This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacque Fresco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
A news item involving Jacque Fresco was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 May 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
WHAT A HORRIBLE ARTICLE FILLED WITH ONLY OPINIONATED BIASED JUDGEMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.159.65 ( talk) 08:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Earl King why are you blanket reverting edits? Are you reviewing the changes I have made? Your blanket reverts also reverse many minor edits that can't possibly be questioned on the basis of neutrality. Please stop being lazy and blanket reverting. If you have a problem with a change I made, then rationally address that particular change. Otherwise it will be taken up on a noticeboard indicting you for interfering with productive editing. Your approach is not facilitating constructive cooperation but rather blunt, stagnant, destructive confrontation with other editors.-- Biophily ( talk) 03:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Off topic thread resulting from removal of long term abuser's comments
|
---|
I think this zeitgeist wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now. Snakeinass ( talk) 09:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Earl King, the reasoning for the multiple sources are as follows: since some of the statements could be considered contentious, especially the "twenty years ahead of his time" statement, doubling or tripling sources seemed necessary, to show that it has due weight and was written by more than one author during that era. Deleting decent sources that support this is not an improvement. But if you are willing to forget the high standard, that's up to you.-- Biophily ( talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Biophily,
You have
uploaded various images of Fresco's work whilst claiming that you hold the copyright. If your claims are true, then you should stop editing the article, due to
WP:COI. If your claims are not true, then we should stop using content that you have uploaded, due to copyright problems. Which problem do we need to address here?
bobrayner (
talk) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Relying heavily on that Orlando Weekly article is not a good idea. Not only are there original publications from the time periods covered in the Orlando Weekly article, that are better to use due to their proximity to the actual events, the Orlando Weekly article used information from Wikipedia in several instances at the time it was written, especially regarding the Trend Home. Heavily using sources that use Wikipedia as a source is discouraged on Wikipedia WP:CIRCULAR. However, I see that it is being relied upon heavily, especially with the recent rewrite of the Trend Home section by Earl King, who takes info from the Orlando Weekly article exclusively.-- Biophily ( talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the best way to use the information that Fresco perhaps misled/lied in interviews about a degree? This is one example in link below, when he claimed to be a Dr. with a degree in psychology from Sierra University LosAngeles. He also allowed himself to be introduced as a doctor on his Larry King interview. Source about his academic background from old newspaper article preserved. [5] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Earl King your recent edit does not reflect the facts. Do you not recall that the photo of the projector was deleted? Yet you used a very dubious source that pulls a claim from nowhere that the projector was never built. There are better sources on this subject than the one you used. You reduced the Variety source that was published in 1949. The source you used is addressing something that happened over 60 years ago with absolutely no evidence for what it is saying. It's nothing but unresearched cynical opinion. Very poor source. I can't see how it has authority on that issue. It could be used as a critical opinion of Fresco's ideas, or more specifically, the film Future By Design, but nothing beyond that especially pertaining to historical facts. The fact that you would believe that malicious blog is surprising.-- Biophily ( talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first link in References ( [8]) is broken. The new location for this link is [9]. I am a new editor so I am sorry if this request has not been made correctly.
Done Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Easy Biophily on the reverts. Its better to get a well rounded picture of Fresco. By putting speculating things about him being the modern heir of some past prophecy like that quote which is not a quote, it wrecks credibility in the article. Cherry picking obvious Fresco Fetish believers and highlighting that is not neutral. I am still thinking the convoluted way the citations and their information is given needs to be changed dramatically.
People have to sort through lots of unrelated stuff to get at a citation reference for any information in lots of situation there now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Improving it was just a suggestion since it is there, it can be used to cross connect things [10] Mostly the suggestion was to expand the reference point. Whether it has notability or value I don't know. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Earl King, there you go on a deletion fit again because I reverted one of your edits. You justified one of your deletions by saying that the information was not notable. However, Wikipedia stipulates that only the subject of the article (Jacque Fresco) be notable, not the particular events and info within the article. However, such events and info would need to respect due weight. So your deletions do not rest on sound justification.-- Biophily ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No reason to do that. It just needed to have the p.o.v. edge taken off it and neutral presentation directly given. Right now it is passable but the citation and snippets connected to information is still confusing and having to wade through all that is a problem. Many times information that is not connected is in a long chain of those snippets. Lots of the snippets still contain cherry picked information that is over the top in praise of Fresco, though some of that has been reduced now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality is no longer a problem. The fact is, Neutrality primarily pertains to presenting information in proportion to the prominence of views expressed in reliable sources, not favoring one view over another or giving undue weight to obscure or minor views. The vast majority of the literature presents Fresco in a respectable light. Therefore I have tried to do the same in Fresco's article. Where there is criticism in reliable sources, I included that (in fact, I DESPERATELY looked for it!). In both cases I included the quotes from these sources in the citations so that the reader can see exactly what the source authors stated, and also so that other editors can correct my use of those statements if I mistakenly misrepresented them in some way.
However, you have expressed intent to include information that is not published in reliable sources. The information you intend to include originated on forums and blogs that operated by people who explicitly express their disdain for Fresco. The information pertains mostly to views about Fresco's character and reputation. These views would qualify as views of tiny minorities or fringe theory that aren't even published in reliable sources. Therefore, any attempt to include these views would be precisely a violation of Neutrality in the aspect of Due Weight. It also violates the requirement for Reliable Sources. It also approaches violation of guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons which forbids libelous, disparaging, unsubstantiated claims.
I violated Impartial Tone of Neutrality in the past (in an attempt to write with a lively style), and I stand corrected. There are many other aspects of Neutrality and you are violating many of these. See: WP:WEIGHT WP:VALID WP:WORDS (esp. WP:ALLEGED)
You are trying to delete anything that represents Fresco in a respectable way, and seek to reduce him to either a laugh or a failure. This is not how the sources represent him!
Presenting your version of the Truth is not an option. We have to present as accurately as possible the prominent and dominant views of reliable sources.-- Biophily ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Jacque Fresco's full interview with Larry King, 1974 www.knowledgeoftoday.org/.../jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974.... Jan 22, 2012 - Observe this Larry King interview and see for yourself. ... living in warmth and harmony: I know that if we don't live that way, we'll kill each other and destroy the Earth. ... I could go through all the things that Dr. Fresco has done. end source http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/01/jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King Jr. ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It is obviously here and apparent and blatant [12] Thats him claiming he is a Dr., what school he claimed to have gone to and what degree he claimed to have. So horse-feathers to your argument. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't feel like playing that game, Fresco committed fraud about his education saying he had a degree according to the article. If that is not obvious to you its probably due to your being a Fresco devotee` or one sided presenter advert person. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. It is not illegal to lie in some cases, though when using a fake diploma to gain work it could present problems as it did in Florida when the authorities cracked down on him for pretending to be a shrink. If it makes you feel better we can just use the non contract term lying instead of the legalistic term fraud. This link proves without a doubt that he lied [13] it says he claimed the diploma from a California college. Oddly, his Venus Project published the information. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Your devotion is comical. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand your devotion to Fresco and that you previously wrote a glossy glowing positive tirade about him and put it into an article. That has been presented more neutrally now. Also I understand that Fresco lied about his education claiming in a newspaper report that he was a doctor. Why he republished the same article on his website is unknown, maybe he wanted to provide some insight into the time period and what his character had to do to have notability and that it was common to get a diploma mill fake sheepskin in those years. So, perhaps it is Fresco just fessing up for future history buffs and researchers. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear that project Americana was notable or made much of an impact on society. That section probably is not cited well either, so maybe that aspect of Fresco's self produced information could be removed or modified. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You might think you are gods gift to this article but the article was so bad a year ago to be kind of a joke. Even now the annoying way the citations are set up make it difficult. It is barely passable now aside from that. focusing on editors is not really suggested. If you have issues there are places to bring the issues 'discussion boards',, requests for comment, etc., instead of making marginal insults. You probably could keep in mind that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. so though you call yourself a researcher that wrote an article on Wikipedia, that is not really the way it works here. The research has to be neutral and cogently explained. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Luckily Wikipedia is not a democracy. No doubt many in his cult following would put their X. where ever they thought he is mentioned. Before editing the article people pointed out how ludicrously it was presented previously and I had to agree. What ever value Fresco has was eroded because of the former presentation that was too sticky sweet and to honorific toward him. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to stalk other articles I am involved with as you have now started doing. I am not a single purpose editor as you appear to be on this article. Maybe you wore down others that tried to make the article neutral before with logic like that used above that is mostly veiled personal attack, but that is not going to work now. If you have issues about this article bring them somewhere where some resolution can happen or ask for a request for comment. Your current lambasting personal approach is not constructive so bring it to one of the notice boards where others can check things. There is a problem with this article that apparently not many people have an interest in it as far as active editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Dif of reverted edtis It has been claimed that these edits were reverted because they have neutrality problems. However no explanation is given despite request. There are many edits that were done individually with different reasons for doing so. However, they have all be blanket reverted. Sorry if it complicates things. Biophily ( talk) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Also posted here: POV Noticeboard-- Biophily ( talk) 18:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
COMMENT - This entire biographical article reads like it was written by someone who is enamored with Fresco. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but the article is bordering on being UN-encyclopaedic. The article needs to be edited by someone who is far less familiar with Fresco (not something I advocate lightly), but still familiar with industrial designers. I think this was the crux of the "neutrality" reverts and comments, in my opinion. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 03:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see that a rewrite by an outside editor. The trouble is getting someone interested enough to write something. Getting someone who is not immersed in the subject nor prejudice against it would be great. However, I suppose Fresco is not only an industrial designer. In an ideal world, we would want someone familiar with industrial designers, futurists, and populist figures to collaborate on it. The original problem is that it was a blanket revert, and some of the edits were unrelated to neutrality. In fact, I would say the neutrality problem seems quite separate from the edits in question. If you don't mind, could you define what you mean by "encyclopaedic" so that we're both on the same page. If you mean that it is overlong and goes into far too much minor detail, failing to generally summarize the subject I can honestly understand and accept that.-- Biophily ( talk) 12:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bio, I understand your dilemma all too well. I too have worked many hours on a variety of articles (creating them or adding significant content) only to have someone (usually more senior in tenure or an admin) come along and revert my efforts or challenge the edits on what amounted to "I don't like it" reasons.
That said, I empathize with the situation that you and Earl find yourselves in. THE BEST SOLUTION is for the two of you to work together since its likely that your collaboration will result in a much better article. So with that in mind, let me make some recommendations...
Quite honestly, I don't want to devote the time to read through the article and give you examples of what to change. Most likely I'd just end up gutting large portions with an edit summary like "Copy Edit-Major" and leave it to others to deal with the leftovers.
I wish you well, but I'm not sure what else to do. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The edits discussed removed some pretty obvious POV, and in my opinion maybe didn't even go far enough in removing unsourced statements. Stuff like "Fresco has referred to his childhood experience of impoverishment during the Great Depression as influencing his later attitude toward society." If he said this it should be easy to show that he did, otherwise this is speculation. Or in reference to 3D technology: "Reported to be novel in its simplicity, it was projected to be relatively cheap and to required little modification of the projection systems used at the time. It was reported to also have prospects for being used in medical x-ray units and surgery applications, according to Daily Variety." Firstly is daily variety even a reliable source, secondly these sentences document research that was discontinued early on and arguably isn't notable enough to be included. I'm still reading through the article and the tone is perhaps a bit overly worshipful. This article should neutrally document source able information about him, not read like a Venus Project press release. Crimsonhexagon ( talk) 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The whole three d. projector was not notable. It was hyped by Fresco as one of his inventions. I think his contacts in Hollywood may have helped him promote the 'idea' that he was inventing something that could be big and gave him press time for it but it never panned out. There is no patent on that technology that he tried to take out, there is no evidence that is was ever used except as a kind of parlor trick to show some industry biggies that 'with more funding' maybe he could make it work. Wikipedia should not be the source for this for others because Fresco highlights this invention of his on his websites, but this invention never happened in the real world. This is a blog type of thing so not usable for sourcing but it fairly points out the lack of notability of the projector idea which never got beyond a demonstration concept level [15] I removed the section for this in the article because it seems inappropriate since it never was anything beyond another resume` point for Fresco. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
These comments from Gazecki are more suited to the "Influence" section. The use of Gazecki's quotes in the way it currently presented is not very encyclopedic. It reads more like a newspaper. Perhaps these quotes should be summed up and paraphrased?-- Biophily ( talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Earl King, you keep moving the paragraph. It belongs better to the "Influence" subsection because Gazecki is explaining why Fresco has not been a large influence in architecture and society in general. Just because you want to strike the reader immediately with a negative sentiment does not make it the proper place for that paragraph. It's better to move it to the "Influence" subsection, and have the lead sentences of the criticism section be neither criticism nor praise. BLP's require balance, unlike other types of articles.-- Biophily ( talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't supposed to have "bite." It is supposed to be dispassionate and impartial. Giving it bite is not neutral. We are supposed to state the facts cleanly and straightforwardly, not nearly plagerize the source and write in the voice of the source. We are here to quote a source for the sake of the point, NOT for the sake of the drama. Even better is to paraphrase the source if the point can be stated more concisely with fewer words without losing information. The Gazecki quote was formerly quite unencyclopedic.-- Biophily ( talk) 10:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Our policy requires us to present the subject as the mainstream academics view the subject. If the mainstream academics are biting crank theories and those who push them, then that is what the article must present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the author's name (Lucas M. Engelhardt) to the citation for footnote 62 (referring to the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics) because including the name (available in the linked article) conforms to the standard format of the footnotes.
Engelhardtlm1 ( talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - although your user-name suggests that "because including the name ... conforms to the standard format of the footnotes" may not be your only reason. - Arjayay ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Please hyperlink Venus Project in the second paragraph of the introduction. 71.9.238.37 ( talk) 17:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fresco has also received criticism from other social scientists. Yates, although sympathetic with Fresco's ideas, argues that there 'are major theoretical shortcomings in Fresco’s ideas. Although Fresco’s criticisms of monetary systems are valid, his ideas lack the scope and depth of other contemporary thinkers. Additionally, there are ethical concerns surrounding the mobilisation of Fresco’s alternative vision. It is recommended that Fresco should garner greater sociological knowledge before attempting to mobilise his alternative vision." [1].
References
85.255.235.174 ( talk) 10:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I came to this page having seen the phrase, and after reading this article I'm still barely any wiser as to what it actually *is*. That needs to be explained concisely in the lead and/or at the start of the relevant section. 86.184.245.71 ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the incorporation bit, because I think it's irrelevant and also complicated.
It was first called "The Venus Project", then renamed to "Diverse City" and then a new "The Venus Project" was created, with Roxanne Meadows as only owner. I think this is the only organisation still active. I don't think it's encyclopedic or relevant. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new information:
In July 2016 Jacque Fresco received a NOVUS Summit award for City Design/Community. NOVUS Summit is supported by UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). [1]
References
2003:66:8832:C2C8:FD54:3ED3:A2F5:14EA ( talk) 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Jacque Fresco. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Suggest to use a shorter link in "External links" section: https://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia -- IvAnEss ( talk) 11:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I can edit this page now. So, the link is still unedited. Is there anybody here to do the edit? Thanks in advance. -- IvAnEss ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
If the film was so effective, where it is now? Why didn't he publish it? Why the only source is his own words decades ago after it supposedly happened? I guess then the mention should be moved from 'midlife' section into 'later career' or the like. Alliumnsk ( talk) 07:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a part in "Hypothetical form of government" about criticism from traditional economists on how RBE gonna fail and so called economic calculation problem within RBE which unfortunately hasn't been addressed at all. Meanwhile only Russian/Ukrainian pages on RBE exist and lots of great materials in english that destroy all of the RBE critics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wGCsVe2Ik - Douglas Mallette - Science, Engineering and Technology for Human Concern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=SN&page=1&hl=fr&v=IVUz6uUi9AU - Resource Based Economy vs. Libertarianism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM - Freedomain Radio Debates The Venus Project/Zeitgeist Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o - Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE
Also books TZM Defined and The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression (2017) provide comprehensive data on how RBE works. I'm a new to wikipedia and i really hope that someone more skilled than me can start the page so maybe we could collaborate together on this. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmaan ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Forgive me, first time using the "talk" page. I assume I am breaking protocols by the style of my post here, but just want to bring this to your attention...
I am reading through this Wikipedia page as an article, and when I get to the " Venus Project and later career" section, his partner Roxanne Meadows is introduced rather abruptly. She has never been mentioned up til this point, and thus I believe a basic grammatical introduction is a good idea. Something along the lines of:
"Fresco, with his partner Roxanne Meadows, supported the project..."
That's all!
I recognise she is introduced in a captioned image on the left, but if reading the Wiki page like I was in an article style, it's probably not considered until after the section has been completed.
I hope this helps!
Thanks for the amazing work everyone! Keep it up. :)
I volunteer for The Venus Project. I’m trying to circumvent some charity for them they can’t even hire anyone they are so broke. TVP is scalable they over/under built themselves have a beautiful museum and a plan. A Humanitarianwonderful influence too. King.Jehoshaphat ( talk) 05:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Sry typing in a cell phone King.Jehoshaphat ( talk) 05:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I am a new editor with a link correction. The article pointed to by link Florida Living Magazine. Miami. pp. 2–3 can be found here. Universal Basic Outcome ( talk) 04:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.177.6.157 ( talk) 21:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Can i change the name to Jacque Fresco and Venus Project?
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Jacque Fresco article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 |
A news item involving Jacque Fresco was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 23 May 2017. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
WHAT A HORRIBLE ARTICLE FILLED WITH ONLY OPINIONATED BIASED JUDGEMENTS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.165.159.65 ( talk) 08:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Earl King why are you blanket reverting edits? Are you reviewing the changes I have made? Your blanket reverts also reverse many minor edits that can't possibly be questioned on the basis of neutrality. Please stop being lazy and blanket reverting. If you have a problem with a change I made, then rationally address that particular change. Otherwise it will be taken up on a noticeboard indicting you for interfering with productive editing. Your approach is not facilitating constructive cooperation but rather blunt, stagnant, destructive confrontation with other editors.-- Biophily ( talk) 03:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Off topic thread resulting from removal of long term abuser's comments
|
---|
I think this zeitgeist wikipedia article would be greatly improved if it was deleted right now. Snakeinass ( talk) 09:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
|
Earl King, the reasoning for the multiple sources are as follows: since some of the statements could be considered contentious, especially the "twenty years ahead of his time" statement, doubling or tripling sources seemed necessary, to show that it has due weight and was written by more than one author during that era. Deleting decent sources that support this is not an improvement. But if you are willing to forget the high standard, that's up to you.-- Biophily ( talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Biophily,
You have
uploaded various images of Fresco's work whilst claiming that you hold the copyright. If your claims are true, then you should stop editing the article, due to
WP:COI. If your claims are not true, then we should stop using content that you have uploaded, due to copyright problems. Which problem do we need to address here?
bobrayner (
talk) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Relying heavily on that Orlando Weekly article is not a good idea. Not only are there original publications from the time periods covered in the Orlando Weekly article, that are better to use due to their proximity to the actual events, the Orlando Weekly article used information from Wikipedia in several instances at the time it was written, especially regarding the Trend Home. Heavily using sources that use Wikipedia as a source is discouraged on Wikipedia WP:CIRCULAR. However, I see that it is being relied upon heavily, especially with the recent rewrite of the Trend Home section by Earl King, who takes info from the Orlando Weekly article exclusively.-- Biophily ( talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
What is the best way to use the information that Fresco perhaps misled/lied in interviews about a degree? This is one example in link below, when he claimed to be a Dr. with a degree in psychology from Sierra University LosAngeles. He also allowed himself to be introduced as a doctor on his Larry King interview. Source about his academic background from old newspaper article preserved. [5] Earl King Jr. ( talk) 05:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Earl King your recent edit does not reflect the facts. Do you not recall that the photo of the projector was deleted? Yet you used a very dubious source that pulls a claim from nowhere that the projector was never built. There are better sources on this subject than the one you used. You reduced the Variety source that was published in 1949. The source you used is addressing something that happened over 60 years ago with absolutely no evidence for what it is saying. It's nothing but unresearched cynical opinion. Very poor source. I can't see how it has authority on that issue. It could be used as a critical opinion of Fresco's ideas, or more specifically, the film Future By Design, but nothing beyond that especially pertaining to historical facts. The fact that you would believe that malicious blog is surprising.-- Biophily ( talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The first link in References ( [8]) is broken. The new location for this link is [9]. I am a new editor so I am sorry if this request has not been made correctly.
Done Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Celestra ( talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
Easy Biophily on the reverts. Its better to get a well rounded picture of Fresco. By putting speculating things about him being the modern heir of some past prophecy like that quote which is not a quote, it wrecks credibility in the article. Cherry picking obvious Fresco Fetish believers and highlighting that is not neutral. I am still thinking the convoluted way the citations and their information is given needs to be changed dramatically.
People have to sort through lots of unrelated stuff to get at a citation reference for any information in lots of situation there now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Improving it was just a suggestion since it is there, it can be used to cross connect things [10] Mostly the suggestion was to expand the reference point. Whether it has notability or value I don't know. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 02:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Earl King, there you go on a deletion fit again because I reverted one of your edits. You justified one of your deletions by saying that the information was not notable. However, Wikipedia stipulates that only the subject of the article (Jacque Fresco) be notable, not the particular events and info within the article. However, such events and info would need to respect due weight. So your deletions do not rest on sound justification.-- Biophily ( talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No reason to do that. It just needed to have the p.o.v. edge taken off it and neutral presentation directly given. Right now it is passable but the citation and snippets connected to information is still confusing and having to wade through all that is a problem. Many times information that is not connected is in a long chain of those snippets. Lots of the snippets still contain cherry picked information that is over the top in praise of Fresco, though some of that has been reduced now. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Neutrality is no longer a problem. The fact is, Neutrality primarily pertains to presenting information in proportion to the prominence of views expressed in reliable sources, not favoring one view over another or giving undue weight to obscure or minor views. The vast majority of the literature presents Fresco in a respectable light. Therefore I have tried to do the same in Fresco's article. Where there is criticism in reliable sources, I included that (in fact, I DESPERATELY looked for it!). In both cases I included the quotes from these sources in the citations so that the reader can see exactly what the source authors stated, and also so that other editors can correct my use of those statements if I mistakenly misrepresented them in some way.
However, you have expressed intent to include information that is not published in reliable sources. The information you intend to include originated on forums and blogs that operated by people who explicitly express their disdain for Fresco. The information pertains mostly to views about Fresco's character and reputation. These views would qualify as views of tiny minorities or fringe theory that aren't even published in reliable sources. Therefore, any attempt to include these views would be precisely a violation of Neutrality in the aspect of Due Weight. It also violates the requirement for Reliable Sources. It also approaches violation of guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons which forbids libelous, disparaging, unsubstantiated claims.
I violated Impartial Tone of Neutrality in the past (in an attempt to write with a lively style), and I stand corrected. There are many other aspects of Neutrality and you are violating many of these. See: WP:WEIGHT WP:VALID WP:WORDS (esp. WP:ALLEGED)
You are trying to delete anything that represents Fresco in a respectable way, and seek to reduce him to either a laugh or a failure. This is not how the sources represent him!
Presenting your version of the Truth is not an option. We have to present as accurately as possible the prominent and dominant views of reliable sources.-- Biophily ( talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Jacque Fresco's full interview with Larry King, 1974 www.knowledgeoftoday.org/.../jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974.... Jan 22, 2012 - Observe this Larry King interview and see for yourself. ... living in warmth and harmony: I know that if we don't live that way, we'll kill each other and destroy the Earth. ... I could go through all the things that Dr. Fresco has done. end source http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/01/jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King Jr. ( talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
It is obviously here and apparent and blatant [12] Thats him claiming he is a Dr., what school he claimed to have gone to and what degree he claimed to have. So horse-feathers to your argument. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 08:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
No, I don't feel like playing that game, Fresco committed fraud about his education saying he had a degree according to the article. If that is not obvious to you its probably due to your being a Fresco devotee` or one sided presenter advert person. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. It is not illegal to lie in some cases, though when using a fake diploma to gain work it could present problems as it did in Florida when the authorities cracked down on him for pretending to be a shrink. If it makes you feel better we can just use the non contract term lying instead of the legalistic term fraud. This link proves without a doubt that he lied [13] it says he claimed the diploma from a California college. Oddly, his Venus Project published the information. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Your devotion is comical. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand your devotion to Fresco and that you previously wrote a glossy glowing positive tirade about him and put it into an article. That has been presented more neutrally now. Also I understand that Fresco lied about his education claiming in a newspaper report that he was a doctor. Why he republished the same article on his website is unknown, maybe he wanted to provide some insight into the time period and what his character had to do to have notability and that it was common to get a diploma mill fake sheepskin in those years. So, perhaps it is Fresco just fessing up for future history buffs and researchers. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It does not appear that project Americana was notable or made much of an impact on society. That section probably is not cited well either, so maybe that aspect of Fresco's self produced information could be removed or modified. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
You might think you are gods gift to this article but the article was so bad a year ago to be kind of a joke. Even now the annoying way the citations are set up make it difficult. It is barely passable now aside from that. focusing on editors is not really suggested. If you have issues there are places to bring the issues 'discussion boards',, requests for comment, etc., instead of making marginal insults. You probably could keep in mind that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. so though you call yourself a researcher that wrote an article on Wikipedia, that is not really the way it works here. The research has to be neutral and cogently explained. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Luckily Wikipedia is not a democracy. No doubt many in his cult following would put their X. where ever they thought he is mentioned. Before editing the article people pointed out how ludicrously it was presented previously and I had to agree. What ever value Fresco has was eroded because of the former presentation that was too sticky sweet and to honorific toward him. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 07:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It is not appropriate to stalk other articles I am involved with as you have now started doing. I am not a single purpose editor as you appear to be on this article. Maybe you wore down others that tried to make the article neutral before with logic like that used above that is mostly veiled personal attack, but that is not going to work now. If you have issues about this article bring them somewhere where some resolution can happen or ask for a request for comment. Your current lambasting personal approach is not constructive so bring it to one of the notice boards where others can check things. There is a problem with this article that apparently not many people have an interest in it as far as active editors. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 13:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Dif of reverted edtis It has been claimed that these edits were reverted because they have neutrality problems. However no explanation is given despite request. There are many edits that were done individually with different reasons for doing so. However, they have all be blanket reverted. Sorry if it complicates things. Biophily ( talk) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Also posted here: POV Noticeboard-- Biophily ( talk) 18:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
COMMENT - This entire biographical article reads like it was written by someone who is enamored with Fresco. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but the article is bordering on being UN-encyclopaedic. The article needs to be edited by someone who is far less familiar with Fresco (not something I advocate lightly), but still familiar with industrial designers. I think this was the crux of the "neutrality" reverts and comments, in my opinion. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 03:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to see that a rewrite by an outside editor. The trouble is getting someone interested enough to write something. Getting someone who is not immersed in the subject nor prejudice against it would be great. However, I suppose Fresco is not only an industrial designer. In an ideal world, we would want someone familiar with industrial designers, futurists, and populist figures to collaborate on it. The original problem is that it was a blanket revert, and some of the edits were unrelated to neutrality. In fact, I would say the neutrality problem seems quite separate from the edits in question. If you don't mind, could you define what you mean by "encyclopaedic" so that we're both on the same page. If you mean that it is overlong and goes into far too much minor detail, failing to generally summarize the subject I can honestly understand and accept that.-- Biophily ( talk) 12:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bio, I understand your dilemma all too well. I too have worked many hours on a variety of articles (creating them or adding significant content) only to have someone (usually more senior in tenure or an admin) come along and revert my efforts or challenge the edits on what amounted to "I don't like it" reasons.
That said, I empathize with the situation that you and Earl find yourselves in. THE BEST SOLUTION is for the two of you to work together since its likely that your collaboration will result in a much better article. So with that in mind, let me make some recommendations...
Quite honestly, I don't want to devote the time to read through the article and give you examples of what to change. Most likely I'd just end up gutting large portions with an edit summary like "Copy Edit-Major" and leave it to others to deal with the leftovers.
I wish you well, but I'm not sure what else to do. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... ( talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The edits discussed removed some pretty obvious POV, and in my opinion maybe didn't even go far enough in removing unsourced statements. Stuff like "Fresco has referred to his childhood experience of impoverishment during the Great Depression as influencing his later attitude toward society." If he said this it should be easy to show that he did, otherwise this is speculation. Or in reference to 3D technology: "Reported to be novel in its simplicity, it was projected to be relatively cheap and to required little modification of the projection systems used at the time. It was reported to also have prospects for being used in medical x-ray units and surgery applications, according to Daily Variety." Firstly is daily variety even a reliable source, secondly these sentences document research that was discontinued early on and arguably isn't notable enough to be included. I'm still reading through the article and the tone is perhaps a bit overly worshipful. This article should neutrally document source able information about him, not read like a Venus Project press release. Crimsonhexagon ( talk) 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The whole three d. projector was not notable. It was hyped by Fresco as one of his inventions. I think his contacts in Hollywood may have helped him promote the 'idea' that he was inventing something that could be big and gave him press time for it but it never panned out. There is no patent on that technology that he tried to take out, there is no evidence that is was ever used except as a kind of parlor trick to show some industry biggies that 'with more funding' maybe he could make it work. Wikipedia should not be the source for this for others because Fresco highlights this invention of his on his websites, but this invention never happened in the real world. This is a blog type of thing so not usable for sourcing but it fairly points out the lack of notability of the projector idea which never got beyond a demonstration concept level [15] I removed the section for this in the article because it seems inappropriate since it never was anything beyond another resume` point for Fresco. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 01:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
These comments from Gazecki are more suited to the "Influence" section. The use of Gazecki's quotes in the way it currently presented is not very encyclopedic. It reads more like a newspaper. Perhaps these quotes should be summed up and paraphrased?-- Biophily ( talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Earl King, you keep moving the paragraph. It belongs better to the "Influence" subsection because Gazecki is explaining why Fresco has not been a large influence in architecture and society in general. Just because you want to strike the reader immediately with a negative sentiment does not make it the proper place for that paragraph. It's better to move it to the "Influence" subsection, and have the lead sentences of the criticism section be neither criticism nor praise. BLP's require balance, unlike other types of articles.-- Biophily ( talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
The article isn't supposed to have "bite." It is supposed to be dispassionate and impartial. Giving it bite is not neutral. We are supposed to state the facts cleanly and straightforwardly, not nearly plagerize the source and write in the voice of the source. We are here to quote a source for the sake of the point, NOT for the sake of the drama. Even better is to paraphrase the source if the point can be stated more concisely with fewer words without losing information. The Gazecki quote was formerly quite unencyclopedic.-- Biophily ( talk) 10:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Our policy requires us to present the subject as the mainstream academics view the subject. If the mainstream academics are biting crank theories and those who push them, then that is what the article must present. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 11:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the author's name (Lucas M. Engelhardt) to the citation for footnote 62 (referring to the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics) because including the name (available in the linked article) conforms to the standard format of the footnotes.
Engelhardtlm1 ( talk) 18:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Done - although your user-name suggests that "because including the name ... conforms to the standard format of the footnotes" may not be your only reason. - Arjayay ( talk) 18:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Please hyperlink Venus Project in the second paragraph of the introduction. 71.9.238.37 ( talk) 17:20, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Fresco has also received criticism from other social scientists. Yates, although sympathetic with Fresco's ideas, argues that there 'are major theoretical shortcomings in Fresco’s ideas. Although Fresco’s criticisms of monetary systems are valid, his ideas lack the scope and depth of other contemporary thinkers. Additionally, there are ethical concerns surrounding the mobilisation of Fresco’s alternative vision. It is recommended that Fresco should garner greater sociological knowledge before attempting to mobilise his alternative vision." [1].
References
85.255.235.174 ( talk) 10:17, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
Mdann52 (
talk) 16:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:24, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I came to this page having seen the phrase, and after reading this article I'm still barely any wiser as to what it actually *is*. That needs to be explained concisely in the lead and/or at the start of the relevant section. 86.184.245.71 ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:11, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I removed the incorporation bit, because I think it's irrelevant and also complicated.
It was first called "The Venus Project", then renamed to "Diverse City" and then a new "The Venus Project" was created, with Roxanne Meadows as only owner. I think this is the only organisation still active. I don't think it's encyclopedic or relevant. -- OpenFuture ( talk) 20:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add new information:
In July 2016 Jacque Fresco received a NOVUS Summit award for City Design/Community. NOVUS Summit is supported by UN DESA (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs). [1]
References
2003:66:8832:C2C8:FD54:3ED3:A2F5:14EA ( talk) 14:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Jacque Fresco. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:58, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Suggest to use a shorter link in "External links" section: https://www.youtube.com/user/thevenusprojectmedia -- IvAnEss ( talk) 11:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Looks like I can edit this page now. So, the link is still unedited. Is there anybody here to do the edit? Thanks in advance. -- IvAnEss ( talk) 10:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
If the film was so effective, where it is now? Why didn't he publish it? Why the only source is his own words decades ago after it supposedly happened? I guess then the mention should be moved from 'midlife' section into 'later career' or the like. Alliumnsk ( talk) 07:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Jacque Fresco. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
There is a part in "Hypothetical form of government" about criticism from traditional economists on how RBE gonna fail and so called economic calculation problem within RBE which unfortunately hasn't been addressed at all. Meanwhile only Russian/Ukrainian pages on RBE exist and lots of great materials in english that destroy all of the RBE critics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77wGCsVe2Ik - Douglas Mallette - Science, Engineering and Technology for Human Concern
https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=SN&page=1&hl=fr&v=IVUz6uUi9AU - Resource Based Economy vs. Libertarianism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxjwBZjADiM - Freedomain Radio Debates The Venus Project/Zeitgeist Moving Forward
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o - Economic Calculation in a Natural Law / RBE
Also books TZM Defined and The New Human Rights Movement: Reinventing the Economy to End Oppression (2017) provide comprehensive data on how RBE works. I'm a new to wikipedia and i really hope that someone more skilled than me can start the page so maybe we could collaborate together on this. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badmaan ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi all. Forgive me, first time using the "talk" page. I assume I am breaking protocols by the style of my post here, but just want to bring this to your attention...
I am reading through this Wikipedia page as an article, and when I get to the " Venus Project and later career" section, his partner Roxanne Meadows is introduced rather abruptly. She has never been mentioned up til this point, and thus I believe a basic grammatical introduction is a good idea. Something along the lines of:
"Fresco, with his partner Roxanne Meadows, supported the project..."
That's all!
I recognise she is introduced in a captioned image on the left, but if reading the Wiki page like I was in an article style, it's probably not considered until after the section has been completed.
I hope this helps!
Thanks for the amazing work everyone! Keep it up. :)
I volunteer for The Venus Project. I’m trying to circumvent some charity for them they can’t even hire anyone they are so broke. TVP is scalable they over/under built themselves have a beautiful museum and a plan. A Humanitarianwonderful influence too. King.Jehoshaphat ( talk) 05:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Sry typing in a cell phone King.Jehoshaphat ( talk) 05:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 18:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I am a new editor with a link correction. The article pointed to by link Florida Living Magazine. Miami. pp. 2–3 can be found here. Universal Basic Outcome ( talk) 04:35, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
92.177.6.157 ( talk) 21:15, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Can i change the name to Jacque Fresco and Venus Project?