Talk:Jacque Fresco/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Merge

In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from the Venus project has been put forward. Most of this article already appears in The Venus Project. Obviously Fresco should have an article of his own, if there is anything to say about him that isn't connected to the Venus Project. So far the only thing that has appeared is that he possibly supports Ku Klux Klan (or not), which hardly should be included on such loose grounds because of WP:BLP. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

This entire talk page has had a considerable amount of space dedicated to the KKK…Oh wait there’s a KKK comment here also. I would not think the people in this section would stoop to character assassination, but no I was wrong. Well that’s one fact that’s might be controversial to put into this section—is this section supposed to be in a neutral (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately? This might bring into contention this sections neutrality. Perhaps I should ask the same question I asked in the Talk:The Venus Project since this section is not neutral. Please give us the reference as to why you think a person that is notable for only one thing should be merged? I’ll tell you what, I have decided to help you out and defend this sections honour. Let’s see, WP:BLP “BLP applies to all material about living persons anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages, edit summaries, user pages, images, and categories.” Well, well, well, someone who is not neutral in this section must have missed that. No Problems, I will continue to defend this sections honour. Deleting a person because they are only notable for one thing, nope, looks like this has been misinterpreted too. Oh that’s right there is only one other paragraph in this section. I suppose it’s quite obvious who that might be. I sure my fine Wikipedian’s had other reasons for merging Jacque Fresco biography into The Venus Project, we are all good friends here, So let’s hear what they might be? -- (Gharr (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

Fresco was known:

• throughout the aircraft industry early in his life. Several early sources report this.
• for the Trend Home sponsored by Earl Muntz
• for his work in science fiction movies
• for his organization in Miami called Sociocyberneering
• for other acts that have yet to be verified (but may be in time)

--Biophily (talk) 21:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

No sources showed any notability about his work in the aircraft industry. That he has worked for the aircraft industry doesn't mean he is notable for it. The same goes for everything else. As I mentioned in the discussion on Talk:The Venus Project, you need to show that he is notable outside of TVP, otherwise there is simply nothing to write in this article. Sociocyberneering is just a precursor to TVP, and has almost no media coverage at all. Acts that are not verified can obviously not be a basis for notability. Nothing has changed in Wikipedia policy since that discussion. Please come with reliable sources to show notability for Jacque Fresco, so that there is something to write about him in this article. Repeating ourselves is pointless, you need to show notability. Claiming that you can show it does not help. You have to actually **do** it. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello...Hello...Hello, take your own advice and --"***Do It***,"-- because why should we take the advice of someone who is clearly not neutral, avoids answering simple questions, out-rightly ignores Wikipedia policies and misinterprets of the critical policies... as I have already mentioned above. Perhaps I need to book mark my comment above in case you ***ignore it*** again or ***can't find it***!!! I'm really beginning to wonder about you??? --(Gharr (talk) 19:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC))

Gharr, your aggressive and rude behavior goes against Wikipedia policy. I have so far decided to ignore you because of this, but it clearly isn't working. Therefore I now ask you to stop the personal attacks and cool down. And you ask me to find the reliable sources to show that JF has notability outside TVP. Well, I have looked, and guess what, I can't find any. So it's not that I don't want to, I have *tried and failed*. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, you might cool down a little bit Gharr. I will post the new article soon and see how it fares. If it doesn't stand up to scrutiny then so be it. I will then expand the TVP article.--Biophily (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

A merge seems an excellent idea, although it might be best to merge Jaque Fresco and the Venus Project into Zeitgeist: The Movie which seems the only article that's properly sourced.Sloane (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Personally, imo the article should not have been merged and there was no consensus for it that I can see and it was done boldly by User:OpenFuture and reverted and he should not have reverted that again without an AFD or consensus which was not apparent in previous discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 09:04, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus. I note the complete lack of even one example of a reliably sourced notability claim for JF outside of TVP. Why do you want an empty article? --OpenFuture (talk) 06:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a diff to the claimed clear consensus, thanks . You merged the BLP on 18 feb with the comment see talk - the talkpage on 18 feb looked like this - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jacque_Fresco&diff=413847250&oldid=413380524 - you had not even been involved in any discussion on the talkpage at all. Looking at the talkpage at that time when you redirected claiming see talkpage, the word merge appears only once, from over two years ago by a now indefinitely blocked user - Where is your claimed see talkpage consensus? Off2riorob (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC) Ermm, sorry...accidentally deleted, I replaced it as soon as I could. --(Gharr (talk) 17:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC))

Proposal to re-establish this Jacque Fresco biography article on Wikipedia as an individual article in Wikipedia and Improve on it

After inquiring about why this article about Jacque Fresco has be merged into The Venus Project, it is clear it was done as some sort of edit war or was based on a very weak arguments. I infer this from the lack of credible answers and references that should be quite easy to provide.

I have also examined the reasons behind some arguments using Wikipedia rules and they appear to be ignored or misinterpreted.

Refusals to answer simple questions and being extremely evasive while not being neutral, or disobeying rules about biographies are offensive and provoking to me and to other Wikipedians. I intend to start tagging material shortly if rules and questions are blatantly ignored as they obviously have been.

Before I tag stuff, I will go into the details here about observations (that will be fully referenced) about why I feel the way I do. if debate here is to furious, I will produce another heading and heading plus related text (article) will be referenced from here.

I want to avoid tagging stuff, but if this sort of evasion of questions continues, I will do whatever is necessary to make this talk worthy of something that belongs in Wikipedia. --(Gharr (talk) 01:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC))

• This article barely had any reliable sources. The Venus Project article is slightly better sourced (still inadequate imo though), but maybe it's a better idea to merge the Venus Project article into this one?--Sloane (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

-Yes, I agree with that. --Biophily (talk) 23:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don’t agree that The Venus Project should be merged with the Jacque Fresco biography, it does not belong there. If The Venus Project is too short it should be extended. The arguments I have seen thus far in the talk sections would indicate more information needs to be inside The Venus Project Article to reduce what seems to be genuine concerns of people here in Wikipedia and people in general.

It would seem logical to me to divide the article into

1. The Zeitgeist Movement,
2. Theory (The Venus Project),
3. Jacque Fresco Biography, and
4. Practical (Real and Modelled Examples of the theory)
5. Plus possibly other sections

or the article will end up to long. --(Gharr (talk) 01:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC))

I'm not sure I understand your point here. The Venus Project is adequatly referenced and also notable. It would appear that the "Jacque Fresco" biography is in The Venus Project at the moment.

This article here was merged for reasons that so far seem wrong or based on very weak arguments. I got to briefly view the article here because some unknown administrator made it viewable briefly and the unmerged article on Jacque Fresco seemed to be quite good. However when I got to the talk page I could not believe the amount of material dedicated making Jacque Fresco look bad. Not only does the talk page not conform to Wikipedia policy, it would turn most visitors away from Jacque Fresco, The Venus Project and possibly was a major assistance to the side that decided to merge the Jacque Fresco in the first place.

I am not keen to go round tagging stuff if I can avoid it. I am willing to wait until I see your new article about Jacque Fresco. I hoping it might be a bibliography.

However, I’m not going to “calm” down either. If this articles talk page does not disappear or get some major edits I will start down the tag path. I’m sorry, but I can not see how the so called administrators would stand around a let this article get to this stage—I have no words that describe how bad this talk looks.

To top it off, what appears to be people who might be administrators using words like:

• • do** it , Ku Klux Klan (propagating poorly referenced material that goes on for far too long about the subject) , it's nothing but a neologism for technocracy,, it was obvious that there was no basis for an article. It doesn't matter how many sources you have, unless these sources are about things he [Jacque Fresco] did outside of The Venus Project [I believe this sentence it totally false, it lacks understanding of Wikipedia rules], But "resource based economy" is on the other hand just another name for technocratic communism, so does it really need it's own article?, Technocratic communism only means that you want communism… What makes TVP technocratics? The fact that they want the whole society run by technology and computers . That is per definition technocratic… TVP want to abolish ownership of the means of production, which is pretty much the definition of communism… In all cases, communism, resource-based economy, technocracy, it's based on a fundamental lack of knowledge on how economy works, and what the problems in economy is., The system is the goal, in both communism and TVP. The means/goal are in also the same: The practical abolishment of ownership of resources and production.

I’m failing to see any non-neutral administrators here. I’m upset, I will stay that way while this article remains like it is and is accessible. (Gharr (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Hi, I can archive some of this talkpage if you like? I created an archive box ready, I agree there was a lot of disruption about the Klan comment, if you want to recreate the Jacque Fresco article I can help you do that also - there was do consensus to do it imo. There are benefits and reasons not to merge him there imo also as has been said, he is not singularly notable only for that. Off2riorob (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, much of this talk page should be archived. Much of it is malicious attacks originating from a very cynical perspective. All of the old topics pre-2010 should be archived because such matters are in the past and no longer relevant.--Biophily (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree, archiving sounds like a good solution. I'm more interested in improving articles then spending time tagging stuff and trying to improve this talk page article that...how to describe it...has for too long been so badly managed--might be as neutral a description as I can get right now. --(Gharr (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

I freshened up the talkpage after both your comments - if there is any sections I archived that you feel are required here then please ask and I will replace them. Off2riorob (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The Venus Project is notable, thus splitting it into logical smaller parts will not reduce notability

I don’t know how people can argue that logically separating an article into smaller parts will reduce notability. Nor can they argue lack of references in such cases. Dividing a article into three parts does not mean that you suddenly need to find three times as many references—that’s ridiculous.

If people from Wikipedia are driving for smaller articles in Wikipedia it is probably to make the articles more accessible to the mobile telephone network. In fact Wikipedia says straight out it has no practical limits to the number of articles that it can contain. BELIEVE ME, SPLITTING THE VENUS PROJECT INTO SMALLER PARTS IS NOT A CRIME!!!

I don’t think listening or trying to discuss anything with a person who sees The Venus Project and by definition its creator Jacque Fresco as a threat—(if he/she saw it as a salvation they would be as appalled as I am about the state of the Jacque Fresco talk page) will benefit you and they may even end up giving you very questionable advice.

You have sought advice of someone who is biased and has put forward to a poorly made argument that Jacque Fresco can not be accepted as a biography because:

“In the erge discussion (which has been on Talk:The Venus Project) no references supporting that Fresco has any notability separate from The Venus project has been put forward.

I have tried to ask for a clarification on this matter, but nothing happened. So I am going to clear it up, as I have already done above in my so called attack.

The augment that Jacque Fresco is notable for only one thing (and I am not conceding that he is) and thus can not be separated from The Venus Project is FALSE!!!

Please don’t believe me, read the information for your self: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_for_only_one_event . The-people notable-for-only-one-thing rule is designed to stop people from getting into the biography section of the Wikipedia if they won the dart competition that month and ended up in with their name and/or photo in the local newspaper for example. IT DOES NOT APPLY TO JACQUE FRESCO.

If this was the major argument for merging the Jacque Fresco article then a serious wrong has been done when you add it state of the talk page. --(Gharr (talk) 04:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC))

Bold things are sometimes done here but they are mostly all reversible with much problem. Here is what the old article looked like prior to redirecting as done by User:OpenFuture, are there any additional WP:RS to help improve on what was there? Off2riorob (talk) 08:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are reliable sources that will be included in the new article.--Biophily (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I am considering and leaning towards recreating this BLP, please post any objections for discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The new article is already complete. I'm just adding a few finishing touches/citations.--Biophily (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I in favor of re-establishing the Jacque Fresco article, but I realize that the events have led to another person making the effort to make a new and improved Jacque Fresco article and I really appreciate this also.

Either event could be a win situation for me.

It would be nice if the original authors of the Jacque Fresco article had a vote here, but I suppose I am asking too much there.

I myself think that the Jacque Fresco article should focus on being a Biography and perhaps expand on some of the other things he did too. For example, theory articles in general are not concerned actual implementations (or example models). I think his models (that include a vast array of practical implementations of his theory and is a separate part from his theory) has also received a lot of world wide attention and may need a temporary home in his bibliography before it too is made into a separate article. One example might be how his sea based cities are protected from tsunami (or tidal-wave) by both early warning systems and physical devices that steer the tsunami (or tidal-wave) around the city. To tell you the truth, I don’t think the articles that are currently in Wikipedia come even close to putting in a nutshell what he has achieved during his lifespan. --(Gharr (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

The objection is the same as always: Nobody has come up with one single thing to include in the article. If you made a new article, please make sure that it doens't duplicate the information that has been merged into TVP (which was pretty much all of the old one). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because you added some content from the J Fresco BLP to an associated article without consensus does not mean that anyone has to do anything if they recreate the J Fresco BLP. If you added something to another article you are also able to remove it from there if you want to or feel a need. Off2riorob (talk) 01:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts (those who are new to Wikipedia try this link: BLP ). I just want to remind everyone that things have changed quite a bit in The Venus Project. I did try and warn you… --(Gharr (talk) 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)) (accidentally took this comment out somehow. Replacing it now:(Gharr (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)))

Please note: flurry of edits happening in related articles right now (March 2011)

The Venus Project and the The Zeitgeist Movement are being edited. It might be useful to coordinate edits in such cases or people might end up wasting time doing stuff that is not needed—for example to prevent duplication of work or adding of work to wrong sections. –(Gharr (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC))

Why....

Has the article Jacque Fresco been removed... WHY OH WHY!!! Now I don't have his picture anymore on facebook! Goddamit! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.120.15.192 (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC)