Jump to content

Talk:Jacque Fresco/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

I have some issues with the newly written statement by User:CharlesC...

"*Technocratic movement - which has some similar ideas in terms of what is possible with automation and resources of the planet, but there are important differences between Jaque's ideas and that of the technocratic movement. Jacque is not in favour of the concept of energy credits for example, and he does not consider himself a 'technocrat'."

Namely that his connections to Technocracy are more extensive than suggested here, I've been informed that he was in-fact a Member of Technocracy Inc. at one time. And his ideas are so similar to those advocated by Technocrats that there is no doubt that he was inspired by Technocracy (and/or visa-versa). There are quotes on his websites that are almost directly taken form the Technocracy Study Course, for instance. So I don't think it can be glossed over. That was why I put him in the Technocracy movement Category, I know he is not a Technocrat and not affiliated with the movement but he is a former member and clearly advocates the same kind of things. So for that reason I would be in favour of putting this article back into that category, what is your opinion CharlesC? --Hibernian 16:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to gloss anything over, which is why I left in the link in the 'see also' section to the technocratic movement, but if you feel strongly about this I won't get in the way! -- CharlesC 18:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've put back the Technocracy movement Category. It's not that I really feel strongly about it but I think he does qualify for that Category, for the reasons already stated. I want that link so that people can understand the full story about Jacque Fresco and about Technocracy. I'm also considering expanding the stuff about Fresco's links to Technocracy, but the problem is I don't have all the facts at my disposal, so if I just put up what I've learned it might be considered original research. I was wondering if you know any more about it? --Hibernian 23:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Not in any detail I'm afraid. All I know is that there were some particular views held by some leaders of the technocratic movement that Jacque was not comfortable with and led him to distance himself from them, as well as developing some conceptual differences with his own vision. -- CharlesC 00:04, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This page reads like an advert. I am sure someone must have commented on his "forward-thinking ideas" from a critical perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.180.249.190 (talk) 02:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC) maybe.

I disagree. Maybe it did when you wrote this comment, but as it is now, it reads fine. Dancouvert (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It reads like someone who is deliberately trying to portray themselves as some kind of modern day Buckminster Fuller. Even recycles his terminology in places… 'Maximally'… etc.!

Well he is similar in some respects, although he is not 'trying' to be so, it is simply the way he is. He is an independent-minded, free-thinking individual, and it is not surprising that this type of person who is also of a technical and rational inclination might arrive at similar conclusions, and have a similar world-view. However this article is neither written by him, nor did he ask for it to be. --CharlesC (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Alphonse Beau de Rochas and Thomas Edison were not educated as engineers or licensed in engineering, but I would consider them to be more worthy of the title than almost all state-licensed engineers. Sadly, it seems like engineering education and licensing, with notable exceptions, is more about being part of a club than utilizing technology and resources to improve the human condition. Status/Utility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.28 (talk) 21:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


What justification is there for the (dubious-discuss) tag on the Resource-based Economy section? I can understand someone objecting to Fresco's views on this matter, but I do not see any justification for labeling the article's treatment of his views as "dubious."Peter (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the "Dubious" tag, and am removing it. It appears to have been added by a user (making edit 17:12, 9 November 2009) who disagreed with viability of a resource based economy. His/her only other contribution to the article was to uncomment a paragraph that begins "Unfortunately for Mr. Fresco, resources ARE scarce..." and the edit summary reads "This is communism with a twist. Are you people blind?" This doesn't appear to be an edit made in good faith, and I'm surprised the tag has lingered this long. Whether viable or not, there's nothing "dubious" about the fact that this is the system which Mr. Fresco espouses. StoicCalm (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Venus Project page

Why doesn't the Venus Project have it's own page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by KnuXles (talk • contribs) 22:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Because no one has created it yet. Care to contribute? 24.174.21.20 (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it doesn't have it's own page it really sure its a great idea and i think more people should know about this so that may-be things can start to change

It was made in fact, but there was much discussion (see here and here) and the consensus was that it doesn't currently warrant its own article. It is the philosophy and ideas of Jacque himself that are most notable. The key ideas and links relevant to the Venus Project are on this article however. --CharlesC (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree. This and the Venus project pages have no listed criticism, and there are many, many critics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.212.39 (talk) 12:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC) Ehm...then write about it. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? --Gaxtrope (talk) 08:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Industrial engineer, architectural designer, social engineer?

The article describes Fresco as an "industrial engineer, architectural designer, social engineer", but according to an interview with Fresco available on the Zeitgeist Movement website and on the Venus Project website, he has never completed a university degree in any field, so it it is a little misleading to call him all of those titles. It would be much more accurate to say that this is how he describes himself, as in "a self-descibed industrial engineer with no formal training". Paglew (talk) 20:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

You can put that if you like, however you do not have to have completed a university degree to be called 'something', I don't believe that is misleading - it depends what you have done during your life. If you have lived a significant proportion of your life as an engineer for instance, then you are an engineer! It like saying you are not an artist if you haven't got a university degree in art... --CharlesC (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
That is simply wrong, CharlesC. "Engineer" is a reserved title in the United States in almost all jurisdictions, and it has been that way for well over three-quarters of a century. In order to call oneself an engineer, one must have passed a state-administered examination and must be registered or licensed by a governing body. Similar requirements exist almost everywhere else in the world. In some places, an engineer must also have a university degree, usually equivalent to at least a Bachelor of Science. While it is true that exemptions (loopholes) exist for the use of the title in industry, one risks monetary fines or even jail time by offering "engineering" services without the requisite certifications. (The requirements don't exist for "social engineers", whatever that is, or "sanitary engineers", however.) So, if Mr. Fresco has no university diploma or State of Florida certification, let's not insult Wikipedia readers by calling him an "engineer". The way the opening sentence in the article now reads, and calling him a "futurist", is sufficient. —QuicksilverT @ 23:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
I have no problems with the article being changed to say 'futurist' - it's concise, simple and covers it nicely. Without wanting to labour the point, I simply do not agree with your argument above though. First of all (although yes, Jacque is a US citizen) you must remember not to be US-centric in an international encyclopedia - I am from the UK for example. In the UK you can certainly call yourself an engineer without a degree or formal training, if that is what you do day to day (although in reality, most of them have). 'BEng' and 'MEng' are often placed after your name to denote a degree in the discipline. I have a friend who designs and builds experimental aircraft for a living, who has no formal training in engineering (just lots of experience). He is certainly an engineer, specifically a mechanical engineer (and a very good one at that). The Wikipedia article on Engineer says "People who work as engineers typically have an academic degree (or equivalent work experience) in one of the engineering disciplines". I reckon if you stated on the talk page of that article that engineers are only those with formal training or degrees, you would get a many replies from people disagreeing. As a final note, and getting back to the original point (not that this is concrete proof of course) but it does detail in Jacque's resume that he was a Research Engineer for the Raymond De-Icer Corp. --CharlesC (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
If in the wiki states that professions should be mentioned only if there is a degree, then you are right. Otherwise you are wrong, 'Engineer' is first a profession, then a degree. It's like saying that pythagoras was not a mathematician and a philosopher because he didn't have any degree. It just doesn't make any sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Modernclics (talk • contribs) 00:27, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Being from the U.S. and completing a Master's Degree in Industrial Management, I can first hand tell you that many of my fellow students who have graduated with "technology" degrees do INDEED get jobs as "engineers." They do not have a formal engineering degree, however their titles label them as engineers in the professional world. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

I come from germany, and I find it disturbing too, that a person is presented as an "multi engineer" without having the formal education. I think he is a brigth mind, but nobody should present themself as something he is not. "Ingeneur" means in germany, you have studied at a university and finished with a master/diploma. If you have studied at a lower institution like a "Berufsakademie" (university of cooperative education) you have to write "Dipl.Ing.(BA)" on your business card.--87.158.93.223 (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well here in Canada, I've never seen that. "Engineering Technologist" is quite common, but a company calling someone an engineer when they don't have an engineering degree is something I've never seen. I'd be quite interested to see the actual job titles of your friends - there's a difference between calling yourself an engineer and being called one officially. The difference isn't that severe - they could be paid the same and do the same work - but it's unlikely they're identified as engineers on their business cards, for instance. TastyCakes (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a formal engineering degree. I work with people that have no formal engineering degree, but have been doing the work of an engineer for decades. They're significantly more qualified to be called an engineer than I am. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.174.21.20 (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes but are they called engineers? In Canada and the States it is technically illegal to call yourself an engineer unless you have completed an engineering degree from an accredited institution. This becomes particularly true when you get into the realm of Professional engineers. There are exceptions that are clearly spelled out, such as people that drive trains, but there are not a lot of them. I believe you can also apply to be recognized as an engineer in Canada if you have sufficient work experience, but you have to take significant qualifying exams to make sure you know "enough" of the "right stuff". If I recall Microsoft had to stop calling people that finished one of its courses "certified Something engineer" where the something was some Microsoft software or programming application. Since Fresco is an American, I do not believe the article should label him an engineer. Also, I'm pretty sure "social engineer" is a fluffy made up term. TastyCakes (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't know about Canada, but in the US, regulation of the term "engineer" is state-by-state. As far as I know, only Texas actually requires that you have obtained certification to be called an engineer- specifically state certification. I have worked in New York and Washington, and I can assure you, plenty of us go by the label of "engineer" without having obtained any certification. The term "Professional Engineer" may be more widely protected. Anyway, I'd prefer to apply labels based on what a person's done. The page currently says Fresco is a "social engineer", among other things. Besides writing books and making lectures about his radical ideas, what has he done to deserve the title "social engineer"? If that's just something he calls himself, then I think that bears mention. If he's worked as a social engineer (given, say, the criteria laid out in the linked to article, Sociological practice#Applied sociology), then such work should be referenced, because it's not currently. -- Prothonotar (talk) 06:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding "self-educated" before his titles. Shouldn't be as negative as "self-proclaimed," but more honest than the article is currently. --Hwwood (talk) 22:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My grandfather was head engineer at Air New Zealand for over a decade. Many older engineers had no formal training but undertook engineering cadetships (especially those involved with the military and around wartime). Paglew your position is simply wrong. If your job title and job is that of an engineer, then we should be able to refer to someone as an engineer, on an international encyclopedia without having to qualify it. The laws/rules/regulations may be different ( for official certification) as per country but the article is not merely contextually relevant to the United States, therefore a broader definition would be applicable. Jacque at one time was an engineer by trade. Would you also claim that my grandfather, who was head engineer for the national carrier of New Zealand who at one stage did not meet the criteria you mentioned, should not be called an engineer when referenced by people in countries with different certification criteria. Your argument is wrong because you make broad assumptions about what would be considered an engineer, based on certain current US criteria also claiming they are similar "the world over" (without also citing specific evidence refuting the correctness of his actual job title in that time period), You also ignore the semantic argument for calling him an engineer based on actual profession, not simply certification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.163.89 (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


Most words have six or seven definitions and unlimited shades of meaning. If you capitalize Engineer, that would be a degree title, engineer is a job title.
As to most articles on Wikipedia, authors seem to feel they have to pass on the merits of everyones history, rather than report on it. The whole idea of references can be the fallacy of argument by authority and should be used with discretion, not full abandon. Hrld11 (talk) 07:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Alphonse Beau de Rochas and Thomas Edison were not educated as engineers or licensed in engineering, but I would consider them to be more worthy of the title than almost all state-licensed engineers. Sadly, it seems like engineering education and licensing, with notable exceptions, is more about being part of a club than utilizing technology and resources to improve the human condition. Status/Utility? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.215.28 (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's totally unacceptable to call someone officially an engineer, if he is not, if he has not the degree for that. It is misleading. First of all you should not be accepted to work as an engineer if you have not graduated and got that title. I am a pharmacist, and I think it's the same situation. Nobody is allowed to work as a pharmacist if he has not the degree for that, and even if someone would have worked their entire life in a pharmacy, and have some knowledge about it, he will never be called a pharmacist because he did not graduated a pharmacy faculty and does not have the basic knowledge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.24.212.10 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The majority of the argument's I have thus seen are usually based upon geographical location, defining what an engineer is, whether one needs to be certified or not with a degree, etc... These arguments for the most part to me seem to be predicated on what one has done in the universities to earn the degree vs. what one has experience in the field. Experience in the field counts more than the degree you hold, as there are people who give engineering advise with credible degrees that have yet to even step onto the field. They end up messing up and cause a lot of problems due to their lack of field work. By this measure and example that happens quite regularly in the world I would imagine that this is what would count in reality. But due to some law's and considering he is a U.S. citizen it would be worth to change it to perhaps "self-educated Industrial Engineer (he has done much field work in the past but has no formal education)" which I believe would sum it up very nicely. Also those people who say it's "misleading" obviously have a certain credentialed standard of what an engineer is. My standard (as has been those described by CharlesC and others here in the talk page) is that field work is what one need to be qualified as an engineer. While the opposite side is that it is credentialism that is the purpose. However the point of this talk is to add objectivity and not add our own biases and preferential constitutional meaning to what an engineer is. For meaning of limiting the discussion, let us keep within what U.S. Law's requirement (as Fresco is a U.S. Citizen) what one would need to have in order to be called an Industrial Engineer along with the widely held consensus in the U.S. Engineering Industry on what one needs in order to call themselves an engineer professionally. In other word's, let's keep things objective and in scope instead of adding our own biases based on either preferential's or geographical location.

One more thing, bringing up Engineer's of the past and retrojecting their status into today's past (like how one of the user's put forth by bringing Rochas and Edison in to the conversation) while interesting, is not the point of the discussion and only adds confusion. It is also not palatable for resolving this issue either. Keep thing's within today's law's and today's standard's instead of retrojecting the past's into our time line.--Voiceofreason467 (talk) 23 November 2010, 7:39pm (PST)

It's called autodidact |ˌôtōˈdīˌdakt| noun a self-taught person. ORIGIN mid 18th cent.: from Greek autodidaktos ‘self-taught,’ from autos ‘self’ + didaskein ‘teach.’ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grüning (talk • contribs) 07:28, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I think "engineer" is OK. I say that as a holder, in Texas of all places, of two engineering degrees (viz MSEE and BSBioE...no stamp yet!). What is not really OK, however, is the litany of titles to be found in the hagiographic opening sentence...but I suppose it can pass. The (unsourced) second sentence, however, inarguably lacks neutrality: "Fresco has worked as both designer and inventor in a wide range of fields spanning biomedical innovations and integrated social systems." Again, it's unsourced...and the only (accessible) references on the page that appear to mention his "inventions" are obviously biased beatifications of a seemingly inconsiderable political theorist. The entire article, in fact, fails to mention a *single* one of his "biomedical innovations". There apparently was previously a suggestion that he designed a 3D X-ray machine (again, unsourced); having been unable to find any information whatsoever about such a machine created by a "Jacques Fresco", I can only assume that this claim had its provenance in a little bit of nakedly dishonest self-aggrandisement on Mr Fresco's part...at any rate, I suggest that the second sentence either be sourced -- preferentially heavily, to match the magnitude and consequence of a claim that a political theorist (and, for that matter, a conspiracy theorist, to boot) has been a major "innovator" in biotech -- or it be removed. In fact, since the former option is bound not to happen, I suppose the sentence should just be removed.74.192.195.94 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Ran my mouth off too quickly...I came to this page via the page for the Zeitgeist film, and my cursory digestion of the "The Zeitgeist Movement" section of his article led me to erroneously believe that Mr Fresco was associated with the original film "Zeitgeist: The Movie". I would accordingly retract my parenthetical assertion that Mr Fresco is a "conspiracy theorist"; while, given some of his beliefs (esp., e.g., re: profit motive), I wouldn't be surprised to learn that he lends credence to some of the theories advanced in the film, I don't want to make and unsubstantiated accusations (or, for that matter, ninja-edit my errors away without official retraction).74.192.195.94 (talk) 03:06, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
I would check number 9 in the talk page titled "His work at Revell" in order to be able to attain this information. You might be able to ask to record the coversation in regards to archiving purposes if you think it might help sourcing it or to help others understand it. I am currently running diagnostics on my computer so O can't check out the information at the moment, but once I am done I will go ahead and pick a specific time to contact them and do this bit. However I do agree with you that this claim should be sourced, a particular is actually repeated in his film Future by Design. Voiceofreason467 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC).
Well, what I meant to do by bringing up that "obviously biased beatifications" are the only references available was suggest that information about Jacques Fresco's accomplishments cannot be properly sourced from Jacques Fresco himself. To illustrate with a real-life example: I once had a client who would speak of a self-credentialed "engineer" friend of his who had invented a device capable of creating energy by hydrolysing water vapour in air -- with *no* electricity, heat, or other energy input (and furthermore was privy to conspiracies by Big Oil to conceal the technology to safeguard fossil-fuel profit)! I'm sure the engineer would say that he invented such a free-energy machine, and I'm sure there's an independent filmmaker somewhere in the world who'd shoot a film incorporating those claims (with, of course, no actual corroborating evidence). "Jacques Fresco" (apart from microbiologist Jacques R. Fresco, a longtime faculty member at Princeton) is nowhere in the peer-reviewed medical or biotechnological literature, and I spent quite some time googling, looking for even *one* independent mention of his "innovations" in biotech...everything is just copied from a single source, varying on a single phrase: "made many innovations in biotech". The bottom line is this: Jacques Fresco claiming for himself a number of "great innovations" in biotech doesn't qualify as a reliable source for asserting, on Wikipedia, that he has done -- he can claim he has invented a 3D x-ray imaging device, but if nobody in the biomedical community has ever used it...or reviewed his description of the technology...or seen results of the machine in action...or even so much as heard about the thing before he brought it up...then it really has no place being mentioned in an encyclopaedia.74.192.195.94 (talk) 12:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Oh I see where this is coming from then, apparently there is actually a misunderstanding of the source. I went through the film Future by Design and apparently he has never even mentioned a 3D x-ray imaging device, what it states is that he has created a 3D imaging device for film industry that would allow the projection of the 3D Imaging without the need of artificial Peripheral. It when he was meeting with Jack Welch who was at the time with Disney. There appears to be a misunderstanding of the source. I actually called them earlier today about it and apparently there was no such invention made by Fresco, so I can only chalk this up to a confusion about the source. Voiceofreason467 (talk) 27 November 2010, 4:57am (PST)

Opening paragraph and Venus Project

There is too much detail in the opening paragraph. Mention of his "His optimistic view"s... and certainly the detailed talk of the Venus project should not be in the header. The Venus Project page should definitely be merged here as it is basically a single paragraph anyway, and is currently slated for deletion. Dancouvert (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Notability

There are at least 3 Wikipedia articles that stand on their own, where Fresco is the central actor or played a critical role; I believe his notability is established. Intersofia (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it that the article is using self sourcing. That is not establishing notability. skip sievert (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Venus Project Sources

These sources could be added to the venus project section.

Smallman12q (talk) 21:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WWII Planes Built

I know that he mentioned how we built planes during World War II based solely on resources, but is there any historical data other than the Venus Project Website that supports this? If so, it'd be crucial for this article's credibility. 147.226.250.190 (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The official government website, Centennial of Flight, mentions how many aircraft were built, approximately, but I can not find direct info online about a resource-based economy. However, there was the Lend-Lease which was initially a resource economy, which later transitioned back to a monetary economy when the United Nations where able to pay the USA back. There was also the reverse lend-lease, whereby Alled Nations supplied the USA.Tutmeister (talk) 04:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


His work at Revell

I'm personally a bit skeptical about the paragraph describing his activities in the company as "working variously in aerospace research and development, architecture, efficient automobile design, bare-eye 3D cinematic projection methods and medical equipment design where he developed a three dimensional X-ray unit amongst other things". This when the article on Revell mentions how the company was only involved in model plastic cars, and when the only two sources to corroborate this are clearly partial (The venus website, and the IMDB page about his movie). Is there anybody that can subtantiate these claims through independant sources or should i just go ahead and delete this? Popersman (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This information could very well confirmed I would imagine by contacting them at The Venus Project either through e-mail or phone number (both of which can be found here). This information however is mentioned in the film Future by Design which is basically a expository of his life, work and influences. This source might be worth looking into. I will see about looking into this once time allows me to. Voiceofreason467 (talk) 23 November 2010, 8:25pm (PST)

Three middle initials

I was surprised to see three "middle initials" in Fresco's name -- P.H.D. These initials are not mentioned in any other source that I have seen; I personally interviewed the gentleman in Venus, Fla., back in 2006, and neither he nor his partner presented his name in this manner. I was working as a journalist and was quite assiduous in obtaining his info. The initials' similarity with the designation of an advanced degree (Ph.D.) that I believe Fresco feels deprived of, seems a remarkable coincidence. Fresco does not claim any degrees and told me he regretted his lack of formal higher education, a direct result of his family's poverty, and a factor that stymied advancement and recognition. I would strongly suggest confirming this odd detail. I would also note that this discussion page incorrectly gives his first name with a final "s".—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nan Erwin (talk • contribs) 05:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This can be confirmed by doing a background search on him, the names he is known as can easily be found this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dilligencedetails (talk • contribs) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good Call, Maybe

Hibernain, I agree with the sentiment of your removal of that section, but wonder if all of it should go. What about a short reference to the book without the fanfare describing the author? Or is it too far from the scope of the article? Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

the rich at the top are doing their work perfectly

they will not allow other individuals to have any content about jacque fresco on their sites anywhere on the internet so wikipedia has to remove this article by its own rules... no rule is a rule if it doesnt serve the purpose... for articles like this wikipedia should have its own board of individuals who will decide whether to have it or delete it in some cases.... these rich selfish individuals who live life not fully conscious are planning to have the internet closed down... if there is no internet there is no wikepidea.... these are my feelings and thoughts synced ........... love, arun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.193.180.147 (talk) 01:59, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Methinks wearing a tin foil hat is required to continue this conversation ... no one is shutting anything down. We are all editors on equal footing, following rules that are as unbiased as imaginably possible. If you think the information should stand, argue it. If it meets WP standards, it goes back in; if it doesn't, it isn't censored -- it's simply not qualified as credible in its presentation, true or not. Ken JP Stuczynski (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations

I added the citation needed tag to this section of the article

One of the key points in Fresco’s solution is that without the conditions created in a monetary system, vast amounts of resources would not be wasted unproductively (key problems in Capitalistic modes of production known for over a century)[citation needed].

Really this is a half-truth, I think this is refering to the problem in capitalist market economies that resources may be underutilized, which is not the same as being wasted. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Setori88, 1 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please change "Fresco states that he was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council. He does not provides details as to when he was a member of either organization."

to

Fresco states that he became a member of the Ku Klux Klan and the White Citizens Council with the intention to dissolved them - which he did in about a month. He does not provides details as to when he was a member of either organization.

Why Simply stating that he was a member is half the truth, it is misleading - he clearly mentions that he went in there to dissolve the group and highlight their racial ignorance. He also speaks of meeting with a flat earth believing Arab leader and convinced him in under five minutes that his outlook was incorrect.

This point is misleading and it should be corrected. Thank you. Setori88 (talk) 15:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the entire paragraph per WP:BLP. -Atmoz (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Said paragraph is back with quotes on taken out of context. The article being semi-protected and my account being fairly new, I cannot update it yet. Can someone do so please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsyrak (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Vorykua, 5 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} the quote written here, as taken from the video where he says he joined the ku kux klan is taken out of context as this suggest he agrees with kkk principles, while his real intent was to join them and changed them. this comes obvious when you actually watch the 25 min video, but you cant trust every person to actually see the video , so i suggest that you end the quote at where it says he joined them to changed them.

Vorykua (talk) 14:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

The quote is correct and properly in context with full attribution. To state that Mr. Fresco changed the KKK and White Citizens Council is utter nonsense and supported by NO facts whatsoever Thetaxmancometh (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

If you idiots watch the friggin VIDEO you will see that Fresco was NEVER a member of the Klan... and only spoke to them one time... Get this bs fixed WIKIPEDIA! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbert16000 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense and lies. Fresco himself states that he was a member of the Klan and the WCC. His words, not mine.Thetaxmancometh (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

http://dotsub.com/view/fbb6f0bc-2c70-4708-a063-27b9c81d219f this is not a WP:RS and I have removed it - Off2riorob (talk) 23:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan

The following sentence appears on the Wikipedia enrty for Jacque Fresco under the heading "Early Life and Career";

Fresco then states, "Ku Klux Klan, years ago, and it was about 32 members. First, that leader states, what do you think of the Ku Klux Klan. I said, it's a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough";

This quote needs to be placed in context so it is not misleading. The quote does not relate to the heading "Early Life ans Career". Furthermore, the quote can be interpreted as meaning that Jacque Fresco supports the Ku Klux Klan and their ideas. He does not support the Ku Klux Klan. He joined them in order to change them and the way they think. He succeeded in doing so and the chapter he joined was disolved within a month and a half.

He states this in the following interwiew (at about 36 minute mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJbo5RI0To&feature=related

I added this but I will ask at the WP:RSN as I am starting to think is it an official upload and what is the copyright status of the content. Off2riorob (talk) 23:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

There are many issues that are more significant and relevant to the life and career of Jacque Fresco and his ideas that could be included under the heading "Early Life and Career". I think this quote should be removed or at least put under a different heading and put in a context that demonstrates he joined the Ku Klux Klan to change them because he does not agree with their beliefs and he succussfully achieved the goal because the chapter was disolved within a month and a half. Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.226 (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

In fact, Fresco states he was a member and said that they did not go far enough. His words are very clear.Off2riorob (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thetaxmancometh (talk • contribs) 22:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

The following quote is not in context;

In the same interview, Fresco states, "First, that leader states, what do you think of the Ku Klux Klan. I said, it's a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough".

As the quote earlier in the same paragraph says, Fresco "joined the Klan in order to change them". The proper context in which he says of the Ku Klux Klan "it's a great idea, but it doesn't go far enough". is to win the confidence of the organisation so they will listen to his ideas so that he can change them.

The way this paragraph reads is misleading, deceptive and dishonest. It is no different from quoting a sarcastic remark and inferring that it was a literal remark. This is why context is so important.

In addition, the weighting attributed to the Ku Klux Klan topic is not in proportion with the many acomplishments of Jacque Fresco. It shows poor judgement to include an out of context remark and a lack of understanding regarding the life of this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.175.226 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the listed reference and your interpretation of an hour long video. I have watched a number of his videos and he indicated clearly he neither wants violence, hatred or discrimination to exist in The Venus Project. Nevertheless I will take the time to also interpret this hour long video and will report back to you.
If this turns out to be a false trail, I will not hesitate to make a suggestion about the three long sections dedicated to this subject, and I believe Wikipedia has strict rules on deformation and I will also be having words on semi-protecting such comments—I will request all three sections to be deleted from here (including any defences of Fresco) .
This three section comment should have more references, I don’t see them. A normal person would expect this sort of stuff to make the news, where are the references to this? -- (Gharr (talk) 02:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC))
I have reviewed your video reference http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koJbo5RI0To&feature=related which is no secret apparently; since it’s also sitting within the http://www.thevenusproject.com and the video can be also be referenced as London Lecture Part 2 Feel free to watch it, the sound quality is poor in some parts. Jacque Fresco admits to joining the KKK at 36 minutes and 07 seconds into the video and no one in the audience reacted negatively to it. Well Gee that takes 3 entire sections of discussion to explain. Feel free to put that in Jacque Fresco article when and if it gets re-established. I have no personal objection to you putting it in there since it will be edited immediately to put it in context of what is being said and we get to expand the article. Your so called evidence will be especially juicy to put into correct context since it is a tiny part of an answer as to why people would want to work in a moneyless society. I wonder if the Wikipedians will allow me 6 long sections to discuss how we will edit your contribution to the Jacque Fresco article and put it in context. You know to devalue the propaganda value you have established by making your KKK comments that also tries to hurt Jacque Fresco image for three, no wait four sections if you count the support of what seems to be the very person that banished this article on very weak grounds. Perhaps I should look into that fine section next….--(Gharr (talk) 17:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC))
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacque_Fresco/Archive_1&oldid=421032199"