doll and this http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/ Is it worth using either? Steven Doll is or at least was a member of Venus Project and Technocracy group. Fresco an ex technocrat pretty much got the idea from Technocracy source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Escalated: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Resource-based_economy -- OpenFuture ( talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The piece claims that in an RBE everything would be free. I do not know how the Zeitgeist movement looks at this but in a technocracy resources would be rationed through energy credits. So even though money would be abolished there would certainly be a limit to how much a person can acquire. 195.169.213.92 ( talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Others can please check this but it looks like an editor self translated some articles and then posted it on a Wikipedia talk page?? to use as a citation for this article [6] Also another link that did not reference resource-based economy was used. I reverted this. Comment? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, you react to feedback and criticism with innuendo and personal comments and baseless claims like "personal opinion" and claims that we didn't read the articles, etc. That is not a constructive way of discussing the issues. You need to learn that comments about what you add are not personal attacks on you, cool down and start discussing this in a calm and constructive manner, and not try to turn everything into a a fight about whose penis is bigger. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 03:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I like this version: [8] The recent changes hasn't really added much useful things to it. Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it? The new one just adds an insane amount of citations, and some unsupported/unsourced expansion that seems quite POV to me. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A current editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) to this article translated a link from a foreign language piece and used that as a citation. The citation is a Wikipedia talk page and the editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) may or may not be an accredited 'translator'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use as a citation source regardless. Remove the citations a good idea now? This one
[9] Also the level of citations are at major spam level now. One or two citations are needed to confirm something.
Earl King Jr. (
talk)
15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry OpenFuture, I respect your POV, but disagree with you completely. There is no POV or SYN in the article. All the sources fully support everything in the article.
In your previous comment you posed the question: "Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it?"
In my response to your comment, I answered your question. But you seem to have ignored my answer and instead it seems you have proceeded to revert my edits on your repeated allegation that my edits contained SYN, POV and/or OR.
I am becoming increasingly puzzled and surprised at both your comments and your actions. It seems to me that if an editor would have invested the (admittedly considerable) amount of time to carefully study all the references, and to fully comprehend and understand everything in the references, it would be clear to the editor that everything in the article is fully supported by the references, and that there is no SYN, POV nor OR. (Except that there may or may not be some journalistic bias on the part of the journalists who wrote the secondary sources. Note that Wikipedia [WP] policies prohibit WP editorial bias, but do not prohibit [some] bias from the authors of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, such as journalists, scholars, book authors, etc. If you are unclear on this, you can look it up in the WP policies, rules and regulations.)
Either you have not taken the time to carefully read all articles, or you have read them but did not comprehend them (perhaps because you are not keeping an open mind, possibly because you may be focused on censoring this article. See below.)
In my original response to your comment, I explained that describing TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE as an "economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is only partially correct, because it only captures one part (although an important part) of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE. I also wrote the following:
Please also note that the term "things such as goods, services and information are free" can also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, certain forms of concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement.
Or military service. Or a boarding school.
Narrowing, constricting and limiting the description of the core ideas and positions of TVP, TZM and TTM to "things such as goods, services and information are free" is an insult to the people we are here to serve - the hundreds of millions of readers of the English Wikipedia around the globe. And it is an insult to the editors of this page (including you and me).
Update: I've revised the article to concisely capture most of the fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE, based on citations from our set of sources.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing intended to improve the page is vandalism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Some other definition given by Peter, at the ZDay Vancover 2012 he referred to it as a "Natural Law Economy", and at TEDxOjai he referred to it as an "Earth Economy", and he gave this same definition:
"Natural Law Economy"/"Earth Economy": (Theoretical) Decisions are directly based upon Scientific Understandings as they relate to optimized habitat management and human health. Production and Distribution is regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known.
"Market Economy": Decisions are based on independent human actions through the vehicle of monetary exchange, regulated by the pressures of Supply and Demand. Production and Distribution is enabled by the buying and selling of labor and material provisions, with the motivations of a person or group as the defining attribute of unfolding. Source: ZDay Vancover 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZE6HGjnfzc&t=25m0s (at 25m 0s) TEDxOjai 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKAse8388k&t=1m24s (at 1m 24s)
and from everything that I saw from TZM, the moneyless society is not the main definition,, it's a secondary thing, from all that I have seen, the main definition is "the goal of optimized quality of life for all through scientific understandings" and then the moneyless society will end up being the result of this line of thought.
you can also see this in the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward at 1h 30m 37s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h30m37s
"Well, first we need a “goal”, right? And it's safe to say that goal would be to survive. And not to just survive, but to do so in an optimized, healthy prosperous way. Most people, indeed, desire to live and they would prefer to do so without suffering. Therefore, the basis of this civilization needs to be as supportive and hence sustainable for human life as possible- taking into account the material needs of all the world's people while trying to remove anything that can could hurt us in the long run.
With that goal of “Maximum Sustainability” understood next question regards our “method”. What kind of approach do we take? ...." (and then he concludes) "...
It appears something called “Science”. Science is unique in that its methods demand not only that ideas proposed be tested and replicated... but everything science comes up with is also inherently falsifiable."
this is my two cents :) do you guys think we are going in the right direction to get the best definition? --
Arthurfragoso (
talk)
14:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the new definitions? They just state the goals, not the means, and hence it's not a definition of an economy or an economic theory, instead it becomes a political statement. With these definitions RBE/Earth Economy is no longer an economic theory, it's simply political mumbo-jumbo, and thats all it is. Just because someone wants to use Wikipedia as a platform for making obscure statements about their opinions on a big computer running the world, and claims about their being abundant resources for all, that does not make it obligatory to give that 'mission statement' as a given or fact. That would not be neutral. I think keep things simple. Let people go to the respective articles if they are interested in more information. That section is only an alternative usage type section. The last good version restoration does the job without baggage. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious that everyone discussing here wants the best for the article. So I will try to keep good faith on everyone. I maybe wrong about what I think is best for the article, or any of you could also, or maybe everyone here including me could all be wrong. I took what some of you said in this discussion, and I'm taking it in consideration, so I will point some other things:
1. Resource-based economy == Post-scarcity ? we cannot say that by ourselves, we need a primary source to say that. from the WP rules. (if we decide to remove it, we could place it on the "See also")
2. From what I have seen, the definition given by Fresco is that it's planned based on available resources and optimum to human health, so we could make it sustainable, and able to provide for everyone.
I made another definition, what are your thoughts on it?
The term resource-based economy defines a moneyless system where decisions are made based on available resources, and it's planned to be used in a sustainable way, so the resources don't deplete. It's a system where machines would do most of the work. [11] This use of the term is found in the books and lectures of Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer and industrial designer. Fresco has used the term since 1975 in relation to The Venus Project.[6] The Zeitgeist Movement also uses the term resource-based economy as does the Technocracy Movement.[7]
-- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (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 |
1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. 2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. 3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 16:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Wrong. Notability is not about articles. Articles come and go. And Wikipedia as said previously is not a reliable source. Not a reliable source, can not be used as a reliable source and has no value in the discussion for sourcing anything. Googling the title of the article comes up with zero information of serious import but lots of things like this http://www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com/2012/02/pleiadian-gift-economy-an-equal-value-system-of-economics/ about blogs and space aliens and forums but no reliable sources except maybe people quoting excerpts of info from one fringe group of Zeitgeist people or Fresco people to another or reports sourced just back to themselves. 175.100.40.56 ( talk) 01:43, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Obvious that you are tandem editors from the history of the article and probably members of the groups in question. Also the article was deleted previously in an article for deletion because it is not a notable reference.
Also 1. Both The Venus Project and The Zeitgeist Movement have their own pages and are clearly notable. Wrong. Being on Wikipedia does not mean jack shit and it is not a reliable source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.
2. Notability is about articles, not bits in an article. Wrong. You can not create an article and then add some phony internet group begging for money and call that notable.
3. The Venus projects official web page is a reliable source on what the Venus Project officially say. Wrong. Who knows? Its just another site or sites with pay pal buttons that might just be scamming little old ladies out of their milk money. This article probably merits a speedy delete.
I assume you are both involved with this group? 175.100.41.47 ( talk) 12:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Spare me the l.o.l please. Also I now assume you are involved with the resource based economy groups of one kind or another, probably both of you and that is why you are now ridiculing Fresco and Zeitgeist. Also the article is a clear candidate for a speedy delete. It has incarnated a couple of times by you and your editing partner. You originated it again and it is totally clear what you are doing here. Your promoting directly or indirectly a neologism phrase of words and here is the proof of that http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy
Mr. Fresco takes 100% credit for inventing the term. So its a neologism an invented word invented recently by a group that hounds people for money on the internet that no one has written seriously about except themselves and it obvious the two editors here have some stake in the information, maybe from another subgroup of resource based Fresco style group or another. Wikipedia a place to promote this kind of thing? No. 175.100.40.27 ( talk) 01:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Guys, stop this editwar here. Otherwise I have to report it, with all the consequences for the article and your editing-status. Night of the Big Wind talk 18:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I have fully protected this page for four days to force discussion. The IP's points seem reasonable to me, and therefore their edits are not vandalism. I would suggest that both parties to this dispute engage in a dialogue instead of reverting each other. -- Chris (talk) 21:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
According to the Venus Project site.
Quote. The term and meaning of a Resource Based Economy was originated by Jacque Fresco. It is a holisticsocio-economic system in which all goods and services are available without the use of money, credits, barter or any other system of debt or servitude. All resources become the common heritage of all of the inhabitants, not just a select few. The premise upon which this system is based is that the Earth is abundant with plentiful resource; our practice of rationing resources through monetary methods is irrelevant and counter productive to our survival. End Quote.
Venus Project made up the term ala neologism phrase, I suppose in the last few years? It says on the Venus Project, J. Fresco site, it is 100% Venus Projects/Fresco creation and this link the two editors are giving as a citation proves that is the claim, whether true of false I don't know. Its not a reliable source only a promotion site for some theory by people that want other people to send in some money. ' http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy' The rest of the article is iffy also. Its not even a stub. It seems the article is an excuse to promote Zeitgeist and Venus Project for getting attention to resource based economics groups. Non notable. Self sourced. Neologism phrase. So called non profit that wants money. Promoting an idea that is beyond fringe. Article for deletion is appropriate or speedy delete. There is no reason this article exists beyond some kind of promoting of this term that is not being used in the context of mainstream use. The phrase being promoted maybe has a place in the article about Mr. Fresco. Maybe. Saying something in the J. Fresco article to the effect of, Mr. Fresco claims to have originated the term Resource Based Economics. 175.100.40.131 ( talk) 17:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Whether your addressing this editor or one of the other comments I do not know but I listed my points above very clearly in several passages. Re-read this page possibly. The information is contrived to format a reference point using a phrase that is a neologism series of words that promote or advertise non notable ideas that have no serious commentary in general in the media beyond self generated spin off things.
The article is less than a stub with some filler information which is not connected to the main aspect of the article being to provide information to Venus Project and Zeitgeist.
I assume that people that will not budge about this and want to keep this exactly as is have some stake or membership in Resource Based Economics groups as they are inflexible about just having this phrased where it belongs and that is the J. Fresco article or Zeitgeist article with a disclaimer that the phrase was invented or originated by J. Fresco or claimed to be invented by said person. It has no business as an article in and of itself or can only be seen a promotional reference point to some internet blogs that promote this fringe material. I could go on... and I am repeating previous information now. 175.100.40.131 ( talk) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I may not interact with you anymore OpenFuture since you think everything I said is irrelevant or have said that over and over, called information I am trying to get across ranting above and said I was using paranoi as an editing tool http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479258544 yeah that was you. And this was you calling an editor a vandal also for editing http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Resource-based_economy&diff=prev&oldid=479344804 so, I am not finding you a person that is willing to put forth effort to compromise any point here. As to claiming I have some personal interest in you I don't, won't. I think you lost all the arguments here in general that have been made since mostly you are not providing notability of sourcing or a clear connection that the information belongs anywhere other than the Zeitgest or Venus Project or Fresco articles. An article created for the links and citations to those groups does not pass muster and no doubt previously this article was deleted as an article for deletion for that reason. I notice in the history that you created this article. 175.100.40.56 ( talk) 02:40, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There are no citations or information sources to the phrase Resource-based economy other than the non notable and primary source. It appears that the phrase resource-based economy is a neologism phrase made by a commercial site so it appears that it is just a connector in the article to a commercial site and that site has not been seriously written about in connection to the questions raised. While the term resource based economy may have some value to describe some aspects of place like Russia that depends on resources to fund their government it is only a neologism phrase as it is being used in the disputed material, that only works in the context of group of bloggers on the internet and therefore not mainstream and has no value beyond maybe a mention in some existing article on Fresco, like maybe his bio article.
A speedy delete of the article or Article For Deletion seems in order as it was previously deleted. The person arguing so strongly here for the phrase in the article created the article and the disputed material, apparently he thinks the argument is about him when its not. The phrase is not notable. 175.100.40.113 ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. I addressed your issues. You soundly lost any debate here and did it in an overtly contentious way. 175.100.40.104 ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
As far as I can tell there are no sources for the disputed material being notable beyond self sourcing. Also it uses the same '-' between words which points it to only Fresco concept which is not notable for an article and not sourced here to anything beyond a closed loop, self sourced. It is not a neologism in a larger sense that other people use it minus the '-' in the word construct. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 02:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wrong again. Time line is wrong. Where in the source or citation does it document anything about the subject? Your two new citations are not connected to Zeitgeist, Venus Project or J. Fresco so why did you add them? I wrote most of the above before you added them but that does not make a difference since they are not citations to the subject anyway. Its a self sourced primary source that you wrote an article around, originating the article with just the primary reference. That is the original issue. Why would anyone lie over this kind of triviality? 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
The article was made regardless of it being a copy vio and was speedily deleted previously for that reason ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Resource-based_economy#Resource-based_economy' It appears that the phrase is also a neologism phrase invented recently even to the point of the - (dash) in the title and is self sourced as a primary source. I do not know the mechanics of the process off speedy deleting the article again but assume that an admin person is watching this page and will put that information here or discuss that. ' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CSD#G4' 175.100.40.104 ( talk) 02:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The previous article was a copy violation, but some of the same issues of notability and lack of outside sources and spam were brought up here [1]
Defending something with no sources but to itself with no serious writing about it, creating this article as a vehicle or connector to Venus Project was done but it looks like this article does not deserve an article on its own because it is covered elsewhere. Starting an article over a neologism phrase? Looks like it. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was asked to look at it. I see no reason or justification for deleting the present article, The phrase is certainly not a neologism, as the seems to be many hundreds of suitable references: Just looking in WorldCat, I find over 30 items, mostly books, with that phrase in the very title. [2] GScholar has over 2,000. Clearly, a proper sourced article can be written. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would propose the following be used to describe Resource Based Economy
-An economic system based on direct-common ownership of land, resources, production, distribution, and allocation, characterized through non-usury (monetary) intelligent management of resources for common consumer social abundance rather than profit-based scarcity (Capitalism) or need-based scarcity (Socialism).
I'm not familiar with how the process of citing sources and so on works but i would like to cite Distributism, Antigonish Movement (Resource Based Communities) and SCUM Manifesto “Money, Marriage and Prostitution, Work and Prevention of an Automated Society”, Libertalia Pirate Colony. - 72.220.63.1 ( talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The context of Resource-based economics to Fresco, Zeitgeist, or Venus Project is not notable though a proper sourced article can be written using the many references to sources that are notable for the other concepts of that phrase which are not connected to those mentioned groups. It might have been a good idea to have looked for sources earlier. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 02:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
An editor added two reference citations to Venus Project and J. Fresco in the article. However there was no connection or mention of Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus Project in the references. The old primary source was also added again. I have removed the non notable primary sourced material and added some new information about resource-based economy in Australia. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 03:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Lying? Where do the two sources you added recently mention Zeitgeist or Fresco or Venus project?
^ John C. Danon (1994). Current world affairs, Volume 18. The University of California.? Where in that?
^ Professor Paul Pennings (2012). Herbet Marcuse – One Dimensional Man. VU University, Amsterdam. Retrieved 2012-03-05.? Where in that?
The other is just the same primary source from before. The self sourced one where Fresco claims to have invented the term Resource-based economy http://thevenusproject.com/the-venus-project/resource-based-economy 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 14:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
That reference by Phenning might work for Zeitgeist but does not work for Venus Project or J. Fresco. Also N.O.T.B.W. Open-Future removed some info and a source on Australian resource based economy. Also there is no page 24 in the pdf by Phenning. Because there is a second, third party source now for reference to Zeitgeist that can be included in the information on the article page, but the other reference to Fresco and Venus project still only are primary sourced. 175.100.40.163 ( talk) 01:27, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
As outsider with a rather limited knowledge of economy, I did my best to create a new draft to solve the problems on this article. You can find the draft here: User:Night of the Big Wind/Workpage17. Night of the Big Wind talk 13:19, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I have added some sources, and tweaked it a bit. Any more comments? Night of the Big Wind talk 14:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I had a look at the first 40 hits returned by a Google books search on "resource based economy". It appears that the main definition contrasts resource-based economies with knowledge/human/service-based ones. The alternative definition is used in 4 books (10 %), 2 of which are by Fresco. That is very marginal especially concerning third parties, so the weight of the alternative definition in the article should be kept at a minimum and the article structuring/wording should not convey the impression that it is a majority definition. I don't think that the alternative definition should be completely removed, because it is still a borderline significant majority and a lot of people are probably going to be looking for that definition in particular. Olli Niemitalo ( talk) 22:46, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
'Okay, replaced "Economic model" by "economic theory/ideology". In fact, it is funny. I find thousands of links to Fresco/Venusproject/Zeitgeist-related items, but I can't find a definition of the "normal" use. Night of the Big Wind' From above.
Its pretty much all based on this biophysical economics with a strong dose of this history [3]. The original technocrats had nothing to do with Communism or Capitalism or Socialism etc which according to their information was not connected to resource based economics using an energy metric of value instead of money. Anyway that was the original meaning from the early 1930's, example link, [4] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 09:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
I just found these two things http://technocracy.org/transition/economy/279-transition-doll and this http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist-addendum/ Is it worth using either? Steven Doll is or at least was a member of Venus Project and Technocracy group. Fresco an ex technocrat pretty much got the idea from Technocracy source. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 16:55, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Escalated: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Resource-based_economy -- OpenFuture ( talk) 15:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
The piece claims that in an RBE everything would be free. I do not know how the Zeitgeist movement looks at this but in a technocracy resources would be rationed through energy credits. So even though money would be abolished there would certainly be a limit to how much a person can acquire. 195.169.213.92 ( talk) 21:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Others can please check this but it looks like an editor self translated some articles and then posted it on a Wikipedia talk page?? to use as a citation for this article [6] Also another link that did not reference resource-based economy was used. I reverted this. Comment? Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
User:IjonTichyIjonTichy, you react to feedback and criticism with innuendo and personal comments and baseless claims like "personal opinion" and claims that we didn't read the articles, etc. That is not a constructive way of discussing the issues. You need to learn that comments about what you add are not personal attacks on you, cool down and start discussing this in a calm and constructive manner, and not try to turn everything into a a fight about whose penis is bigger. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 03:45, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I like this version: [8] The recent changes hasn't really added much useful things to it. Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it? The new one just adds an insane amount of citations, and some unsupported/unsourced expansion that seems quite POV to me. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 17:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A current editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) to this article translated a link from a foreign language piece and used that as a citation. The citation is a Wikipedia talk page and the editor (User:IjonTichyIjonTichy) may or may not be an accredited 'translator'. Wikipedia is not a reliable source to use as a citation source regardless. Remove the citations a good idea now? This one
[9] Also the level of citations are at major spam level now. One or two citations are needed to confirm something.
Earl King Jr. (
talk)
15:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Sorry OpenFuture, I respect your POV, but disagree with you completely. There is no POV or SYN in the article. All the sources fully support everything in the article.
In your previous comment you posed the question: "Can someone explain what's wrong with the old version, so we can improve it?"
In my response to your comment, I answered your question. But you seem to have ignored my answer and instead it seems you have proceeded to revert my edits on your repeated allegation that my edits contained SYN, POV and/or OR.
I am becoming increasingly puzzled and surprised at both your comments and your actions. It seems to me that if an editor would have invested the (admittedly considerable) amount of time to carefully study all the references, and to fully comprehend and understand everything in the references, it would be clear to the editor that everything in the article is fully supported by the references, and that there is no SYN, POV nor OR. (Except that there may or may not be some journalistic bias on the part of the journalists who wrote the secondary sources. Note that Wikipedia [WP] policies prohibit WP editorial bias, but do not prohibit [some] bias from the authors of verifiable, reliable secondary sources, such as journalists, scholars, book authors, etc. If you are unclear on this, you can look it up in the WP policies, rules and regulations.)
Either you have not taken the time to carefully read all articles, or you have read them but did not comprehend them (perhaps because you are not keeping an open mind, possibly because you may be focused on censoring this article. See below.)
In my original response to your comment, I explained that describing TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE as an "economic theory in which things such as goods, services and information are free" is only partially correct, because it only captures one part (although an important part) of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE. I also wrote the following:
Please also note that the term "things such as goods, services and information are free" can also describe a prison camp, a jail, a gulag, certain forms of concentration camps, and other places of detention or confinement.
Or military service. Or a boarding school.
Narrowing, constricting and limiting the description of the core ideas and positions of TVP, TZM and TTM to "things such as goods, services and information are free" is an insult to the people we are here to serve - the hundreds of millions of readers of the English Wikipedia around the globe. And it is an insult to the editors of this page (including you and me).
Update: I've revised the article to concisely capture most of the fundamental concepts of TVP's, TZM's and TTM's usage of the term RBE, based on citations from our set of sources.
Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy ( talk) 22:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Nothing intended to improve the page is vandalism. Tom Harrison Talk 22:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Some other definition given by Peter, at the ZDay Vancover 2012 he referred to it as a "Natural Law Economy", and at TEDxOjai he referred to it as an "Earth Economy", and he gave this same definition:
"Natural Law Economy"/"Earth Economy": (Theoretical) Decisions are directly based upon Scientific Understandings as they relate to optimized habitat management and human health. Production and Distribution is regulated by the most technically efficient and sustainable approaches known.
"Market Economy": Decisions are based on independent human actions through the vehicle of monetary exchange, regulated by the pressures of Supply and Demand. Production and Distribution is enabled by the buying and selling of labor and material provisions, with the motivations of a person or group as the defining attribute of unfolding. Source: ZDay Vancover 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ZE6HGjnfzc&t=25m0s (at 25m 0s) TEDxOjai 2012 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qKAse8388k&t=1m24s (at 1m 24s)
and from everything that I saw from TZM, the moneyless society is not the main definition,, it's a secondary thing, from all that I have seen, the main definition is "the goal of optimized quality of life for all through scientific understandings" and then the moneyless society will end up being the result of this line of thought.
you can also see this in the Zeitgeist: Moving Forward at 1h 30m 37s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w&t=1h30m37s
"Well, first we need a “goal”, right? And it's safe to say that goal would be to survive. And not to just survive, but to do so in an optimized, healthy prosperous way. Most people, indeed, desire to live and they would prefer to do so without suffering. Therefore, the basis of this civilization needs to be as supportive and hence sustainable for human life as possible- taking into account the material needs of all the world's people while trying to remove anything that can could hurt us in the long run.
With that goal of “Maximum Sustainability” understood next question regards our “method”. What kind of approach do we take? ...." (and then he concludes) "...
It appears something called “Science”. Science is unique in that its methods demand not only that ideas proposed be tested and replicated... but everything science comes up with is also inherently falsifiable."
this is my two cents :) do you guys think we are going in the right direction to get the best definition? --
Arthurfragoso (
talk)
14:24, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
The problem with the new definitions? They just state the goals, not the means, and hence it's not a definition of an economy or an economic theory, instead it becomes a political statement. With these definitions RBE/Earth Economy is no longer an economic theory, it's simply political mumbo-jumbo, and thats all it is. Just because someone wants to use Wikipedia as a platform for making obscure statements about their opinions on a big computer running the world, and claims about their being abundant resources for all, that does not make it obligatory to give that 'mission statement' as a given or fact. That would not be neutral. I think keep things simple. Let people go to the respective articles if they are interested in more information. That section is only an alternative usage type section. The last good version restoration does the job without baggage. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:33, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
It's obvious that everyone discussing here wants the best for the article. So I will try to keep good faith on everyone. I maybe wrong about what I think is best for the article, or any of you could also, or maybe everyone here including me could all be wrong. I took what some of you said in this discussion, and I'm taking it in consideration, so I will point some other things:
1. Resource-based economy == Post-scarcity ? we cannot say that by ourselves, we need a primary source to say that. from the WP rules. (if we decide to remove it, we could place it on the "See also")
2. From what I have seen, the definition given by Fresco is that it's planned based on available resources and optimum to human health, so we could make it sustainable, and able to provide for everyone.
I made another definition, what are your thoughts on it?
The term resource-based economy defines a moneyless system where decisions are made based on available resources, and it's planned to be used in a sustainable way, so the resources don't deplete. It's a system where machines would do most of the work. [11] This use of the term is found in the books and lectures of Jacque Fresco, a structural engineer and industrial designer. Fresco has used the term since 1975 in relation to The Venus Project.[6] The Zeitgeist Movement also uses the term resource-based economy as does the Technocracy Movement.[7]
-- Arthurfragoso ( talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)