Talk:Jacque Fresco

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biography / Science and Academia (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
 
WikiProject Industrial design (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Industrial design, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Industrial design on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Alternative Views (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative Views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Blanket Reverting[edit]

Earl King why are you blanket reverting edits? Are you reviewing the changes I have made? Your blanket reverts also reverse many minor edits that can't possibly be questioned on the basis of neutrality. Please stop being lazy and blanket reverting. If you have a problem with a change I made, then rationally address that particular change. Otherwise it will be taken up on a noticeboard indicting you for interfering with productive editing. Your approach is not facilitating constructive cooperation but rather blunt, stagnant, destructive confrontation with other editors.--Biophily (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

You are not a neutral editor. That has proven out in the past on this subject. You are involved in the promotion as in advertising of Fresco, you have interviewed him and are an active participant in his groups etc. in a very public way [1] You have a You-tube channel devoted to him. You are watering down or sugar coating information in the past from cited material, removing neutrality aspects and now just reintroducing those edits again formatting them slightly differently. I am not saying to recluse yourself from this subject. I am saying it is paramount that a member of Fresco's fan club or what ever it is that you are promoting not put non neutral edits in because if you change the spin as in tone even to make it pro Fresco then you are in a conflict of interest. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:41, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
You are clinging to a hopeless exaggeration to get your way. Please stop the nonsense. It is counterproductive.--Biophily (talk) 09:00, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
It is obvious that you are a single purpose editor [2] The article Venus Project and Jacque Fresco were disasters previously and are barely o.k. now and it has been difficult for neutral editors to improve them because of Fresco's fan base and he is controversial and people get emotional. Before the were absolutely bad. You are involved media wise with Fresco and Venus Project or were, it is above in the link in black and white in a previous post in this thread, so you are in a conflict of interest that shows. Feel free to fix the typos etc., but sugar coating information and taking neutrality out of the article as before, is not a good idea. All anyone has to do is look at the article page history to see how atrocious it was previously, say 9 months ago. Being a single purpose editor is not a big thing. You are a single purpose editor on Wikipedia and making information conform to Fresco standards is a bad idea, though now with others editing the article finally it is better. Earl King Jr. (talk) 10:55, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Have you considered that you are non-neutral in the other direction? as well as a single purpose editor yourself? Is that why you say single purpose editing is not big deal? because you yourself are one? We have been over these issues before. I applaud the neutrality correction. But my recent edits are not related to that.--Biophily (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
That is not so and misrepresenting things in an argument or discussion does not win favor for you. I edit a variety of articles and have created articles also. Looking at your edit history you edit a couple of things. All related to your interest and participation in the Fresco material. Not being honest on that wins no vote here. Single purpose editor is just a term not a pejorative. You qualify 100% for that because you edit nothing else. Given the past dysfunction of the article because of non neutral editing, it becomes a point of reference now because of your style and past record. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I never denied being a single purpose editor. So far I have stuck with this issue, and when I have fully exhausted the research I can do, I will be moving into other related areas. But lets not forget that in the beginning you approached swinging swords. Let's not pretend that the majority of your edits aren't dedicated to editing against primarily Zeitgeist material and Venus Project material, and edits favorable to Technocratic material. It is utterly obvious so enough with the innocence game. Indeed, I agree the former two subjects do need to be monitored as you are doing, however, perhaps in response to the constant non-neutrality of naive editors, you overreact against edits that are perfectly benign, perhaps even further oversensative to any edit at all that adds or alters information, perceiving it as non-neutral, as in the case of my recent edit. Someone has lost their perspective. Don't mean to dwell on this, but this is a legitimate issue not to be ignored.--Biophily (talk) 13:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Just think about what you are doing. The two articles under your tutorial leadership were not neutral. Now they are not half bad. Lets keep the articles above board in regard to special interest groups. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:04, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Multiple Citations[edit]

Earl King, the reasoning for the multiple sources are as follows: since some of the statements could be considered contentious, especially the "twenty years ahead of his time" statement, doubling or tripling sources seemed necessary, to show that it has due weight and was written by more than one author during that era. Deleting decent sources that support this is not an improvement. But if you are willing to forget the high standard, that's up to you.--Biophily (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Doubtful. High standards like that U.f.o. Scully book was later proven some fraud scam? It should not even be a source or used as a citation in the article. Also the multiple sourcing to one or two things, his friends, that wrote about him Katran and the other, that is being over used. The reason that there are so many sources is because a previous editor here now prohibited from this article went absolutely hog wild posting sources, sometimes 6 or 8 for something, most of those are now removed. Having two sources for things does not really make sense. Either a source is good or not. Having two or three or four sources? No.
Also, having all those citation references tied together in long chains does not make a lot of sense either. Other articles are not put together like that. They can all be removed to get to the actual citation that is a reference point for something without wading through long series of 6, 7,, 8 references tied together.
Why perpetuate that Fresco was a Doctor, a Behaviorist and a psychologist when he was none of those things. Makes the citations very confusing to perpetuate those untruths in the article. Maybe it is an historic piece that just confirms that he lied about his credentials. [3] It should not be in the article unless we want a section or area about him exaggerating his education, which in all fairness he lied about or perpetuated the myth that he was a doctor. He did nothing to distance himself in his introduction as being a doctor on the Larry King Show either. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently you don't understand what the Scully "scam" was all about. Scully didn't pull a fraud scam. People pulled a scam on him to promote themselves. But that is not relevant to the section concerning Fresco.
Saying that some sources are "used to much" isn't good enough. Can you please cite policy to give basis to your disapproval?
Multiple sources are required when a claim is exceptional or likely to be disputed WP:EXCEPTIONAL.
  • "Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources."
Multiple citations in the article seem to be applied correctly in regard to this principle. It is actually quite common as evidenced here in policy: WP:CITEBUNDLE.
Your preference to change the citation style is actually in violation of WP:CITEVAR.
  • "Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change. If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it; if you believe it is inappropriate for the needs of the article, seek consensus for a change on the talk page. As with spelling differences, if there is disagreement about which style is best, defer to the style used by the first major contributor."
The style appears very competent and thorough. It is precise and transparent so the reader can view what the source stated without having to open new pages. It seems very honest to me; convenient as well. It also helps because not all of the sources are easily accessible without extensive searching offline.
  • "A footnote may also contain a relevant exact quotation from the source, if this may be of interest (this is particularly useful if the source is not easily accessible)." see [4].
Furthermore, the templates for proper citation formats have an option for including quotes. I suspect you might not understand the citation style. Each of the bulleted quotes in the citation with supererscript notations (using alphabetic letters) corresponds to the location in the article where that quote is referenced. However, all of your deletions (without maintenance to the citation's order of notations) likely has thrown the citations, notations, and the quotes out of order, which has been a concern of mine from the beginning of your editing. Some of your citation deletions are near vandalism by the way. They are not improvements. I'm sorry the style is confusing to you. I remember some time ago when there was a public feedback tool at the bottom of the page, the article was receiving quite high ratings, always at least 4 out of 5 in each category. Though I don't know how valid that feedback tool was.
Anyway, I am concerned because seldom do you cite or even mention policy to justify the changes you make. Rather you appear to base it on personal preference.--Biophily (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I do agree that any perpetuation of notions related to Fresco as a Dr. should cease. However such citations can still be used if a [sic] is used in the quote to indicate the error of the author. --Biophily (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The style appears very competent and thorough. It is precise and transparent so the reader can view what the source stated without having to open new pages. It seems very honest to me; convenient as well. The style is annoying as in over groomed and tying all those things together in a long chain is confusing. A lot of the so called style as you say, is gone now due to neutral editing. It was truly an awful article a few months ago. It is still annoying because of having to wade through long script of unconnected material to something becoming cited. You wrote the article previously and it was groomed to the point of absurdity. Now most of it is better but I wish you would stop and think about your role as a single purpose editor that is an advocate of J. Fresco, trying to control content on Wikipedia and connected with Fresco media persons. You just bounce back and back making the same edits and it is not in the interest of neutral presentation, your role as whitewashing and making happy talk and watering down information. You removed his Klan participation recently. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Earl King do you notice that whenever you argue a point, you refer only to your personal reaction? Saying it is annoying or confusing has nothing to do with the Policy standards which you should be using in your arguments. This method of debate hinders us resolving problems. Nothing in the format and style of the citations violates policy in any way at all.--Biophily (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, the KKK claims were removed and never should have been included. The claim is entirely self serving to Fresco and fails all the criteria for self published usage.
Though you believe you have improved the article by deleting sections of the citations, all it really suggests is you have no respect for the article. The reckless and sloppy editing that you do is creating a mess in the references and ultimately ruining the clean and ordered high standard. Please learn how to treat articles and their subject matter with respect.--Biophily (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Earl King doesn't know competence when he sees it.--129.237.134.89 (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
It would be helpful if you could log back in to your account. bobrayner (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some more problems[edit]

Biophily,
You have uploaded various images of Fresco's work whilst claiming that you hold the copyright. If your claims are true, then you should stop editing the article, due to WP:COI. If your claims are not true, then we should stop using content that you have uploaded, due to copyright problems. Which problem do we need to address here? bobrayner (talk) 23:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how it is conflict of interest. Could you explain?--Biophily (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not sure on that but am sure that you and Fresco know each other personally and you are connected or were to Venus Project Media director. Is that where you got the pictures? Also removing the Ku Klux Klan information saying that it is a self serving primary source? If that were true half the article would have to be removed because it is sourced back to Fresco. Ostensibly you are a part of Fresco's organization or at least have interviewed and published an interview you did with him. Not an issue if you were a neutral editor but that is where the problem arises Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Again with the exaggerated, bad faith, presumptive accusations.
See end of above section for comments on KKK issue.
Those images were acquired as part of personal research outside of Fresco and his organization. There are people out there that have Fresco material from past decades. It is very hilarious that some believe thorough and competent research involves pittlilng around on a computer from a distance. I am out in the world researching this subject, talking with people and organizations for clues, digging through archives and libraries to find sources, and citing that which is citable in the article. Detail regarding the image has been given on the noticeboard, where appropriate.--Biophily (talk) 01:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you own the copyright on those various images of Fresco's work? Yes or no? If it's a "Yes" across the board, then the only sane explanation is that you are Fresco or his agent, in which case WP:COI explains why this promotional editing must stop now. However, I think it's more likely that the answer is "no", in which case I will remove the copyright violations. bobrayner (talk) 02:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Not on all of the images uploaded in the link that you provided. However, how do I prove it for those that I do?
Sane explanation? How can you say that?
However, in thinking about the issue, it occurs to me that the inclusion of those images for which I do have the rights, may constitute original research perhaps? As I think about I realize I have never read anything on what justifies the connection between an image and the subject. In other words, how do I even prove that the device is Fresco's? Can someone advise me on this point?
Regarding your later statement: No one has yet explained to me in the terminology of policy how my editing is promotional. I would so much appreciate it if someone would. So far, it has been claimed but never substantiated. Opinions upon opinions without reference to specific elements of my alleged violation. Reluctantly it leads me to believe that such claims are arising out of a general dislike for the subject. I realize this may be further worsened because I show respect for the subject matter and take it seriously (as with all research), which is apparently bothersome primarily to one other editor.--Biophily (talk) 02:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Which images do you own, and which did you copy from elsewhere? bobrayner (talk) 02:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
For these I can say without complication that I own the rights (though I did acquire others, I realize I probably can't claim ownership due to their content type):
  • File:Jacque Fresco - 3D Projector.jpg
  • File:Jacque Fresco - Trend Home Exterior (1947).jpg
  • File:Jacque Fresco - Scientific Research Laboratories at 1300 Douglas St. (1940s).jpg
--Biophily (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Biophily, I know you think you are clear in your presentation of things but your speech here is similar to how you wrote things in the article, circular. Could you just answer the simple question? Where did you get those pictures, and now you are saying the 3d projector may not be connected to Fresco at all? Your connections with Fresco are part of acquiring the picture I assume. When you interviewed Fresco for the video of you and he, for your Fresco presentation YouTube channel, did his media representative give this type of material to you. Really have to assume you received the material from the Venus Project since you have spent time with that organization. This again speaks of major conflict of interest because of your editing style. Examples? Just look at what the article looked like a year ago and that is example enough of your over grooming and information spin. Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
I know from the outside it may look difficult to interpret and people are left to assume as you have. Those images were not received from the subject in question. If you are familiar enough with their activities as evidenced in online sources, you'll find that they are actually quite protective of their materials. The photos in question were received from primarily one person who knew Fresco many years ago. Chester Phoebus is the photographer of those photos. As part of my research I have contacted many people like this to track down sources and materials.--Biophily (talk) 17:13, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Orlando Weekly article[edit]

Relying heavily on that Orlando Weekly article is not a good idea. Not only are there original publications from the time periods covered in the Orlando Weekly article, that are better to use due to their proximity to the actual events, the Orlando Weekly article used information from Wikipedia in several instances at the time it was written, especially regarding the Trend Home. Heavily using sources that use Wikipedia as a source is discouraged on Wikipedia WP:CIRCULAR. However, I see that it is being relied upon heavily, especially with the recent rewrite of the Trend Home section by Earl King, who takes info from the Orlando Weekly article exclusively.--Biophily (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

(information for citations is provided. Do not over 'citation needed' tag to make some abstract point which is not taken. Sourced info. to a good source is there now. Doubtful it is sourced to Wikipedia or if so prove it. The mass of confused sources previously was utterly ridiculous all entwined on each other so it was nearly impossible to read. The basic information is there now and basic sourcing. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
"The mass of confused sources previously was utterly ridiculous all entwined on each other so it was nearly impossible to read." I simply disagree. I'm sorry it was too complicated for you. But it perfectly accorded with competent, meticulous, precise sourcing. You however seem to want to reduce the quality of sources according to a very low standard. It makes the article and Wikipedia look like a joke to anyone competent in research and scholarship.
You may consult WP:CITE to review the fact that Wikipedia advises and encourages to cite sources as much as possible wherever possible.
  • "Wikipedia's Verifiability policy requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, anywhere in article space. However, editors are advised to provide citations for all material added to Wikipedia; any unsourced material risks being unexpectedly challenged or eventually removed."
Please take proper care in editing the article according to a high standard. This means proper formal (academic) citation format, and citations for specific information.--Biophily (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The section I redid is sourced. tagging it excessively with citation needed does not make sense. You also removed some of the main information about Fresco and career success etc. As a promoter and researcher and point person for Venus Project you have to be particularly careful. The confused sources were not available to look at either before. Mostly it was sourced to a couple of things not available for scrutiny. Do not interrupt Wikipedia to make a point especially when the point is not taken, like adding multiple tags when it is sourced information. Your citation needed tags need to be removed since the information is sourced to a reliable source. Earl King Jr. (talk) 23:33, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
I fixed the issue after seeing that you won't. Technically, proper sourcing requires a citation after the first sentence of each new paragraph, if all the sentences in each paragraph use the same source. If there is a second source used somewhere in a paragraph, then the sentences following it that use the first source must again be given a citation to the first source to prevent confusion. I fixed the problem by assuming you attribute all of that information to the Orlando Weekly article, that really shouldn't be used for that section due to its interaction with Wikipedia when it was written. I know because I was around when the article first came out and saw how it directly reflected the info on Wikipedia. Not only that, but the article refers to the Jacque Fresco wikipedia article.
That the previous sources were not available for scrutiny is not an argument you can give. Wikipedia policy does not forbid the use of offline sources or sources behind a paywall online. In fact, some of the best sources are not online. It is up to your motivation and competence as an editor to examine these sources. Isn't this precisely how all books and physical publication have worked since the beginning of printed word? See: WP:SOURCEACCESS--Biophily (talk) 23:48, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, it seems as if you are integrating too much of the author's views into that section when speaking of successes and failure. 'Perhaps he came closest to traditional career success" is a evaluative judgement of the author and cannot be in the voice of a wikipedia editor, unless the author is quoted saying that.--Biophily (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Thats why the perhaps is in there. It comes from the interpretation of a legitimate source from an author making a value judgement and that is what the citation reflects. That section is now readable. A new citation was added also from the actual brochure to point out inaccuracies previously. Fresco has never actually had anything built in the real world, though building a building on a Hollywood set is an accomplishment. The inference now that his project met with success is more accurate reflecting what happened. Fresco buildings have never existed anywhere except on his small ranch, so probably if the funding had gone through in the forties he would actually have made some money perhaps and actually would have been notable for designing something that was lived in instead of just making his drawings speculating. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, the statement in the article fails to be neutral. I enjoyed reading your statements and their underlying pretense that you have done in depth research and know about whether the Trend Home was built or not, even though you haven't. Cheers!--Biophily (talk) 03:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if your claims above were in any way influenced by Gazecki's claims in the Orlando Weekly article, please reconsider. Gazecki was a lousy and lazy researcher, finding maybe 25% of the materials available on Fresco.
Also, consider not basing your notions of success solely on the status of a man as businessman.--Biophily (talk) 03:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Fresco and having a degree[edit]

What is the best way to use the information that Fresco perhaps misled/lied in interviews about a degree? This is one example in link below, when he claimed to be a Dr. with a degree in psychology from Sierra University LosAngeles. He also allowed himself to be introduced as a doctor on his Larry King interview. Source about his academic background from old newspaper article preserved. [5] Earl King Jr. (talk) 05:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is a third party source that addresses the issue then we can report what they say. However, whether it has due weight would be arguable. The best available is the 1961 article that talks about his psychology consultations.--Biophily (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Fresco lied obviously about his education and this proves it from this article [6] If you remove that information you are acting as an employee of Venus Project and promoter and not interested in neutral presentation. Since you work for Fresco... have made a film about him and spent so much of your time advocating and promoting him you must refrain from removing critical and interesting information. Fresco claimed to be a Doctor. He did that again on Larry King show. Period. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
If you'd pay attention you would see that I didn't remove that info. And actually, I don't know it is a lie. How do you know it is a lie?
Furthermore, keep in mind that info is included because it has due weight, not because you have a grudge against it.--Biophily (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Fresco is not a Doctor, or a "social engineer, structural engineer, architectural designer, industrial engineer"... He doesn't even finished elementary school! May be he can call himself social engineer or architectural designer because these are not college degrees, but the other two are. Germanburguener (talk) 04:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
For some reason the article previously went on and on about all the things that Fresco did when many of the things he claims he did never happened or if they did happen had little to no effect on society. Fresco has promoted himself very adamantly. Perpetuating that he is a doctor is really bad. At least now the article makes it more clear that he claimed to be a doctor though was not one. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The world BEHOLD! The Crusaders of Truth and Righting of Great Wrongs!!!
Regardless of your prejudices, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to emphasize that point. Nor is it up to us to make those clarification. Unless the sources emphasize and clarify the "doctor's degree" issue, it really doesn't have due weight. The best thing to due to downplay that whole issue until sources publish on that issue.--Biophily (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

3D Projector[edit]

Earl King your recent edit does not reflect the facts. Do you not recall that the photo of the projector was deleted? Yet you used a very dubious source that pulls a claim from nowhere that the projector was never built. There are better sources on this subject than the one you used. You reduced the Variety source that was published in 1949. The source you used is addressing something that happened over 60 years ago with absolutely no evidence for what it is saying. It's nothing but unresearched cynical opinion. Very poor source. I can't see how it has authority on that issue. It could be used as a critical opinion of Fresco's ideas, or more specifically, the film Future By Design, but nothing beyond that especially pertaining to historical facts. The fact that you would believe that malicious blog is surprising.--Biophily (talk) 06:51, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The article is much better now that most of what you did in it has been made more neutral. Fresco has never made more than ostensible models of things like his 3D projector and as the article points out it did not work well enough to be used. That is the point. Fresco buildings do not exist. His glory years so called during the forties produced very little actual things that any one can point at. It has to be pointed out in the article that Fresco has mostly been a failure in terms of business and making money and that mostly he is a theory person and known for his social theories rather than his inventing, of which virtually no examples can be given that appeared in the real world. That is not malicious, its just his life story which he himself repeats over and over. His projector did not really work. So it was trumpeted up in some media by some promoters looking for funding, probably very cleverly, but that is not the same as actually having a working device. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The funny thing is that you are pulling these opinions out of your imagination hole. You haven't done research. Face it. You know and I know it. You are editing something that you simply don't know much about which = incompetence. Sorry to have to point that out. You really don't belong here editing this article unless you do some serious research into things. You've browsed through a few easily accessible recent articles and half of them aren't reliable. Your uninformed judgment is disturbing the stability and high standard of the article, in fact it is jeopardizing it. You are Godzilla and this article is Tokyo. Please be more responsible and less reckless.
Unfortunately the vast majority of sources do not report that Fresco is a failure. However, we are required to report what the vast majority of sources report. This is basic Wikipedia policy. The vast majority of articles report that Fresco has been a struggling inventor, has had many projects developed, has had moderately successful projects, and has had high ambitions. Your attempt to inject the article with your own precluding distrust is not appropriate. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is not concerned with "The Truth" and can only report what has been reported. Please review Wikipedia policy to realize this. The best that can be done is to include in the criticism section a few statements about how a reviewer of Future By Design for some article blog on Fandor retrospectively claims that Fresco did not develop as many projects as it may seem. It cannot be stated as a fact of the article but only as an (I say ignorant) opinion of that writer. Sorry to sink your boat on this one.
The funniest thing is that you state as if you KNOW his projector didn't work. I don't know that it didn't work. Apparently it did, but not advanced enough for Technicolor. More funding may have resolved that problem. But to say it "didn't work" and is a "failure" is stretching it a bit too far. And really neither of us can really know the situation because neither of us were there. All we can do is attribute information to sources, saying "according to..etc." But to say you KNOW is going too far. That is simply dishonest thinking.--Biophily (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
After further thought, I think it is important that it be noted in the criticism section that one major problem always plaguing Fresco is his projects not materializing. In fact, the entire issue can be given a subtitle. However, those projects that did materialize should NOT be called failures as you are calling them. That is simply not neutral.
Further thought has yielded a few sources that can be used to comment on this issue. In fact, I already tried to do this a couple times in the criticism section, but you kept changing it. Previously I tried to tie Gazecki's comments about Fresco and Fresco's own comment about himself not be able to actualize his ideas, however you arbitrarily tore that a part due to your delusion that I am nothing but a supporter of Fresco. Anyway, Gazecki's comments, Fresco's comments, the opinion in the Fandor article, and a couple other sources that I can think of can be used. Having it in the criticism section is more appropriate because this issue is primarily presented as criticisms in articles, opinions, views of other people, but are not presented as REPORTED FACTS. Very few articles have reported that "Fresco's X project has failed" as you would like to construe it, therefore, it can't be presented that way, but instead presented as the general criticism offered by person A, B, C, etc.--Biophily (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
You have spent time at Venus project, know those people, have a YouTube site devoted to Fresco which focus's on your interview with him. Fresco's own comment about himself not be able to actualize his ideas, however you arbitrarily tore that a part due to your delusion that I am nothing but a supporter of Fresco. Its probably better not to associate put-downs on the talk page. Insulting will get you no where. When you say nothing but a supporter of Fresco, I never said that. You are a supporter of Fresco. The truly awful article from a year ago was so badly put together and so fanzine idol presentation that it was disturbing. Your Youtube channel is devoted to Fresco [7]. You are not addressing the points, Fresco lied about being a doctor in at least two situation we know about because it is cited from files and recorded on film. That is a big deal. You removed that information from the article. It should be there because Fresco has a history of misleading the public on his education, I guess for monetary gain. His projector did not work and it was rejected. It was never used after that either. His supposed car was never made. His Trend Home did not ever get off the ground. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I wish you would pay attention. I repeat myself, I never removed that the info you added about his doctor claim. This is the second time I've had to tell you that.
The projects you mentioned, except the Trend Home, ended at the stage of prototype. That's where they ended. That is all that can be said. Trying to emphasize that they are failures is POV pushing, not allowed on Wikipedia.
Correcting lack of neutrality in any previous version of the article is welcomed. However, shredding the citations to pieces, defying the established citation style, flushing away information, disregarding the majority view presented in sources so that you can present "The Truth", and twisting the presentation to have an overly disparaging tone, is not welcome.
I wish you would stop lying about me so that you can get your way. Only by such lies do you act so boldly. Without it you wouldn't have a toe to stand on. Get off that nonsense. I have a strictly academic-research relationship to Fresco's project. It is offensive to accuse me of otherwise. That is why I become defensive. It insults the integrity of what I do.--Biophily (talk) 20:12, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
I should add: You act as if it was I who entirely wrote that article. Over time, other editors have come and gone and made their own changes. Not all of the neutrality issues should be attributed to me. What I did write, I wrote with the mood and tone of the majority of sources to reflect the dominant view. Please excuse that proper approach.--Biophily (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
He is less of a cartoon figure now and more real. In a lot of ways he was an interesting guy and tragic figure. Suggestion, print a copy of the article from a year ago and one now. Let a few people read it and let them tell you what they think. It was more formless and treated the subject way to preciously before. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

The first link in References ([8]) is broken. The new location for this link is [9]. I am a new editor so I am sorry if this request has not been made correctly.

Done Thanks for pointing that out. Regards, Celestra (talk) 04:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Neutral edits[edit]

Easy Biophily on the reverts. Its better to get a well rounded picture of Fresco. By putting speculating things about him being the modern heir of some past prophecy like that quote which is not a quote, it wrecks credibility in the article. Cherry picking obvious Fresco Fetish believers and highlighting that is not neutral. I am still thinking the convoluted way the citations and their information is given needs to be changed dramatically.

People have to sort through lots of unrelated stuff to get at a citation reference for any information in lots of situation there now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 03:55, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, you are out of line on this. First of all, every single point below each citation are quotes taken from the source publication. I'd like you to demonstrate how you know that it is not a quote? Please demonstrate competence.
Your non-academic approach to citations is detrimental to the article and Wikipdia. Face it, competent academic literature is not picture-book easy. Citations can get meticulous and intricate. The better, precise, informative ones usually are. The citation style is clear to anyone who is academically minded. Sorry if you are not, but you should not mistake your limitation for a "convolution" in the citations.
Those citations weren't convoluted until you started recklessly making a mess of them by deleting from the article and from the citations, thereby destroying much correspondence between the article and references. Good job.
You are trying to destroy transparency. You are trying to cover up what the actual sources said. Why? How can that possibly be beneficial? By doing that you make it easy to introduce erroneous and false information, and original research. After so much work has been done to make the article transparent to the source material, WHY IN THE HELL would you want to destroy all of that? Ironically, I don't know how many times you have utilized those "convoluted" citations and their subquotes to make arguments against my alleged inaccurate phrasing and edits to the article. In other words, you have used what you are trying to delete. Obviously those subquotes in the citations are useful, even to you.--Biophily (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Look, you are a single purpose editor that knows the subject (Fresco), are involved with Fresco and his group to the point of being a media representative, more or less, paid or unpaid the article read as promotion material previously and no doubt someone pays you for your research as you call it, so who funds that?
You have a YouTube channel devoted to Fresco and you interviewed the guy. So, neutrality has to be maintained because you are an obvious acolyte, promotion person in regard to him, as said cherry picking the weirdly positive quotes about him. We really could use a real critical section on Fresco. The guy lied extensively over and over in the past and that is documented, so fair game. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Sorry you have not proven to know what neutrality is. Apparently neutrality is violated when edits do not coincide with your preexisting prejudice against Fresco that you have acquired from crappy sources that do poor research, a preexisting prejudice that determines and filters your judgments about neutrality, a preexisting prejudice that you think is more authoritative than the many sources you have haphazardly and arbitrarily deleted. You predicate everything on neutrality, yet seldom do your edits have anything to do with neutrality, not even in the slightest construence. Neutrality is your default flat falling psuedo-argument that you throw like manure at any edit that defies your prejudice, despite neutrality being absolutely irrelevant to the actual edit, in many cases.
Aside from your lies about me, that I won't even address now because they are absolutely bad faith cynical false accusations, I will go ahead and say that my university funds my research and this is publicly available. Face it, I am doing legitimate, in-depth research and that has on a couple occasions required me to contact Fresco's personnel for leads. Aside form studying philosophy, I also have a film degree and made use of materials and produced one minuscule little photo slideshow. You keep bringing this issue up and beaten it to death. It's really not a big deal, but you need it to be a big deal so that you can expel me and rampage through the article and have your way with slanting it toward the cowardly rumors that circulate on the web, all of which I have investigated and found to be utterly false. It's not surprising that they are false considering that they were conjured up by the rabbit logic of lonely kids in their basement and crazy midlife crisis men in their greasy garages. Inclusion of this is not going to happen. My research is simply not a conflict of interest. You can stress the issue til you are blue in the face. It remains false.--Biophily (talk) 23:59, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You perhaps could get some experience editing and interacting on other articles like this one Paradise or Oblivion which needs some really basic help information wise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
That article should be deleted. It is not notable in itself.--Biophily (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Improving it was just a suggestion since it is there, it can be used to cross connect things [10] Mostly the suggestion was to expand the reference point. Whether it has notability or value I don't know. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean you don't know if it's notable? Yet somehow you are quite the expert of when things are notable in the Fresco article. There are almost no sources for the film above. So it's not notable.--Biophily (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Recent Deletions[edit]

Earl King, there you go on a deletion fit again because I reverted one of your edits. You justified one of your deletions by saying that the information was not notable. However, Wikipedia stipulates that only the subject of the article (Jacque Fresco) be notable, not the particular events and info within the article. However, such events and info would need to respect due weight. So your deletions do not rest on sound justification.--Biophily (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I deleted some things that were written poorly or not neutral. Some cherry picked ridiculous fanzine stuff about Fresco being almost the new Messiah and answer to the worlds problems. It wrecks article presentation to gush about Fresco. He has done very little in his life except talk about an array of things and for sure his inventing mostly stopped in the 1940's. Some view him as a con-man also, because he lied extensively about his education bio resume` and has taken advantage of gullible people donating money to him. I think we need a section on that, his problem with lying about his background. Your other section above is based on personal stuff and that is not a good idea to call names and swear about a person rather than descussing edits. Just because somebody self writes about a big dome city run by a computer does not mean it has to be put down here as one of his accomplishments. Like most of Fresco's idea it is a conjecture perhaps to draw attention to himself, for more money in solicited funds. That is the track record. How much did he pull in last year? Promo stuff like his future movie could also be removed from the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm amazed, UT-TER-LY A-MAZED, that you have been here this long, making all these edits, and still don't understand what Wikipedia is about, especially despite my repeated attempts to clarify it for you. It's definitely not "fair game". Wikipedia is not a place for rumor and sewing circle speculation. It is about reliable sources and citing those sources. These points you have raised are your personal biases and have nothing to do with a neutral article determined by guidelines. You are not presenting an argument here, you are presenting contempt and awful research. Wherever you are getting your information pertaining to disparaging Fresco (blogs and discussion forums), it has no place here on Wikipedia. I'm going to be vulgar here for the sake of emphasis. Those idiots that are propagating that libelous information about Fresco, first of all get everything wrong and second of all have absolutely wretched research integrity. They're discontented and cynical little amateurs with psychological problems, and make up bullcrap about Fresco to empower themselves. Their so called "research" amounts to mostly their imaginations and self fulfilling expectations. That you even consider their nonsense speaks loud and clear about the kind of research you are capable of and the lousy sources you trust. NOT ONE single, authoritative, third party, reliable source has published ANY of the claims you have made. Sorry, they can't be included in the article.
Now let's get on with editing an well researched and neutral article, utilizing the best of sources, citing it thoroughly and according to academic convention, reflecting what those sources say (which happens to be mostly positive), and respecting guidelines for BLPs, INSTEAD of a negatively slanted, belittling, subtly disparaging article with tidbits of point pushing throughout it, sloppy citations and unreliable sources, and without your preexisting agenda to reveal the oh so crooked Mr. Fresco on the basis of gossip and rumors you picked up on crappy blogs and discussion boards. Look, I know the sources, and I know the sources of the sources, and I know the sources of the sources of the sources, and I also know the false baseless heap of nonsense, speculation, confusion, suspicion, and cynicism that you are finding out there on the web. Shall we now grow up and write the damn article properly?--Biophily (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
As I mentioned before the article a year ago was super bad. Its barely o.k. now. Your recent edit was also non constructive. It could be that you are too close to this subject as a single purpose editor with a p.o.v.. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You have not presented a convincing argument in this case. How many "non constructive" edits have you made, deleting, at times, vast amounts of information and sources, claiming that it is not notable or some other inappropriate excuse? Clearly you have no problem with "non constructive" edits. I deleted an instance of point pushing that lacked a source anyway. In this case, the non-constructive edit is justified on the basis of eliminating something inappropriate (point pushing that Fresco has no "formal education"). Secondly, I clarified the difference between sociocyberneering as a concept and Sociocyberneering INC. as an organization advocating that concept. It's like the difference between the idea of technocracy and the legal entity known as Technocracy INC. How is that clarification not constructive? Again, I'm perplexed by your reasoning, as usual.--Biophily (talk) 12:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Earl King Jr. has done a great job whittling away at this article's problems, and I wholly support it. Removing promotional fluff and neutrality problems is a Good Thing. In fact, I have to commend the patience and diligence of doing the job with pruning shears, when most editors would reach for an axe. bobrayner (talk) 20:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Interesting and how convenient that you show up. Also interesting is the fact that your point is not related to the issue at hand in this section. --Biophily (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Gracia. Seeing this article a year ago was a striking mess. In his way, Fresco is an interesting character. He is not a conspiracy nut like the group he separated from Zeitgeist. Though he probably became notable through them he had the good sense to distance himself from them. Just an opinion on that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to completely rewrite the article? I would like to see that.--Biophily (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

No reason to do that. It just needed to have the p.o.v. edge taken off it and neutral presentation directly given. Right now it is passable but the citation and snippets connected to information is still confusing and having to wade through all that is a problem. Many times information that is not connected is in a long chain of those snippets. Lots of the snippets still contain cherry picked information that is over the top in praise of Fresco, though some of that has been reduced now. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:57, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The citations were very clear and precise before you began wrecking them by making deletions throughout the article. When you do that, you completely throw the citations into chaos, unless you ALSO update the citations when you make those deletions. But you DON'T update those citations, and problems then emerge. Therefore, you are responsible for the very problem you are addressing. I guess that is a winning strategy.
Step 1: Find citations that are well done.
Step 2: Not understand the format or method of the citations.
Step 3: rashly make deletions in the article and not notice that these deletions have thrown the citations out of alignment.
Step 4: Notice that the citations are damaged and "confusing," and start complaining about it.
Step 5: Lobby to have the citations deleted and reduced.
Step 6: Congratulate yourself.--Biophily (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know how many times a Bot has had to rescue the orphaned refs that you are responsible for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily (talkcontribs) 01:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Again the issue of neutrality is what I am getting at. Having five or six sometimes more, unrelated snippets, in a long chain is confusing. Many times there is no connection to the numbered citation so people have to wade through sometimes long chains of unrelated material. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
To this day you still do not know what Neutrality is all about. You are thinking of it only in the sense of Impartial Tone. Indeed you did address that in the past. But since that short time you have not been editing on behalf of Neutrality. Your edits have consisted of nothing more than shuffling the information around, deleting information, deleting citation transparency, introducing original research, and emphasize negative points about Fresco, all of which has been done according to an unknown standard, surely not Wikipedia's standards. You have done all of this as an editor who's point of view is that Fresco is a conman, swindler, and liar. What motivates your activity on this Fresco article is very clear. You then use Neutrality as a justification for all the edits you make, which is an issue that is, at this point, completely irrelevant.
Your points about the citations have nothing at all to do with Neutrality. It is an issue of Organization. I have presented a very high standard for citation style. Unfortunately Wikipedia has not built into its referencing mechanisms a way to meet this high standard of including multiple quotes under a citation and an easier way to link those quotes to the notations that follow sentences in the article. However, I don't think that is reason enough for deleting them. Such quotes are useful. Perhaps I can consider a different citation style that will make it less difficult for you.--Biophily (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality[edit]

Neutrality is no longer a problem. The fact is, Neutrality primarily pertains to presenting information in proportion to the prominence of views expressed in reliable sources, not favoring one view over another or giving undue weight to obscure or minor views. The vast majority of the literature presents Fresco in a respectable light. Therefore I have tried to do the same in Fresco's article. Where there is criticism in reliable sources, I included that (in fact, I DESPERATELY looked for it!). In both cases I included the quotes from these sources in the citations so that the reader can see exactly what the source authors stated, and also so that other editors can correct my use of those statements if I mistakenly misrepresented them in some way.

However, you have expressed intent to include information that is not published in reliable sources. The information you intend to include originated on forums and blogs that operated by people who explicitly express their disdain for Fresco. The information pertains mostly to views about Fresco's character and reputation. These views would qualify as views of tiny minorities or fringe theory that aren't even published in reliable sources. Therefore, any attempt to include these views would be precisely a violation of Neutrality in the aspect of Due Weight. It also violates the requirement for Reliable Sources. It also approaches violation of guidelines for Biographies of Living Persons which forbids libelous, disparaging, unsubstantiated claims.

I violated Impartial Tone of Neutrality in the past (in an attempt to write with a lively style), and I stand corrected. There are many other aspects of Neutrality and you are violating many of these. See: WP:WEIGHT WP:VALID WP:WORDS (esp. WP:ALLEGED)

You are trying to delete anything that represents Fresco in a respectable way, and seek to reduce him to either a laugh or a failure. This is not how the sources represent him!

Presenting your version of the Truth is not an option. We have to present as accurately as possible the prominent and dominant views of reliable sources.--Biophily (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I hope you agree that the article is better now than before. As mentioned Fresco in his own way is interesting, notable etc. Probably there is not much doubt, its documented, that he is clever about gathering up money from people, pretending to be highly educated, as a doctor. He apparently was pretty shameless on that and its well documented that he billed himself as Doctor in the past. That is why its important to not make the article another point of solicitation for him and also to fairly present his achievements without unwarranted deification/praise. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I merely presented the most common themes and info that appears in sources. That's your mix up if you think it is praise by me or deification by me.
Are there any sources that say he falsely represented himself as Doctor?--Biophily (talk) 02:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, he sat passively on Larry King while being introduced as a Dr. His promo stuff article thing also claimed he was a doctor. He claimed in his own literature to have a degree from some university in California. That is documented here on the talk page. It is a given that he made himself to be a doctor for some period in his life. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:15, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
That is your original research conclusion. Where is the source that says he did all of that?

Jacque Fresco's full interview with Larry King, 1974 www.knowledgeoftoday.org/.../jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974....‎ Jan 22, 2012 - Observe this Larry King interview and see for yourself. ... living in warmth and harmony: I know that if we don't live that way, we'll kill each other and destroy the Earth. ... I could go through all the things that Dr. Fresco has done. end source http://www.knowledgeoftoday.org/2012/01/jacque-fresco-interview-larry-king-1974.html

I know, but where does it say it is forged or fraudulent?--Biophily (talk) 17:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Lets not go through this again and again. [11] Fresco lied about his bio it shows that here in black and white. He claims to have a psychology Dr.'s degree from a University in California. Sierra State. Even if you are so devoted to this guy how is it that you can ignore the reality of him lying extensively? It says that he claimed the degree in the article. Please stop defending when this guy was caught red handed, weirdly even publishing this information about him lying himself. That does not make sense but maybe he thought no one would check his past. That is out and out fraud. Period. No wonder he was shutdown for pretending to be a shrink also in Miami, that was out and out fraud also. Its not original research. It is the record. I hope your adulation of Fresco the interesting raconteur is not so great that you have a problem seeing this. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
See you still don't understand what Wikipedia is about. It is not about the "reality" or the "truth." It is about information available from reliable sources. That's it. The problem is that no article says the degree is faked. Therefore that can't be stated in the Wikipedia article. The newspaper article you linked says nothing like that. It simply says that Fresco says he has a degree from that place. How does that equal faked degree? For you to make that inference is original research. Regarding him pretending to be a shrink: it turns out that back then, it was easy to obtain a license to practice psychological consultations at that time in Florida. Therefore, Fresco was within the law, but did suffer from cultural stigmatization because Sierra States was at that time not "accredited" as determined by Federal standards.--Biophily (talk) 11:38, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
O.K. that answers that, adore Fresco and are blinded by him for some reason. Many of his devotee's are probably like that. He actively lied with a fake degree to have his psych job and was claiming a fake diploma from a school that he never went to. Earl King Jr. (talk) 14:26, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm merely advocating we stay within the limits of Wikipedia's policies. That is all I have suggested here. Frankly, I don't know from what source you got your information to be so certain about what you are claiming. It could be that he totally faked everything. It could be that he simply got a degree from an unaccredited school. Or it could be something of a mix of both or something else entirely unlike either case. But until there is an authoritative source presenting rigorous research into the issue, I'm not going to judge the situation. An ethical researcher wouldn't.--Biophily (talk) 21:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Huh? Is this turning into a blog. Ethics or morality have any value or use to a researcher except to be looked from outside perspective of judging for the critical value? Those are arbitrary opinions. He claimed a degree from that University which does not seem to exist. How blatant is that? He sat passively, though his eyes shifted a lot while being introduced as a 'doctor' on Larry King. Earl King Jr. (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Ethical researcher = researcher with integrity. That is all I meant. I understand your concern, but the issue with which you are concerned is not reflected in the literature about Fresco.--Biophily (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is obviously here and apparent and blatant [12] Thats him claiming he is a Dr., what school he claimed to have gone to and what degree he claimed to have. So horse-feathers to your argument. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you quote the text that says it is all fraudulent?--Biophily (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I don't feel like playing that game, Fresco committed fraud about his education saying he had a degree according to the article. If that is not obvious to you its probably due to your being a Fresco devotee` or one sided presenter advert person. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Nope. I'm just pointing out that your outside beliefs about Fresco has no place here on Wikipedia. Unless you can back up your claims with sources your claims are moot. No source claims Fresco has committed Fraud. That is only your libelous opinion. The fact that this opinion is underlying the direction in which you are taking this article is disturbing and corrupt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Biophily (talkcontribs) 05:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I doubt it. It is not illegal to lie in some cases, though when using a fake diploma to gain work it could present problems as it did in Florida when the authorities cracked down on him for pretending to be a shrink. If it makes you feel better we can just use the non contract term lying instead of the legalistic term fraud. This link proves without a doubt that he lied [13] it says he claimed the diploma from a California college. Oddly, his Venus Project published the information. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:09, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you still don' get it. No source, that I know of, has said he lied. That is your original research. Not valid on Wikipedia.--Biophily (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Your devotion is comical. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Red Herring. One of us must not understand Wikipedia. Quote:
The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. WP:NOR
You are trying to advance a position not advanced by the sources. Not just regarding Fresco "lying" but in other cases as well.--Biophily (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, here is another quote, though not from policy, from an essay that might help clarify things for you:
  • Wikipedia is not a venue to Right Great Wrongs, to promote ideas or beliefs which have been ignored or marginalized in the Real World, or to be an adjunct web presence for an organization. Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia.
See here from another essay WP:GREATWRONGS:
  • "Wikipedia is a popular site and appears high in the search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and Right Great Wrongs, but that’s not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can’t ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:
Expose a popular artist as a child molester, or
Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent, or
Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected and suppressed by the scholarly community
On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been picked up in mainstream journals, or get that to happen first. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. "Wikipedia is behind the ball – that is we don't lead, we follow – let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements and find NPOV ways of presenting them if needed.
Do you understand now?--Biophily (talk) 19:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand your devotion to Fresco and that you previously wrote a glossy glowing positive tirade about him and put it into an article. That has been presented more neutrally now. Also I understand that Fresco lied about his education claiming in a newspaper report that he was a doctor. Why he republished the same article on his website is unknown, maybe he wanted to provide some insight into the time period and what his character had to do to have notability and that it was common to get a diploma mill fake sheepskin in those years. So, perhaps it is Fresco just fessing up for future history buffs and researchers. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

yadayada I'm just trying to represent Fresco as the sources represent him, not represent him according to my pre-established beliefs, as you seek to do. Wikipedia guidelines are in support of my approach, not yours. Sorry about that.--Biophily (talk) 09:22, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Project Americana[edit]

It does not appear that project Americana was notable or made much of an impact on society. That section probably is not cited well either, so maybe that aspect of Fresco's self produced information could be removed or modified. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand the language you use here. You speak completely out of Wikipedian terms. "Self produced information"? That has no meaning here on Wikipedia. The fact is, there are some sources that report on Project Americana. However, there are only a few, so it's representation should be less in the article, due to low Due Weight. I don't think it should have been deleted. Maybe compressed perhaps.
By the way, you are again deleting things mistakenly. For example, you deleted the little fact about his help on the film The Naked Eye. You did this because you said IMDB is not a reliable source. Maybe true. but there are other sources out there that are reliable. Incompetence #1. You also said that the fact wasn't listed on IMDB. However, IT IS LISTED THERE. Incompetence #2. To be honest, I don't know what to do about your reckless approach. There is too much incompetence too often. Can you try to be more competent?
Really, you should just rewrite the article so that it reads more coherenty. It was once coherent, but now it's a sloppy hodgepodge of information that batters the reader's sensibilities like jagged wall of rocks.--Biophily (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

You might think you are gods gift to this article but the article was so bad a year ago to be kind of a joke. Even now the annoying way the citations are set up make it difficult. It is barely passable now aside from that. focusing on editors is not really suggested. If you have issues there are places to bring the issues 'discussion boards',, requests for comment, etc., instead of making marginal insults. You probably could keep in mind that Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. so though you call yourself a researcher that wrote an article on Wikipedia, that is not really the way it works here. The research has to be neutral and cogently explained. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

There has been extremely little confirmation outside of YOU alone that say the article was "bad" in the past. That's really not convincing. You can bring up Bobrayner who conveniently shows up now and then to act on your behalf, but that's it. It may have had an impartial tone and had been overlong, and I can understand that. But the majority of your edits are fueled by your prejudice and that is obvious, making your edits terribly reckless and careless, and often baseless, sort of destructive and disruptive. And the aforementioned comments about your competence are not insults. Calling into question the competence of other editors is sometimes necessary when it is a consistent problem.--Biophily (talk) 09:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
May I also point out again that the earlier version of the article had a high rating on the reader feedback tool with over a hundred ratings. It maintained a consistent rating of at least 4 out of 5. It discriminated by IP address so it is unlikely that people could have rated it more than once, as you tried to argue in the past.--Biophily (talk) 17:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Luckily Wikipedia is not a democracy. No doubt many in his cult following would put their X. where ever they thought he is mentioned. Before editing the article people pointed out how ludicrously it was presented previously and I had to agree. What ever value Fresco has was eroded because of the former presentation that was too sticky sweet and to honorific toward him. Earl King Jr. (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Who are these "people" you speak of? There was no one here on Wikipedia expressing those opinions. Do you have names, links, anything that can show this?
Alleging that only Fresco's supporters rated the article is not convincing. You have no evidence for that and the claim is not falsifiable. Weak argument.
Your views about Fresco are obviously cynical and your intent here on Wikipedia is malicious. You've lacked a clear-headed balanced approach from the beginning when you dropped in slashing away like a butcher. You might be classified as an Anti-Advocate which is just as bad as an Advocate. Trying to hide behind policy (using neutrality) to manipulate ways to actually violate policy is becoming clear.--Biophily (talk) 09:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to stalk other articles I am involved with as you have now started doing. I am not a single purpose editor as you appear to be on this article. Maybe you wore down others that tried to make the article neutral before with logic like that used above that is mostly veiled personal attack, but that is not going to work now. If you have issues about this article bring them somewhere where some resolution can happen or ask for a request for comment. Your current lambasting personal approach is not constructive so bring it to one of the notice boards where others can check things. There is a problem with this article that apparently not many people have an interest in it as far as active editors. Earl King Jr. (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't mean for it to seem personal, but to understand the problems at hand may require addressing a few things that strike closer to home. To reply to your claim above: On the contrary you are a single purpose editor, only just slightly broader than myself. A high percentage of your edits are related to Fresco related content (Fresco, TVP, Zeitgeist). There are a few exceptions, such as your article on Jose Antonio Pineda (which should be Afd) and Frederick L. Ackerman. Then there are a couple other articles in which you've had nothing but disputes with other editors, and then a little bit of editing on Technocracy. That's it. In fact, 77.6% of your edits on articles and article talk pages pertain to Fresco, TVP, and Zeitgeist, which are all related. Therefore if you are not a single purpose editor, you are very close.
By the way, could you try to indent your responses on this talk page. It keeps things more organized.--Biophily (talk) 16:16, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Try not to personalise the discussion. That doesn't help. By the way, just because there are two editors who want to bring your article in line with policy does not mean that there is a cabal opposing you. bobrayner (talk) 16:34, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I understand, but it can be difficult to address some issues without this happening. I can try harder though.
I wouldn't go so far as to say there is a cabal. But to be honest there has been very little explanation of my wrongs in the terms of the policy guidelines. Earl King will just say that such and such is not neutral. However, there are many aspects of neutrality and never does he specifically name what aspect I am failing to properly uphold. Perhaps he doesn't have policy fully remembered well enough to do so. I can't explain or understand why he doesn't speak in terms of specific guideline terminology. Therefore, his objections appear unconvincing and arbitrary.
So I ask you Bobrayner: you don't see in the above discussion between myself and Earl King that his explicit intentions are against the spirit and tenets of Wikipedia guidelines?--Biophily (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I must say, it is quite interesting that you Bobrayner show up and make the same reverts as Earl King in those instances where he would be guilty of the three revert rule if he were to continue reverting. Further interesting is the incomprehensible reason you give for reverting. Almost all of my edits literally have absolutely nothing to do with neutrality at all whatsoever. It am utterly perplexed. Have you taken a look at what those edits actually are? In some cases they are simply syntax correction or rearranging something. In a couple cases I have removed undue emphasis which I suppose is somewhat related to a neutrality correction. In a couple other cases I corrected factual inaccuracies. What is going on?--Biophily (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC: Do these reverted edits have neutrality problems?[edit]

Dif of reverted edtis It has been claimed that these edits were reverted because they have neutrality problems. However no explanation is given despite request. There are many edits that were done individually with different reasons for doing so. However, they have all be blanket reverted. Sorry if it complicates things.Biophily (talk) 17:55, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Also posted here: POV Noticeboard--Biophily (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

COMMENT - This entire biographical article reads like it was written by someone who is enamored with Fresco. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but the article is bordering on being UN-encyclopaedic. The article needs to be edited by someone who is far less familiar with Fresco (not something I advocate lightly), but still familiar with industrial designers. I think this was the crux of the "neutrality" reverts and comments, in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

RfC Discussion[edit]

I would like to see that a rewrite by an outside editor. The trouble is getting someone interested enough to write something. Getting someone who is not immersed in the subject nor prejudice against it would be great. However, I suppose Fresco is not only an industrial designer. In an ideal world, we would want someone familiar with industrial designers, futurists, and populist figures to collaborate on it. The original problem is that it was a blanket revert, and some of the edits were unrelated to neutrality. In fact, I would say the neutrality problem seems quite separate from the edits in question. If you don't mind, could you define what you mean by "encyclopaedic" so that we're both on the same page. If you mean that it is overlong and goes into far too much minor detail, failing to generally summarize the subject I can honestly understand and accept that.--Biophily (talk) 12:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Biophily, the purpose of the R.F.C. is to get outside commentary. It is not really appropriate now for you to intervene discussion wise especially to reiterate your opinions. Thank you and I hope you understand about that. Earl King Jr. (talk) 12:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I've never heard of not being able to reply to comments in RfCs. Though you could be right, so I'll move these responses elsewhere.--Biophily (talk) 12:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Bio, you need to educate yourself as to what is "encyclopaedic" or not. My suggestion is for you to start here, WP:NOT. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, the fact that many contribute (with differing opinions and viewpoints) is one of the site's strengths. Personally, I'm in favor of article Stewardship, but once a person crosses the line and starts exhibiting behaviors of Ownership, its a fairly difficult stance to back away from. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for replying, but that doesn't quite clear it up for me. I'm familiar with what Wikipedia is not. There are many things that it is not. If the article is one or more of those things that Wikipedia is not, could you specifically point those out so that we understand each other? Otherwise I'm left to merely guess and suspect what might be wrong.
A little background info: I was originally responsible for the majority of the information in the article. It was rewritten after a previous version (very meager and poor quality) underwent AfD in early 2011 and after much antagonism that another article couldn't be possible due to an alleged lack of sources and notability, I proceeded to begin researching and writing a new one. Perhaps somewhat motivated by the rampant antagonism, I compiled as much info as seemed possibly notable for which reliable sources existed. I then restored a new article with full disclosure that some info might be contentious and some reduction of the article is expected. However, by that time, no one cared anymore and no one made any changes. So essentially, I presented one gigantic rock for others to carve an "encyclopaedic" article out of. Over the last two years there have been only a few edits here and there by other editors. I suspect this is because the article has been Semi-Protected for a long time. Then, finally, another editor came along and began editing for both the right and wrong reasons, making it complicated and difficult to differentiate which edits are for the right and wrong reasons. Thus a few disputes ensued, leading me to defend different aspects of the article against those edits made for the wrong reasons. For further information on such edits and those wrong reasons, see the BLP noticeboard where the problem has been raised. It is now a tug-a-war between two potentially biased editors, and this tug-a-war makes us seem even more biased and non-neutral. The dialectical relationship that we have exaggerates our regard toward the article. It isn't how we would otherwise behave if there were many more editors contributing to balance it out. But no one is. Perhaps the semi-protect should be lifted in an attempt to resolve this.--Biophily (talk) 01:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
It is now a tug-a-war between two potentially biased editors, and this tug-a-war makes us seem even more biased and non-neutral. The dialectical relationship that we have exaggerates our regard toward the article. end quote Biophily. I wish you would stop making this some kind of personality contest. Also stop flogging the dead horse issue of neutrality here. What little consensus there is, is that the article was written too much from the perspective of a Fresco advocate, not neutrally in that way and its a fact that you are involved in a whole lot of Fresco activity on the internet [14], so you are a public persona regarding him a kind of advocate, doing interviews with him, blogging about him etc.. Also you did not notify people involved in the BLP noticeboard where the problem has been raised posting. The way you posed that notice board posting is also way out of line with what happened on the article. I am now thinking it might be an idea to have you topic banned from the Fresco article if that is possible because it seems that you are becoming a tendentious editor and disruptive in general on this article to the point of wasting a lot of peoples time. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I was going to notify you as soon as comments began on the noticeboard. However, as I expected, they have not.
After Scalhotrod's comments below, I can see that some of my suspicions were correct. The article is overloaded with detail. I believe you also suggested this a couple times. I have no objections to removing whatever detail is excessive or in doubt. That was my intent from the beginning of writing the article, to have it carved down if for the right reasons. An article more essential and basic seems appropriate. However, I do (always) worry about citations getting thrown out of wack by doing so. However, any of the contentious, borderline libelous information that I outlined on the notice board should not be tolerated. I will proceed with reducing the article, unless you address it first Earl King.--Biophily (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Bio, I understand your dilemma all too well. I too have worked many hours on a variety of articles (creating them or adding significant content) only to have someone (usually more senior in tenure or an admin) come along and revert my efforts or challenge the edits on what amounted to "I don't like it" reasons.

That said, I empathize with the situation that you and Earl find yourselves in. THE BEST SOLUTION is for the two of you to work together since its likely that your collaboration will result in a much better article. So with that in mind, let me make some recommendations...

  • First, less is usually better. What I mean by this is that every detail and factoid that is available in the press or in a book does not belong in this article just because it exists. BLP policy is not something to trifle with, its taken VERY seriously and blocks (temporary or indefinite) are handed out routinely for abuses which includes an Admin having the opinion that you've overstepped your bounds. When in doubt, leave it out. Talk about it on the Talk page.
  • Second, find an article about another industrial designer that you like (maybe even one with "Good Article" status) and copy its format. If reliably sourced information that you have doesn't fit, set it aside and see if a new section can be crafted, but don't force it.
  • Third, with regard to your comment about Fresco being a "futurist and populist figure". The "populist figure" claim is just bunk, he's notable enough for Wikipedia to have an article so just be happy with that, but he's just not a "household name". As for being a "futurist", so what - most industrial designers are futurists to some extent, its just the nature of the work. I'm personally a fan of Raymond Loewy who was one of the most prolific industrial designers of the Art Deco period. Virtually everyone alive has seen or come in contact with something he designed or that came from his studio. But the fact remains that the guy just isn't that famous unless you're into some very specific things like the study of Industrial Design, streamlined trains, prototype consumer products, or some cool, but obscure vehicles.
  • Fourth, stop cluttering up the various Boards with discussion of this stuff. If there are 2 of you that are primary editors and the article isn't getting many pages views, then shame on both of you for wasting the time of others because you can't resolve your differences.

Quite honestly, I don't want to devote the time to read through the article and give you examples of what to change. Most likely I'd just end up gutting large portions with an edit summary like "Copy Edit-Major" and leave it to others to deal with the leftovers.

I wish you well, but I'm not sure what else to do. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You've done enough and I thank you much for your input. Outside perspective always helps--Biophily (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The edits discussed removed some pretty obvious POV, and in my opinion maybe didn't even go far enough in removing unsourced statements. Stuff like "Fresco has referred to his childhood experience of impoverishment during the Great Depression as influencing his later attitude toward society." If he said this it should be easy to show that he did, otherwise this is speculation. Or in reference to 3D technology: "Reported to be novel in its simplicity, it was projected to be relatively cheap and to required little modification of the projection systems used at the time. It was reported to also have prospects for being used in medical x-ray units and surgery applications, according to Daily Variety." Firstly is daily variety even a reliable source, secondly these sentences document research that was discontinued early on and arguably isn't notable enough to be included. I'm still reading through the article and the tone is perhaps a bit overly worshipful. This article should neutrally document source able information about him, not read like a Venus Project press release.Crimsonhexagon (talk) 00:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Three D. technology projector[edit]

The whole three d. projector was not notable. It was hyped by Fresco as one of his inventions. I think his contacts in Hollywood may have helped him promote the 'idea' that he was inventing something that could be big and gave him press time for it but it never panned out. There is no patent on that technology that he tried to take out, there is no evidence that is was ever used except as a kind of parlor trick to show some industry biggies that 'with more funding' maybe he could make it work. Wikipedia should not be the source for this for others because Fresco highlights this invention of his on his websites, but this invention never happened in the real world. This is a blog type of thing so not usable for sourcing but it fairly points out the lack of notability of the projector idea which never got beyond a demonstration concept level [15] I removed the section for this in the article because it seems inappropriate since it never was anything beyond another resume` point for Fresco. Earl King Jr. (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that says it never happened or that it was a failed invention, say so as well. Otherwise, I'm in agreement, leave it out entirely. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what Fresco and his associates did. Daily Variety and Variety published brief snippets on it. That is only two sources found. Perhaps that is not enough to establish notability. That is all that needs to be said. What is all this constant speculative conspiratorializing of everything?--Biophily (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I am going to reiterate the idea of a topic ban Biophily. I have no desire to start that process and do not want to go through all the mechanics, but you can not edit cooperatively. Previously you were incredibly rude. There is no conspiracy. Its not a cabal against you. We are just trying to improve the article. Earl King Jr. (talk) 08:49, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
You don't understand what I was saying. The conspiratorializing referred to your incessant need to speculate about what Fresco is doing or has done without any evidence. Your speculation above about he and his associates "hyping up" his invention is a bunch of irrelevant speculation and shouldn't serve in the reasoning to exclude the information about that subject. All you have to say is that the two Variety articles are not enough to establish notability for that invention. That is the appropriate way to discuss the issue. All of that speculation just reveals there is constant mistrust or contempt. I'm sick of it.
And you sir, have been equally rude plenty of times. Don't act innocent.--Biophily (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with the Earl King Jrs edit, and all of the ones I've seen him make on this page. He is working hard to improve this article, and his justification for this sections removal was well reasoned. Just because something is referenceable doesn't make it notable. An article in variety about an invention that never surfaces is pretty much the definition of hype. If the articles were in popular science or peer reviewed journals then calling them hype would be incorrect but it's totally justified in this case. Crimsonhexagon (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with that edit too. But I am also advising him to stick to strictly fact-based reasoning. Two Variety articles are not enough to establish notability. Fair enough. That's all that needs to be said. Variety was the #1 news magazine for the film industry. The invention pertained to the film industry. What led the information being published in it is not subject for us to speculate because it can't be verified. Anyway, I don't substantially disagree with any recent edits either.--Biophily (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Gazecki Commentary[edit]

These comments from Gazecki are more suited to the "Influence" section. The use of Gazecki's quotes in the way it currently presented is not very encyclopedic. It reads more like a newspaper. Perhaps these quotes should be summed up and paraphrased?--Biophily (talk) 01:18, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Earl King, you keep moving the paragraph. It belongs better to the "Influence" subsection because Gazecki is explaining why Fresco has not been a large influence in architecture and society in general. Just because you want to strike the reader immediately with a negative sentiment does not make it the proper place for that paragraph. It's better to move it to the "Influence" subsection, and have the lead sentences of the criticism section be neither criticism nor praise. BLP's require balance, unlike other types of articles.--Biophily (talk) 01:36, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. You also used a false edit summary in the process of reverting. You also created a very funny sounding section called theoretical criticism and that is too odd a way to present things. You removed Gazecki's comment from the actual critical section where it belonged. It is a powerful and succinct statement about Fresco and unlike most of the fluff now in that section and honorific blessing type of material, it presents a different and direct view of Fresco from someone who made a film about him and knew him intimately because of that. So, burying information at the bottom in a badly phrased topic heading that has nothing to do with the critical value of what Gazecki said seems wrong for the article. It is a continuance of your former editing style which is not neutral. You removed and buried the information also twice with false edit summaries. You reverted this three times including your first revert. Earl King Jr. (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Read up on rules for BLP. Wikipedia guidelines recommends that editors refrain from piling on criticism all in one place. Guidelines suggest to sprinkle it throughout.
I moved it to the "Influence" SUBsection of the CRITICISM supersection. Do you not know what a SUBSECTION is? The "Influence" subsection IS a part of the criticism section. Your fetishism regarding negative criticism is bit unnecessary. Criticism doesn't only mean negative views. It includes both positive and negative. Previously the overall section was called "Reception" which is much more neutral.
Lastly, BLP's (Biographies of Living People) require BALANCE which means both praise and critique is to be included. So your prejudice against the praise is not welcome.
Wrong, I only reverted twice. You somehow got Bobrayner to do your third revert for you, which is getting suspicious has hell considering the fact that somehow he keeps a close enough eye on the article to participate only to do your third revert, every time, yet won't even respond to my questions about the Fresco article on his talk page.
Mislabeling the edit summaries was due to rushing through the edits and not thinking about all that I had done. My mistake for leaving out the specifics you noticed.
The Gazecki comments seem way out of place when you consider the information in the paragraph that follows his comments. Total change in direction that makes no sense at all. This is remedied however when Gazecki's comments are moved to a section that relates to it and has other information concerning the same topic. If I'm whitewashing, then you are blackwashing.--Biophily (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Personal attacks will get you nowhere. Earl King Jr. (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Any response to the substance of my previous comment?--Biophily (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

"See talk page. removing critical information and taking any bite out of article"[edit]

The article isn't supposed to have "bite." It is supposed to be dispassionate and impartial. Giving it bite is not neutral. We are supposed to state the facts cleanly and straightforwardly, not nearly plagerize the source and write in the voice of the source. We are here to quote a source for the sake of the point, NOT for the sake of the drama. Even better is to paraphrase the source if the point can be stated more concisely with fewer words without losing information. The Gazecki quote was formerly quite unencyclopedic.--Biophily (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As a kind of promoter of this subject you have virtually no credibility as an editor. Your Youtube station connected with Fresco, your blogs you write about him etc. makes you a public proponent and thus combine that with portraying a sweetness and light version and removing basic critical thinking, the article loses any good format. Previously you have done slow mo. edit wars here. I don't think any of your edits gained consensus previously when your request for comment failed for you and several people also made it clear that your edits were not neutral and that is a problem and issue. If one 'searches' Biophily and Venus Project or Jacque Fresco it is pretty obvious you are involved in his business as a promoter etc. That would not matter really if edited neutrally, but that is the issue. Earl King Jr. (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
The nonsense never ceases. The same old, weak, red herring argument.
" That would not matter really if edited neutrally, but that is the issue." - LMAO! It will never seem neutral to as long as you believe I am a promoter. LMAO
Please judge the edits and arguments here STRICTLY on their own merit not whether I have written elsewhere about Fresco. However, at this point I fear your judgment can't help but be polluted by the fact that I have written elsewhere. Therefore your interpretations of my edits are distorted by your suspicions of my motives for editing. First of all my motives you can only speculate and never confirm. Second, they should be irrelevant if the final result is neutral. I am not a promoter. I am not an activist. So what's the problem? The recent edits I made are perfectly neutral. You need to drop your obsessive control freak attitude toward this article.--Biophily (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It is never o.k. to call other editors names. I think you could be topic banned from article for tendentious not neutral editing and overt talking about editors instead of content. You requested comments and lots of comments pointed out you to not be a neutral editor previously. You slo mo edit war the same stuff over and over. Its boring and consumes valuable time. You are or were involved in the guts or inner workings of the subject, not a problem if editing is not effected, problem though if is. Earl King Jr. (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)