Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Skip/Technocrate/Isenhand/Hibernian

You guys have all posted on my talk page regarding this topic, and I've gotten all sorts of requests for blocks, bans, and full protection. These are last-ditch efforts. I'd prefer if you briefly state what the problem is. In other words, this is where you say what you have added or what you have removed, and why you have done so. Keep in mind we have external link guidelines and guidelines/policies on reliable sources and verifiability. Also, nobody owns this article. If your post is longer than one paragraph, odds are you've said too much. --Wafulz 15:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, well I guess I'll start (hope this isn't too long). What Skip has written is, almost without exception, opinionated garbage, it is his own personal thoughts on the subject of Technocracy, it is written in the most Unencyclopaedic way imaginable and much of it was plainly wrong. You don't have to take my word for it, just read what he wrote in the edit history, anyone can see that this is just not acceptable for Wiki. You asked specifically what was wrong with what he wrote, well it's hard to state it all, as he wrote so much, but a few things would be, his totally incorrect attacks against NET (of which he has a personal grudge against). His changing of allot of the text, making it totally POV (his own Personal POV that is), I think that anyone can see the article was allot better before his edits. Thirdly he placed loads of links to his own personal website/blog and his book, now I am not necessarily opposed to putting in a link to his site in the external links section, but that's a different issue that requires further discussion. The only thing he wrote that I can see added anything to the article was some more details about the proposed North American Technate, it's size etc, I've been thinking about expanding that section for some time now and the needed info can easily be add in. So to sum up, yes this article is not complete and needs work, in some of the things you've pointed out, however I do not see Skip Sievert's edits as helpful at all in building the article. --Hibernian 19:41, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have the following objections to skips edits. The tech now site is a place for Skips opinions and does not “contain neutral and accurate material”. So I don’t think any link to that site should be include in the technocracy article. I don’t think his book should be referenced as it is largely a work of plagiarism as he has copied directly out of the tech study course. Much better to have a link / reference to the tech study course. That alone I think should disqualify it but in addition the remainder of the book is just an opinionated attack on religion which means its not really a book related to the technocracy movement. Again I think that disqualifies it from being a reference book. Other points I have regard factual inaccuracies. For example, the tech inc site is the official site of Technocracy Inc and they do argue not state their position (that is, they have a body of evidence to support their position). Isenhand 07:30, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

SKIP RESPONDS TO WAFLUZ AND HIBERNIAN , AND NOTES THAT ISENHAND IS ABSENT SO FAR. Well at least you are now communicating and that is an improvement. I would decry Hibernian`s negative carping tone here. Have we had enough of that now ? What does that prove ? I disagree with what you have said. Could we keep the insults to a minimum ? That is poor debating. There has been a concerted effort to ridicule my contribution to the Technocracy Movement page, by members of an opposing faction within the movement. I have added links to another legal corporation called Technocracy Incorporated 44.94 -93.29. The group that runs that site is just as legitimate as the groups that Hibernian, and Isenhand belong to. It is true that the Net group and TechnocracyCa, where Hibernian belongs, are in opposition to the material that is presented by my group. My group presents information from the original Technocracy Study Course that was written by the Technical Alliance, and these others, present material that was written in a document from 1975 called the TTCD Faq`s material. There has been a huge debate within the movement, that that document has, or should be, discredited, as it does not represent Technocracy as it is originally formated. My links go to a blog, that represents that position, and a website that `gives away` two books. One is my own and the other is the original Study Course. I would add that Andrew Wallace has a direct link that goes to a commercial site where his book can be 'bought'. That is the person who has consistently taken my own book down. This raises the spectre here, that my book is being deleted in competition to this other groups viewpoint, and also for financial reasons, since their book costs money, which they get to promote themselves with, plus they sell it from links on the NET site, of which Dr. Andrew Wallace author,(Isenhand), is an administrator.

I would be happy if these sites of 'our' group were included, http://www.technocracynow.org/ and also the blogging site in question which contains loads of archived material and info. http://technocracynow.blogspot.com/ Technocracy - The Design of the North American Technate. I would also like to include a link to this site, which deals mostly with Technocracy, http://technocracynow.stumbleupon.com/ StumbleUpon | technocracynow's web site reviews and blog. This information provides a different perspective on Technocracy that is I think more accurate , and in accordance with the original movement of which I belong. I also think that rather than providing some 3 or 4 names of articles by Howard Scott that are not linked, material from the wealth of archived material should be directly linked. That means that the article such as 'my country right or wrong' and some others are misleading and out of context, and presented poorly. It makes much more sense to leave a link that directly exposes people to the wealth of archived material on the Technocracy Incorporated site directly in that area. Those are my major points.(Skipsievert 21:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok, there are several points to be addressed here, firstly Skip, are you saying that you have in-fact set up a rival Technocracy organization called "Technocracy Incorporated 44.94 -93.29"? Now that name sounds like a chapter of Technocracy Incorporated not another group, so is it just a chapter of Tech Inc. or actually another organization entirely?
And what do you mean it's a "legal corporation"?, are you saying you've actually gone through some legal process to setup this group?
Secondly you are saying you are opposed to the TTCD document, well the one linked to here is from technocracy.org (the official site), so it doesn't come much more official than that, and it's pretty clean to me that it is an accepted part of the Technocracy literature and has been since it's creation. There is no hint of what you describe as a "huge debate within the movement", I think this debate only occurred in your head.
You say that "Andrew Wallace has a direct link that goes to a commercial site where his book can be 'bought'", however I see no evidence for this, nothing like that is in the external links now and I don't believe it was there before you came here. The book was merely mentioned in the books section (which has now been redone by Wafulz). If you are referring to the fact that the NET Website has a link to the book then that is an entirely different matter and nothing to do with this Wikipedia article. Interestingly Skip, you have been very critical of the fact that this book is for sale, yet perhaps you have forgotten about this part of your own Website... [1]. It states that you sell your book for $19 US Dollars, $26 Canadian. So it seems to me you are being a bit of a Hypocrite.
Ok now lets go onto the links you've provided that you want in the article. Firstly we have technocracynow.org [2], this site has very little to do with Technocracy and is simply a one-purpose site, that shows your book. And of-course you offer the Technocracy Study Course (TSC), however that is already offered and linked to by the official technocracy.org site, so that's not a reason to include your site here. So essentially this site just links to your book, I personally don't see that as a reason to have it in the external links of the article.
Now for your technocracynow Blog, [3], this is exactly as it says, a personal blog where you air your opinions, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't meet Wiki criteria. You've even catalogued the goings on here there, I doubt it has the legitimacy to be a link for this article.
As for your StumbleUpon page [4], again it lacks content, is of little use to anyone, and is only your personal page, not suitable for a Wikipedia article.
Now as for your claim that your sites have valuable source material such as articles and essays by Tech Inc., well yes you do have that, but Skip, you just copied it off the official site, here they are on this page in exactly the same layout as you have [5]. All the stuff you provide is already provided by technocracy.org, so there is no need to link to your stuff (and frankly I trust the official site a lot more than I trust yours). We can of-course link to this page in the article as it is useful and official.
Skip, if you are indeed setting up a rival Technocracy organization, I would suggest to you to get a better name, and quit using Technocracy Incorporated (I think that name is already taken, you know...), you also seem to refer to your group as Tech Inc., I don't know if this is a deliberate attempt to fool people into thinking you are official or if you just haven't changed it yet. If you are now separate then, I suggest you let people know up front, that you are no longer associated with Tech Inc. and stop trying to usurp their symbols and literature.
Now after all that, I would suggest a compromise, We can simply expand the books section, by adding a subsection called "Books by Advocates of Technocracy" or something like that. It could perhaps read something like this...

Books by Advocates of Technocracy

  • Andrew Wallace, Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world (Lulu ID 750510, 2007)
  • Skip Sievert, Beyond the Cloak of Deception, Politics, Religion & Economics in the Price System, how perceptions are controlled and manipulated and why
(I don't know the publishing info about your book, but I assume you can provide that)
Would that perhaps satisfy you? No links to books, just mentioning their existence in the article alongside the other books there. Of-course I'd like to know what Wafulz thinks about all this. --Hibernian 01:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why any of these links or books should be added. Self-published material is basically never allowed unless it has already been published by a reliable third party publication (see WP:V#SELF), or to provide information about the subject itself (ie a musician's blog providing tour dates). External links are used to provide reliable information that would otherwise go beyond the scope of the project in detail, or to avoid stuff like copyright infringement- links with redundant information are not needed. Blogspot and stumbleupon are not considered appropriate links, and are very rarely good sources for a scholarly topic. --Wafulz 13:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Wafulz - "or to provide information about the subject itself" the "Technocracy: Building a new sustainable society for a post carbon world" does that. However, I'm happy with the mods you made. Isenhand 10:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hibernian your writing on Urbanates is not a part of the Technocracy Movement as designed by the Technical Alliance. It is a construct made up by people on the TechCa. site and the Technet site, both of those groups do not represent material from the original, and present movement. It has nothing to do with the design laid out by Technocracy Incorporated. It should not be there. (Skipsievert 15:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

The agents name and address for Technocracy Incorporated CHQ 44.94 -93.29 of which I am an authorized agent, is available from the Secretary of State, Minnesota. I am authorized to use and display Technocracy Inc. on my websites, and the use of the words to the effect, "Technate of and for North America. Technate, Continental Headquarters of....CHQ of/for The Technate for the Continent of North America. -- This covers any questions regarding my authority to act and represent Technocracy on the Internet and world wide web. Hibernian you are still casting negative aspersion in my direction. (Skipsievert 14:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Skip, all I can say to that suggestion about Urbanates, is that you must be out of your mind. Are you actually serious? You said that it was "made up" by people on Tech.ca and elsewhere, well, There are too possibilities with that, either you do not know that the idea was created by Technocracy Incorporated in or before the 1950's, or you are Lying through your teeth. Did you check any of the links and references provided at the end of the Urbanate article? If you had, then you would see the idea has existed since at-least 1955, when it was written about in "Technocracy Digest" magazine. You stated that you don't recognize this as being what the Technical Alliance designed, well this has nothing to do with the Technical Alliance, that organization hasn't existed for some 75 years! Urbanates are obviously part of the modern Technocracy movement, whether it was thought up by the Technical Alliance or not. It seems Skip, that your goal is to disregard, undermine or destroy everything created by the Technocracy movement after 1934, well all I can say to that you are very much a minority in your views, and don't represent anybody but yourself.
As for what you said about "authority to act and represent Technocracy on the Internet", I very much doubt it. You still didn't answer the questions I put to you above, namely is your group "Technocracy Incorporated CHQ 44.94 -93.29" a part of Technocracy Incorporated or a separate organization? Or is it perhaps a Rouge chapter? I'd also like to know how many people are in this group, is it more than one? You also don't seem to have addressed the fact that you have been kicked out of Tech Inc., so no Skip I don't think you have any authority within the Technocratic movement, in-fact you don't even have any credibility, there’s a reason most Technocrats wont even talk to you anymore. As for you continued editing of the Articles here, I suggest you don't bother, I and many others will be watching you like a hawk and will revert you when you start writing your biased opinions. --Hibernian 14:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

walden two

Is Skinner's Walden Two "technocratic like" science fiction? --florkle 16:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no connection between Technocracy ideas and concepts and Skinner. Skinner wrote his precedent book in 1938 , the precedent Technocracy book was written in 1934, That is the Technocracy Study Course , a page that I just created. This book documents all the references give after each chapter. Behaviorism is NEVER mentioned in that book. People have suggested that some aspects of Technocracy are based on behaviorism. Not true. We reference Pavlov and several others in the Study Course. We reference science based material. Skinner is not considered a scientist. It has been suggested that he created a 'belief' system when he formulated the concepts of behaviorism. Some people site sources that are older than Skinner and claim that as a connection to behaviorism ideas in Technocracy. That is NOT true. There is no connection. Skinners ideas should NOT be presented together with ideas from the Technocratic movement for that reason. I suggest to this poster that he read the chapter, 'The Human Animal' from the Technocracy Study Course, and note the footnotes and references for that chapter. [[6]] is a link to a free file copy available to download to your files. I think --florkle that you will find that Chapter very interesting with your interest in Skinner and Behaviorism. I am not trying to be overly hard on Skinner, he has his place. His system is just not connected to the Technocracy concepts though. (Skipsievert 16:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

cool. --florkle 04:32, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I see again that this page has been rewritten to bad effect. This is vandalism. I think the people have an agenda that are doing this. They have taken off my links to other wikipedia information. They have put up a canadian blogging site. They have taken off material about the Technocracy study Course. I am asking for page protection against this sloppy and miserable person. I see also that that they have not discussed any of this in this space.Skipsievert 16:05, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Vandals again are destroying this page. I ask for page protection. They are taking off information just as quickly as it is put up. This should be stopped ([[User:Skipsievert 16:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Skip the only person here who is vandalising the article is you. You really are unbelievable. The page may well need to be protected now if you continue to add-in crap and deleting perfectly legitimate material. I'm not talking about the Mage stuff, that has to be sorted out, I'm talking about you deleting anything that you don't personally agree with, even though it is plainly official. --Hibernian 16:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Skip I am going to tell you this once and for all. You do not have the authority to remove the TTCD or NET links form this article. We all know you hate them, but your personal feelings and grudges on them are totally irrelevant to this Wikipedia article. They are both official links and the article cannot be without them. Now if you do not stop this editing then I will be forced to continue removing them and we will be in an Edit war, and we could both get blocked. --Hibernian 17:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If these are official links then they should be made unofficial. It does not matter here who you think I hate or do not. Please refrain from that language, or characterizing what I am doing through that lens. This is about representing the Technocracy movement. Those sites are glorified blogging sites. The TTCD material is not important. It is information that is covered in the Technocracy Study Course, and covered much better. That information, the TTCd is also under a cloud and has been since it was written in 1975. Many people in the movement do not care for it. That is the reason I am removing it. Besides as I said this information was covered over and over, and done much better in the Technocracy Study Course, links of which were not put up here till I arrived. Now why is that? That is the precedent document from the Technocracy movement. It is the basis of the Technocracy movement. Why are you linking TechnocracyCa. over and over, when wafluz has said that sites like that and TechEu are blogging sites, with biased information. After he said that I stopped listing my http://TechnocracyNow.blogspot site. Should you not also stop listing sites that are 'talk' sites with an agenda. I have stopped doing that. For that reason I will ask they you be stopped from doing those edits, and if those things are listed as 'official' links than that should be changed. Being new here I do not know the system that well. I do know that a clique of people are trying to control this post. You are a regular poster on TechCa. TechCan has an agenda. Isenhand posts biased material on the TechEu site I have taken down. Kolzene is the webmaster on TechCa. It is a biased blogging/talk site. Am I clear. You are not presenting a good picture here. You are biased. You have editor friends that are biased. I think you should be blocked , and some of the others here that I mention from harming this article. Why do you take down the fact the Technocracy Incorporated has all that archived material on their site ? Why have you dropped the reference to the Study Course that I have put up at every opportunity ? You are biased. Chat sites are not information sites. If people want to find these sites on their own including my own sites fine. Why lead people to biased blogging and chat sites from here to be captured by the people that run them. Think about it. (skip sievert 18:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Links normally to be avoided THIS IS FROM THE OFFICIAL GUIDE LINE PAGE

Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:

1. Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article. 2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 3. Links mainly intended to promote a website.---- end quoted material.

The link to the TTCD is not a good link. That info is covered in the Technocracy Incorporated link. The 'research' being done on the NET site is not research, but blogging chat. The link to TechnocracyCa and TechnocracyNet or Eu. is given here to promote a talk or blog site. The TechNet site talks endlessly of 'promoting' their site, and in discussion formats on TechnocracyCa. they have repeatedly said that traffic to them has been 'driven' from wikipedia. You have promoted your personel conception of HOLONS on that site over and over. That does not belong in this article either. As said before this is not your site or your friends site. My blog site is not here, your blog site TechnocracyCa should not be, and the NET blogging sight should not be. The TTCD material is promoted on your, and kolzenes, Techca site in a biased way. That material is not important in relation to the important link here, the Technocracy Incorporated site, and the Study Course Pdf. That material is already there. This is redundant. You are posting a link to a site, that already has the information on it in another link ~!~! You are giving unneeded attention to TTCD document, that can be retrieved at the Technocracy Incorporated website. Do you understand ? (skip sievert 18:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Another thing to note here is that when I arrived here to work on this page I put up one of my websites, as a link. That link was taken down. This site, http://www.technocracynow.org/ Even though it is a website that is devoted to Technocracy. I have hence learned that it was not appropriate to post that site on Wikipedia because of their guidelines and I stopped trying to post that site some time ago after Wafluz said the thing about criteria. The Net site and the TechCa site also would come under that criteria, as not to be posted. They are self promoting and are run by Wiki editors here Kolzene, Isenhand, Technocrate, and Hibernian. That is a double standard. Isenhand is promoting his book written by himself Dr.Andrew Wallace, Hibernian is promoting the TTCD, and TechCa. Kolzene is promoting his website TechnocracyCa. and Technocrate supports their edits. (skip sievert 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC))

Skip, I will first say, you have still not answered a single one of the questions I asked you in the above posts. Are you going to do so, or are you going to continue to avoid the issue?
Again with the TTCD, Skip I seriously suggest you stop with this, you are not going to get anywhere trying to remove it. I will state again (and I hope for the last time), the TTCD is a legitimate, official and recognized document produced and presented by Technocracy Incorporated, your opinions (or mine or anyone else’s) about it are irrelevant, it is official, it stays. Even if, as you claim, there are many Technocrats who don't like this document, even if that was true (which I very much doubt it is) that does not matter, the Official site has placed it there and it uses it to present Technocracy to the public. You talk about Technocrats who are opposed to this document, well I've never even heard of anyone else in the movement being opposed to it, only you and I think we can all see that there are far, far more who accept it and have nothing against it. Put simply Skip, it is your own personal crusade to get rid of that document and your views on it certainly do not represent those of the Technocratic movement. As for your argument that the TTCD is not as good as the TSC or that it just trims it down, well it must have something to offer or why else would Tech Inc. keep it around and go to the trouble of putting it into Electronic form and putting on their Website?. And what exactly do you mean, I am here "promoting the TTCD", I wasn't the one who put it here, I have no particular interest in it over any other Technocracy document, I am merely getting involved about it because you are trying to delete it, and you have no right to. I do not expect to have to have this discussion with you again, it stays.
You said that links to the TSC weren't here before you came here, well if you would take the time to look back at the article's history you will see that it has been linked here for quite some time, so that is just flat-out wrong. All you did was create a Wiki article about it, which is fine I guess, though I'm not even sure one document needs it's own article, maybe. Then you just linked it in every article (some might say that was over doing it a bit).
On to the Websites, The NET Website is the official Website of The Network of European Technocrats, an officially registered Technocracy organization, and thus part of the broader Technocratic Movement, hence it's presence on this page. It's official, legitimate and about the subject of this article, it stays. As for Tech.ca, although it is not an official site in the same way, it does contain plenty of Technocracy source material and is run by registered Technocrats, neither of which can be said for your site(s). That site has been around as long (maybe longer) than the Tech.org site and has over that time been the most active North American Technocracy site. Remember Skip, the reason I said we didn't need your site was not just because it is your personal Website, but because it doesn't have any content, it has nothing that a reader of this article might be able to learn about Technocracy. Whereas Tech.ca certainly does have loads of content, and no I'm not just saying this because I'm "in cahoots" with them, I'm saying it because it is actually a useful site, which is already used for several references to Technocracy articles here at Wiki. Anyway that will take further discussion.
The guideline you cited says "Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject", I would certainly consider Tech.ca to be about the subject of Technocracy, I don’t know if that is enough, but it would certainly be a loss to the article if it weren't there.
Skip said "Why do you take down the fact the Technocracy Incorporated has all that archived material on their site ?" If you are referring to the fact that I edited out a sentence that you wrote (over some other stuff BTW), stating that, the reason is that we do not say things like that Wiki in articles. You don't just put a thing saying something like that in the middle of an article, you put links to the relevant pages.
Skip you stated about me that "You have promoted your personel conception of HOLONS on that site over and over." I think you must be confusing me with someone else, when did I (or anyone else here) mention anything about Holons? I've never even written anything on the NET site, and I hardly even know what Holons are (other than bits and pieces I've read on their site), so I don't know where you get that idea from.
Lastly I will just say that Skip seems to think there’s some grand conspiracy by those with "vested interests" to undo his edits, whereas I see a lot of concerned editors trying to save this article from vandalism. To the admins: I think the strength of opposition against Skip's edits should show you just how many Technocrats disagree with him (that would be basically all of them) and how Skip is regarded as a "representative" of the movement (i.e. not at all). --Hibernian 01:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I consider the post above to mostly be long winded fluff. You have an agenda. Technocracy Ca. is a blogging site. Net is a blogging site. It is not fair to put up those sites and not my blogging site. Lets not put up any of them. It goes against the guidelines here about external links. You say that the TTCD. is something that should have a separate link. The TTCD is posted already on the External links from the external link called Technocracy Incorporated, official site. Do you understand what I am saying, and have said. That document is available from the link already posted in External Links. It is ridiculous to post a separate copy of it, when people going to Technocracy Incorporated website have the article there in front of them in black and white. It is therefore redundant, and should not be there. I meant to say Urbanates when I said Holons . Sorry. I think the section you have written on Urbanates is not a good thing to have posted here. It does not relate directly to information on the movement. Why not excerpt an article by Wilton Ivey for something like that. He was an interesting writer and a well known Technocrat. You wrote that article. Why not have articles written by people that are known in the movement ? Please stop referring to petty quarrels here about who likes who. I stick by my facts from other posts here about you being a blogger and administrator on TechnocracyCa, Kolzene being the webmaster, Isenhand , or Andrew Wallace being an author promoting his book on Net, Network of European Technocrats, and Technocrate being also in your groups. Why not stop this pettiness and just keep to the basic material here, with just the basic links. It is not fair to link your blogging site, or the Net blogging site here. People can find those if they care to look. You are trying to drive traffic there. (skip sievert 03:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Skip it is beginning to look like you cannot be reasoned with, I tried to compromise with you, I tried to reason with you, but you still persist with the same thing over and over. I don't want to discuss the links with you again, I've already explained my rational several times, both the NET and TTCD links are relevant, official, and informative, they are both perfectly legitimate and indeed essential links to have on this article. Wafulz said we need more references not less. I'm not going to go over this again, if you delete them I will put them back in, so don't bother.
As for Urbanates, Frankly Skip you haven't got a leg to stand on trying to argue against them, they are totally legitimate and recognised by Tech Inc. In-fact While I was looking through the Tech.org site earlier today I found them mentioned in their Questions and Answers area, here http://www.technocracy.org/Q&A's.html . Check out page three http://www.technocracy.org/Q%20&%20A%20Page%203.html , Urbanates aplenty. As for the article, yes I wrote it, what is wrong with that? It had to be written by somebody. And what do you mean by saying "Why not excerpt an article by Wilton Ivey for something like that." and "Why not have articles written by people that are known in the movement ?", how can we do that? We can't put up an article or essay already written by someone else onto Wikipedia, all articles have to be written by the editors, that's how Wiki works. Indeed it does not matter who wrote the article, it could have been someone form Timbuktu for all Wiki cares, the only criteria are that the article be factual and written in a neutral and encyclopaedic way, and I think I was able to do that. If you know of some older essays/articles written by members of Technocracy then please present them, I'd be glad to have more sources for that article. What exactly is your objection to Urbanates and to the article BTW? Is it just that you object to the whole idea? (In which case you are likely the only Technocrat that does), or do you have some specific compliant about the content of that article? (this being the article in question BTW: Urbanate).
You say Skip that "I stick by my facts from other posts here about you being a blogger and administrator on TechnocracyCa,", however in that sentence there wasn't one fact. I am not now and have never been an administrator (or held any other position) at Tech.ca or any other Website, and I'm not a "Blogger" either, I've never written a blog in my life. Interesting that someone who maintains a blog doesn't seem to understand the meaning of the word. A blog is a website or page written by a single individual expressing their personal thoughts and opinions, neither NET nor Tech.ca can possible by described as "Blogging sites", as they don't maintain blogs, those sites have a combination of discussion forum and article material, and in the case of Tech.ca historical materials. So the term blog site, is a completely inaccurate way to describe them (but then again it's pretty apparent that you're not very concerned about accuracy). We could probably use some Administrator intervention, or this could go on forever --Hibernian 04:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


Who is Skip Sievert?

Skip was a member of Technocracy Incorporated in year 2003-2006, and was later on ostracised because of his anti-religious zeal and his equally fanatic adherence to every letter in the TSC, while lamenting everything newer than 1934. After his ostracism, he started a blog where he promoted his book (which by 80% is not his book). Everyone who is dissenting with him, he is trying to overrun. If the admin takes the patience to analyse Skip's edits, one could clearly see that for example his entries on NET (14-16th of May) was a pure and full vandalisation. Skip claims that he is the "rightful successor" to Howard Scott, almost in a theological sense, but offers no arguments or even evidence, and that he is representing Technocracy Inc, when in truth, he is just a pundit with a blog. Either, he is a cunning manipulator, or suffer from delusions. I am sorry for saying this so harshly, but you will be able to observe that.Luxaquitaine 13:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

This is purely an attempt at character assassination. It does not belong here. WHO IS LUXAQUITAINE? IT IS ENRIQUE LESCURE. And that is a blogger from the Network of European Technocrats site. I am not claiming anything here remotely connected with this poster. I am not the 'rightful successor' to anything. The above post is disinformation and whoever this user is I think he should be noted, and removed from Wikipedia. This page is for discussing the page in question and trying to improve it. The above information is meant to confuse issues here. I am a member of Technocracy currently, that is true. This person really should be banned for the above. I am not anti-religious. None of the above is true, and I assume that this poster from NET is joining others here to try to overwhelm this page with info from NET and TechCa. (skip sievert 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Justifying my edit

I'm referring to this edit. For starters, all of you should familiarize yourselves with the neutral point of view policy, and you should take particular care in word choice and information placement. Here are some of the reasons behind my edit:

  • The main difference from Technocracy Incorporated is that NET is investigating in more decentralised and ecological methods of resource and information distribution than the North American organisation.
    • This sentence is problematic: it reads like an opinion, but it's trying to state it as a fact. I get the gist of it- it's supposed to say "we're different, and here's why", but it comes off as "we're better, and here's why"
  • The so-called "holons" which NET is establishing, is clearly a proof of that inclination.
  • "where the current deputy director Dr. Andrew Wallace lives."
    • Redundant with the NET article- too much detail for a parent article
  • Technocracy Vancouver link
    • The first blurb on the website reads "Technocracy has been greatly misunderstood for a very long time. Most people haven't even heard of it. We aren't a group of extremists. We are not interested in mass conquest or any other form of forced take-over." The personally written material on the site doesn't seem entirely reliable or neutral. However, the history and development and periodicals are useful, so this website would probably make a better reference than direct link.
  • NET
    • Redundant with the link to the NET article. This inevitably leads to a directory-like section where regional groups add their links as well.
  • Technological Continental Design
    • Redundant with the link to the website itself. Again, we have to avoid becoming a directory.

This article will require a significant amount of work. While reading it I feel like it teeters between an encyclopedia article and a political pamphlet. It will need inline citations from reliable publications, better prose, and more neutral wording. --Wafulz 17:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou Wafulz,

I think that you have done a fair and honest job of getting to the bottom of the Technocratic movement page that has been so problematic. As a newer user, I have learned a lot from this experience. I am assuming that your new edits are the ones that are the standard now as far as links and so forth. That is as it should be. I will be working on that page in the future, with the hope of improving it. I have rewritten the Technocracy Study Course page again, I think more according to your suggestions. When you have time could you comment on the discussion page there ? I am very curious as to your opinion of that article now. As my first article I am very excited about it. I will follow more suggestions. I have asked some further questions on the discussion page. Thanks again, (skip sievert 11:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Ok I haven't been back here for a while, I was doing other things and frankly didn't want to get into these same old arguments with Skip all over again, but anyway. In regard to the above edit Wafulz, I agree with most of it, but I have to disagree with some parts. I agree with taking out the POV wording in the NET section, that's just something that should have been done a long time ago anyway (if I can, I'll try to rewrite it to everyone's satisfaction), but I cannot understand your reasoning for removing the links to the NET website, the Vancouver website and the TTCD document. I mean you've been asking for more sourcing for the article, but those links are some of the primary sources for the information in the article! How does that make sense? I hope you're not just doing it to placate Skip. Specifically I would ask, if the NET link is appropriate for the NET article then why not here also?, The Tech Vancouver site, is one of Tech Inc.'s official sites (regardless of what it may say on it's front page, it's official), so I don't see any reason to exclude it, And the TTCD, again I cannot think of any legitimate reason to remove it, you said it was already linked to at the Tech.org website, but why should that exclude it? And as I said, it is needed for sourcing, so I can't understand why you now seem to be in favour of removing it. I mean surely you would want us to cite an actual document rather than just a Website, right? Lastly I would still advocate putting http://www.technocracy.ca/ back into the external links, as it has tons of material for sourcing and stuff that can't be found anywhere else online. For instance almost all the Technocracy pictures here at Wiki are from Tech.ca, and it's already used as a reference for several articles.
As regarding Skip, if you look at his latest edits you'll see he hasn't changed his ways at all, and requires constant monitoring and reverting, if the other editors here were to turn our backs for even a little while, he'd be in wrecking the entire thing. I'll acknowledge that some of the things Skip is editing needed to be revised anyway, but not by him, he is almost totally incapable of being neutral on the topics here, he uses the excuse of changing something that needs to be edited and turning it into his own personal essay (usually a tirade about how right he is and how wrong everyone else is). Indeed I was just looking at a message he sent to Kolzene, in which he proclaims his "victory" against the other editors here because of your intervention, which he apparently sees as vindicating all of his actions. Though again it just shows the real reason that Skip is doing all of this, as I said from the beginning, a big personal grudge against the rest of the Technocratic movement, which has turned into an obsession. The minute he thinks he's gained something over anyone, he immediately messages them to gloat about it, in short, his "contributions" here have nothing to do with improving this Wikipedia article and everything to do with getting some sense of revenge (though he'll deny it of-course). --Hibernian 05:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
With regards to your concern about the links: I'll crosspost a message I left on Isenhand's talk page
Hi Isenhand. I'm posting here because my talk page is a mess. Thanks for being brief and rational with your initial concern- I hate having to read essays to figure out what's going on. The reason I don't think the NET link should be included at the bottom is because the technocratic movement is very broad, and it's very rare for a movement to actually have an official website to begin with. Websites are listed when they are resources beyond that which a featured article could use (a transcript of a movie, for example) or when they are the official or umbrella affiliate of the subject (such as Tech Inc.'s website). In my admittedly novice opinion, I don't think the NET meets either of these relevant criteria, and since it already has a history subsection, I think it's sufficiently covered. The problem with adding a website for each geographical location is we end up with lists like this (this was about 25% of the links). If you disagree or have anything else to add, just let me know.
Adding to this: technocracy.ca and the Vancouver site are great for sourcing the article (provided that there are some sort of credentials attached to the pertinent article), but I don't think they meet the first criteria of "links to be avoided."
I can't comment on Skip going around and using Wikipedia for his own agenda (I don't know who you're talking about or where these discussions are going on). However, there is a pretty strict policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Wafulz 16:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if I understand you correctly, you're saying you don't want the NET link because it is a regional variation of Technocracy and you don't want this article to become clogged up by other regional groups. But how does that make sense? There are only 2 regional Technocracy organizations (Tech Inc. and NET), so it's hardly going to become overloaded with other groups (as there are no other groups, AFAIK). So I think the question is, what is this article about? The answer is, it's about the Technocratic Movement, it is not just about one Technocracy organization (although most of the info does refer to Tech Inc.), there are people all around the world who have an interest in Technocracy (Though only NET has so far become an official organization). So I would ask, what harm does its inclusion do to the article? Surely it only enhances the article.

About The other websites, I didn't quite understand what you said there, are you in favour of them or against them? As for the question of their quality as sources, well if you've looked around the Tech.ca site you'll see it has plenty of articles, photographs, etc. about the Technocracy movement that can't be found anywhere else. As for Techvan.ca, well it doesn't have much content besides some basic information, but I would add that it is stated as being Tech Inc.'s second official site. BTW both sites are run by official members of Technocracy Incorporated, which as I said, Skip isn't, as he was ejected from that organization some time ago. I might remind you that Skip is the only editor here (ever) who is objecting to these links, and as I said, he is doing so for "less than proper" reasons.

Eh, anyway you didn't address the question about the TTCD document, what is your opinion? Again I for one, can't see any legitimate reason to exclude it from the article, as it's a vital source (again, Skip is the only one who objects). Oh and also I've just learned that Technocracy Inc.'s Continental Headquarters (CHQ) has been informed about Skip's continuing activities, and they said they will attempt to intervene. Though the people there are run off their feet so I don't know what exactly they can do. --Hibernian 22:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well in lieu of any response from Wafulz, I've gone ahead and replaced and revamped the links section. Like I said in my edit summary, some of these may be integrated as references, but until that happens they should be left simply as external links (which at-least provides the relevant sources for the article). Now I'm sure Skip will again object to this, but at this point that does not bother me, as I'll simply revert him taking them away. --Hibernian 17:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

European Movement

This section was filled with information that is provided with the link that goes to that page, European movement. That is redundant. It is noted also that the Technocracy Study Course states that membership in Technocracy, or Technocracy Incorporated which is what the movement is, which was designed only for North America, is not open to other than North Americans. It says that in the preface of the Technocracy Study Course, and it is arguable that this section should even be here, and I may end up pressing that point later. What the Europeans are doing is not connected to the original ideas of Technocracy. They say themselves on their blog, that they are an independent, group with a very different philosophy. Mention of a Skype conference is uncalled for. Product placement it would seem. Is this section really viable at all, and should it not be just a reference point as a link to their site, and the other article ? It is information that is repeated at the link here at the section top. Also the members that operate the NET site are all editors here, and this information is self generated to drive traffic to their blogging site TechEU the NET chat site. This section still contains way to much detail for a parent article. It should be pared down further. (skip sievert 05:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

I see that some of my edits have been tampered with to no good purpose here. Most of this article should not really be in this parent article. I have only pared it down a little. It should be further edited down. It is repeating the linked information.(skip sievert 06:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

The article, as it stands, is about the technocratic movement not just Techn Inc. The technocratic movement, historically, has been mainly based in the US and represented mainly by Tech inc so the majority of the article should focus on tech inc. However, extensions to include aspects of the technocratic movement in Europe should be included (and any extensions to other parts of the World, if they exists, should also appear). What appears in the article at the moment is a small amount on one Europe organisation and I think that is sufficient for that organisation. Any more would be too much here and any less wouldn’t given enough info for an article on the technocratic movement. However, on saying that, perhaps it should be expanded to include earlier European organisation(s)? Isenhand 07:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

If another organization used as their basis, the information from the Technocracy Study Course then I would agree. If they do not, then I would disagree. There are many groups now that use energy accounting as a basis for their ideas. Books based on ideas from material by Buckminster Fuller for instance mention energy accounting. Technocracy however is based on the material from the Study Course, and in that sense, it may be an issue to even have a European Movement section on this page at all, as that movement is a separate group from the original group that still exists, and has not splintered. (skip sievert 14:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC))
Isen, you're asking a bit of a two-pronged question. The sub-section on the NET is long enough as it is- the movement is roughly 70 or 80 years old, and this organization was founded in 2005. Any information about the NET should go in its own article. As for the movement in general in Europe: if there is documentation about it, feel free to add it. If you feel there is a substantial amount of material documenting a movement in Europe based on Technocracy, you could probably create a subsection in "History" called "Movement in Europe" or something similar. --Wafulz 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

There were a few technocratic organisations in Europe. The French one and one in the UK are ones I know of. If I ever get time to find out about them I’ll add them in. In addition, the technocratic movement is not based on the Study Course. The technocratic movement predates that and has a basis in a number of sources and movements (including the work of Veblen). Most technocratic organisations in the US in the 1930s had nothing to do with the study course. Looks like we have a lot more information to write up on the early history! Isenhand 07:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

vandal strikes Technocratic movement page

Wafulz, this user`s I.P. address (diff) (hist) . 11:39 . . (-8) . . 89.172.185.101 (Talk) (→External links) is listed as having put a link back up again to the external link section in Technocratic movement, to the Network of European Technocrats site. This is in violation of your ruling. Please intercede. I will take this link off as per. your previous administrator edit. Is it possible to block this user? It would be suspected to be a blogger from NET, that has disregarded instructions from the Discussion page.(skip sievert 16:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

It's not my "ruling"- I'm not some God-king. It's just what I (from my experience) think the external links should look like. Anyway, they don't need to be blocked or anything like that. I can just put a polite hidden comment in the source of this page. Also skip, stop using horizontal lines to separate your comment. Indents are much easier to follow in most cases. --Wafulz 17:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I will try to remember to stop that. Any and all please remind me if I do it. (skip sievert 00:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

NET and Tech.ca

Technocracy.ca is an excellent resource and more pedagogic than Tech.org.

And NET is an officially registered technocratic movement. Our official site and our forum is one and the same. To refer to them as chat pages are ignorant, since the pages contain very much information whereas the official tech.inc page do not contain much.80.244.71.246 12:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I have just pared down this article again into this edit. I would suggest this is probably an ok version. I would prefer this section would no longer exist, as it is not really pertinent here to the Techncracy movement...The user above has not read your previous edit apparently wafulz (skip sievert 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
:European movement

See main article: Network of European Technocrats In 2005, a group of Europeans, inspired by their thoughts about Technocracy concepts, decided to copy some of the ideas of North American Technocracy in Europe and created the NET, a research and educational organisation, with the goal of undertaking an Energy Survey (similar to the Energy Survey of North America), to determine if it is possible to establish a Technate on the European continent. Although NET takes it's inspiration from Technocracy Incorporated, they are not affiliated(skip sievert 15:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

== Urbanates == The urbanate section here is not a part of the Technocratic movement. It is referenced to a blog site that is operated by the person that wrote this article. This violates Wiki. Also the person that wrote this article is Hibernian. Hibernian is listed on TechCa blogging site. Hibernian posts there under the name Icuras, and is an administrator on that site, in the sense that he writes articles there and answers question from new users in their chat forum. This article was written poorly, and without back up except by articles written by this writer. This is self promotion. It is arguable that the parent page of this article should even exist, as it is shameless self promotion of ideas that exist on a blogging site, and never were a part of the Technocracy movement. I have suggested before that members of Technocracy such as Wilton Ivey, who was a famous Technocrat and wrote extensively , be put here, or linked here below. Hibernian and the people of TechCa, Kolzene another user here who edits this page concocted this term Urbanates. It has nothing to do with the Technocracy movement. It has everything to do with a stubborn poster here. I suggest again that the parent article is not a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and violate its policies in just about every way. (skip sievert 16:26, 29 May 2007 (UTC))

response to comment by Isenhand

This is a comment by Isenhand and a response by myself, on wafulz discussion page, and reflects back to issues on this article page.

You also appear to have some confusion on what the technocracy movement actually is. The technocracy movement predates Technocracy Inc. and the study course. During the 1930s there was a number of technocratic organisations in the US and in Europe all promoting one form or another of “rule of the skilled” (which is the central characteristic which defines something technocracy). The only one to survive that time was Technocracy Inc. which is still around in the US and NET represents a new part of the movement in Europe, although it is not part of Tech Inc. not formal associated with it. You might find it interesting to read some of the early books on technocracy mentioned on the technocracy movement page to gain a better understanding of technocracy and realise that technocracy is not confined to one organisation and one document. Isenhand 07:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Isenhand I do not need a lecture from you about your rhetorical perceptions. Also a discussion like this would be better put on the page discussion page in question. I will say that your statement above is wholly inaccurate and not credible. The Technocracy movement is obviously based on the Technocracy Study Course and the information from the Technical Alliance Your mention of 'rule of the skilled' also does not jive with the definition of Technocracy, except on your blogging site NET. Your opinion is not a definition of something. No one 'rules' in a Technocratic society. It is 'administration by science'. I read the books in question you mention. There is no connection to the claims you are making. (skip sievert 15:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
I am posting both comments here (skip sievert 16:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Oh dear, never mind! You might like to actually check your history first and the books on the subject and see that the movement predated the study course. The movement goes back to just after WWI. Its only Tech Inc’s version of technocracy, as it is today, that has a basis in the study course. The study course itself has its root in what was know in the 1920s and 30s. Since then science has progressed and organisations such as NET has incorporated the latest in science. It only takes a casual look at the facts to realise that the study course is just one aspect of the technocracy movement.

I’ll leave it at that. 130.239.156.94 05:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I would appeal a restoration of the previous edits by myself. The user above is a vandal that has not payed attention to the debate here. Also a smack bot is being employed to vandal the page.

I appeal directly to Wafulz to stop the group that is doing the vandal attack here on my edits. I had nearly gotten the page up to date except for the Critisisms of the Movement section which I was going to work on today. Now I see all my editing has been dumped by the anon user above that has not paid any attention what so ever to previous suggestions and changes by the administrator.(skip sievert 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I have remade previous edits. The section on Criticism of the movement still needs to be redone. It is the worse thing on the page now. I will work on that today or tomorrow.

It is noted again that the user 130.239.156.94 is a vandal in my estimation and should be stopped from further damaging this page again. This person has disregarded the page discussion as to the expansion of the NET article. This person added wiki articles also that have no bearing on Technocracy movement in the suggested section. Jacques Fresco and Venus project for instance. That group states very loudly that they are not a part of Technocracy movement in their information. I also think the urbanate article created by Hibernian , or Ross who is Icarus on the TechCa blogging site and a editor here has no business being a wiki link, or even article here, or anywhere on Wikipedia. That article is unsourced , written by him, and what sourcing it does have comes from a blogging site that he and Kolzene run in. I have rewritten that area to conform with mainstream ideas about urban planning that are considered mainstream technocracy concepts from the material by Techinc. That material has been around for 40 years. I gave detailed explanation for the changes I have made and why they were made in all of my edits, previously. (skip sievert 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

A content dispute is not vandalism. I've reverted the pertinent information on the NET. It briefly and clearly states the foundation, goals, and differences. --Wafulz 16:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No it does not. It is begging their case as being better. It is clearly making a case for why it is better. I think my edit does a better job. Please look at it. I think it is a little more objective. The goals in Net do not have to be described at the credibility of the other organization. (skip sievert 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Well you've argued yourself that the two organizations are completely distinct- it doesn't make sense to simply say "these two are different" and then leave it at that. --Wafulz 16:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I have just reedited your edit a little to try to make it more objective. It was worded just slightly like Net has made some remarkable improvement to ecology thinking somehow. That is not true and left the perception that the people they got the basis of their ideas from were lax in that dept. Reality is the original group were and are at the forefront of the ecological movement. You can check our briefs as to multiple articles on every aspect of ecology. So this claimed distinction is not true. That is what I meant.

Check articles from archived materials. http://www.Technocracyinc.org/ look under archived articles, which talk extensively on ecological issues. I have just changed a sentence here to reflect that a little. Tell me what you think. I am only trying to be neutral here, and present things that way. (skip sievert 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

Urbanates and my request that the parent of article of this be taken off Wiki.

The urbanate section here does not belong here, it is a small part of the Technocratic movement and covered on the Techinc official website. It could be posted perhaps on the NET page. It is referenced to a blog site that is operated by the person that wrote this article. This violates Wiki. Also the person that wrote this article is Hibernian. Hibernian is listed on TechCa blogging site. Hibernian posts there under the name Icarus, and is an administrator on that site, in the sense that he writes articles there and answers question from new users in their chat forum. This article was written poorly, and without back up except by articles written by this writer. This is self promotion. It is arguable that the parent page of this article should even exist, as it is self promotion of ideas that exist on a blogging site, and never were a part of the Technocracy movement. I have suggested before that members of Technocracy such as the late Wilton Ivey, who was a famous Technocrat and urban planner, and wrote extensively , be put here, or linked here below. Hibernian and the people of TechCa, Kolzene another editor here who edits this page concocted this term Urbanates. It has nothing to do with the Technocracy movement. I I suggest again that the parent article is not a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and violates its policies in just about every way.(skip sievert 22:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I request that Hibernian not be allowed to tamper with this page. (skip sievert 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC))
Why oh why is Hibernian wrecking the edits here. The edit that Wafulz made , and I just slightly altered was fine for Net. Why oh why is Hibernian putting his Urbanate thing that is NOT related to Technocracy movement but a product of two editors here, Kolzene and Hibernian, and tracks back to TechCa a blogging site from that main article ? Why oh why does he keep putting the NET link back up when it was decided that they already have a link to their page above ? Why does he insist on putting up links the the Venus project , which says itself that it is not connected to Technocracy.

The other hodge podge to Buckminster Fuller etc. have no place here. These are not thought out edits they are simply reversals to what Hibernian, Ross Murphy, Icarus , wants. They are not objective. They link again and again the Urbanate thing which should not be a wiki page. I request that Hibernian not be allowed to edit Technocracy related subjects on Wikipedia because of his willful disregard to objectivity and his self promotion. I would like that Urbanate Page to no longer exist as it does not meet the wiki criteria. (skip sievert 22:03, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Here we go again. I will firstly say Skip, stop what you are doing, it is not going to happen, you are not going to be allowed to rewrite the articles upon your own personal preferences. What you've been writing is wrong, wrong, wrong. Know this Skip, if you write something that is correct (which you have done a tiny amount of) I will leave it and be fine with it, but if you start writing this crap again, I will revert it! When will you understand Skip that Technocracy is not just what you think it is, it's a lot more than that narrow view. There is more than one opinion in the Universe! And most Technocrats do not hold your opinions.
As for this constant Baloney about Urbanates, I will say again, Urbanates are as much a part of Technocracy as Energy accounting or Technical administration or anything. I have proved this to you already by showing you Technocracy Incorporated’s official site, which discusses Urbanates as a replacement for cities. If you like I can post it again, here! http://www.technocracy.org/Q%20&%20A%20Page%203.html , Do you see what it says in Black and white?
I cannot get my head round your Bizarre suggestion that I or someone else on the Internet has just invented Urbanates, you can quite clearly see in the references for that page an article about Urbanates from 1955! The idea that I made it up is absolutely nonsensical. As for "Wilton Ivey", I'm not familiar with him, so if you want to link to his stuff then that's up to you.
And Skip I will say this again, I am not an administrator or representative of Tech.ca, I merely post there, as it was from the information and people there that I learned about Technocracy. And for Crying out load Skip, Learn what a Blog is! ('cause that ain't it).
As for the European section, what is controversial about the way I put it? What? You removed some basic information, like when if was founded, who its leader is, and where it is based, that is perfectly legitimate and non-controversial information. I cannot understand why you have such a problem with it.
As for Jacque Fresco and the Venus project, the reason it is linked is because he was once a member of Tech Inc. and his ideas are obviously directly inspired by Technocracy, the fact that they may deny it is irrelevant, it is Technocracy just by another name. Readers of the article should be made aware of the connection. As for Buckminster Fuller, well I wasn't the one who put that link up, so I don't know exactly the rational for it, but I have heard that he was influenced by Technocracy, or at-least had similar ideas, so I don't know. It would be good to have some further information on that. Anyway that's it for now, I suppose the reverting will go on for some time. --Hibernian 03:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The urbanate section here is not a part of the Technocratic movement. It could be posted perhaps on the NET page. It is referenced to a blog site that is operated by the person that wrote this article. This violates Wiki. Also the person that wrote this article is Hibernian. Hibernian is listed on TechCa blogging site. Hibernian posts there under the name Icarus, and is an administrator on that site, in the sense that he writes articles there and answers question from new users in their chat forum. This article was written poorly, and without back up except by articles written by this writer. This is self promotion. It is arguable that the parent page of this article should even exist, as it is self promotion of ideas that exist on a blogging site, and never were a part of the Technocracy movement. I have suggested before that members of Technocracy such as the late Wilton Ivey, who was a famous Technocrat and urban planner, and wrote extensively , be put here, or linked here below. Hibernian and the people of TechCa, Kolzene another editor here who edits this page concocted this term Urbanates. It has nothing to do with the Technocracy movement. I I suggest again that the parent article is not a worthy contribution to wikipedia, and violates its policies in just about every way.

I request that Hibernian not be allowed to tamper with this page.

Hibernian wrecking the edits here. The edit that Wafulz made , and I just slightly altered was fine for Net.Hibernian putting his Urbanate thing that is NOT related to Technocracy movement, the way he has written it, but a product of two editors here, Kolzene and Hibernian, and tracks back to TechCa a blogging site from that main article ? He keep putting the NET link back up when it was decided that they already have a link to their page above ? Why does he insist on putting up links to the Venus project , which says itself that it is not connected to Technocracy. The other hodge podge to Buckminster Fuller etc. have no place here. These are not thought out edits they are simply reversals to what Hibernian, Ross Murphy, Icarus , wants. They are not objective. They link again and again the Urbanate thing which should not be a wiki page, the official website with his reference is here. Urbanates are mentioned once on Techinc already posted here. I request that Hibernian not be allowed to edit Technocracy related subjects on Wikipedia because of his willful disregard to objectivity and his self promotion. I would like that Urbanate Page to no longer exist as it does not meet wiki critia, and is self generated and promoted by Hibernian. (skip sievert 05:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

I would like to have Hibernian prevented from editing Technocracy related material, on this page and elsewhere on wiki. This self appointed 'expert' is not now, nor has every been a member of the Technocracy movement. He is not eligible to be. It is only open to North American citizens. How is it then that this person who is not a person other than a person who posts on a Technocracy blog in Canada considers himself an expert on the finer points of material ? He is not known among the movement except as a blogger known as Icarus that published his name on poorly written versions of Technocracy material on a blogsite, TechCa. (skip sievert 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Well that's a great come back Skip, repeating exactly what you just said twice. Like I said, I am no longer in a mood to deal with your junk, it's getting totally ridiculous now. Though I see you've had to change your tune on Urbanates, well it's at-least good to know that you're capable of understanding that Technocracy disagrees with you. So you now recognize that Urbanates are official Tech Inc. policy, but now your tactic is to remove it with the justification that, "its already linked to" (laughable), well sorry Skip, that's just not going to fly.
About me being a "self appointed 'expert'", well I don't claim to be an expert on anything, but anyone with even the briefest knowledge of Technocracy can see that your edits are and always have been, Biased and incorrect Baloney. You said that I am "not now, nor has every been a member of the Technocracy movement", well I'm not a member of Technocracy Incorporated, which is what I assume you are referring to, and I'm not an official member of any Technocracy group, but I do Certainly regard myself as a member of the general Technocratic movement. And no Skip, Technocracy is not just available exclusively to North Americans, it has become a worldwide phenomenon. And besides its entirely irrelevant, it does not matter of I were a Martian, Wiki doesn't care about that, its only the quality and accuracy of the material that I add that matters. But if you wish to bring up the subject of Membership of Organizations, then might I remind you (and everyone else) that You, Skip Sievert, have been Expelled from Technocracy Incorporated. So Skip, I wouldn't preach about those who aren't in organizations when you are not only currently not in one, but have been cast out and Denounced by one! --Hibernian 06:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
Your 'opinion' does not mean much here Hibernian. Technocracy Inc. has never and will never makes their membership list available to the public. I am a member though in good standing. I find your statement above to be a little insane, and obviously you are not really interested in this article but interested in 'denouncing' people. Ha ha. Fact is there is very little mention of the word urbanate in Technocracy Inc. What little there is is covered in the link to Technocracy Inc at the bottom of the page. You do not 'own' this page Hibernian. Antics of talking about 'expelling' and denouncing have nothing to do with reality here. Besides you are wrong. I am a member. You are not though as you say. "only the quality and accuracy of the material that I add that matters".

(skip sievert 07:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Here is Hibernians blogging information on the TechCA sight, where he is known as Icarus. The personal attack comments he has posted here are a continuation of blogging attacks on that site. "IcarusOffline http://www.technocracy.ca/ Post subject: PostPosted: May 25, 2007 - 03:30 PM Student Joined: Jan 04, 2005 Posts: 188 Location: Dublin, Ireland Status: Offline " This the blogging site in question. Notice the 188 blogging posts. Many of these posts have to do with demeaning character assination, and his 'opinion' of Technocracy. He is a self styled 'expert'. It states specifically in the Technocracy Study Course that this movement is not open to people outside of North America. Ross Murphy is not a spokesperson for Technocracy Incorporated. (skip sievert 13:21, 2 June 2007 (UTC))

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Technocracy_movement/Archive_2&oldid=344109901"