Talk:Jacque Fresco/Archive 3

removal of "stray" reference

The subsection "Rotocraft, Douglas Aircraft, Flying Saucers, South Seas" contains an erroneous reference:

"* ^f "currently, they are raising funds for a “major motion picture” in which the protagonist would be modeled after Jacque Fresco." — ¶ 24</ref>"

The original change which introduced this can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jacque_Fresco&diff=next&oldid=467999485#cite_note-Orlando_Weekly-25

But I can't see how this info is to be related to the statement "He also designed a three-wheeled car that was to have only 32 moving parts, which he strove to fund as well." So I won't put it back there. If anyone knows where it belongs, please put it there. For now, I will remove this reference. --GGShinobi (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The new article is up

The new article is up. There may be some contentious information in it. I realize the "Reception" section may be most controversial. Some may recognize that there are events and issues missing from the article. This is because some popular claims have not been verified yet or cross-confirmed. On the other hand, there may be some things that are superfluous. Discuss suggestions here. Good luck editing it; it's an intricate string of text. --Biophily (talk) 04:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Good job! I do have some concerns with some of the sources, though. "The Soveriegn Independent" is hardly a reliable source, but just one these infinite slanted political outlets claiming to be "alternative news". Russia Today is notoriously unreliable as well with load of nonsense news about aliens making it look more like Weekly World News that a source of information. In addition the Florida Living Magazine article is basically an interview with Fresco, and therefore the source is Fresco himself, and as such it may break WP:BLPSPS. That goes for Jack Roberts Miami news article as well, but at least it's used much less as a source. And that article works fine as a source for him being called a dreamer, though. :) And why did you add Frescos claim of making a car with only 32 moving parts, not not his claim of inventing a 3D TV with picture so real you could feel you could touch it? ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 10:54, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I considered whether some of the news articles will be reliable beings they use Fresco's word as their source. But in many instances, the citation is doubled up and the claim/information is cross referenced between those two sources. But if some is unacceptable then we will have to make adjustments.--Biophily (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it can be rescued if we point out that it's his claims and we say that he *claimed* to develop a car with only 32 moving parts. We have no source for this except two interviews with him, one which he also seems to claim to have invented 3D TV, that articles' reliability is maybe not as high as we want it to be. But I suspect that in biographies we shouldn't have personal claims even if we mar them as such, but somebody with more BLP experience than me should make that call. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I included the 32 part car mainly because of the first source for it, which is a part of a newspaper's newsbriefs. The reliability of it is a bit shaky, so it can be removed if necessary.

Also, the Sovereign Independent is used as an example of accusations that Fresco is rubbing shoulders with elites. It's not a source that says people are accusing him of that, it is the accusation itself. So it's used as an example. So it's used as a primary source.--Biophily (talk) 08:38, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

The Venus Project theory section

There are some parts of the article regarding the theory of The Venus Project that I disagree with, but on the whole it seems to be an outstanding piece of work. There is a lot of stuff about Jacque Fresco that I would have never known about if this article had never been written. Very nice, short, interesting biography; well done. I like it. --(Gharr (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC))

For the most part, I copied that info from the Venus Project article. I plan on expanding the Venus Project article to cover more of the theory, and will then modify the info for it on the Fresco page.--Biophily (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we perhaps just merge The Venus Project article into this one? At least for now, there's really not a lot left on that page that isn't already included here. If it becomes too big it can always be placed back again.--Sloane (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not particularly in support or in opposition to it.--Biophily (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The Use of Claims

Sloane added Fresco's claim about the Klu Klux Klan. I can't find a source for it outside of interviews from the past 10 years. There's no mention of it in any primary or secondary sources that I have found so far. So this is clearly a claim. How should it be handled? Other significant claims that aren't well backed up include (in order of decreasing sources): 32 part car, 3D technology, Immaculate Pig experiment, trip to Cuba, and many others. There are others but these are examples. Leave them out? Or include them as claims (and cite the primary source for the claim)? Perhaps just adding a section called "Purported Experiments" could cover these things? --Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• The KKK thing is also referenced in the Wessex Scene article. And there's a number of primary sources about it. So it's not really controversial or anything.--Sloane (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, but it is still a claim. Even the Wessex article calls it an "imaginative claim." The issue at hand here is whether or not to include unverified claims. Many claims have been made and it is not controversial whether or not the claims have been made. Whether or not the claims are true beyond a reasonable doubt is the concern. If we include this claim, then by precedent, other claims will be permitted to be included in the article. Just pointing this out because I think it is an issue for which everyone should decide.--Biophily (talk) 04:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The use of interviews

I can't find anything about how interviews should be handled in BLPs. It should mostly be treated as a primary source, correct?--Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Acceptability of self-published sources by the subject

I'd like to know how anyone thinks this applies to this article.--Biophily (talk) 08:40, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Living persons may publish material about themselves, such as through press releases or personal websites. Such material may be used as a source only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources."

Examples of self-published sources would include:

• FAQs on TVP website
• anything claimed in his books or articles
• possibly anything from his audio lectures on disc or videos from venusprojectmedia

How might the claims in these self-published mediums be handled for a BLP?--Biophily (talk) 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

• Well those five points say it all basically.--Sloane (talk) 23:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

This definitely excludes the videos of him where he talks about KKK. I got so bored I couldn't listen through all of it, and could not find a place where he actually claimed to "turn them around". It may not be "self-published" in the way that it isn't him who put it up, but this is not a reliable source and it definitely is unduly self-serving if he really does that claim.

I'm also still skeptical about the newspaper articles about him who are clearly just interviews with him. In all cases *might* be OK to change it to "Fresco claims that...", but I don't know what the practice is about having those things in BLP's. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, in many cases where there is a citation from a newspaper, the citation is doubled-up to avoid sole dependency on the newspaper. And there is only some information in a few of the newspapers that is clearly derived from interviewing Fresco. You will need to point out such information so that we can modify it or remove it to better come in line with policy. Modifying it will require careful crafting of statements. However, there is other information for which it is not clear whether it was from interviewing Fresco or from the writer's own knowledge or research. In some instances, it is clear that it is from the writer's own knowledge/research.

"There are no forbidden words or expressions on Wikipedia, but certain expressions should be used with care, because they may introduce bias. For example, the word 'claim' can imply that a statement is incorrect, such as John claimed he had not eaten the pie. Using loaded words such as these may make an article appear to favor one position over another."

To me it is clear, that the ultimate appraisal of claims by Fresco or by the sources is determined by each editor depending upon his/her personal views about Fresco, whether it be prejudice or admiration, and not on whether there is actual demonstrably good reason to doubt or trust the authenticity of the claims. It's quite a gut-feeling controlling approval here, instead rationale. In such cases the editor needs to recognize their personal attitude and edit against it to achieve a neutral point of view. It appears to me that some editors watching this article may be particularly cynical and distrustful of *any* claim or statement made by or about Fresco. I suspect that this distrust is born out of prejudice, which results in nearly every sentence in the article being contested and thus needing a source (which creates a lot of work for other editors). This prejudice exists despite the fact that Fresco has never been caught in a lie. So the reason for the distrust is not altogether clear or remotely justified. Editor attitudes (whether justified or not) will affect what can be agreed upon as *reasonable doubt* of authenticity of a claim or *unduly* self-serving claims. Taking a look at many other BLPs of lesser known individuals on Wikipedia, you will find a modest quantity of sources and a meager series of citations. Taking a look at the Fresco article, we can see that such simple, modest, and meager referencing has been forced into much more than would usually seem necessary for an article of such length. This may reveal the level of prejudice or distrust present in the editorial overseers. Such prejudice will end up driving this article to be the most elaborately sourced BLP on Wikipedia, as every minute, trivial, and modest statement is contested with suspicion. It's a long shot, but I humbly ask that everyone keep their non-rational appraisals at a minimum and give better reasoning for their trust or doubt when they contest a statement. I for one, will start:

• I have found no inconsistencies between information presented in any of the sources. This fact lends some credibility to the claims.
• Fresco does not have a reputation for being a liar, so his self-published information is candidate for careful inclusion
• much of the information on Fresco's resume or in his self-published claims, is not really that unbelievable or extraordinary. (This leads me to suspect prejudice behind anyone who doubts them without giving an explanation).

Again, regarding the information derived from interviews in the newspapers, those contesting the information will need to point out what exactly they don't accept, and we can proceed to modify the phrasing or find other sources. I too am uncertain of how to handle information derived from interviews. They may have to be treated as primary sources, and therefore, for the passages in question, it will have to lose Wikipedia's authoritative voice stating it as fact and be reintroduced as Fresco's statements or the source's statements. We could use statements such as, "Fresco recounts the early days of his life beginning with..." or, "Fresco informed a reporter from the Miami Herald that in the 1930s..." These kinds of statements may make the article very abrupt and blunt as we shift from source to source, but staying in line with policy is worth sacrificing the uniformity and voice of the article. --Biophily (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Elaine Smitha reference

I undid the edit referencing Elaine Smitha. She is as far as I can tell a motivational speaker, and certainly not an economist. The paper is published thanks to being a part of a conference which is focusing on... computer safety!? I can't see how a quote from that context can be seen as a reliable source about an economic model. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

and Samuel Gilonis isn't an expert on cults...but you haven't deleted that....Why? could it be bias? I've been testing you and taking note...

"Computer safety" is an over-simplification. The publication is certainly based in computational processes. What is Fresco's model based in? -computational processes. Who is talking about computational processes in a social context? -Elaine Smitha. Who believed Elaine Smitha was qualified to talk about this? -a publication called Communications in Computer and Information Science. Sorry, I trust their judgment more than yours. Do you understand Fresco's model?

Conference Summary:

"The annual International Conference on Global Security, Safety and Sustainability (ICGS3) is an established platform in which security, safety and sustainability issues can be examined from several global perspectives through dialogue between academics, students, government representatives, chief executives, security professionals, and research scientists from the United Kingdom and from around the globe. The three-day conference focused on the challenges of complexity, rapid pace of change and risk/opportunity issues associated with modern products, systems, special events and infrastructures. The importance of adopting systematic and systemic approaches to the assurance of these systems was emphasized within a special stream focused on strategic frameworks, architectures and human factors. The conference provided an opportunity for systems scientists, assurance researchers, owners, operators and maintainers of large, complex and advanced systems and infrastructures to update their knowledge on the state of best practice in these challenging domains while networking with the leading researchers and solution providers. ICGS3 2010 received paper submissions from more than 17 different countries in all continents. Only 31 papers were selected and were presented as full papers. The program also included a number of keynote lectures by leading researchers, security professionals and government representatives." - (from preface) --Biophily (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand Frescos model. Accusations and personal attacks doesn't help, and you "keeping notes" on me is, well... interesting. I don't think that's an attitude that will help consensus building here.

If you want to have papers that praise Frescos economic model, find one by an economist. If you think Gilonis has no right to call the Zeitgeist movement a cult, then don't use him as a source for the statement. To me it's pretty obvious that Gilonis isn't making any scientific claims with his article, but maybe I'm wrong. Citing a published paper *do* imply scientifically based statements, and in this case it's obvious that they are not. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:14, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's not resort to exaggerations. Calling into question bias is not a personal attack. So I'll ask you bluntly: are you biased towards this man? When you delete praise which you claim is illegitimate, yet you don't delete clear and obvious libel which I intentionally included to test you, suggests you may have a bias. Beware of the experiment. You let the KKK claims (with negative connotations) slide through, even though Fresco is used as the source for that, yet you take issue with him being the source for his claims of accomplishment. Why is this? This raises honest suspicion of bias, with good reason to suspect.

Furthermore, you are mistaken if you think all published papers are scientifically based. That is only implied if you have the need to see it implied. Even if the top economist stated that the model is revolutionary, that would still be his opinion, which is all it can ever be regarding such praise, because such a statement cannot be scientifically assessed. Thus the Smitha reference is legitimate because it is her opinion, given the knowledge she has on the topics she addressed, which are related to Fresco's model. --Biophily (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

No I am not biased.

• "You let the KKK claims slide through even though Fresco is used as the source for that"

No I didn't: [1]

Why didn't you improve the article? Why is everything left to everyone else? I haven't seen you contribute anything to that article that is constructive. I at least tried to modify the claim to remove the negative connotation, until we could reach consensus about whether or not it should be included. However Sloane has yet to respond to that discussion. (keep in mind that the KKK claim was the only contribution Sloane made to the article, the rest of his edits were non-informational.--Biophily (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

• "with negative connotations"

The claim is that he joined KKK *and turned them around*. What negative connotations does that have? To me that's unduly self-serving if anything. It sure isn't negative. The only way you could think that's negative is if you support KKK. In any case it's hardly a problem to use the subject of the BLP as a source for *negative* things. The rules are that you cant use self published sources for things that are *self-serving*.

Just to be accurate, it can't be *unduly* self-serving. And including the condition of "unduly" editors will debate it until the cows come home. It has a negative connotation because it said he *claimed* to turn them around, implying the possibility that he did not turn them around. This leaves the reader wondering why he joined the KKK and the possibility that he joined but never actually did any turning-around. I tried to mention this in the KKK discussion and quoted Wikipedia's advice to be careful using certain words such as "claim" because they can have a negative connotation. --Biophily (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Thirdly, you adding things to the article that you think are false in order to test me might be violating WP:POINT and is some sort of baiting, which goes against WP:CIVILITY. I've taken it up on AN/I. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:40, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think those claims are false. The wrote that some people claim certain things about Fresco. It *is true* some people claim those things. I included that information and noted that the "reception" section may be controversial [top of page]. I was unsure whether the inclusion of those claims are acceptable or not. I left it to other editors to help me decide. No one suggested removing it, so I assume it is acceptable. I included those criticisms, because at the time, I had very little other criticisms to include, and I knew it would have been difficult to include anything positive about Fresco without including the negative also to keep it balanced.

To be honest, the whole idea of "testing you" was actually an after thought that occurred during the Elaine Smitha discussion. I never set out to actually test you with premeditation. After the fact, I simply saw that it was interesting that you touched only the praise for Fresco and not the criticism of him, even though both may be equally contentious (which I noted when I introduced the new article because I was unsure how contentious the information might be, it depends on each editors subjective perspective).--Biophily (talk) 11:38, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

You claimed that you were testing me. With predetermination. Now you claim you didn't. You claimed that the KKK reference was something you feel should not be there, and you added it as a deliberate test to see if I removed it. I also feel it should not be there (but on different grounds). I think a minimal show of good faith from you is that you remove it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1. There is a misunderstanding. I didn't add the KKK claim. Sloane did. I only modified it to remove what I saw as a libelous connotation. I waited around to see if anyone else would take issue with it and I tried to address it in a previous section The Use of Claims. Now I do see that in a later section you suggested that it was not acceptable to include. I will remove it now, however I did want to wait for Sloane's input beings he made the original edit. But it seems he is not interested.

2. I made the claim that it was premeditated in an attempt to hold demonstrable evidence that you were biased. This was based on a pattern that I believed I had observed. I admit, I may have misinterpreted things, however I acted upon my interpretation by accusing you of bias. I should have refrained. Noticing that you did not do anything with the KKK claim was sort of like the last straw that convinced me that you may have been biased. I then claimed I planned it to try and prove your bias. This claim was an exaggeration. More thought should have been given to the phrasing, and moreover, more thought should have been given to claiming it in the first place. Much of this was motivated by my ownership syndrome which I now recognize. I simply didn't want unexpected reverts so my reaction was confrontational. However I now recognize my original problem and will take care of it.

Also, I remind that the use of claims in general is still not resolved.--Biophily (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Taking a look at Smitha's background, it appears Smitha has a masters in fine arts and experience in other areas. Whether it is acceptable to include here opinion or not is still entirely debatable to me (given the context of her paper and the conference, and the fact that her paper was chosen above many others to be included in the publication, which is evidence for her qualification to write on such topics), but beings she has no formal degrees in other areas (despite being published in relevant literature), I will concede the removal of her praise. Though I request that things be discussed before the revert is placed. That might prevent insults or unnecessary argumentation as we have seen here. This is only a request, not expected. When to revert --Biophily (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:BRD. You are right in adding it, I was right in reverting it with explanation. That's normal procedure. The other things we discussed above is things I'm not sure should be there or not, so I've discussed it. The Elaine Smitha reference was obviously not a WP:RS so I reverted it. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't wish to press the issue much further, but I suppose I was most bothered because to me it is not obvious that her paper is not a reliable source for her opinion. You didn't specify if you read it or not. If you did read it, it would help you precisely explain why the opinion can't be included. However, I recognize that it is not exactly reasonable to expect you to read a 20 page paper just for this small issue. It's not always easy to pin down when a source is reliable when you begin to look closely at the details.--Biophily (talk) 15:13, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I could not find a copy that didn't require me to pay money. If you have one, I'll gladly check it out. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:24, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Citation styles

I like the small-tags around the quotes in the citations, but... the citations really should use the quote= feature of citation macro, and they don't do it, as far as I can see. The result is that Yobot keeps on removing the small-tags. Is there a citation macro that has a nicer quote style? Anyone know? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know of one. The small tags may have to go. I can't keep reverting the Yobot edit forever--Biophily (talk) 11:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC).

Edit request on 11 January 2012

It seems like the following sentence, which can be found in the article under the "Looking Foward" subtitle, is incomplete:

The society depicted in Looking Forward has been described as an ideal warranting a comparison to Plato's Republic whose inconsistencies and problems, it was argued, Looking Forward succeeded in resolving through technological means, primarily through the function of Corcen (the correlation center).[65]

It is hard for me to offer a replacement text since I do not feel knowledgable enough on the subject of Plato's Republic, to offer an estimation as to where the comparison was headed. Though I feel strongly that the changes that should be made to correct the sentence should be made after "...whose inconsistencies and problems" and before "succeeded in resolving...".

NearEther (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, basically LF is compared to Plato's R and fixed it's issues, mostly by using "Corcen"--Jac16888 ^Talk 14:49, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 March 2012

Tiroj1 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No request made--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:56, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 August 2012

I think Jacque Fresco maybe deserves, for his importance as a designer our society, to be labeled 'polymath'. He excels at various different areas of invention and social sciences. He also produces original and fresh designs. Losmilosmi (talk) 08:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! 12:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Though some sources have labeled him that, the reliability and authority of these sources would be disputed. It is too contentious.--Biophily (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Movie director Maja Borg made "Future For Sale," a documentary on Jacque Fresco

She is more notable than I thought and it is an outside source that is recent about this subject. Right now the article is so long with so much marginal horn tooting about Fresco. Maybe we could get rid of some of that and make this Maja Borg movie a little more prominent? The movie won some awards and was a well received art house type flick. Maybe it could be talked about more on the Venus Project page also? Thoughts? BEST OF THE FEST Future My Love has been selected for EIFF's Best of the Fest, Cineworld [2] Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Could Borg have become more notable the moment you notice her film featured Technocracy? I don't know what there is to say about it. It seems it would belong in the later life section. It is Borg's first feature film and is not yet available to the public. There have been a few articles written on it in Europe. But it doesn't offer much to use as far as source material. However, I did mention it in the Fresco article, and trimmed down the Fresco article a little bit as well.--Biophily (talk) 07:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Borg started her film career interviewing one of her relatives, John Darvill, around six years ago. She is his grand daughter or grand niece. He is an official spokesperson for TechInc group. All info. available floating on the web. On a lighter note, too bad we can't use this rap news story [3], at least its funny. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012

Spelling error on reference 14: "Karl Marx was worng!" - should be "wrong."

Youanden (talk) 02:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done RudolfRed (talk) 03:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 November 2012

I want to edit the part that says that Jacque is a philosopher of science (the reference to this information is not valid) and may be other things which need checking out. I'm in touch with several Global Administrators from The Venus Project, so I can get verification for anything I will eventually make as a correction. You can give me an email and one of the GAs will personally write you a confirmation. Gottox (talk) 14:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Though the citation used for that sentence is indeed not appropriate, verification from an unpublished source wouldn't be appropriate either. There are sources that report the labels that have been attributed to him, however citing them for each label will be meticulous and I am not willing to do it right now. In addition, "philosopher of science," as an attribution, does not appear to me inconsistent with what he does. As defined here on Wikipedia: "The philosophy of science is concerned with the assumptions, foundations, methods, implications of science, and with the use and merit of science." That appears to be much of his concern these days.--Biophily (talk) 17:54, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, you can edit this page yourself if you want to add anything. {{edit semi-protected}} is only if you aren't autoconfirmed. gwickwire^talk_edits 19:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)