Talk:Jacque Fresco/Archive 4

Problem with the Fresco material of bias

Ok, it appears from a little research I have done that (talk Biophily) is directly involved with Fresco's group as a media representative and has promoted their information by uploading their information and commenting widely on it as a kind of spokesperson on the internet [[1]] and is in close contact with someone named 'Joel' their media director. In other words promoting Fresco and Venus Project outside of here. That would not be a problem if Biophily editing were neutral but its not, I attempted to edit the Jacques Fresco page. Those more neutral edits were gotten rid of. I will attempt to re-edit some things there, but I see you have returned the non neutral and party line information which is very biased. I understand you have a You-tube station devoted to Fresco and are a media representative for him uploading Venus Project information. The thing I am noticing is the non neutral slant to your editing here. As you are an advocate of Fresco, a lot of restraint should be shown, otherwise the article becomes a spin doctors vortex for Fresco devotee's. In other words you promote/advocate for Fresco and Venus Project on your own time outside of here and the article reflects that party line Venus Project vanity aspect in the information itself now. The article has become a collection of non notable minutia about Fresco's life, and smacks terribly of hero worship and promotion. Like continuing problems with the Zeitgeist and Venus Project articles, this article is not reading so good in regard to being unbiased. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I should correct now this exaggerated accusation you are making. "Media Representative" are you kidding me? Fresco is a research subject of mine, along with Technocracy and Technological Utopianism in general.

• I see what you are trying to do here. You find a youtube account with my username on it and a few Fresco videos (along with many other non-Fresco videos) associated with it and suddenly I am a "Media Representative." This is very convenient for your agenda. It is clear to me you have resentment towards Fresco's work and to the same degree favor Technocracy Inc. So I can understand why you would quickly seize the opportunity to discredit the legitimate work of another editor who researches Fresco and technological utopianism as a subject as part of an academic program for a University degree.
• You should not conflate (or exaggerate) a researcher and a supporter. Any researcher who is at all competent in his work becomes very immersed in their subject. Therefore, it is not uncommon to see them associated with the subject in other places. If I were researching Albert Einstein, I probably would have a channel with videos favorited and perhaps even videos uploaded. But to be a researcher and a supporter are two different things.
• Likewise, I can see in your edits that you often jump on the opportunity to cast Fresco's work in a negative light.
  • For instance, at one point, you re-edited the Sociocyberneering section to distort how Sociocyberneering dissolved. Instead of allowing the detail of what led to its dissolution, you deleted statements and attempted to portray the situation vaguely so that the reader would not understand why the organization dissolved, thus rendering dubious the efforts of the group.
  • In another instance, you included a quote from Lionel Rolfe about Fresco in the criticism section. The citation you provided was to an article citing Lionel Rolfe, instead of citing Rolfe's actual book. This shows that you merely read that one critical article and selected that one point of character criticism. A good researcher would have gone to the source material, that is, Rolfe's book. Furthermore, the point of criticism that you included, was actually already referenced and cited in the outset of the criticism section, and it did properly cite Rolfe's actual book. In the end, all you did was create a redundant criticism. I say all this not because the criticism is unwarranted, in fact more is needed, but because this exposes your research deficiency. You make claims about this or that not being notable in Fresco's life. How can you possibly make that claim when evidence shows that you haven't done the research to encounter all of the documentation that exists on Fresco??? How can you possibly be qualified?
  • Often I see you comment that this or that is not notable, and often then delete it. On what basis do you determine that? Do you say it is not notable simply because you have never heard of it? Or have you done the proper research to make an informed decision? Keep in mind that the notability criteria applies only to the article's subject (in this case Fresco).[2] The information included in the article is left to the decisions of editors. Therefore, this or that particular detail does not have to be notable in itself, but can exist in support of the article subject which has been determined notable.
• If I somehow seem non-neutral, then please do correct it. The problem is, instead of merely correcting the neutrality, you delete entire statements, and often this mixes up the citation ordering and creates a mess. Can you give examples of the instances of "bias" please. You say I push the "party line?" How? I have provided very little information about his ideology. The majority of the information provided is devoted to historical events in Fresco's life. You may notice that I have only contributed to the Fresco article and not the Venus Project, Resource-based economy, nor Zeitgeist articles. This is because I am not interested in their activism or advocacy. I have only provided detailed accounts of each topic in the Fresco article, and this may very well be useful to someone researching. If that information needs to be condensed by using more concise descriptions then we can make those changes. However, removing significant detail would be vandalism. Therefore, I think the changes should be discussed before you make any major edits.--Biophily (talk) 17:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I have reduced some of the sections and changed some phrasing in an attempt to improve neutrality. I don't know where else neutrality is jeopardized.--Biophily (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I have many accounts on the internet and each is dedicated to each specific subject, to keep my work organized. If I somehow seem non-neutral, then please do correct it. Biophily. Yes that is why I posted on the talk page. The article as it was is a long drawn out love fest that is promotional and reads like Fresco is the most brilliant person on earth. It is not neutral, it is biased toward the subject. There is no real critical section. It is one long series of 'glowing' quotes that need not be there in the citations. It looks like its designed to cofirm over and over that Fresco is the most brilliant person of the 20th. century. You mention the Sociocyberneering section. That section is so overtly in praise and homage to Fresco that it reads like a fanzine. It was not neutral and you reverted the edits I made to make it more impartial and not warm and runny toward Fresco and his ideas. The whole section is bad. It is coming from Fresco, he made up a word, started a failed non profit to promote it and got a bunch of investors that lost their money connected with it. Is it really notable? Probably not except as a tiny footnote to something. Also, you do have a Youtube station devoted to Fresco and you have uploaded information from the Fresco group. As said that is not an issue really except that as an ostensible advocate, and that can not be denied, your editing has shown great flowery ornate bias in a positive non neutral way toward the subject. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Earl King Jr.; this article has serious neutrality problems. The hagiography should be toned down. bobrayner (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Earl King, perhaps you should also consider your own possible bias against the subject? Could that be why my writing seems overly adulatory? I don't understand how the Sociocyberneering section was written in a biased manner? I merely stated facts and quotes from sources. I said nothing of how the ideas were received. I simply described how the concept was defined and what happened to the organization. And it is notable insofar as it is the forerunner to the Venus Project. Therefore, it seems to deserve a longer section. Besides, the information can be included irregardless of its notability. Again, notability criteria applies only to the article's subject (in this case Fresco), not the particular events or facts included within the article.[3]

Furthermore, I believe you have misunderstood the intention of the citation quotes. I agreed to using the citation quotes because I believe it upholds transparency. It allows readers and other editors to see what the actual sources stated without them having to do much work, especially since some sources are not available online and cannot be linked. Furthermore, it allows the reader / editor to judge whether statements in the article stray from the statements in the source material. Therefore anything misconstrued (intentional or not) can be corrected. The purpose of the citation quotes was not to provide additional praise, as you have assumed. So much for good faith on Wikipedia. The quotes are included regardless of whether the quote is praise or criticism. I did not discriminate.

If editors here believe that there is too much praise in the criticism section, then it can be removed. OR more criticism can be provided. However, I did my best to find sources that provide significant criticism so that the section can be balanced. If I have erred in my judgment then can someone point out exactly what appears excessively praiseful?

Finally, will you stop exaggerating? That youtube channel is NOT dedicated to Fresco. There are a few videos like and favorited that include Fresco. There are also other non-Fresco videos liked and favorited. Originally, I started that channel to upload video content that I was finding as a result of my research. However I ultimately decided against that. I visited Fresco on a tour one time and captured audio and took pictures, and edited it into a short video. That has nothing to do with being a representative or promoter. I log into that channel maybe three or four times a year. Tone down your exaggeration please.--Biophily (talk) 03:27, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I checked the "Reception" section again. Are you kidding me? That section is loaded with criticism! And to an equal degree it contains complements. Your argument is very weak and I suspect you are not actually arguing from evidence and justification, but rather arguing from an impulse to discredit the article despite its thorough and legitimate citations. In the reception section I counted 9 points of neutral attitude, 11 points of positive attitude and 2 that are arguably positive, 10 points of negative attitude, and 5 points of mixed attitude.--Biophily (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Much of the stuff you have added to the article Biophily is uncritical or “reverential” to the subject of Fresco, the long quotes that extoll his 'genius' are to multiple throughout the article. It has to be assumed that you are an advocate from your way of presentation. The whole article needs re-toning, re-writing for neutral presentation. The sociocyber aspect is all based on some idea that never became popular and it appears that a number of investors lost their 'shirts' investing in Fresco. It seems totally unnotable and the whole section could be put somewhere else as one sentence. Its just based on some booklet Fresco wrote to solicit funds, or that is the way it looks. Sociocyberneering? If you search it just Fresco stuff comes up. It is not notable. The article is full of information like his design of flying saucers, and that is expected to be taken seriously? The article is just really over the top a reverential gospel on the genius of Mr. Fresco and that does not suit encyclopedia criteria. The article is probably twice as long as it needs to be. Whole sections could be dropped or shortened drastically. All the non neutral stuff could be rewritten. Since you are the main designer of this article I have to phrase things with you in mind here, and you certainly seem defensive about your role. It does not matter that you have met with Fresco and done a Youtube video about his work and life that much, though that shows maybe that you are on his 'side' of what ever. What does matter is the bias, non neutral editing and fanzine approach you have taken and the overly long information aspects on non notable things connected with the Fresco point of view. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:35, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

"The article is full of information like his design of flying saucers, and that is expected to be taken seriously?" Well, yes. Why should it not be taken seriously? In fact it is well documented in this well known book[4]. I have done the research. I don't know why you are so doubtful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily (talk • contribs) 07:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

The only mention of "genius" is in the Reception section where it is made clear that those are views presented in the sources cited. Nowhere else is it mentioned, certainly not "throughout the article" as you say. Keep in mind that there are also other statements completely contrary to the remarks about genius, which call him a dreamer, charlatan, etc. I think you need to read the article again because it seems to me that you are sort of vaguely remembering what is in the article based upon memory of past readings.

I am only defensive because you have accused me of something that I am not. "Media representative" is not at all my role, and I simply wanted to make that clear. However, I must say it is interesting that you present this neutrality issue only after you find that it is possible to construe some kind of relationship between myself and Fresco. As if that would somehow make my writing more biased all of a sudden. Why wasn't the issue raised prior? If you are familiar with the concept of 'projection' then you will know that it is possible for someone to see in something whatever they want to see. The reverence you speak of may very well be a projection on your part. All I have done was find out facts about Fresco, placed them on Wikipedia, and thoroughly cited them for the benefit of anyone researching Fresco, of which is a growing number. No reverence intended.

" Sociocyberneering? If you search it just Fresco stuff comes up. It is not notable." Again,[5] Reevaluate your understanding of Wikipedias notability policies. Whether Sociocyberneering was/is notable in your eyes or not is not the basis for deciding its inclusion. The basis for the decision is whether sources exist for it and whether it supports the articulation of Fresco's endeavors as a person deemed notable and deserving an article. If I have provided too much detail, it is merely because it is my tendency to be thorough, regardless of what I am working on. Sure, the concept is only from Fresco. That is why it should be no surprise that I decide to include it in an article about Fresco.

It's a good idea to keep in mind that we are here to improve Wikipedia articles (that is why so many improvement tags exist, such as "citation needed," etc.) not reduce articles to pebbles because we have resentment toward the subject. This would be contrary to the goals of Wikipedia. If there is biased presentation, then it should be corrected (if that is even possible). But doing so should not require losing information. A lot of work has gone into constructing this article, which was a major improvement over the deficient and poorly done article that previously existed. I am currently reviewing other articles of people with a status comparable to Fresco's so that I can discern a basis for reevaluating my standards. If you can specify what appears superfluous and excessive we can proceed with compressing or reducing the article.--Biophily (talk) 07:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to communicate that the article is overwrought toward complimenting and exaggerating Fresco, like the flying saucer thing. Flying saucers were a fad in the fifties that supposedly came from other planets and had space people in them. Fresco 'designed' one of those? I don't think so. He designed something from the time periods technology? Yes maybe, but it was just another drawing apparently of which he made thousands apparently. It is ridiculous to say that Fresco designed a flying saucer and to show a cartoon picture of a flying saucer in the article. I think you are not relating to the main points about the article being made. It is not really neutral, it is way way too long and it contains too much hero worship minutia and promo material, even promoting his older failed experiments over and over in the article.

Though you wrote this article for the most part, you have to keep something in mind on en.Wikipedia. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. And though you know Fresco personally and his media director and have made a short movie about him, including interviewing him yourself and uploaded that to your station on You-tube that is mostly devoted to Fresco and his work, when here you have to be a neutral editor and not someone that is promoting Fresco and his ideas, so far out of context of their impact. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You might do a little research about early flying saucer experimentation. Today we know them as "a fad in the fifties that supposedly came from other planets and had space people in them," however, at that time they were considered a serious flight possibility and aircraft companies as well as the the U.S. military experimented with building them, none of which were successful of course. And if you read what the article actually Says, it merely states that Fresco attempted to interest the industry with his designs, and later demonstrated such designs. It does not say that he built one and took a personal trip to Neptune.

There is something going on with your perspective or attitude that causes you to see the information as promo. Is this a biography on Jacque Fresco: Yes. Do biographies include the work that people have done in their life: Yes. Has his work been documented throughout his life: Yes. I don't understand what your beef is. Are you saying that the article gives greater visibility or prominence to his work than you would like to see? However, there are people that would like to know these things about Fresco. So it is included. It's the same argument you tried to use against including Resource-based economy in the article of the standard definition. You said it is not notable and shouldn't be included or linked. And you were told that it will be included because people will come to Wikipedia looking for Fresco's definition. Therefore, a link to it remains on the resource based economy article. You have to remember who Wikipedia is serving, the readers. And also remember that Wikipedia is an all-in-one encyclopedia, therefore some articles may seem out of proportion, because Wikipedia subsumes all formerly niche encyclopedia such as Encyclopedia of Scientists, Encyclopedia of Organizations, Encyclopedia of Bridge Engineers, Encyclopedia of Diseases, Encyclopedia of Astronauts, etc., etc., etc. Therefore, in an Encyclopedia of Technological Utopians, or of Futurists, Fresco would be given greater length than a biography under another context. As far as I know, Wikipedia does not discriminate against which encyclopedias deserve greater representation here.

You keep saying I know Fresco. Again, I don't know Fresco personally. I met him once. I wouldn't say I know Barack Obama if I met him once, then wrote an article about him. --Biophily (talk) 17:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You know Fresco personally, you interviewed him for your movie according to you Dariusz Wyrobek 1 year ago great info video, from where do you have this audio, i never heard this? Biophily 1 year ago From a personal interview. So that is from your uploaded interview you did with Fresco on your Youtube channel [6] Again I don't really care that you met Fresco or made a movie about him and have a media channel mostly devoted to him. It is the presentation that is the issue of the article and its exaggerated praise of him Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:45, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

If I wrote a wiki article on Barack Obama, interviewed him, then posted a video of the interview, would that mean I know him? Let it go.

If you will start being specific then we can begin observing the evidence of my mistakes. So far your claims have been hot air with no reasoning provided. If you have a well reasoned argument, then it would seem appropriate for you to provide it. Continuously repeating that I am praising and worshiping Fresco gives us nothing to work with, just your opinion without back up. If you find it difficult to be specific, and you maintain a merely general sense of disapproval, then the problem is not in the article but is instead in your head.

I defend the article because a lot of work has gone into it, and I know for certain the information has been useful to many people. And it would be a shame to lose much of what has been written simply because one editor overreacted (perhaps because of his own personal, idiosyncratic nitpicking, or possibly other more ignoble reasons). That is why I ask for your evidence and reasoning in those instances where I may have erred, so that I can be more certain the loss is demonstrably warranted. --Biophily (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is why wikipedia fails, you gets mods who dislike a person or topic and the page becomes a battleground. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.93.179 (talk) 23:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Article changes

So lets move on to trimming the article of its reverential tone and copy editing the more bombastic attributes given in the article about Fresco and his information. The phrasing in many places is still too non neutral and too promo. There are large sections still in the article that are over kill minutia. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

In a few cases, where there was implicit compliment, I can see some cuts were warranted. However, in many cases your changes did not change the neutrality at all, but instead simply removed a reasonable fact or inserted something false. For instance, Fresco did not try to "Patent" a resource-based economy. He tried to Trademark it.

Whether you like it or not, there are going to be Facts that are inherently so called "complementary" in Fresco's life. What you are trying to do is remove those facts that do speak of successes in Fresco's life. But you see...these are factual events - NOT MY PRAISE or REVERENCE. If his biography is going to be written, there would be no reason to avoid these facts as you are trying to do. This suggests your dislike for Fresco which causes such a warped view that sees legitimate facts in someone's life as written reverence. For instance, you removed information about how the Trend Home was received by the public and authorities. Therefore legitimate information was lost.

In addition, your edit descriptions are very misleading. You love to throw around "self sourced" and "copy edit" when in fact neither of these terms are warranted or relevant. According to Wikipedia, Copy Edit means: "the work that an editor does to improve the formatting, style, and accuracy of text. Unlike general editing, copy editing might not involve changing the substance of the text." I have noticed that you often write "copy edit" when in fact you have done far more than that. You might keep this in mind in the future, because people might think you are trying hide your edits (whether you intended it or not).

When editing the Trend Home section, your edit description reads:

• "remove self repetitive self sourced info" - What the hell does that even mean??? Self repetitive? Do you just make stuff up when you don't like what you're reading so that you can delete it?

I suppose part of the reason you might have thought the article read with an unacceptable tone, was because when it was first written I tried to give it transition and continuity so that it would have better fluency and readability. That is called good writing you see. You also removed those phrase that serve as indications of chronology. These phrases were deliberately included to give the reader a sense of chronological order. So essentially all you've done was remove those elements that constitute good writing, while thinking you are removing an unacceptable tone. The tone of good writing. So much for improvement. I suppose you prefer articles to be nice and choppy and disjointed.

I may be reversing some of your edits.--Biophily (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

The idea is to make the article neutral. It is no fun doing that but it still is not neutral yet and needs a lot of work. You may be close to this subject and not see the neutrality issues. The article is a little better now. If too much praise and evocative flowery writing is in an article it actually takes away from the subject and people reading the article will see it if it is not neutral and dismiss it. It works far better to just give information about something rather than extoll something or make something sound 'impressive'. That is the problem in the article, poor descriptive exaggerations. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with passages being rewritten to achieve a neutral tone (according to your subjective judgment), however, I do have a problem with you removing factual information. Achieving neutrality rarely includes removing information. No fact, in itself can be non-neutral. You have not justified the removal of factual information aside from your red herring argument that accuses the writing of non-neutrality - which misses the point.

• According to Wikipedia's policy: "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage." ---Have you done this?

Therefore, if you have followed this rule, then the removal of information must be on the grounds of you judging the article to have excessive length. However, if this is to be an argument that justifies your actions, you must provide a principle derived directly from Wikipedia's policy. What is that principle? And how do you use it in an argument to justify the removal of information?

Doesn't Wikipedia work by Consensus?[7] achieved by respecting its policies and all editors equally observing it? For consensus to be reached you must provide arguments. You haven't provided them.

• According to Wikipedia's policy: "When agreement cannot be reached through editing alone, the consensus-forming process becomes more explicit: editors open a section on the talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion. Here editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense; they can also suggest alternative solutions or compromises that may satisfy all concerns. The result might be an agreement that does not satisfy anyone completely, but that all recognize as a reasonable solution. [...] In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing documentation in the project namespace. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."
• Simply saying that certain sections are "too long" is virtually equivalent to saying, "I just don't like." So provide your argument please.

Lastly, it appears we both may be guilty of Tendentious Editing. We both have edit patterns spanning several months. My edit pattern has been to add to the article in the belief that I am improving it and as a byproduct of my studies of Fresco. Your edit pattern has been to remove and reduce the article, adding to the article only a couple times as far as I remember, and both times being aimed toward diminishing Fresco's reputation, all aside from the same edit pattern in the RBE, Venus Project, and Zeitgeist articles. I am interested in the Fresco article because he is related to my area of interest and studies... Why are you interested? I'm curious because you never contribute to any of these Fresco-related articles but only subtract from them. Considering your edit pattern, I can only hope that the fate of the Fresco article, if left in your hands, is shaped by a motivation to improve Wikipedia and is not due to some attitude of disdain toward Fresco. You can relieve my fears by providing the argument(s) I have requested, as it is common proper practice here on Wikipedia.--Biophily (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be having ownership problems with the article. Also please refrain from such lengthy rhetorical word play on the talk page. I skimmed what you said, but it was too long. Please just say things simply and shortly. Neutrality is the key here. Earl King Jr. (talk) 06:44, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Summary: you are ignoring the objections of other editors. This is inconsiderate behavior. You have failed to present arguments. You have presented only opinions. Opinions are not legitimate means of presenting your views on Wikipedia's discussion pages. Where is your argument that justifies your reasoning for removing information? This is a responsibility you have as an honest editor.--Biophily (talk) 07:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are talking about (talk Biophily), so far only one other editor has commented here to say they also thought the article was not neutral. I suggest we make neutrality the focus and not some nagging personality argument. Please focus on the edits and not your opinions of editors likes or dislikes. I do not regret bringing your issues to the table of your involvement with Fresco however since that is also an issue because of tone and 'color' of how the article is. Joel the coordinator of the Venus Project media gave you access to files when you interviewed Fresco for your movie, and your interest in the subject is almost making you a single purpose editor. So, with that out of the way, lets not stray from just the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to avoid the main issue, which is deletion of information on grounds other than neutrality. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's policy. It recommends that info not be deleted due to neutrality, but instead rephrased. SO, then, where is your argument for deleting info? That is mostly all I have been asking.

By the way, would you not also almost be a single purpose editor? Haven't you only been concerned with subtracting from TVP, RBE, Zeitgeist, and Fresco articles? Yet rarely make additions?--Biophily (talk) 18:32, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

You are trying to avoid the main issue, which is deletion of information on grounds other than neutrality.Biophily. No. The information is being rewritten because it is not neutral. That is and was the main issue with the article. Also there is a lot of flowery language that embellishes Fresco and that takes away from any serious reading of the article. Currently the article has improved maybe 50% due to copy editing. I think what you may not believe here is that the article is better for the neutral language and more succinct presentation. If the article is a mouthpiece for Fresco then the article loses credibility, and that is a problem. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the neutrality issue is not my problem. I recognize that you think the writing appears supportive to Fresco some how. However, this may be an outcome of my earlier attempt to make the article an interesting read. Therefore, I employed a more story telling style. I would have done this for any article, regardless of who its about. At the time I didn't think about how this affected neutrality. Apparently you associate that style with embellishment and bias. I accept that neutrality may have been jeopardized (though it has not been confirmed by enough editors for me to really be satisfied). All in all, I can see some of your edits really have improved neutrality.

Aside from the neutrality issue, again you haven't caught my point, I was and am concerned about the removal (not the replacement) of facts and information. There are instances where you have completely removed sourced information and I cannot conceive of how this could be justified on grounds of neutrality.--Biophily (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical, criticism section missing

Probably an idea to add a criticism section to the article on Fresco. Also where to mention Fresco's membership in the White Citizens Council and the Klu Klux Klan in the article. Would it be best to use the Fresco information itself to source that or some other information? Fresco has also been criticized for being a member of those groups, regardless of his reasoning for membership Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia encourages interweaving points of view (both positive and negative) in the same section. Currently these views are interwoven in the Reception section. I don't see why that needs to be changed.

Though it seems a significant episode in Fresco's life, there are no sources that reliably document his participation in the organizations you mentioned. There are sources that document his claims of it. However I think such sources fall short of qualifying.--Biophily (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Fresco himself might be the best source about those two groups as he has written and spoken in that regard publicly and Venus Project has documented that. I hate to use any more Venus Project citations to back up the article since so many are used now. I do not enjoy rewriting areas, the article has gotten better and the average reader will understand the information easier with the more basic unpolished telling. Probably 'Reception' can be renamed and more information added because it is over-weighted with 'happy talk/information' still. Also the citation related quotes are over-weighted with homage like quotes that make the article still feel contrived in that direction. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the citation quotes provide a higher standard. I can't see anything wrong with transparency. Plus, its not my place to assume what impression the reader gets from the quotes.

My only concern about the KKK info is that that topic had been argued two other times that I can recall. Both times it was agreed not to be included.--Biophily (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Argued by who? Since that information is a part of the Fresco story and he emphasizes it in his lectures, no reason not to include it, plus I used the citation that was already there. Other good sources on the internet also mention that issue of those groups and Fresco. Editing neutrally means to assume the reader will be given less sugar coating and more neutral information for critical thinking and that approach is always best. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:55, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

That approach is necessary for the writing of Wikipedia editors. However, if the citation quotes happen to contain flattering or embarrassing writing by outside authors, that is beyond our duty to control.

The KKK thing was argued by previous editors in the talk archives. It exists on a fine line, because the source that is used for it is not applied to it in the same way the source is applied to the other issue of Cult Leadership. It works for the cult leadership because the article works as a primary source. However, in order for it to work for the KKK it has to be a secondary or tertiary source. It is not reliable as those types. It works for the Cult issue, but not so much for the KKK. It would probably be better to cite an instance where Fresco talks about it, then follow it with the point of view of the article currently used.--Biophily (talk) 19:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I avoided the issue from the outset because it is certainly ad hominem and potentially defamatory via libel. Such issues are especially discouraged for articles on Living People, which have special stipulations.--Biophily (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC) *(moved from section below)

Lead section

Added information from this source [8] which covers a lot of the basics about Fresco's belief system. The article was failing to project the point that Fresco is a social critic and its as a social critic where he is having most of his notability/notoriety. Maybe social critic could be a good thing to add at the beginning where it describes him. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I can't argue with that.--Biophily (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing

If the information on Fresco's education is not correct then why is it in the article? It has to be assumed it is correct because of the published book source. Fresco did not attend high school or did erratically but did not graduate. If the information from the sources book is not correct then maybe his other information is also wrong? If anything its a plus that Fresco accomplished what he has without a so called 'education' or self education and that information says a lot about Fresco. Removing documented cited relevant information, will not improve the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I know that the Lionel Rolfe source has that issue mistaken. I didn't notice anything else in it like that. However, when you look at how that information is stated in the source, I think I can understand why it is mistaken. In the Rolfe source, he is quoting someone. The person he is quoting is qualified, however, I suspect the context of the statement was an exaggeration or joke to emphasize Fresco's hatred of school. The same guy who said that, later wrote a book in which he said, "the advantage of a high school education escaped him." This is the second source. It is true Fresco never graduated high school, but he did attend Brooklyn Technical High School inconsistently. Even if I'm wrong and he didn't, he certainly attended Seth Low Junior High. Wikipedia has a policy for cases like this where a source has made a mistake, an editor or the article's subject knows it is a mistake, and there is no other source pointing out the mistake. Because it is disputed and inconclusive, I figured a proper compromise would be to not state it in the article, but included in the footnotes.

I don't know why the statement has to be so specific. It is precisely the specifics that are disputed. It seems sufficient to say he did not finish his formal education or did not graduate. Ultimately, that's the point.--Biophily (talk) 22:45, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I avoided the issue from the outset because it is certainly ad hominem and potentially defamatory via libel. Such issues are especially discouraged for articles on Living People, which have special stipulations.--Biophily (talk) 23:39, 14 March 2013 (UTC) *Moved to section above.--Biophily (talk) 02:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Not so. It is not defaming or libelous whether a person went to school or not. Its just bio information. If anything it is a testament to Fresco's achievements, and notoriety. Fresco himself says over and over in his lectures and information that he had no formal education or not much of one. It is a main feature of how he talks about himself. It was common in that era for people to drop out, mostly to go to work, if they could, during the 'depression'. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I was in the wrong section. I was thinking of the KKK issue when I wrote the last comment. I forgot to clarify that. I'll move it there.--Biophily (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Nitpicking of Language and Grammar

I have been looking at other Biographies here on Wikipedia. I find that the way this article was written was in accordance with how all these other articles are written. In fact, I originally took such articles as my model when first writing this article. You have to remember, this is a Biography... not an article on a concept or sewing machine. Several edits over the past week have been trifles. Many of the connectors, transitions, and compressions have been removed, as if chronology and fluency is not important. The result is a choppy, fragmented, disjointed, not to mention facile, presentation of information. Banalization of the grammar and language is not really an improvement.

A positive feeling toward the writing is not a positive feeling toward the subject.--Biophily (talk) 03:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is about 60 or 70% better now that the bombastic, pretentious to the subject, language has been removed. I have no doubt that because you wrote most of the article previously, you are feeling dejected because of ownership issues and that is a pity. I suggest you edit cooperatively and not possessively with little regard for neutral presentation. Filigreed homage means bad presentation and that defeats the purpose. You are belonging to this persons fan club or in other words a promoter of Mr. Fresco, that was obvious from the article previously and your having personal interest via your Youtube channel mainly exhorting Fresco things. The article is more or less neutral now and if you think about it that is going to help your cause, not hinder it.

Suggestion. If you go against consensus multiple times you could run into problems of edit warring. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• I don't expect the article to return to what it was, not do I want it to. However, this was a comment to point out that some of the edits are damaging the writing itself.
• Regarding your continuous attempt to highlight my interest in Fresco, how about your interest in him? Can you tell me why nearly all of your history of edits have been dedicated to Fresco related subjects? You raise a point against me that can be raised against you. That's all I'm saying here. By they way, do you realize that is was me that included several instances of criticism of Fresco? to make sure the points of view were balanced? I think you need to reconsider your beliefs about me and consider the information that I actually included in the article, regardless of the my writing style which you happen to dislike.
• The only edits associated with edit warring are those concerning Fresco's schooling and the KKK info. If it is disputed, I doubt anyone is going to support the inclusion of the KKK info, due to its potentially libelous effect. The way the issue was originally presented in the article was not appropriate to a Biography of Living Persons, nor was the citation appropriate, nor did the wording appropriately render it. Do you realize that you said "Fresco's imaginative claim"??? The intention of your inclusion of this KKK issue has leaked through in the wording. If you continue pushing the KKK issue, you're going to give yourself away completely. Despite its questionable nature, I compromised and retained the KKK issue, but wrote conservatively to reduce its libelous potential.
• Lastly, I've paid attention to the school issue because it is a complicated issue, and we happen to have a situation where the source quoted someone who might have exaggerated or simply mis-stated something. Reliable published sources make mistakes all the time, especially in journalism. To say otherwise would be to say that all reliable published sources are PERFECT. Inevitably not true. Therefore, I push for a compromise. There is no reason why the article has to be that specific (on a disputed issue), unless someone is trying to push a point. If it were in fact true that Fresco only went to elementary school, and not Seth Low junior high, or bits of Brooklyn Technical High School, I wouldn't dispute the issue. But do you realize that this is a Biography on a LIVING person? Therefore, disputed issues such as this have to be handled carefully. This is not my opinion; if you have read through Wikipedia's policies on these issues you will see that Wikipedia explicitly advises that editors exercise special caution in biographies of living people. If you haven't done these readings, please do.--Biophily (talk) 06:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you are making a mistake by going against consensus, reverting information in that way. I suggest you restore the previous edit by another editor and also returned by me.

Also, Libel? No way. Its public information mostly publicized by Fresco. By removing the information or sugar coating or confusing it a little, the subject is less clear. The KKK stuff was not made up by me, it is integrally part of Fresco's presentation and had been commented on by journalists, who gave their journalistic take on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not reverting the edit because it includes the KKK edit that you made. You have included the KKK bit without sufficient warrant or sources. His participation in those organizations hadn't even been established anywhere in the article, yet you want to introduce criticism about it. The fact is, there are no sources that documented his participation in the KKK. Only Fresco talks about it in some of his presentations. Additionally, the KKK criticism isn't really proper anyway. All that it does is suggest that Fresco is a liar. How is someone's opinion about Fresco's honesty relevant to the article? It's cheap criticism. In addition, it was previously agreed in previous discussions with other editors that the KKK issue is not supported, neither by sources nor argument. Nevertheless, as a compromise, I let stay, but rewrote it, rendering it barely acceptable, but more appropriate I believe.--Biophily (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It is a very sensitive issue because it has defamatory potential if not handled carefully. To avoid the defamation, Fresco's claims about his involvement with the KKK has to be clearly stated. Then the journalist's opinion can be stated. It has to be made clear to the reader why Fresco joined the organizations and what he claims to have done. I react to the KKK issue because it is something that has been abused in the past by editors, who, in a malicious attempt to damage Fresco's reputation, have merely stated that Fresco joined the organizations, and saying nothing else about it. It's a sly and quick way to slip in a severely offensive association in the readers mind. Therefore, if it is going to be included (despite its lack of qualification), it has to be well considered and written honestly.--Biophily (talk) 09:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

You are going against consensus. There are multiple examples of Fresco lying which he relates in his stories he tells on You-tube interviews. That is not an issue. All humans lie. There are other issues that could be gotten at with Fresco. How did he get money to start the Venus Project for instance? He dissolved his other group and walked away with that donated money. The investors were left high and dry with zero recourse. That is not in the article. If the article is just a fancy rewrite of Fresco's material about himself, then it has no credibility or neutrality. Since Fresco is considered a cult leader figure, as cited in the article, that could also be brought more into focus along with his financial dealings and his promotion of his movie that is supposedly being made?? and has taken in 10's of thousands, over a hundred thousand dollars in recent donations. All that is public information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

• You are revealing yourself a bit too much here. None of what you mentioned is warranted for the article. These are your personal questions and finding a way to include them would be provoking a point of view in the reader. If you can find sources that ask these questions, then there could be grounds for including them. However, I'm fairly certain there aren't any.
• (FYI, Fresco was running a non-profit organization. When you donate to a non-profit you don't get your money back. These people did not invest, they donated, then the organization invested that money. I don't know from where you got your impressions. You are not alone though, you are one of many people who have raised these questions because they don't know the details of the issues you mentioned. The reality is, neither you, nor I, know the full details of these issues and are not in a position to judge from this distance, nor place our personal suspicions or cynicism on Wikipedia. We can only say what the sources say.)--Biophily (talk) 10:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Wrong. Fresco dissolved his sociocyber group where people had a say in the 'non-profit' and were involved in a sort of community and took the assets (donations) and formed another group where he had total control of everything and the former people involved had zero. Part of that action has come down in folklore as the joke about people being sold 'swampland' in Florida, so some view Mr. Fresco as a flim flam man, which is pointed out also in the article now, for good reason. Those issues also do not have to be glossed over. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• Bit of a deviation, nevertheless, what is your source for this? I doubt there is anyone on earth that has done more research than me on Fresco. I'd like to see the sources for your claims above, please.
• They don't need to be "glossed over" because they don't need to be included at all. What you are speaking of is the speculation of, I assume, internet users who have posted potentially defamatory claims about Fresco. And from these sources you are deriving a motive to include such speculation on Wikipedia? Until these claims are investigated and published, there is no basis for including them.
• The KKK info has no context. It should be stated that Fresco claims to have done such and such, then this journalist has expressed doubt and says such and such, if it is even proper to include it AT ALL. Currently the info given seems unclear and I suspect will confuse a reader who has never encountered that information. All they will walk away with is an association between Fresco and the KKK without proper context. It is utterly clear what you are trying to do. I believe I offered a reasonable compromise. You are refusing to compromise. This is a problem.--Biophily (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with compromising or you and me and nothing to do with your purported knowledge of Fresco's life, unless you have published something on him. I think you are far too close to this subject being involved in Fresco's group to be a neutral player and having interviewed him and having a channel devoted mostly to him and his ideas. It is about the cited material and that was phrased to be understandable. A critical section is critical so making it into something else will not suit things. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:03, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• There you go again using the only argument you think has any weight. I am not involved in their "group." I research Fresco as part of a purely academic interest. So I visited him once on a public tour, nothing special. At this point you are being a dick, trying to stress and stretch a point that has little efficacy, because that is all you have to use. Because Fresco has a following or movement, you automatically lump everyone into that group regardless of the nature of their interest. There's something wrong with that kind of thinking. It is hostile, cynical, and rash.
• My knowledge of Fresco does have some bearing on the issue. I know his life and I know the sources that document his life. It has nothing to do with me needing to publish something on him. It has to do with me knowing where the sources are, and what sources exist, and what they say. And I have never encountered sources that investigate or document the outlandish claims you have made.
• You must not understand Wikipedia. It recommends that there not be a section dedicated exclusively to "criticism" as your impression has it. It suggests to instead have a section that interweaves views. That is why I originally titled the section, "Reception." Wikipedia does not condone a section exclusively dedicated to hammering away at someone's reputation, which is what you seem to want. It requires balance and civil criticism. The KKK thing is very close to the edge, probably not suitable for the article.
• Again, you must not understand Wikipedia. Throughout its policies it recommends compromise.--Biophily (talk) 10:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with compromising or you and me or your knowledge of Fresco's life, as you are not a source, unless you have published something on him beyond your YouTube interview of him, you having met and interviewed Fresco and published that online, I am not sure that information is usable. It is about the cited material and that was phrased to be understandable. A critical section is critical. and in that section there is ample give and take. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you forget that it is I who included ALL of the criticism in that section, except for you KKK addition. I object to it because it is substandard criticism, context is lacking, and as I said, potentially defamatory if not handled appropriately. You're not getting it.--Biophily (talk) 10:36, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

No. Fresco makes that information an integral part of his presentation, so critical attention is o.k.. He states it over and over in interviews, the ones from his Venus Project group official interviews. So its a non issue and can be commented on by others that are in the journalism business. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, Fresco does present his story about this. However, the way you have written it does not do justice to the context. Take for example the earlier rewrite I did. In addition, the whole issue and article including it is gossipy. It's just low grade.--Biophily (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Think about what you are doing Earl King. In some cases you are changing information without even reading the source. So how can you possibly make an informed decision about how information should best be rewritten and described? For instance, the APA did "force" Fresco to stop. Did you read the source before you wrote this??? He received pressure and criticism. That is all. IMO some of your edits are rash and reckless, and uninformed.--Biophily (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

He received pressure and criticism. That is all. He hung out a shingle and posed as a therapist without any credentials at all, was rebuffed by the state authorities and told to stop and then stopped. It brings out other issues or should about him having posed as a 'doctor' as a paid event speaker and posing as a doctor on the Larry King show. Its best not to whitewash or try some fancy language to ameliorate Fresco's past. If anything it probably makes him more compelling that he tried to do so much with so little formal education. Unless the article is impartial it is not really giving information, it is informing people via sources connected to Fresco in a certain way and that is not how en.Wikipedia is supposed to work. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sir, I'm sorry to say, you have proven yourself to be incompetent. Where did you read that he was forced to stop? Did you read this somewhere? Or is this what you want to believe? The fact is, what you have written is false. Plain and simple. If you are interested in improving the article and Wikipedia, as you claim, you would be attempting to exercise greater competence. We are beyond good faith at this point. Problems with your editing:

• You are not adhering to the citation convention, which requires others to clean up after you.
• You do not appear to be checking with the sources to ensure your edits are in accordance with the source information.
• Your deletions are disordering the footnote information, which requires others to clean up after you.
• You appear to be intending to introduce issues into the article that have very limited qualification, issues that you personally judge suspicious, instead of properly focusing on information contained in and derived from the the best of available sources. The proper method is to consult sources, then include information you find in those sources, NOT scheme to include contrived information picked up from gossipy sources. The more sources that mention a particular issue, the more reason there is to include it in the article. It is improper to approach the article with an agenda prior to consulting sources and intend to include information for which no source exists, and also improper to defy what the source says in an attempt to execute your agenda. The most recent example of this is the APA/Therapy issue. You believe he was forced to stop therapy. I guarantee you read this nowhere, because no source says this.
• "Unless the article is impartial it is not really giving information, it is informing people via sources connected to Fresco in a certain way and that is not how en.Wikipedia is supposed to work." This is true and has no applicability to my objection. You have stated something on the basis of your assumptions (the APA therapy issue), instead of research and sources. If anything, that is a manifestation of impartiality.
• The very fact that you speak of issues (ex. land investors, posing as a doctor, his movie fund) of which you are personally suspicious, is an utterly obvious revelation of your agenda - that you are not here to improve the article and that you are construing to do so as long as it aligns with your agenda, operating under the facade of Wikipedia's policies. The very fact that you present issues before you have provided sources for them, is a crystal clear demonstration of your ignoble intentions here. Again, we are completely beyond good faith at this point. I can't possibly hold good faith after your exaggerated accusations about me and your explicitly stated intentions.
• If I have made the mistake of presenting Fresco positively (whether inadvertently or naively), you have displayed intentions of presenting him negatively to a corresponding degree. Have you considered that?--Biophily (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

As for the above diatribe, too long didn't read it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:28, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Critical appraisal of Jacque Fresco

The Critical appraisal of Jacque Fresco section has quotes that are way too long. A lot of those quotes do not need to be so long to get points across. Probably better to trim the quotes. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

• What principle underlies this suggestion?
• Quotes are used to express succinct statements of a point of view. They appear to do that and appear appropriate to me.--Biophily (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with the KKK issue is that Fresco's participation in it has not been established by a source. So how can we then use Gilonis's article to speak of it?--Biophily (talk) 11:10, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true so. We could use the Venus Project as a source of his involvement: TVPMagazine

So I attended many clan meetings, 'KKK,' got the feel of the organization, and then proceeded to [...] ... end quote Fresco. PUBLISHED ON January 28, 2012 // BY The Venus Project source [9]

In published interviews by multiple sources he talks about that. and the Venus Project video of him also lecturing about it. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, then do some work and establish those sources. However this opens up a whole new can of worms because I made sure to avoid using his self-published sources as much as possible, I think only a couple times. What to include then becomes much more subjective from editor to editor, because each editor has his or her own opinion on why this or that should be included, and think they can justify it in the fact that Fresco has self published it. One can find almost anything in Fresco's self-published sources, which are very numerous. Using Fresco's self-published sources makes everything much more complicated and promises disputes. In fear of this, I tried to adhere to only using sources published by a third party to avoid this entire complication. If we begin to use Fresco's self-published sources here, then the door is open to do the same with other information.--Biophily (talk) 12:09, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

The article is full of Fresco sourced things. Its a transcript of one of his lectures that he gave [10] so it is a non issue. The current article sources the information anyway in the citation so its a non point. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Very few of the sources in this article are Fresco himself. What are you talking about.--Biophily (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Neutral editing

Its important to have the article reflect outside sources and not be a mouthpiece for Fresco or his ideas unchallenged and given like truth. For instance, Fresco claims to have been a member and then claimed to dissolve the Klan in Miami, so it is fair to present an outside source that says that did not happen. Removing things like that as an editor did recently takes away from the article.

Fresco is a controversial character and getting the article to be even handed is best. Nobody forced Fresco to lecture often about being a member of the Klan but he has. Just repeating what Fresco says about issues makes for a poor presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

You are presenting the very fact that he participated in the KKK as fact. Precisely that he participated at all is only alleged. Listen to your own words: "Just repeating what Fresco says about issues makes for a poor presentation."

No independent source documents his participation. Therefore it must be presented as an alleged event.

Including that source as you did is original research WP:NOR. An editor can only balance an article through sources that address the subject (in this case Fresco). Besides, even if that source were allowed, its information doesn't even support the point you are trying to make due to the unknown dates of Fresco's alleged participation.--Biophily (talk) 14:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Just curious, did you get all the pictures for the article and upload them yourself directly from the Venus Projects media director? I sense a major conflict of interest with your involvement in Venus Project which affects neutrality in your editing. [11] In other words it appears that you are basically working for Fresco's point of view with your last edit. You returned a dead link to the Venus Project Magazine blog and removed a citation on the Klan which documents Fresco's not having dissolved it as he claims in numerous interviews, in fact it grew by leaps and bounds.

Also removed again is the silly language of offering himself as a psychological consultant. Its ridiculous. He had no schooling in that field at all, and was pressured to stop his 'business' and yes a business is set up to make money. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You are point pushing . . . Period. I'm not going to let it slide. You have repeatedly attempted to slip in your own assumptions about issues, in some cases without sourcing it, and repeatedly introduce associations and assertions that amount to original research. You also have indicated that you have an agenda consisting of unsourced allegations about Fresco that you suggest to include. Point Pushing.

He PRECISELY began "offering himself" as a psychological consultant. That is an indisputable fact. That doesn't mean he has a degree in it. I am merely reflecting the sources. Are you consulting any sources on this issue? On what are you basing your beliefs?

I only remove "Business" because I haven't read anywhere that his service was incorporated or legally established. But I understand the term can be used both formally and informally.

Your PBS source about the Klan is WP:NOR. Please understand Wikipedia's policies.

Furthermore, your cynicism and lack of good faith toward myself as an editor is offensive.--Biophily (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Earl King on the recent edit. The language you are offering is not neutral. Stop edit warring and start making point by point cases on changes that include sources. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:09, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you specify what is wrong with the language? In this case I feel I am using language devoid of judgment. I also feel I am adhering strictly to sources, while Earl King has been:

• taking to much liberty in his edits (original research: "synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." His inclusion of a PBS website page that claims the KKK continued to grow throughout the 1950s is an attempt to advance a position that asserts Fresco did not dissolve the KKK as he claims. He may not have; he may not have been in the KKK altogether. However, the source Earl King included does not say that. Therefore, I defend policy and argue for the removal of the statement and its source.

Your single revert of my edit has reintroduced original research by Earl King WP:NOR, a couple factual errors, and removed a couple sources without reason. Are you aware of this?--Biophily (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

You're probably right. How about offering them separately because I found some of your subtle changes of language to be inappropriate. For instance, the source claimed that "he ran head-on into a barrage of criticism by the American Psychological Association" and you seem to soften the language when you change it to they "took note" and questioned the credibility of his operation. I think with a bunch of edits that may individually be challenged, it would be better at least if you did them one by one or discussed them individually. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:15, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.--Biophily (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

He PRECISELY began "offering himself" as a psychological consultant. That is an indisputable fact. Sorry, but that is just too weird of language. It sounds silly. It is not neutral. It sounds like he is something like a human sacrifice that is rejected for the insignificant reason of not having an education in the field or degree. Obviously a business set up like that, set up to make money and affecting vulnerable people is going to run into sanctions from the state. Fresco did pose or lecture as a doctor in his lectures and that is documented, particularly his introduction as a doctor on the Larry King interview. Biophily the consensus is that you are not being neutral. Whether that has something to do with your interactions with the Fresco organization is not known but since you are involved with Fresco and his group its a good idea to keep a neutral perspective. Since Fresco claims to have dissolved the K.K.K. in Miami in multiple interviews, why remove counter information that questions that? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I may not realize how phrases appear non-neutral to others. However, if you clarify, as you have now done, I can see what might be wrong. Nevertheless, saying "he began offering himself," to me, seems to suggest that a person began engaging in business for which they had no accreditation. The point is it is not judgmental. It simply states it very matter of fact. He literally began offering himself as a consultant. But NaturaNaturans might be right that my description "softens" what happened.

The KKK source can't be included because it does not address the subject, Jacque Fresco. If it did you could use it. But it doesn't, therefore it is original research which is forbidden on Wikipedia. Editors are not supposed to synthesize info to advance or suggest a new conclusion.--Biophily (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresco claims to have dissolved the Klan in Miami in that era. The PBS article points out that did not happen. If Fresco is going to make a claim that may not be true but is given as fact, the article becomes a mouthpiece, without a counterpoint. The counterpoint puts Fresco's claim into contention, the counterpoint is a history of the Klan in Miami during that period and it refutes Fresco's claim, thereby making the article even handed. The PBS article is about the Klan in that period, not about Fresco nor does it have to be about Fresco. It documents that the Klan was doing well when Fresco is claiming that he dissolved the Klan. This is starting to feel like a failure to get the point. Lets move on from this. Biophily if you do not mind answering this question, since you are involved with the Venus Project group is there any sourcing in the article that leads directly to your involvement? I am wondering about the interview of Fresco on the Venus Project site which is used in many citations in the article? Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

where is the source for his claim to have dissolved the Klan? NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

[12] in this part of the article [13] It is also in multiple Venus Project official video presentations where he is addressing audiences. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:25, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

where in that article does he say he dissolved the Klan? NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what you are asking. What about the interview source that is used? Anyway, if you pay attention you will see it is only used in citations for his Influences.--Biophily (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Read the article talk page NaturaNaturans (talk) So I attended many clan meetings, 'KKK,' got the feel of the organization, and then proceeded to [...] ... end quote Fresco. PUBLISHED ON January 28, 2012 // BY The Venus Project source [14], its a time waster to repeat things. Please do a modicum of research. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I read it and didn't see the claim of him dissolving the Klan NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:OWN. Wikipedia is edited collaboratively. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Trying, but read the page history. Here is Fresco 'dissolving' the Klan in one month in Miami [15] and an example of Fresco lying (tricking? to impress the Klan with his marksmanship. [16] Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Einstein

In Fresco's documentary, they make a point to establish his credibility by making this claim that he personally met with Einstein. I find the language of his claim sounds questionable, especially since Einstein very much believed in the harmony of nature. Nevertheless, the claim is very notable and should be in this page. NaturaNaturans (talk) 17:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Notable how? Are there sources that document this (besides Fresco in the film)?--Biophily (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

It's notable because it's a direct quote featured in a well distributed documentary about the man, and it's his own words. It's a major claim about a notable influence. The claim is a bit outrageous since he is claiming that he wanted to lecture Einstein about the harmony of nature despite Einstein's established beliefs. NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

• Here's a source using a part of his claim: http://betterthandisneyland.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/future-my-love/
• Here is a direct transcript: http://dotsub.com/view/15872a88-fbfe-4b18-a47f-10e0ae06fa9f/viewTranscript/eng NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
• "Fresco also met Albert Einstein and eminent thinker/inventor Buckminster Fuller during this time. Einstein, Fresco recalls, was too preoccupied with mathematics to help him." http://www.thescavenger.net/media-a-technology/the-venus-project-and-the-zeitgeist-movement-8970-169.html NaturaNaturans (talk) 22:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresco's may or may not have met Einstein as claimed. They did not have a press conference, write anything together, or have any eye witness. In some of Fresco's interviews he makes a point that he lies about certain things to make an impression on people or to get people to think differently. He says that freely in his presentations, so its best to take his Einstein situation with a grain of salt since it is all sourced to his own information and the other sources mentioned just get the Fresco second hand version also.

Also It's notable because it's a direct quote featured in a well distributed documentary about the man, and it's his own words. It's a major claim about a notable influence. Its not really a documentary it is an advertisement extolling Fresco, his life and work based on Fresco as he wanted to be presented. Thats different from say a BBC documentary or Fox news story documentary etc.. Also there is nothing there about a notable influence just something about 'lecturing' Einstein and Einstein being a busy man. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

If he freely lies to make points then please provide a source for that because in the least, that should be prominently mentioned in the article. As for the documentary's credibility, do you have any evidence of your claim? It is directed and produced by a notable individual NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes he is notable as a crew member technical film person but looking at his subjects, crop circles, the Waco cult, etc. without being too judgmental his subjects are fringe focus and I wonder where the money came from to make the documentary? With the 'lying thing' I hate to do the research but listening to his interviews, in the text of his discourse, he is often giving examples where he lies to someone, or a group to lead them in a certain direction. There are a lot of examples of that. the documentary on Fresco has no critical aspect to it, just a gushy kind of praise using Fresco's viewpoints as truth.

As far as lying this may be a notable example [17] being introduced as a P.H.D etc. doctor in one of the two video's there Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Your attempt to construe Gazecki as some kind of fringey filmmaker is unnecessary, and evidence that you are scraping together anything possible to serve your dubious agenda. Gazecki did so called "fringey" films as well as so called "normal" films, as many other filmmakers have. WACO was a well received film, nominated for best documentary Oscar. Nevertheless, I do agree that Future By Design is a somewhat poor source for info. However, Earl King, you do realize that in biographies of living persons, editors are free to use information in sources self-published by the person subject of the article, in this case Fresco speaking in Future By Design? (which does open the door to many complications, I realize)

The attempt to introduce this notion of Fresco as a liar is not going to work. First because I know of no sources for it. Second, this is a biography of a LIVING PERSON. Therefore, any claims of that sort would have to be processed EXTREMELY carefully. Check policy WP:BLP. --Biophily (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Fresco as a liar? just pointing out in this example [18] that Fresco is lying and posing as doctor, PHD. I don't have the time or desire to get into his videos and their aspects of him lying to people. This one example should show that Fresco has no qualms about falsely portraying himself. Its possible that Fresco got a PHD diploma from a diploma mill in California but that does not count. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Earl, just stick with facts and sources because that's the information that will sustain. NaturaNaturans (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits

Biophily, you are continuing to put back and take things out against consensus. Since you are involved in the Venus Project, particular care could be taken. Ownership issues on articles may be an issue and to continue to not get the point ends up being disruptive after a while. If you want to push your edits you could ask for a 'request for comment' on this page concerning your issues, to get more people involved ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Earl King Jr. (talk • contribs) 00:51, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

You yourself should also consider working collaboratively WP:OWN. NaturaNaturans (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of the article Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Earl King, please stop your accusations. You have little basis.--Biophily (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

NaturalNaturans, I reverted the revert you did on my previous edit. I did so because I don't understand how my edit is "fluff" or "advertisement"? My intention was to correct inaccuracies introduced by Earl King.--Biophily (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It was due to the Tesla sources you added, which I have now removed individually without affecting the rest of your edits. I removed all of the Fresco "inviting comparisons to" paragraph because it is promotional and unhelpful. NaturaNaturans (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I replaced the comparison. Perhaps it should be rewritten to sound less promotional? Comparisons are common in Reception sections. And I believe it is a notable comparison.--Biophily (talk) 01:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Non experts and edits attempting to glorify Fresco

Biophily, you do not appear to be respecting Wikipedia's policies of non neutral editing and establishing some consensus.

• The unnecessary comparisons to Buckminster Fuller, Paolo Soleri (and even Tesla and Edison) are a bit absurd. Those individuals are not controversial in regards to their credentials and/or scholarly prominence. Besides, what is the point of these comparisons other than for promotional purposes? It is not useful.
• There are number of non expert glorifying quotes (one by an art curator, for example) that do not belong in the article. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are "glorifying" or not is irrelevant as long as there are quotes or statements that are negative to an equal degree. The statements themselves are NOT neutral because they are the statements of commentators. However, as long as the positive and negative statements have equal presence, a balance and neutrality is achieved.

Are you blind? ...sorry to be rude. The quote from the curator is negative to an equal degree! Does he not point out Fresco's "fascistic undertones of order and similitude"? His entire quote is balanced in itself by the presence of both positive and negative statements. Furthermore, Obrist is not just an art curator, he is a scholar of culture, and conducts interviews of a vast number of prominent people in various disciplines: artists, architects, writers, etc. Furthermore, he is commenting on Fresco as an INFLUENCE to other people. Since when does that require an expert? Dr. Who, Phd in Influence Studies?

Furthermore, your subjective judgment of what is "absurd" is of no relevance here. The Futurist magazine makes the comparison to Fuller and Solari, as does several others sources. These sources are not negated just because you think the comparison is "absurd". --Biophily (talk) 05:07, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I think you are confused about Wikipedia policy, which does not at all include the need to have an 'equal balance' of positive and negative views. Please read WP:FRINGE. Just because someone compared Mr. Fresco to some famous architects who are noted at least a hundred times more often by scholars, does not mean it belongs in a neutral encyclopedia article about Mr. Fresco. Also, random commentary by non experts can easily be challenged and removed by consensus. NaturaNaturans (talk) 05:44, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

What you have said might be true about an article on Fresco's ideas or the Venus Project (even though there is a lack of critical commentary to deem it 'discredited'), however, Jacque Fresco himself is not a fringe theory. His article must be in accordance with Biographies of Living Persons WP:BLP. Many editors error when it comes to BLPs. See Balance in WP:BLPSTYLE.--Biophily (talk) 00:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Jacque Fresco in not a fringe theory. Comparing him to Buckminster Fuller IS a fringe theory. You are now engaging in edit warring and ignoring consensus. NaturaNaturans (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are completely mistaken here. You are abusing the term. The comparison is not a theory. Wikipedia uses the term "theory" in the established formal academic / scientific sense. You, however, are not using it that way. You are misappropriating the term so that you can delete a comparison that you don't like, despite the comparison being published by authoritative sources.--Biophily (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is getting better. It takes away from itself to have what seems like promotional, homage like quotes from various people. It detracts when the article is written like a promo for a product. Its not hard to spot that and part of the editing process is to go for neutral presentation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:47, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Info.

Citation 13 goes to information that is not verifiable and it appears that Fresco lied about his credentials also presenting himself as a doctor '^ a b Jenrette, David. (Feb. 11, 1971), "Jacques Fresco", Gold Coast Free Press., Vol. 1, No. 1: 10 a "Every night (except Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday) Dr. Fresco admits the public to his presence from 8:30 to about 11p.m. at a dollar-a-head (if you have one; a dollar, that is). Coffee afterward [...] is optional." — p. 10, col. 1, ¶ 6 b "Fresco is not of this time, he is a prophet of days to come, an emissary of the future'

Maybe that citation or source could be removed from the article since it is misleading about Fresco's education. Earl King Jr. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

The information is verifiable. That is your job as a researcher to locate that information. The information does not have to be readily available online. Real research actually involves doing some hard work. You deleted that Jack Catran quote for the same reason. I'm not going to bicker about it, but it was deleted for false reasons. All you have to do it check out the book from a library. You may think that I am defending Fresco when I restore your deletions, but actually I restore them because so often you delete things on false grounds by ignoring or not understanding policy.--Biophily (talk) 21:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Read here to learn policy WP:OFFLINE--Biophily (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I live somewhere where there is no library. Also the essay you site is not policy its opinion. Fresco is a controversial person and having direct information may be better in his case. Also more of the same quotes of glorifying Fresco makes the article look silly since it is still over weighted with puffery about him. Having another quote of how much of a great genius he is in the article seems redundant and the article is already over sourced to that one person, Jack Catran, who as Fresco's boy hood chum and person he hung out with later, seems tedious after a while. How many times is he already used in the article?

Also you are off subject. This thread is about Fresco posing as a doctor. Dr. Fresco admits the public to his presence from 8:30 to about 11p.m. at a dollar-a-head (if you have one; a dollar, that is). Since this misleads the article it could be removed because it is in that Larry King phase of Fresco's life when he actively lied about his credentials. This could probably also be pointed out in the article about Fresco's past of lying in connection with his media information which I assume he did for money to make himself sound like a more important person with a real academic background. For that reason the Larry King interview could be removed and also that article describing Fresco as a real doctor. People reading the article here may assume that Fresco was some kind of real doctor so its a false citation. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(1. You may be right about the overuse of Catran as a source. That is why I said I'm not going to dispute it. I was merely pointing out that your reason for removing it is not appropriate because it is not in accordance with the criteria established by Wikipedia's policy which states that sources do not have to have an online link. Furthermore, the fact that Fresco is controversial does not necessitate the use of only online sources.

(2. The Dr. issue could be addressed only if there are proper sources for it. However, even if there are sources for it, the inclusion of it may be undue. This is because Fresco posing as a doctor is not a widely publicized issue or publicized in any single major mainstream source. In fact, I don't think either of us have even read a source that fully explains this Dr. issue. All I have seen is speculation and assumptions about it in blogs and forums.

• (a. Furthermore, most of the disparaging information that you want to introduce into the article is simply undue. Generally, Fresco is well received in the majority of published sources that exist. Therefore, because the predominant reception of Fresco is positive, it should be proportionally represented in the article to the same degree. Even with this point notwithstanding, I still can accept equally balancing Fresco's reception in the article as described in WP:BLPSTYLE, even if this means including more criticism than is merited to make it balanced. But there must at least be a modicum of sources for it.
• (b. Including the negative points you have suggested results in a severely negative representation of Fresco, and would require evidence of many sources to justify its due weight. Such points can't be included just because you think it is important or because you are personally bothered by them. Sources must exist for them. Furthermore, Fresco is a Living Person, and therefore special caution must be exercised. Therefore, including disparaging info becomes a more difficult task because it must meet a higher standard and has more demanding criteria, which your info does not meet, so far.

(3. Lastly, can you cite Wikipedia policy that states a source should be deleted because it contains a disputed detail? (in this case Fresco as a Dr.)--Biophily (talk) 04:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

No idea of a policy on that. It seems if someone where presenting themselves as a doctor, an interviewer of that person would interview them differently, maybe with more regard or gravitas. It makes the article look a little funny since its stated already that he has little formal education. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Flying saucers

The information in this book Scully, Frank (1950), "The Aerodynamic Correction", Behind the Flying Saucers, New York: Henry Holt & Co., pp. 122–123 used as a resource has mostly turned out to be a hoax, or so to say it was a hoax book according to sources, so it may not be a good citation to give in the article. Fresco never designed a flying saucer as they are defined. He designed an aircraft that was round. Flying saucers imply something differently. Space creatures, traveling through outer space etc. so the image of Fresco's proposed design could be labeled a Flying disc drawing instead of a Flying saucer because that sounds like part of the UFO craze of the 1950's. Scully's book has been debunked [19] Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Apparently Scully was deceived by two conmen who fabricated a story and used Scully's book as a vehicle to bolster their own names so that they could profit in the oil industry. So that part of the book featuring those two individuals is certainly discounted. However, I don't think that affects the chapter concerning Jacque Fresco.--Biophily (talk) 05:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)