Talk:Technocracy Incorporated

POV

This article seems to have been written by its subject.

It's not a bad article, but the adverb "quickly" seems POV in all uses.

Taking decades to amass "thousands" of members is no great accomplishment.

24.21.189.221 15:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

World of Darkness

Uhhh.... World of Darkness... Mage... this is fake, right?

For reference, this user is refering to Technocracy (World of Darkness). And yes, this current article on Technocracy is totally real. 154.5.41.198 04:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge with Technocratic_movement

I fail to see a substantial difference between the two articles. Furthermore, the fuzzy line between them only confuses readers. You even have a picture of the Technocracy Incorporated sign as the first image. Let's clean everything up (again) and cite some bloody sources. 154.5.41.198 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Following the discussion on the technocracy movement page this article has been split again. Technocracy Inc is just one organisation in the movement.Isenhand (talk) 12:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no real connection between Dr. Andrew Wallace's group the Network of European Technocrats and Technocracy Incorporated Further more there is no real Technocracy movement outside of the North America. Isenhand or Technocrate or Andrew Wallace is promoting the idea of a movement because he has written a book about it as such http://web.telia.com/~u11319012/index.htm Andrew Alexander Wallace This book promotes the idea that his group of which he is the director (Network of European Technocrats) is a part of the Technocracy movement. Technocracy Incorporated states over and over that it is not associated with any other groups in the U.S. or in Europe. This then is a blatant conflict of interest for an editor here who is directing web traffic to self published articles en.technocracynet.eu/index.php Network of European Technocrats - News. www.lulu.com/content/750510 Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world by Andrew Wallace (Book) in Engineering ---- This is another sales site set up by Dr. Andrew Wallace, Isenhand or Technocrate here to promote his book.skip sievert (talk) 03:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now formally added tags to propose merging Technocracy movement into this article. As discussed on the Talk:Technocracy movement, given the controversies we've seen, it makes sense to talk about specific groups rather than a general, "fuzzy", "movement". Concentrate first on bringing the pre-WWII stuff up to scratch, first the history and then the basic concepts as developed by Scott et al before the war. Then you can have two sections, one on how the ideas of TI developed post-WWII, and another about "legacy" or "influence" that can describe specific groups that share similar ideas. If those groups deserve more than a few lines, then it's probably best to start a new article for them. But of course, you need to remember WP:V and WP:RS - all information must be verifiable from reliable, third-party sources, otherwise it will be removed! FlagSteward (talk) 12:02, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It does not make a lot of sense to delete information directly related on wikipedia articles

Removing links to expanded information.. and only preserving links and information to certain sources such as Network of European Technocrats narrows things down to.. in my opinion.. information that is contrived to get people to end up on that particular Network of European Technocrats website.skip sievert (talk) 15:23, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Editor removed links and expanded information again. Restored broadened explanation. skip sievert (talk) 17:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD makes the most sense for the article Technocratic movement

That article should not be merged it should be deleted (Technocratic movement]]. It originally was a vehicle for this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Network_of_European_Technocrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats - That article should go into an Afd.. because the whole concept of it does not make sense. It was originally written by the person that originated the NET article to claim there even was a Technocracy movement connected outside of North America which there is not.. at least not connected as to the same ideas. skip sievert (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Willard Gibbs citation

Added a linked citation and reference to Willard Gibbs material. Stream lined article, shortening some non cited material. Made some syntax and sentence structure more readable.skip sievert (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Technocracy movement and Technocracy Incorporated articles

At this point it makes sense not to merge the two articles. Each article is playing a different role. The TechInc article talks directly about the focus of that organization and relates directly to the different people involved in the history of it.

The Technocracy movement article gets into the precedent cultural/scientific culture from the 19th century and the early 20th century and gets into how all those things combined to produce what we know as the Technocracy movement in the 1918 to 1934 period that is still around.

One is dealing directly with that group information (TechInc) and the other dealing with the movement of social scientists and engineers and others that went through a period of attempting to think up alternative constructs for society (TechMovement).

The period from the late 19th cent. and the inception of Technocracy Incorporated (TechInc.) along with the other attempts by various people to start related social movements (TechMovement) is now pretty well covered in depth and cited and referenced in the Technocracy movement article... so now it makes a good stand alone article with a different perspective than the Technocracy Incorporated article because it gets into the antecedents and that is a broad ... and long topic. No doubt it can still be improved with more citations and references. skip sievert (talk) 14:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no purpose other than publicity in duplicating this article using to different names.--tequendamia (talk) 00:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

If you believe that is true then why not Afd the Technocracy movement article? Seriously. Do you want to merge this TechInc article with Technocracy movement or Technocracy movement with TechInc? Right now your tags are contradictory. It may make sense to merge the Technocracy movement article here .. but not really the other way around. skip sievert (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

reference link

Energy accounting section reference now pointing to Fezer article.

Added another reference link to Ivie, Wilton A Place to Live: 1955 Technocracy Digest skip sievert (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Added this reference link on history.

Stabile, Donald R. "Veblen and the Political Economy of the Engineer: the radical thinker and engineering leaders came to technocratic ideas at the same time," American Journal of Economics and Sociology (45:1) 1986, 43-44. skip sievert (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

lead section

Made the beginning any way of a lead section for the article.... skip sievert (talk) 15:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

lead section could really do with reducing down to two or three paragraphs --Firebladed (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Fireblade... I was just about to move the company box up as you did. I was thinking of editing the beginning down a bit also... but the basic info in there now is pretty good. It is just a guideline as to length.... and really it is not so terribly long presently. skip sievert (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

History

The history for this page ends in 1934. Are there no further events in this organization's history? --TarrVetus (talk) 20:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Your right. I added this below into the history section, based on the information from their website and some other places. I also added the reference citation to a copy of their trend events publication in the history section and publications section.

Added bit, Today as they have done continuously since their inception, this groups members partake in discussion groups, publish quarterly magazines, and advocate for the original concepts of a Thermoeconomics based scientific social design. They also publish a monthly newsletter called Trend Events http://www.technocracy.org/Trendevents/June_2008_TRENDEVENTS%5B1%5D%5B2%5D%5B2%5D.pdf skip sievert (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Article cleanup

User:Skipsievert, I am rather disappointed at your editquette in this revert. Specifically:

• Marking a non-trivial, possibly contentious change as "minor".
• Removing maintenance tags without comment. I am sure most editors will agree that the article needs much improvement.
• Branding me an "uninvolved editor". All written content on Wikipedia is licensed under the GDFL and almost anyone is allowed to edit articles. In particular, editors should not "own" articles.
• Claiming I "removed notability information". Actually, the new lead supports it by clearly tying the organization to the Technical Alliance.

For these reasons, I have re-reverted. This article should be improved by making it more encyclopedic; advocacy like "unique" and "ensure our survival", vagaries like "science applied to society", and buzzwords like "scientific social design", should be expunged and replaced with more factual, neutral details. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 12:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

PS: I may have introduced some factual errors; I won't object to anyone fixing those. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 13:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe in its current form the lead section is somewhat misleading specifically the democratic part of "disdains politics (including democracy and voting) as corrupt.." while is technically against current democratic voting systems for choosing people to run/administer things, that is not the same thing as being against the core principles of democracy (democracy vs constitutional democracy), the concept being to create a system to provide for the "needs" of the people and I believe still follows the two main principles of democracy "The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties" (Democracy) but in a different way. --Firebladed (talk) 14:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

First, Firebladed I think your ideas above are essentially correct and have gone to the former version of the article. Jafet... These descriptions that you do not like the sound of, is the way the organization describes itself. It is also the way others describe it. It has information in the article that confirms that. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics Excerpt below

The use of energy as a unifying concept for social, political and economic analysis reached a zenith with the technocratic movement in the USA and Canada during the 1930s. Led by the flamboyant and energetic Howard Scott, the Technocracy movement began in 1918 as a group called the Technical Alliance. The Alliance conducted an industrial survey of North America in which economic parameters were measured in energy units rather than dollars. Although the Alliance lasted only a few years, the Depression provided fertile ground for the re-emergence of the technocratic movement which used depressed economic conditions as a rallying point for their call for a complete overhaul of existing economic and political institutions. In 1921, Howard Scott and others formed Technocracy, Inc., and in conjunction with the Industrial Engineering Department at Columbia University, began an empirical analysis of production and employment in North America in energy units. The association with a prestigious university like Columbia combined with Scott’s flamboyant relationship with the press made Technocracy internationally famous.

Biophysical economics - This info presented in this citation is not connected to TechInc in any way. http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm nor this ECONOMY AND THERMODYNAMICS. Excerpt below...

For that we should reach a consensus about value, by weighting advisedly all the variables. Some idea like that certainly has occurred as soon the Law of Conservation of Energy was established in 1870. I cannot perform a thorough search, but I would suggest a starting point in the writings of Stuart Mill, Spencer and Balfour Stewart.

Explicitly, a similar idea occurred to Frederick Soddy in 1922. He wrote that the price of a merchandise reflect, directly or not, the energy invested in its production. (Today, he would say available energy). The same idea was proposed by Howard Scott during the Great Depression of the 30's. And now it surfaces with the ecological movement since the 60's, while emphasizing the erroneous use of planet's resources. An indirect consequence of this idea is the analysis of industrial processes by net energy use, taking into account all the energy involved since the extraction of natural resources and the "primary" energy. This approach is gaining adepts.

Thermodynamic and economic optima do not coincide, except in very few cases. Berry et al. have shown that the two optima do coincide in the case of a free market in which the only "scarce" resource is available energy (or utilizable work). That means that labor, capital, inputs, etc. should all be for free.

As far as introducing factual errors, that is correct. You have done that. That is not a great way to revert an article... putting in factual errors. Errors that are not only wrong but slanted in such a way using buzzwords... such as against democracy etc... that it is almost like a purposeful inflammation (although your intention may not be that) or your own personal critique, instead of simply going neutral in presenting information. The area... is not Canada and the U.S. by the way... it is North America. I could go on.... They claim they are a science applied to society construct... and they are referenced that way by others not involved. Also putting the tags on the article that you did use... really does not connect with this now highly cited and referenced article. 6 months ago... it would have been true.. but the article has added multiple sourced references. Your argument that it could be improved? Everything may be improved. It is sourced though pretty well or well enough... or better than most. Improvements can be made of course. skip sievert (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Against democracy" is not a buzzphrase, nor is it inflammatory (but it is indeed incorrect). On the other hand, proselytizing about the imminent menaces of "Peak Oil and Global Warming" (neither of which are proper nouns), and claiming to have a "unique" and "original concept" about this "'Plan B'", are unacceptable unless they are attributed and sourced and placed in the proper context. (So much for "enough sources". Pick up an FA or two to see how articles should be properly sourced.)

This article can do better than just quoting buzzwords and promotion from the website word for word. We should describe what the organization is in plain language. Quotes from the group can only be used to show that the group said such a thing. You raise another important point with "the way others describe it"... there should be a lot more third-party sources, like news articles, historical documents etc. on which to reference details of the organization itself. Currently nearly half (I count about 8) of the citations in the article are affiliated with the organization itself. (Even if statements are cited, they must be attributed to reliable sources.) For example, this summary looks promising.

I initially changed the lead section because it was (and, since your reversion, still is) a mess. The lead should provide sufficient context to clue in readers to the rest of the article. Eg. "Technocracy Incorporated proposes a fundamental change in both the economy and in forms of governance in North America. Technocracy Technate design is science applied to society as a blueprint of a new method of social operation." (Buzz highlighted.) That should be left in double quotes somewhere or removed entirely, and replaced with some actual description of what Tech Inc is and does. The article should be rewritten to have a tone closer to, say, this one. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 15:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article you wish to use as a guide does not inspire much good information. Excerpt... The organisation was form in 1933 from former members of the Technical Alliance, including Howard Scott and Dr. M. King Hubbert. The organisation was one of a number of technocratic organisation to form in 1933 such as the Continental Congress.[1] The organisation was at its height during the 1930s under the leadership of Howard Scott. A personality cult was built up around Scott. However, discontent with Scott’s leadership lead to a split in the movement during the 1940s.[2] The resulting break away group soon failed. Technocracy Inc. organised a large demonstration in 1947 but its membership began to decline. Scott remained as it leader and chief engineer until his death in 1970. The organisation still exists today and has its HQ in Ferndale, WA, USA. There are no footnotes. There was no personality cult around Scott. That is ridiculous. The movement did not split in the 40's. That is unsourced. Not true either to my knowledge. What break away group? That is nonsense or gibberish. The Buzz as you say above, is how they describe themselves and others describe them. The article is about them. Lets stop talking about buzz's please and stick with the information. This is what TechInc is and does. The wiki article you are quoting is completely unsourced. It is pretty awful. Also... the Fonds finding you have put up to incorporate is not really a good source. It is based on an old wikipedia edit from a year or two ago. Really that is all it is besides some other incidental information. skip sievert (talk) 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated, I was referencing the tone of the article and nothing else. The referenced article uses a dispassionate tone and concise language. The current Wikipedia article reads like a promotion of the organization in many places, using its own words, linking to its own material, and including details not shown to be relevant (like a list of publications). It is not sufficiently neutral in presentation. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 16:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Intro section

Here is a current copy of the intro. Would any one like to suggest changes..? or is this agreeable?

Technocracy Incorporated proposes a fundamental change in both the economy and in forms of governance in North America. Technocracy Technate design is claimed by TechInc to be a science applied to society method, using the metric of energy and a new method of social operation. Today this groups members partake in discussion groups, publish quarterly magazines and a monthly newsletter called Trend Events, and advocate for the original concepts of a Thermoeconomics based scientific social design, presented in their publication Technocracy Study Course.Authenticity Official Technocracy Incorporated Website stating their authenticity

With Peak Oil, and the Global Warming crisis now developing, technate advocates contend that it is becoming ever more apparent that our present form of economy, a Price system, and our present form of governance, a political system, are structurally incapable of taking effective action. Technocracy technate design, is the possible 'Plan B,' according to them, for enabling a continuance of the technology, that will ensure our survival. Technocracy Incorporated proposes a non political governmental system using Energy Accounting in a Non-market economics method based on science principles. skip sievert (talk) 15:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Needs structure and checkpoints. First, to state what it is:

Technocracy Incorporated (abbreviated TechInc) is an organization founded in 19xx by Howard Scott and M. King Hubbert

...and what it does:

that advocates the establishment of a technocracy, a government of technical and scientific experts, to govern the continent of North America.

Then a history lesson:

It was created as a continuation of the disbanded Technical Alliance to disseminate the discoveries and ideas of its members among the general public. It was incorporated in the United States in 1934 due to [reason goes here].

After a paragraph break, go into their plans for world domination (this "Technate"), the defining characteristic of the organization:

TechInc proposes a major overhaul of the economies and societies in North America [etc etc details] into a new operating structure [or whatever] called the "Technate" design, first detailed in their 19xx publication, Technocracy Study Course.

Hope that clears things up. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 16:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Who when and what is already in the side bar. Very easy to see and read. Clears things up? :After a paragraph break, go into their plans for world domination (this "Technate"), the defining characteristic of the organization: I guess I will not be taking you seriously any more until you present better, more informed information. What has this to do with any thing? What are you talking about? Pretty obvious you know nothing in terms of what that groups focus is. They do not propose world domination my friend. North America only is the design. Your above intro. is not written well as to subject .... Sorry. It does not advocate a that advocates the establishment of a technocracy, a government of technical and scientific experts, to govern the continent of North America. as you say. It proposes a Technate... not a Technocracy. That words has gotten multiple definitions since 1934 when they used it. Technocracy is the name of a group.... that proposes a Technate (the one in the last two design chapters of the Technocracy Study Course). Technocracy Incorporated more particularly proposes it. You have left out the most basic aspects... energy accounting... this is the basis of the idea they have and thermoeconomics... and an administration or scientific social design. This is the very basis. Please do a little more research... On the plus side the beginning is more focused now. So that is good. Rewrite what you advocate below as an edit... and we can edit further. skip sievert (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I just presented a structure. A structured article that carefully builds up context and information as its progresses is easy to read and easy to edit; hence the clarifying comments interleaved with the example text.

I don't pretend to be particularly knowledgeable about this subject, but what you have said about it and some personal research of mine so far makes it appear to be an irrelevant fringe group to me, instead of a mainstream organization that does not have to resort to buzzword marketing and imminent predictions of armageddon to sell itself. I wish you good luck with any subsequent improvements, but personally this article looks to be a lost cause. ~ Jafet _{Speaker of many words} 16:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. Irrelevant fringe group it is not. It is a mainstream group that Incorporated in order to protect their information. As said this issue of buzzwords could have been dropped a bit ago I think. Thermodynamics is not a buzzword... and Willard Gibbs was not a kook. Columbia University also is not a fringe group. Also no... not any predictions were made... where you read that... is unknown but not factual. As far as layout and format... your help is appreciated. The article has been improved. Thank you. If you wish to get more good information as to this topic... and a good over all feel for the subject this may be a good link... it is a little long... but the information is good. http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy

There are a bunch of articles on wiki that I do not particularly like or agree with... but edit any way for various reasons. Thanks for contributing your ideas and please continue. My comments are only directed toward making things as far as possible neutral and full of info. skip sievert (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Better sources needed

Skip, You've said here that "...Technocracy Incorporated and its program.. is perhaps the most important social movement of the 20th. century in my opinion... it influenced and continues to influence many... and was the fastest growing social movement of the early to mid 1930's." skip sievert (talk) 14:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC) And this is the general position presented in this article.

But where is the actual evidence that TI has been so important and influential? Perhaps there are some New York Times articles and scholarly books by disinterested historians about TI? Many more third party publications are needed to support what is being said in this article. Sources close to the subject are not very helpful and I've tagged the TI Publications section as being an advertisement. Johnfos (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You probably should read some of the sources and ref/citations before jumping in here. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics and http://ecen.com/eee9/ecoterme.htm - Tagging that section as advertisement is pointless. It is only information from a notable group that is still around. skip sievert (talk) 15:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

But where is the actual evidence that TI has been so important and influential in a wider sense? Perhaps there are some New York Times articles and scholarly books by disinterested historians about TI? Many more third party publications about TI are needed to support what is being said in this article.

I would also add that there is much material in this article which is duplicated in related articles, and I have discussed some of this at Talk: Energy accounting#Redirect. This sort of blatant repetition is the type of thing you would expect in advertising material, not an encyclopedia, and this article and some other articles related to Technocracy Incorporated appear to be largely promotional in nature. Johnfos (talk) 19:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Advertising tag

Following on from what I've just said, I'm adding an advertising tag to the top of the article. It is not only Technocracy Incorporated that is being promoted, but the "Technocracy Study Course", which is mentioned at least three times in the article, twice in bold type. In fact, there are a great many articles on WP which seem to be promoting this course: [1]. Johnfos (talk) 19:51, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I've looked more closely at the article now. The "Technocracy Study Course" is mentioned six times, and the "Trend Events" newsletter is mentioned three times. I would have thought that each deserves to be mentioned once only. Johnfos (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I think you are perhaps tag over enthusiastic. Instead of trying to negatively phrase your concerns of an article that has been around for years by a notable group... why not improve the article.?..which you have not done... make changes to effect the issues you have. You are not actively editing the article... tags are a last resort. skip sievert (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Disputed paragraph

Attempts have been made to introduce the following material into the front end of several articles. I've moved the paragraph here because it introduces some material that in part seems to be straight copy from a self-published source. The content is also incorrect because the Technical Alliance actually disbanded in 1921, as the TA article shows.

The group's aim was to design a new system of production and distribution (energy accounting) based for continental North America that would provide a better standard of living while conserving non-renewable resources. According to their published information this would ensure ‘an economy of abundance’. The Technical Alliance was renamed Technocracy Incorporated in 1930 and in 1932 its basic findings were published. In the fall of 1933, Technocracy was incorporated in New York State as a “nonsectarian, educational-research membership organization” (Technocracy Digest, No. 231, pp 4).

We need to use reliable sources such as published books, on Wikipedia, rather than self-published websites. Books which are readily available include:

• William E. Aikin (1977). Technocracy and the American Dream: The Technocracy Movement 1900-1941, University of California Press.
• Beverly H. Burris (1993). Technocracy at work State University of New York Press.
• Howard P. Segal (2005). Technological Utopianism in American Culture Syracuse University Press.

-- Johnfos (talk) 22:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is about an organization, and that organization has a website that publishes information related to themselves. So, it is important to include information from them to further explain the purposes of the group and their history as a movement. Other third party sources should be included to further strengthen the information.

As far as the Technical Alliance disbanded in 1921 goes. That information is incorrect. Technocracy Inc. material states the organization was still researching and only became known as Technocracy in 1930 as is shown in their archives and some news articles(e.g. Here and Here). Then because of publicity and many people claiming to speak of behalf of "Technocracy" they incorporated in order to protect their material and assume responsibility of their real claims instead of the misinterpretation and misinformation that had arisen during that time.(e.g. Here and Here) Here is another third party source [2] that confirms that Technocracy Inc. was a continuation from the Technical Alliance from a notable science magazine called the New Scientist. Basically, technocrats began an "energy survey of North America" since 1918 and since then have been doing so in various names until they finally incorporated.

I would tend to believe information coming from Howard Scotts organization and a notable New Scientist article than non notable published books. Also, some of the books you provide are pretty badly written and chronologically a real headache to get through. Also throw in the various derogatory statements presented in the books and false information. Really weird and strange to say the least. The books you provide have some great information, but some of it is wrong and should be carefully included in the article. I have reworded and reinserted the disputed material as well as updated the references to meet Wikipedia standards. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph

Does anybody know the importance of this paragraph? It doesn't make sense together. Nor does the second sentence even appear relevant to the first. I also seems like an opinion. Does any body know what fascists implications it's referring to? In the Technocracy article it tributes the decline of the movement to the New Deal and this is supposed to be about a group.

Technocracy Inc. officials wore a uniform, consisting of a "well-tailored double-breasted suit, gray shirt, and blue necktie, with a monad insignia on the lapel", and its members saluted Scott in public.[1][3] Beverly Burris has suggested that an elitist or possibly fascist implication of actions connected by some to the technocracy movement may have contributed to its loss off appeal as a movement, and by the mid-1930s the technocracy movement was in decline.[1] 68.226.118.248 (talk) 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this paragraph is fine and have restored it. Johnfos (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think also that is too heavy handed and does read like opinion, and is not backed up or is easily misconstrued or seems smear like since no actual reason beyond wearing a uniform is given or saluting. Is the BoyScouts fascistic then? It unbalanced. It needs some counterpoint since the group says in its written material that it is not democratic, fascist, or autocratic, plutocratic etc. Fidel Drumbo 16:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

I don't understand your point Johnfos, if there was one. I would appreciate a more concise rebuttal before reverting a meaningful edit. What fascists implications was it talking about? That is a pretty clear aspect that needs to be discussed and addressed since it is clearly stated in the article yet doesn't give any reason why or any evidence in support of this kind of claim against an organization. I've looked over many articles on the web recently on Technocracy from newspaper archives to their own information, and there's no evidence or claim of fascism. In fact, much of the stuff I come across claim to be non political and in some instances patriotic as is seen in this newspaper article on page seven.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=Za1TAAAAIBAJ&sjid=ZDgNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6587,6784248&dq=technocracy&hl=en

Also, who is Beverly Burris? Is this person some notable person or authority that warrants inclusion of this claim? Not really because this person 'suggests' it and there are no references or facts to make such a claim in the book. The wiki reference says it's on page 28. I assume its a mistake and means page 32 because I can't access page 28. If somebody can point me to something of value please let me know. If it is to be included then there should be a counter point as FidelDrumbo has done. However, I still think it should be not be presented because it specifically talks about the movement in the statement, and again, this is about the organization. I don't see any reason to include information about the movement, when it already has its own article, to the organization itself. It muddles things up and confuses the reader. It is basically indirectly calling the organization fascists, and because of it, lost appeal as a movement. Which is pretty strange to present on an article about an organization not a movement. Do other Wikipedia articles have criticisms of organizations supported by others opinions? I'm pretty sure that answer is no. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

POV tag

As with Technocracy movement, anything that could be construed as criticism of TI, no matter how well sourced, has been removed from the page. Much unsourced material, and material from unreliable sources, has been added. Surepost.com, for example, is not a WP:Reliable source. All of this has left the article unbalanced and not neutral. Johnfos (talk) 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The criticisms were not well sourced and over the top. Plus some of them were completely irrelevant to the group. For example the "fascistic" implications provided by some of your edits mentioned not one word of the group Technocracy Inc. It stated "some actions within the movement may have had fascistic implications". No connection to the organization at all.

I have already added WP:Reliable sources besides the surepost.com links that confirm the material. 68.226.118.248 (talk) 19:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think if you want to be taken seriously, and help to move the article in the right direction, that the surepost.com links should be removed from the article.

Buris didn't use the term "fascistic" but she did refer to a "possibly fascist implication", which doesn't sound "over the top" to me. In terms of relevancy, her material related to the previous sentence which said: "Technocracy Inc. officials wore a uniform, consisting of a 'well-tailored double-breasted suit, gray shirt, and blue necktie, with a monad insignia on the lapel', and its members saluted Scott in public". See for yourself, here. Johnfos (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It is their official site [3] and making statements like this I think if you want to be taken seriously, and help to move the article in the right direction, that the surepost.com links should be removed from the article. is basically contentionious and pointless as part of this debate. Please stop personalizing this and get the facts straight. It is their official site and they are a non profit group and the source can be used to explain their position or be quoted from as in other articles do on Wikipedia! Also over-sourcing to the Buris information is not healthy for the article and since this group still exists calling them 'possibly fascist' seems bad form or libel when there is no real support for that assumption --Fidel Drumbo 17:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Update

I have removed the disputed Burris material, and material based on unreliable sources such as surepost.com. The New Scientist source is reliable but what it says about the Technical Alliance conflicts with some other sources, so we need to discuss how to best incorporate it. Johnfos (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Gut the article? Tsk tsk. Removing the official web-page from the information box etc? [4] Its their homepage and official site and they are a non profit. They say so here [5] A non profit or whatever can not have its information site on Wikipedia,? Huh!

Also removing a government website [6] as a citation seems beyond odd. They have a whole section on the subject of Technocracy. So again???

Looking at the history of the article you appear to be in a lock tight position of pov pushing here. Too bad its an interesting subject and you have tried to even have the article deleted according to the Article for Deletion history here. The conflict of the New Science article? Lots of information backs up that information, so why restore the wrong information? My guess is that you are a 'civil pov pusher' and no doubt will hang on here making the same edits over and over, so have fun. Interesting things on Wikipedia but its a shame Johnphos that you would remove sources like a government website that made the information more interesting. As the other editor stated... Wikipedia has a crummy reputation and I see why. Maybe you are a fine editor, but on this subject seem to be having fun removing all the information including now a government website with lots of info. Ugh! --Fidel Drumbo 16:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FidelDrumbo (talk • contribs)

Johnfos, It would be more constructive if you didn't delete so much material without a discussion on it. The Social Security Administrations government website information along with the another reference written by Raymond Frogner of University of Alberta and the New Scientist article contain pretty interesting and relevant information. Also deleting the official website doesn't seem to help portray yourself as presenting a neutral point of view.( I will restore the officially listed website as Technocracyinc.org) as is shown here[7] This is very very peculiar behavior especially coming from a person who has contributed on Wikipedia for such a long time. I think after the information you have presented on the Administrators noticeboard, you really have a personal vendetta against another editor who may have been a Technocracy Advocate or had a personal stake in it. You have obviously had some issues with those other editors. I'm just getting the impression that this information you have admitted to is seemingly clouding your judgement on these articles. Googlesalot (talk) 01:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose merge to Technocracy movement

Quite a substantial part of this article is repeated in Technocracy and Technocracy movement. There's not enough here for a stand alone article. I propose that this article be merged and then redirected to Technocracy movement. LK (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

• Support. TI is not notable enough to have its own article. Johnfos (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. There is clear overlapping which should be avoided. Technocracy Incorporated is important to be mentioned in the context of technocracy movement, but as a separate article it serve just a promotional purpose on may be even a potential POV fork. Beagel (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Per above. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Merge now complete. Johnfos (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)