Talk:Technocracy movement/Archive 3

Cite sources

Let's look at this realistically. Between this constant edit-warring, neither of you has provided a single citation or source. For anything. All you've done is ballooned this talk page to over 72kb in length, and as far as I'm concerned, both of you could be making this material up. Material is only as credible as its sources. If you would like to know how to cite sources, see Wikipedia:Footnotes and Wikipedia:Citing sources. If you would like to know what is appropriate for citation, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Verification. --Wafulz 14:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok there you go, I've cited the European section. I've decided to do this part first because I knew where the relevant pages were, citing the whole rest of the article in the same way will be a lot bigger challenge and will take some time. BTW I'm not really that familiar with this method of coding so if there are mistakes, I'd appreciate if anyone could fix them. --Hibernian 20:31, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no Technocracy movement before the Technocracy Study Course. That is the source I have cited, Technocracy Study Course Since the movement is predicated on it, and the movement is operating from it, I think it is 'the' source to cite. It specifically says a great deal about all aspects. In fact it covers the entirety of ideas behind Technocracy. After all this is the source material, and still the plan that Technocracy Incorporated is going by. (skip sievert 01:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Hibernian the sources you are citing are already provided on the NET page which is linked here. The links you are giving also go to a blogging site Wikipedia:Reliable sources which is what NET is and that is not a reliable source they are a for profit group, that has changed directions a number of times as regards their future program. I think it is overkill to provide backup to this as the information is already linked.

Also the section on Urbanates is mostly referenced from the TechCa, blogging site. The link at the bottom of this page already provides the only important link here to urban planning and that is the official website, Technocracy incorporated. To write your own article, and then to link it to a blogsite TechCa is not a reliable source and would be construed as trying to drive blogging traffic to a site that you are a poster, and facilitator on. Information on Urbanates, is available from Technocracy Incorporated. Also putting up links to such things as The Venus Project , is down right inappropriate here. J.Fresco the person that runs that site has said many times , and constantly, that he is not a member of the Technocratic movement. In fact he denounces Technocracy. Same with Bucky Fuller. That is not related, as the other links are not related, Techno Utopia etc, is not related. Technocracy is based on science, not a Utopian scheme. (skip sievert 01:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Oh now this is surely the final Straw! Skip you've just removed the citations I put in (I have of-course put them back), what the hell are you doing?!

Wafulz has just asked for specific, In-line, citations for the article, that is what those links are, so I put them in and you immediately delete them, that is pure and unadulterated Vandalism!

As for the rest of what you said, I am not even going to discuss it, as I have already addressed those issues Numerous times, and I cannot be bothered wasting my time trying to explain something to someone who obviously is not going to listen. So just stop trying that, I will revert it immediately if you do those same edits again.

As for citing the Study course as the source, yes of-course the study course will probably be the primary source, but we can't just post an external link to it and that's it. Wafulz is saying he wants in-line citations for the whole article, this means that every sentence (or at-least every paragraph or section) should have a specific citation for where the information comes from. That may be simply stating sections or pages in the Study course or TTCD, etc. That's going to be a big job, and will take a long time.--Hibernian 03:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

It is noted Hibernian that the constant reference you make to Urbanates is 'sourced' from the Q&A TTCD.Faq`s material. This material is undergoing scrutiny currently by the organization, and it is thought it will soon be dropped completely, as it should be. That material was written in 1975 and rewritten in even poorer versons more recently. Could you show me a reference from the 1950`s, as you say ? It is suggested that not be used to 'cite' anything with. The versions you are putting up are not objective. It makes the Net sound they are the 'new and improved' model. They are a blogging site with 4 0r 5 active members, and what is the point of making references to material that people can get by following the link to their site. That Net piece you wrote is not good. It has to much info. for this page. The link to their site goes to their site. Also in case you forget or do not understand , Wafulz re-edited that piece. I have stuck with his impartially written edit except for one minor sentence, which made it a little more objective. As stated your Urbanate article link does not really belong here, except perhaps as a footnote, to what I wrote on urban planning. Your home article to that just goes to a blog with multiple references to blog material written by Kolzene of your TechCa. site. Also the links you have put up here are confusing and not related to technocracy issues. Anyway what you are referring to as 'citations' are self published muddlings from a blog in Europe that has 4 active participants. It is not material that is published beyond that blogging source. You may want to look up what a citation is Ross. As far as what I am doing, I have no interest in this other than making it objective , and accurate. That is all. The link on this page and others to the Pdf. Technocracy Study Course is broken. That is not good. It has not worked for about twenty four hours. It is hosted by a private party. I have a wiki file pdf for the Study Course, and if this link is still broken when I check it shortly, I am going to replace it with the wiki file link, which opens very quickly also. (skip sievert 11:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Skip, the article Hibernian is referring to is called A Place to Live In. The reference to Urbanates is on the second page, where you will also note that this article was published in the Technocracy Digest magazine, in November of 1955, by Wilton Ivie, a very prominant member of Technocracy (seen here, top left, with Howard Scott). I think that we can put this argument to rest now and the relevant links and references to Urbanates restored. And on another note, as Hibernian said, technocracy.ca is not a "blog" site. Aside from having plenty of informaiton (both old and new) on Technocracy, it is a community site, where one can see first hand the "Technocratic Movement", and interact with it. --Kolzene 17:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a strange feeling that mr Skip doesn't like the very word 'Europe'. And as far as I know, NET's page is not a blogging site... (Czuken 13:00, 4 June)

Kolzene, calling this urban planning, with a link in the body of it, as it is, to Urbanates at the end of it, is fine as a compromise for now. I do not think though that Hibernians version of descriptions of Urbanates is accurate or appropriate here. I am willing, under protest, to leave the link for it at the end of this Urban Planning section, but not his version of this section.

I agree that Wilton Ivie is a very prominent member of Technocracy. His work should be cited. That work is available on Technocracy Incorporated`s official website or will be, and that does not have to be listed to the blogging site that you run, [http://www.technocracy.ca/ in fact as I have said before and wafulz has agreed, there is a link that goes to this material without having to go through your very opinionated version of Technocracy. It has been agreed on this page that no blogging sites, yours, mine or the NET site is appropriate as reference to material. Wafulz gave his legitimate and appropriate reasons. Czuken, I am not really interested in a blogger from Net telling me how I think or how he thinks I think. I have been to Europe many times. I have lived in Europe. Your remark is misplaced and you appear ignorant or provocative with it. Lets keep to editing this page objectively. Personal attacks or casting negative opinions about users here, not needed for that. (skip sievert 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Sure, I'll shut up, as inferior blogger from Europe, who isn't worth polishing your shoes. But "muddlings from a blog in Europe that has 4 active participants" doesn't sound ignorant and provocative at all. Adieu. For now. (Czuken 19:42, 4 June 2007)

Czuken I wonder why you are here ? You are providing no useful information. I do not require you services in polishing my shoes thankyou. In fact Your words describing yourself as an 'inferior blogger from Europe' sound a little harsh.(skip sievert 02:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

1) I have not found that article on technocracy.org, so the link on technocracy.ca is the only one available to my knowledge. If you can find an alternate link, then I suggest that you post it rather than just make a claim without justification. 2) One does not have to "go through" anyone's "opinionated version of Technocracy" because the link goes directly to the article in question. 3) For crying out loud, technocracy.ca and NET are not blogging sites already! Do you think that if you just keep calling them that that people will believe you, that you can make it so? So stop calling them that. You're site is a blogging site because it uses that form of software, it's hosted at "blogspot". Your other site only discusses religion, and has nothing to do with Technocracy, so again, just your opinion. Just because your sites do not qualify does not mean that you have to drag down others by calling them the same thing just because you don't like them. If you were really being "objective" as you claim, you'd be leaving your personal opinions out of this. 4) As for the current version of the Urbanates section, I will leave it to more experienced wikipedians to decide how big it should be given that there is a whole article for it, however it is a central aspect of Technocracy design because you can't do Technocracy properly without it, so it should be there in some form of small description, and I have no problem with what is there. There are a couple little things that need tweaking, so I will take care of that. Otherwise, the section should stay. --Kolzene 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A good place to start with citation of sources are the books mentioned in the ”Further reading” section. If people were to read what has been written about the technocracy movement you will note that it does predate the publication of the study course and even predates the Technical Alliance. Also the movement was more than just Tech Inc as there was a number of technocratic organisations around in the 1930s and before. William E. Akin’s book, for example, mentions technocratic organisations such as the “Soviet of Technicians” and The “New Machine”. Allen Raymond points out that all the elements of technocracy were in place long before technocracy came to public attention in 1933. I would suggest that everyone here actually goes back and reads some, if not all, of those books and uses them for references. Then only put in things that can be cited.

BTW, Skip, please check out what a blog actually is. Isenhand 06:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

BTW Isenhand, poster on the Net chat site. You are a person that is a participant in a chat site. You publish your own material. It is not sourced by any other than the people you post with on Net. It should not be cited as genuine information. It is not peer or third party reviewed. It is blog like in that it is writing that is added to and subtracted from by you and others on a daily bases, and you also have a chat site, along with your blog like posting site. (skip sievert 01:53, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Interesting stuff Isenhand, I haven't read those books, so I don't know much about the subject your talking about, but it sounds plausible. One thing though, I wouldn't really classify those early movements as Fully Technocratic, I'd say more like "Proto-Technocracy", or something. They didn't really have all the core ideas like, Technates, Energy Credits and Post-Scarcity society did they? On a related note weren't there several rival Technocracy groups around in the 30's? I remember hearing something about them ages ago, I think one was called the "Continental Committee on Technocracy" or something like that, if anyone knows anything about that aspect of the history it could be added. Also someone already created a Wiki article about one Walter Rautenstrauch, who seems to be connected to some Technocracy group. I think we're making some good progress of the article now. --Hibernian 08:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hibernian, the word “technocracy” goes back to about 1919 (don’t remember, of the top of my head, who first used it now). It was later applied to the works of Thorsten Veblen in the 1920s. Most of the ideas of technocracy were around before the formation of Tech Inc in the 1930s. Understanding economics in terms of energy was the work of Frederick Soddy, for example. Technocracy is more than just what Tech Inc says. Tech Inc has just take what was already there and extended it a bit and as such they can be seen as a continuation of the earlier technocratic movement. So, I think all those early organisations were technocratic. If anything should fall into the category of proto-technocratic it would be the progressive engineers of the later end of the 19th century. They had the idea of “engineers ruling”, and thus can be seen as technocratic but the ides were not really well developed. The books on the early movement are well worth reading. I think anyone editing this page should actually read as many of those books as possible before editing. Isenhand 10:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Isenhand, the word "technocracy" does indeed predate Technocracy Inc., even the Technical Alliance. However, this does not mean that those people were using it in the same way, not even close really. Scott et al got their ideas solely from their own training, as well as the research of J. Willard Gibbs. Not even Veblen's work had any influence on their research and proposals. For more information on this, a good source is History and Purpose of Technocracy. It also talks about the influence (or lack thereof) of Soddy, Taylor, etc. All the other groups using the word "technocracy", both before and during the 1920s and '30s was the reason the TA dissolved and formed Technocracy Inc., in order to show people what their research really was all about, with no connection to these other groups and ideas. This is my understanding of it anyway. It's been a while since I read Akin's book, but I do remember there being some inaccuracies in it. I think that the aforementioned article would be good for citing as a reference for historical information. --Kolzene 05:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the movement

This is the section of this article that really looks bad now. I encourage all people who have recently shown an interest in this page to whittle this down to where it is interesting and readable. It would seem I hope to everyone here that this section really needs help. (skip sievert 13:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Have worked a little on this section and improved previous edits which have gone back to inferior edits such as the Urbanate and Net section. The Urbanate section should be removed on the other page that links it here. Also Kolzene has put up multiple links also to information on his chat site TechCa. Most all that info. is redundant to the official website Techinc already here. Also the Net chat site is getting way to much attention here. It has its own parent site with a link to it. Do we really need to know useless info about where it is 'officially' registered on this page ? No. That may be interesting in the parent article.

Isenhand contrary to your 'opinion' about the origins of Technocracy, Technocracy originated with Howard Scott, and a group of friends that hung out in New York. There would have been no Technocratic movement without Howard Scott, the person that stitched it together from ideas from Veblen and others that while being influence's were not the actual person who formulated most of the ideas that became Technocracy , and that were outlined in the Technocracy Study Course. Also contrary to the request at the bottom of the page to not include chat sites someone put TechCa and Net back up. That has already been agreed by party`s here to not be done. Why was it done then. This is supposed to be a page that is getting somewhere. Wafulz strongly suggested that they not be here. He also put a footnote in his edit that told people nicely not to put the Net Chat site up. I restored that edit made by wafulz. (skip sievert 01:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

---

How is this the first paragraph of the CRITICISM section??

"Technocrats explain that those in power, politicians and corporations, are special interest groups that are a form of organized opposition that has tried to marginalize the movement by denying them a wider audience. Technocracy has been denounced because it threatens the status quo of the current system. The Hearst corporation in the 1940`s put out the word to not mention Technocracy and its concepts in its media empire."

This article is ridiculous.

Could you expand on what exactly you mean? I'll assume you're complaining about the totally POV and Unencyclopaedic nature of the paragraph, well that is unfortunately because it was written by one Skip Sievert. As you may be able to tell, the page has been locked, so no-one will be able to change his edits for several days. Unfortunate, but nothing I can do until Friday. --Hibernian 23:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ross continues to put up links to chat site

Wafulz I would hope that Hibernian could be stopped from wrecking the edits on any Technocracy related page in the future, and also not be allowed to 'edit' on the Technocratic movement page. You gave your explanation of why TechCa, TechVan, Technet, should not be included in the external links. You even gave a guideline in your edit telling people to not put up TechNet and also explained why the other links are not wiki appropriate. Ross/Hibernian/Icarus on the TechCa site and editor here is not interested in your suggestions and put all this stuff up again. Could you please intervene again ? I am going to revert things back to my edits again. Please prevent Ross and possibly Kolzene from interfering with this page again. Thankyou, (skip sievert 13:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I've discussed the NET external link with Isenhand, and since this article is about the movement in general, it would be fairly reasonable to link to the NET's site at the bottom, since it's unaffiliated with Tech Inc (and therefore not redundant) and it represents the organized modern European movement. I think you might be a bit overzealous in removing every single link posted on the principle that I said it should be removed.--Wafulz 17:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Skip, I think you are very confused about what Wafulz has said regarding technocracy.ca and technocracyvan.ca. I will quote them here for you to be clear:

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."

So I think that you can quit harping on these sites now. --Kolzene 04:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Don`t flatter yourself wafulz. I think you are doing a lousy job of overseeing this page in general. Can I request that you be substituted with a different admininstrator ?

You did remove all the chat/blogger sites before wafulz and explained why you removed them. I agree with your former explanation, and wonder at your new one. If people want Technet they can go to the page that is provided here as a link in their page section, in their separate article. Technocracy movement has very little to do with Net. The entire concept was designed for North America, and the Technocracy Study Course which the movement is based on, specifically says that it is not affiliated, or connected to European or other groups. You discussed it with Isenhand ? Ha ha. He is a Net administrator, and is selling his book through links to that site. The book was broadly advertised here before I took that link down. Isenhand wiki editor and administrator on the chat/blog site that publishes its own brand of disinformation that it calls 'research'. (skip sievert 18:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

Oh, now that really is Comical. The minute Wafulz disagrees with Skip, Skip turns on him and demands that he be replaced! (presumable with someone more favourable to his side...). The Sheer Hypocrisy of it just makes me laugh. --Hibernian 10:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Skip, there are no binding decisions here. You can't ask me to leave just because I disagree with you- I've become involved in this page, so my voice is valid. You're constantly removing material —any material— just because editors you're in conflict with have added it. You're even removing citations or simple sentences just for the sake of reverting them. It has to stop at some point- you're extremely focused on shutting out editors and groups, and you have a tendency to make a dozen edits to gradually revert everyone else while only making marginal improvements.--Wafulz 20:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

wafulz, I think you were doing fine when you first started overseeing this page. Now I think you are cow-towing to a group of bloggers here who are self promoting. You have little to no credibility now in my mind. I have given reasons for my edits. Even the small improvements I make here are reversed and repeated by the same disinformation specialists over and over. You said things like 'not wanting to become a directory' before. I have explained to you that the Technocracy movement despite what Isenhand says is not even open to Europeans. What part of that do you not understand?

Just leaving their section here is a compromise and what you call citations, is self published bullshit from their chat site, written by Isenhand mostly, and not peer reviewed. I am not asking you to leave because you are disagreeing with me. I asked you to leave because it is obvious that you are not interested at getting at the 'truth' of this subject, for whatever reason. If you want to remain then why not do your homework, and really be a force for objective reporting here. Currently you seem to be using a Democratic approach, that is the special interests of a group of bloggers and chatters that link their 'information' to their sites that are not connected with the real ideas of the Technocracy movement. What part of J. Fresco not being a part of J. Fresco not being a part of the Technocracy movement do you not understand Wafulz ? When he states it on his written material and has made a big deal out of it in statements? So do you want me to list my technocracy related sites as these other have done now on the bottom. Also what happened to the part of the links here that you suggested be dropped because of reasons you cited, now make sense to you? I find your one paragraph explanation of what this page should be to be wholly lacking in any depth. If you are serious about this page why don`t you take a serious look at my edits. Given the subject and the way you are letting this page go to the dogs, I question your competence here. That is stating it politely. I am not removing things for the sake of removing them, and I have no personal problems with the other editors here. That is bullshit. I am interested in making this page clear and objective. Apparently you are not? (skip sievert 13:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Protected

Because of the absurd amount of edit-warring, The Wrong Version has been fully protected for at least seven days. Discuss changes amongst each other, and when you've reached a consensus you may file a request to have the page edited here. Please provide reliable sources for changes. Non-trivial edits without consensus will not be added. This is not an endorsement of the current version. --Wafulz 14:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think reaching a consensus will virtually be impossible. It seams to me that most of us agree with each other but one of us doesn’t, and probably never will. Perhaps we need some other way to resolve this or I think the most likely out come will resemble what has proceeded the ban? Isenhand 12:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, you've got to be kidding me...

We have to have Skip's edits up there for a whole week? The irony that a system supposed to protect against vandalism now upholds it, uh.Isn't there anything that can be done? I'm pretty sure there's some process for unprotecting things, isn't there? I mean having it locked to everyone will severely disrupt the improvement work that actually was going ahead in the middle of all this.

Then again, maybe it would be good to take a week off from this warring, give us a break.

BTW who requested this lock down? In my opinion it solves nothing, as it will all just start up again in a week. There is one problem-causing source here, and I think we all know who it is. --Hibernian 18:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

"The irony that a system supposed to protect against vandalism now upholds it, uh" - see m:The Wrong Version

I was going to protect the article myself, but I made a post here to get another administrator opinion. Another admin agreed that the article needed to be protected, so here we are. So get going with those reliable sources and proposals for edits. --Wafulz 18:29, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that this is an excellent decision. I also think that the pared down edits I have employed are the best in almost every case for this page. I would argue that this is now closer to a 'right page' as it is more objective and does not represent special interests of other editors here. There is no point in linking a chat/blog site run by kolzene or a chat/blog site run by Isenhand. The 'citations' that Hibernian was giving in the NET portion here were to un-peer reviewed hearsay writings done by Isenhand on NET. Hibernian has nearly 200 posts listed to his credit on the TechCA chat site also that he links wrongly and continually, and is an administrator/question answerer to people that are driven there by his references on a number of Wikipedia articles. I would remind everyone here that Isenhand or Andrew Wallace had a directed link to LuLu, a self publishing site on this page before I arrived, for people to order his 'book' on. That and linking Net here, beyond the link given to their main article, was driving commercial traffic to the site that Isenhand operates where he sells a variety of calenders, music tapes, etc. the proceeds going to NET activity. That is a no brainer conflict of interest. As stated Hibernian who is Ross Murphy/Icarus on the TechCA site keeps putting up links to that site, where he is a dominant presence. I maintain that if we start adding blogging chat sites here, I have five or six that I could put up as well. I have not attempted to put up ANY of my personal sites since it was advised it was not a good idea, at the beginning of my trying to improve this page. So it is obviously not a good idea to put up any of those sites, as they all lead to conflicts of interest. The original decision by Wafulz I think was the correct one, and I have not argued it. Just a link to Techinc here is appropriate. Also the strange and unconnected set of links to a variety of things like Jaques fresco, different abstracted Utopia pages, etc. have no place here. A short list of pertinent connections makes more sense. What I think should happen here is that my edits should remain, as they could maybe be improved slightly, but the old edits by Hibernian should be tossed out the window, and left off this page for ever. I say that because they do not illuminate this subject, and in my opinion are not objective, and also smack of Special Interest in driving people to places where he has interests, namely his Canadian site that he is a cooperator with the other Editor here Kolzene. I would add that a 'democratic' approach should not be used on this page. Many times a group of people with the 'wrong' information take possession, or a group of people that are trying to self promote their writing projects or psychological beliefs. The Technocracy movement should be treated with respect. Hibernian you have used the politics of personal destruction toward me. It was said a number of times here many things about vandals. I stopped using that phrase after wafulz explained that there are not vandals here, but that this was an edit war concerning different ideas. You are still accusing myself as being a vandal. What part of this term do you not understand ? To be blunt with you, your negative attitude of name calling, and your wholesale reversal of more objective edits for your less objective ones, I do not think that you are a person who should be involved in this page in the future. My opinion. I would add also that inline citations in the form of providing links to Kolzenes and Hibernian TechCa blogging chat site to drive traffic to them should not be used. Kolzene has made the statement in these pages- quote, "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." end quote. Providing spam links in the guise of inline citations are not appropriate on this page. The example I would like to point out is link four here, in reference to the Technocracy Study Course. That is a spam link that Kolzene/Hibernian have put up to drive traffic to their site. That so called inline citation which is not a real inline citation should be removed as soon as possible. Finally there is only one section that I think could be improved to good effect here now. That is the section - Criticisms of the Movement - that is the section that I have tried recently to improve. I wish the people here would think about working to improve that section in the future, and for the time being leave the other edits, as they are. I am only trying to be objective and fair in my edits. (skip sievert 22:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC))

Wow you really are living in a little world of your own, you said "I also think that the pared down edits I have employed are the best in almost every case for this page." Ah-Ha ha ha... it's the opposite, every edit you've done has been exceedingly bad for the article. And rest assured that the millisecond the protection goes down, I will revert your idiotic edits. As has already been established by everyone here (except you), all the links are relevant and appropriate. As for citing the NET site for references about that group, that is obviously eminently sensible and appropriate, as it is first hand info on the group being discussed (can you suggest any other sources on NET?).

Skip you have made this claim several times "I would remind everyone here that Isenhand or Andrew Wallace had a directed link to LuLu, a self publishing site on this page before I arrived, for people to order his 'book' on.", this is Categorically Untrue. Check the page history for your self, here is the page on the 4th of may, before you arrived here...[1]. As you will see, there never was any link to the book or any site, all there was, was a brief mention of the name of the book and it's author, in the same way as the other books there. I will state again, the difference between any of the sites I was listing and your site(s), those sites have relevant and useful material, yours don't.

"The original decision by Wafulz I think was the correct one, and I have not argued it." Of-course you didn't argue with it, it was exactly what you wanted, but then when he gives a different opinion on it, you ignore that and revert it anyway, against everyone's wishes. You're a complete hypocrite, one minute obediently following the admin's advice, but when you don't like it, you immediately do the opposite and still claim to be going by the original decisions, and thus claim to be legitimate. Laughable.

"You are still accusing myself as being a vandal.", Yes because you have now committed several clear acts of vandalism, such as removal of citations, etc. Your general editing style and almost all of your contributions would be described as at-least Trollish behaviour, if not vandalistic. You are, at minimum, an extremely disruptive and biased editor, so I certainly don't need a lecture on objectivity from Skip Sievert. This can only really end in two ways, either you leave voluntarily or you will eventually get banned. I think I've said all I can possibly say on this, as I will only be repeating myself. --Hibernian 01:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Sticks and stones Hibernian. You sound like you are threatening or blustering in my direction. I would remind you that you do not 'own' this page, and that dumbed down versions of Democracy only work in the 'movies' I would also call for your removal immediately from an ability to further edit this page. That last tirade should automatically eliminate you from Wikipedia. As far as you repeating yourself, that is about all you have done from the beginning. We do not have trolls in the U.S. where I live. I would suggest that you study my edits, and you might learn something.(skip sievert 05:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Both of you need to stop bickering immediately. You also need to stop asking for blocks/bans on each other. This is highly unproductive- the next person who acts with incivility or makes a personal attack will find themselves facing a short block.--Wafulz 12:03, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Kolzene, and Isenhand.

Thankyou Kolzene for bringing attention to  :http://www.technocracy.org/Archives/History%20&%20Purpose-r.htm History and Purpose of Technocracy- this should be the gold standard here for thinking on the historic aspect of the antecedents of Technocracy movement. It also address`s much of what Isenhand has speculated about, and answers in a definitive way just 'who' 'what' 'when' and 'where' the movement started, the background of it, etc. It even address`s the name of the organization and its historical connections. Also it address`s the definition of the word Technocracy as an administration by science or technique. Kolzene this link would make a good citation to be used for this page in the bottom references area, and a file of it should be used in external links perhaps because of its clarity, and the issues it address`s. Rather than use the citation back to your website TechCa which there is disagreement about, and also goes in a circle to your home page, I think that both you and I could no doubt agree that this archive material from Techinc has a wealth of information on it that answers many of Isenhands questions about the history of the Technocratic movement. Why do not we use that for a citation on the Study Course, instead of the current link to your site ? I think that would be a good thing as it answers so many questions, and it also is a dispassionate link that goes to a official website for Technocracy, TechInc, in Washington. The link to the Technocracy Study Course and also this History and Purpose of Technocracy, I think are the most imporatant reference points here. Also, I think we should let the Urban Planning page lie as is. Kolzene you added a link in the text of my edit that goes to urbanates by Hibernian. While I think that is overdoing it a bit, and would rather just see a file of the Wilton Ivie article from TechInc, I will agree to leave that one reference to Urbanates in the section on Urban Planning. I think putting the Urbanate link in the references beyond that on the bottom is redundant. Also the external links should go to my edit of just the Study Course and Techinc and possibly a file of the History and Purpose of Technocracy. This would avoid any conflicts of interests among editors here. After all , I have not added any personal links to my information site for some time. Here is an example of a site of mine that I would add if other external links are used, http://technocracy-incorporated.wikispaces.com/ technocracy-incorporated » home - So , to avoid each editor here putting up sites they are involved in lets just go with a link to the History and Purpose, and TechInc Washington, and also the previous links left in by my edit. Those contain the most pertinent material any way along with a link to the Study Course. It is pointless to argue around in circles here. Lets go for the most objective and correct information, and not go by various editors 'opinions' about this and that. I think this for starters is a realistic compromise. Also it is not a good idea to continually link things that are obviously not connected such as information from the Venus Project, which is the Jacques Fresco link, all the techno Utopia type links etc. Lets keep my pared down edit there and only add the History and Purpose piece. That really excellent piece should be a center piece here. (skip sievert 13:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Isenhand, here is another file for the information brought out by Kolzene,http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t

History and Purpose of Technocracy.Howard Scott - Google Docs & Spreadsheets This information I would hope as Kolzene has explained will lay to rest some earlier arguments by yourself about the origins of the movement, and also the definition of some terms such as the word Technocracy itself. (skip sievert 16:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC))

Kolzene I would like to emphasize again that none of us should be providing links to our sites in the guise of citation on this page, and I want to emphasize that I think your citation 4 from the Technocracy Study Course, to your TechCa site is not appropriate. It is a page that goes in a circle to your homepage. If you want to make that page a separate file or Pdf, and then float it on the Net without the revolving link to your homepage that would be fine with me. As it is it only seems like a misguided link in this instance to direct traffic to your site. Really I would suggest substituting this citation with a link to the earlier mentioned file from Techinc, History and Purpose of Technocracy. Nothing explains the antecedents of Technocracy better than this objective document, and it gets all of us here off the habit of linking things with possibly perceived special interest motives.

With the general link at the top of the Net site section, that leads to their wikipedia page, it makes no sense to provide citations to unpeer reviewed files, written by Wiki editors involved here. That is overkill. Also it is a conflict of interest, and does not meet wiki criteria. They have a link here which is questionable anyway, and to continually expand on it makes no sense. Hibernian I hope you are happy that Kolzene in one of his edits, put a connection to your writings on Urbanates. You may have not noticed that I left it in my edit. That was a compromise. That in my opinion is all that is needed for direction to that page. Urban Planning title and body is fine now the way it is. Putting a special section focused on your writing, and linking itself to TechCa is unwarranted for the reasons given to Kolzene, et.all. That is a slippery path that leads to a directory type approach to special interest sites by editors here. Once started it is hard to stop. I would suggest Hibernian that you or someone make a file of the Wilton Ivey piece, and use that in reference to Urban Planning. That would make an impartial citation that we all would endorse. A file that is unconnected to anything. That is easy to do, and takes away any special interest aspect of connecting sites, any number of which have that file. (skip sievert 15:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC))

I find it amazing how you can write so much, and yet, say so little. That massive essay above is just the same stuff you've been saying for ages and everyone here has already rejected it (Apart from about the document Kolzene presented, I agree that that can certainly be used for the article). Again you're going on about this Urbanates thing, you said we should replace the Urbanates section with some undefined notion of "Urban Planning", but you don't seem to get the fact that Urban Planning and Urbanates are exactly the same thing in Technocracy. A Technate wouldn't go on building old style cites, it would be build Urbanates, therefore any Urban Planning will be the planning of Urbanates. You say "I would suggest Hibernian that you or someone make a file of the Wilton Ivey piece, and use that in reference to Urban Planning.", but that is essentially what is already there, the Urbanates article was mostly written in reference to the ideas Wilton Ivey, etc. If you want a longer section about what a Technate might do with cities before it replaces them with Urbanates (which would likely take decades to build), then be my guest if you know some specifics about it. However, so far you have added absolutely nothing to that section, you have only deleted material from it, so I'm not very optimistic about what you could contribute (especially taking into account your incredibly biased opinions on the issue). And I will confirm again, your edits will be reverted without mercy when the protection is ended, so there is no point trying to convince anyone here to keep them. --Hibernian 00:13, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This page documents an official policy on the English Wikipedia. It has wide acceptance among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Shortcut: WP:CIV WP:CIVIL This page in a nutshell: Participate in a respectful and civil way. Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others. Try to discourage others from being uncivil, and be careful to avoid offending people unintentionally. Wikipedia policy Article standards

Neutral point of view Verifiability What Wikipedia is not No original research Biographies of living persons Working with others

Civility No personal attacks Resolving disputes

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Whereas incivility is roughly defined as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress, our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

Our Wikipedia community has by experience developed an informal hierarchy of core principles — the most important being that articles be written with a neutral point of view. After that we request a reasonable degree of civility towards others. "Civility" is the only principle that we can apply to online conduct, and it's the only reasonable way to delimit acceptable conduct from the unacceptable. We cannot always expect people to love, honor, obey, or even respect one another. But we have every right to demand civility.(skip sievert 01:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Why are you quoting entire Wiki pages?, I think linking to them would be easier... Anyway, I'm in no mood to be lectured to about Civility or neutrality from one of the biggest Trolls on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:What is a troll). Again Skip you have not addressed any of the issues I talked about, and have merely avoided them as usual. Again I will say, I stand by what I have stated, and have given you exactly the treatment you have shown you deserve. --Hibernian 02:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Skip and Hibernian have both been blocked for six hours. You guys are losing focus and turning this into a personal affair again.--Wafulz 12:30, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Seeing as how we have a little break I would like to suggest that people take the time to look at the relevant sources for Technocracy. Tech Inc has some good info on its own history but as this article is about the technocracy movement and not just tech inc so I think it would be good if everyone was to have a read of the books on the early years of the movement and to use those books as sources for the article.

Akin’s book provides a good overview of the early years of the technocracy movement include early technocratic organisations that existed before tech Inc. One point of interest; Akin says that the Technical Alliance collapsed after about a year due to Scott’s insistence of understanding economics in terms of energy. Scott then continued the energy survey himself until he got support for Columbia University. Can any one confirm that?

Other points of interest that would be worth adding include a look at other technocratic organisations that arouse in 1933 such as the Denver Technocrats but especially the Continental Congress, which was not only the largest technocratic organisation in 1933 but, like Tech Inc, also resulted from the energy survey. Akin’s book gives some info on these but do we have any other source of information on them?

The term technocracy was originally applied to the technical plans developed by an engineer in 1919, can’t remember the guys name now, but does anyone else know what his technocracy was and how it differed from Tech inc’s? Raymond’s book gives info on that but not much anyone got any better sources of info? Isenhand 06:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Isenhand. Both Kolzene and I have suggested that you read this document, http://docs.google.com/Doc?id=dfx7rfr2_10fqbv5t History and Purpose of Technocracy.Howard Scott - Google Docs & Spreadsheets. There was no Technocratic movement prior to the Technical Alliance, and the word itself in the context here used, was an invention by that group, the creative synthesis of that group that morphed into TechInc. I think you are making an original conclusion to connect the things you mention to a 'Technocracy movement' prior to that group. (skip sievert 21:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

Skip: Don't be so bold (you're being reckless)

I'm going through a bunch of other Technocracy-related articles. You have really messed things up. I don't know what your intentions are, but you are not writing anything that meets Wikipedia standards (NPOV, citations, even grammar), you confuse a lot of Technocracy's concepts, and you seem to be manic in your attacks against other, established members of the organization. You can make suggestions on talk pages, but, seriously, please don't create any new articles, sections, or edits, as it makes considerable work for those of us who are trying to write encyclopedic entries. I'm not a big fan of Technocracy, but damn if I will let something be misrepresented by the uneducated. If you consider yourself a Technocrat, then embrace rational thought: you simply suck at this Wikipedia stuff. 154.5.41.198 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and on previous talk pages skip was referring to a rival Technocracy organization. From what I recall, there was a major split in the organization decades ago because many, many people were dissatisfied in the direction that Scott was headed with the movement. This caused the movement to lose thousands of members and there was a change in direction. Perhaps skip is somehow referring to this split. --154.5.41.198 09:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't heard of such a split, not in the thousands anyway. There have been small groups that have attempted at one time or another to change the direction of CHQ for whatever reason, but I never heard of anything like you describe. Do you remember where you heard this? --Kolzene 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a family member was a member of Technocracy during the fourties/fifties. I will query him more on the issue and let you know. --77siddhartha 07:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

In 1933 the Technical Alliance broke up with Howard Scott and a few others forming Tech Inc and the majority of the Technical Alliance forming the Continental Congress (CC). Numerous technocracy groups then formed in 1933 and both Tech Inc and CC went around the US snatching all these groups up. CC ended up becoming the largest technocratic organisation in the US. Could this be what you mean by a split?

Fact check

There are actually encyclopedic entries about Technocracy and the movement. Why don't some of you technocrats use those as sources instead of the organization itself.

The main problem is that Technocracy is both a political organization and a research organization, with the former frequently calling upon the latter for justification. The same is happening in this article. An article printed in a Technocracy newsletter from a couple years ago highlighted the need to promote and enhance the communication of Technocracy's ideals through resources like Wikipedia. So, in this article, there is a push from Technocrats themselves to promote the organization as a political ideal, while crediting the research roots of the organization itself.

If this was supposed to be an encyclopedic entry, this article would be a couple paragraphs on the movement itself, not about the ideals and goals of the organization. Such claims can be made by linking to the organizations website. Wikipedia is not a repository or recruiting platform.

This has always been my chief complaint for this article (see any of my past discussions and edits).

Anyway, this skip guy seems to have a completely different agenda. The actual organization of Technocracy is having a problem with him. Apparently he is tying his anti-religious propaganda to Technocratic literature in order to promote both. (see here)

154.5.41.198 07:50, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I must say I find you suggestions quite perplexing. You say that Technocrats are attempting to push they're political ideas, but if you know anything about Technocracy you will know that it is avowedly A-political or Anti-political, so I don't know where you get that idea from. As for your argument that the article shouldn't talk about Technocracy's ideas and goals, etc. well I find that a bizarre suggestion. I mean, every article on Wiki about a specific group would be expected to have info on the ideas, goals and beliefs of that group. That would be like saying that the article on say, the Republican Party (United States) (or any other group we care to mention), shouldn't have any info on what that group advocates. Obviously it should have as much info as possible, the only thing that matters is that it is presented in an accurate and neutral way.

Eh, you said there existed entries on Technocracy in some encyclopaedias, can I ask which ones? As for using them as sources, I don't think we're actually meant to use one encyclopaedia to write another, as that would be getting the info second or third had, and the other encyclopaedias must have eventually derived their knowledge of Technocracy from the movement itself and it's literature, so I see no reason not to simply present that info first had. Besides, I've not seen any online encyclopaedias that have better information about Technocracy than this article, I believe I've seen brief overviews, but nothing of any great detail (of-course if you know of any articles that have potentially useful info, then go ahead and present it). BTW you are correct about Skip, that's what I've been trying to say all along.

Anyway I'm going to bed now, so the protection should be gone by the time I come back and then hopeful, we can get this article back on track. --Hibernian 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this brings up the chief complaint I've had about the article for some time now. What it does is attempt to combine three separate articles, or concepts, that of the Technocratic Movement, the organization Technocracy Inc., and the concept of Technocracy itself. This is I believe what is leading to at least some of the conflict we've been seeing lately, as these are three separate things. It would be easy enough to combine, say, Technocracy Inc. and the Technocratic Movement, since it represents such a large portion of it, at least in North America. However the existence of other, similar groups, such as NET, and previous groups such as the one at Columbia University, shows that there is more to the "movement" than simply Technocracy Inc. I also have to agree with Hibernian that to suggest not including elements of what the Technocratic Movement proposes in that article is inconsistent with political pages such as the one he linked to. However I also agree that Technocracy (at least of the variety we are speaking of here) is apolitical in nature, and merely scientific, and thus it should not be framed as "political" simply because its function is vaguely analogous to that of modern governments. It is closer to an economic model, and one that proposes the absence of political "government" as we know it today. I understand it to be actually a technology, as in the application of science, and suggest that it should be framed as such. This is why it deserves its own article. Call it a "proposal" if you will, and then any referencing from technocracy.org or other relevant sites become perfectly appropriate, as it would be for any other proposed technology. As for the "movement", this should be framed as a group or groups of people that seek to advocate, promote, and/or educate about this proposal. Dividing the article up into separate articles for each concept I think will reduce the confusion greatly. The only problem I see is specifying what exactly constitutes a Technocracy-advocating group or website in terms of the apolitical, non-scarcity control model, and what is not. Obviously Technocracy Inc. qualifies in this regard, since they invented the idea in the first place, but groups/individuals like NET and Skip Seivert (and even Technocracy Inc. sometimes) constantly accuse each other of falling short of this standard, that they instead employ "scarcity" or "price-system" methods in their proposals, and therefor would only qualify under a different definition of technocracy, if they qualify for one at all. Thus it becomes important to hammer-down what constitutes "proper" Technocracy and what does not, and I do not know who has the authority to make that distinction. Obviously these different groups will all accuse each other of not meeting that distinction, and I wonder if consensus could be reached. Still, I heartily propose a split of the article into three. It does not solve all of our problems yet, but it is a good start as I see it. --Kolzene 03:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Kolzene has said more eloquently what I meant to say. If you want an article on the movement, that is encyclopedic and is a very short, easily referenced article. Goals and ideas should be separated, but that article is much, much harder to cite.

I mention encyclopedias above, and from what I have heard from various members of the meetings that I used to attend, the movement was mentioned in encyclopedias decades ago. I would check to maybe the 40's or 50's.

As for it being a political organization, it most certainly is. Technocracy put forth notions that are far more specific than the labels '(bureaucratic) technocracy' or 'democracy' or 'anarchy'. There is an entire blueprint for the governance of a continent. It has political motivations and political ideas, or at least research framed in a political context.

The problem with this, is that the whole set of ideas of Technocracy is thought up by the research organization itself. To write an encyclopedic entry on these ideas, without sourcing Technocracy itself, is nearly impossible.

Look at the Anarchism article. Nearly each anarchist movement is associated with a different individual, written about by many different people. You can't do this with Technocracy, no third-party research has been done on it.

Now, I know that Technocrats would love to use Wikipedia as a portal or recruiting tool for members. I'm more concerned about writing an encyclopedia. If we can have a page (or two) on Technocracy whereby everything is verified by credible, non-Technocracy Inc. sources, I'd be extremely happy. I have no problems with a one or two liner stating it is a plan that advocates scientific thought in governance, but going into details about energy accounting, urbanates, the scarcity problem, etc., just isn't going to happen with any credible source. Link to the organization's main page at the bottom, and if people are curious, they can go there for all that stuff.

I will also say that it is going to be incredibly difficult to come up with sources for anything than what I have mentioned above. The movement died off and was about to fold completely had it not been for renewed interest due to the internet. Thus, most of the credible stuff you are going to find on the organization is going to come from the 20's and 30's, most of which won't be on the internet. Might I suggest contacting CHQ and asking for any third party research done on Technocracy? Until more research is done on technocracy though, let's just make an encyclopedic entry and not a bunch of self-written verbiage.154.5.41.198 06:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I can see how confusing it is to try and think of Technocracy as not being political, since it covers areas that have, in every other instance, only been handled by political means. However, look at it this way: 1) politics is not used by the Technocracy movement. Technocracy Inc. is a registered non-profit, non-political, non-sectarian research and education organization. It has been since its inception, and that has not changed. They've never had any member run for office, and in fact politicians are the only citizens barred from membership. How is this political? 2) A Technocratic society itself does not employ politics. Its operational concepts cover methods used to organize and operate machines, not on how to run people's lives. In this it is no different than your VCR manual, only it applies to all the technology of a continent. Where is politics involved here? This is an entirely new paradigm here, one that does not involve politics. Technocracy instead replaces politics, so I'm afraid that I can't agree with you on this point. --Kolzene 10:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we don’t need three new articles as the Technocracy (bureaucratic) appears to cover what technocracy actually is? The view of technocracy presented by Tech Inc, NET and other groups could then become part of that article. The current technocracy movement article could then be split in two. We would could have one on Tech Inc and the other on the technocracy movement as a whole.

As for sourcing material, there has been some third party research done on the technocracy movement and Tech Inc. The books by Akin, Elsner and Loeb for example mentioned in the article. As far as I’m aware none of those authors were members of the Technocracy movement, Loeb certainly wasn’t as his book is not pro-technocracy. Those books we can use as sources. Isenhand 07:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that the Technocracy (bureaucratic) article specifically refers to an oligarchy, something Technocracy as described by Technocracy Inc. and others is not. It also describes several features that do not apply to this definition, so I still think that it warrants its own article. --Kolzene 10:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Well there's been a lot said, if I can just address Kolzene's point first. I don't quite understand your suggestion that the article needs to be split into 3 different ones, what would these different articles be? Firstly let's just overview what is already in place, we've got this article: Technocratic movement (and the sub-articles like Technate, etc.), we've got Technocracy (which is just a disambiguation page), Technocracy (bureaucratic) and Technocrat (derogatory). Then we have Network of European Technocrats, which is part of the broader Technocratic movement. So what you're saying is we need a Technocracy Incorporated article, specifically about that group, detached from the main article in the same way as NET? Well, I suppose that could be done, but remember that that article did already once exist and was then merged with this one. What would this article contain if all the Tech Inc. stuff were taken out and put in a different article? I have to say, I think further splitting of the articles will only create an even more confusing array of definitions for readers. Perhaps we should think about reformatting the above articles into a more reasonable arrangement. The article Technocracy used to be a lot bigger and gave more info on the different groups and definitions of the term, but it was recently trimmed down to something very small, (which I was against doing BTW). So to start from the beginning, we have the word Technocracy, which has acquired many different meanings, one meaning being a Bureaucratic oligarchy of Scientists, this is addressed in the Technocracy (bureaucratic) and Technocrat (derogatory) articles and isn't really relevant here. The other meaning, the one we are concerned with here is that used by the Technical Alliance and Tech Inc. and subsequently adopted by several other groups in 1930's. Then NET, which was essentially a direct branching from Tech Inc., just in Europe, but has adopted it's own ideas, some of which are different to Tech Inc's. I don't really know what is the best way to proceed yet, but I don't think anything should be split or deleted without a lot more discussion. --Hibernian 16:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I thought I was clear on what I was proposing, but I guess not. Here it is spelled out:

1) Technocratic Movement: This article would cover the history of the movement beginning with the Technical Alliance, then to Technocracy Inc. and beyond. It could include other groups like columbia University, the CCT, NET, or anything you guys want to pull from Akin and Eisner, which could be used as sources. It would not describe these groups much, or their ideas, only the history and progression of the movement, and perhaps a very brief explanation of what it is they in general propose (e.g. a post-scarcity, steady-state economy that uses automation to eliminate human labor, etc.). This is in fact the one of these articles I think is least needed, and would be fine if it were dropped.

2) Technocracy Inc.: This would be a lot like the article on the Technical Alliance, or NET. It would not describe what they propose (or very little if at all), but instead their history, locations of CHQ, internal structure (Sections, Units, etc.), prominant members (King, Ivie, etc.) activities (lecture tours, motorcades such as Operation Columbia, etc.), use of Authorized Speakers, it being non-profit, non-sectarian, non-political, etc. Only things pertaining to the organization itself would be included in this article. Sources for this could include Technocracy's own Bylaws and General Regulations where much of this is described.

3) Technocracy (the design): I'm not actually sure what it the best thing to call this, but it is a very separate idea form the other two. Here is where you would find descriptions of Energy Accounting, Urbanates, Continental Hydrology, the Schematic Administration chart, etc. Items with their own articles already (such as Urbanates) could be short, like a paragraph or so. Here it would be fine (as I see it) to use things like the Study Course and TTCD as sources, since they are "proof" enough of what Technocracy is advocating.

So actually I see this as less confusing. Right now we are having trouble deciding what should be included in the Technocracy Movement article, and what should not. The organizations? Elements of the design? And how much of each? This way, each one has its own entry and it is thus clear what goes in there and what does not. Well, more clear anyway. I still think even under this that the Movement article would have problems because I'm sure that Skip would want to be listed in there as well, as would anyone with their own ideas that differ from Technocracy Inc. Like I said, perhaps it is the one of these best dropped. --Kolzene 22:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily dropped... I did a major rewrite of the trash that was the Technocracy Study Course article. Tidbits could be added, so long as they can be cited from the course itself. I don't want a rewrite of the course, maybe just chapter titles and a two line summary of each? Not sure of the detail as most information like this is explained better and in more detail than can be with all the vandals running around here. Regardless, I like the clear splitting between the Movement, the Organization, and the Ideas. --154.5.41.198 09:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, does anyone else agree with this? I can come up with a draft of the two other articles for proposal. What would be the most appropriate place for me to put them when I am done? I don't think that I should take up a lot of room here in this talk page with them. And I won't claim for them to be perfect by any means, but they should certainly illustrate more clearly what I mean, and they can be built upon later. --Kolzene 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's probably best to just create the pages, tag them as {{ActiveDiscuss}} or {{Underconstruction}} and then we can all give input before making any major changes to existing articles. --77siddhartha 07:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I’ll go along with the three way split. I certainly agree that “technocracy movement” should form a separate article to “Technocracy Incorporated” Isenhand 06:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

As long as there isn't such an overlap like the last time the articles were split... --77siddhartha 07:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's just delete this whole thing

(I am 154.5.41.198, just created an account.) No, seriously let's just delete everything to do with Technocracy. It's going to be next to impossible to cite anything in this article that isn't construed as original research. This article is desperate for more sources, yet we have users (like skip) who are removing links to Technocracy's fundamental documents like the TTCD and links to other Technocracy websites. It's a movement known about by a millionth of the population at best. The only people who edit the article are technocrats, who are supposedly embracing science as a panacea to the world's ills, but who can't figure out something as simple as citing references to their own 'scientific' views. Despite how many times I try to get this and other Technocracy articles close to something encyclopedic, my edits just disappear without explanation. If it's never going to be a good article, it shouldn't be an article in the first place. --77siddhartha 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a bit of an over reaction, don't you. Deleting it would just be silly, I mean come on. Citing the article is by no means an impossible task, it's just going to be laborious. I think it's a bit strange to say only Technocrats are editing the article, as you've edited loads of the articles, and as far as I can tell, you aren't one (in-fact this seems to be the only thing you're interested in on Wiki). Anyway it doesn't matter who edits it, only that the edits they make are in keeping with how Wiki operates. I believe the article can be a good one, it will just take work. --Hibernian 03:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, this is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Some of us are trying to help with the citation problem now that we better understand what needs to be done. I don't see deletion as a viable solution here. --Kolzene 05:43, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I was a technocrat at one point, actually. Besides that, though, I just make edits so that the article more or less conforms with Wikipedia standards. If the information is going to be out there, it should be professional. What is up on Wikipedia now is nowhere close to even being clear, let alone verifiable. It will take a lot of work to make these articles good, but a lot of that effort is going to be in 'policing' edits. Unfortunately, Technocracy Study Course will also need to be 'policed'. I'll ask your help in keeping an eye out for skip's reverts in accordance with Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. --77siddhartha 07:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)