Talk:Frank R. Wallace

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


"Neo-Tech_(philosophy)" forwards here but the section makes almost no explanation of the philosophy. gwinkless (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Its really inadequate. Dramatizer (talk) 20:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Reading the archives of the discussion page, one can see the problem. Old edit wars of the past obliterated large sections of the explanation of what Neo-Tech is. That said, there was little in the way of third party sources to discuss the issue. This was despite the MOS for citations, which point out that strict citation is only necessary for disputed points. A short, uncontroversial explanation of Neo-Tech should be acceptable. Unfortunately, no one seems to be adding it. I certainly don't know anything of the philosophy, and so I cannot contribute anything myself; so there's your explanation. --Cast (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Dr Wallace and his Neo-Tech which is a system of tools that create a practical application of controlling one's one life to benefit all, is amongst the most important information anyone can learn and USE to gain absolute control of their life. Both men and women of all races, ethnicities and backgrounds can obtain/purchase this literature and completely change their lives for the better, forever. Any and all statements that attack Dr. Wallace and Neo-Tech are less than worthless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:2907:F48D:DCAB:5D9C:8AAC:B226 (talkcontribs) 2607:FB90:2907:F48D:DCAB:5D9C:8AAC:B226

Well, then maybe Dr. Wallace should have studied his own Neo-Tech system more carefully. I'm guessing that he did not have "absolute control" of "his life" when, according to the article, he went out jogging and was killed when hit by a car. Maybe he just wasn't using his "system of tools" properly. Maybe the "forever" aspect that you mentioned just wears off when you get old and go out jogging. Famspear (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Seriously, though, the purpose of this talk page is to discuss ways to improve the article, not to debate the merits of the subject of the article or his "Neo-Tech" system. Famspear (talk) 19:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Well there is one sure fire way to improve the article, simply see what his readers have to say. Just scroll down to the comments section and read the reviews.

CLICK HERE TO SEE WHAT THE READERS HAVE TO SAY FUMBLEWEED, 12:23, January 10, 2014, Tennnessee — Preceding unsigned comment added by FUMBLEWEED (talkcontribs) 18:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

gwinkless, I believe that was by design from some of the WP management. From what I have seen posted around before (not on here though), there was an entire article dedicated to the idea. Famspear, this IS a discussion to improve the article, by putting another article up that explains it better than here. However, apparently the person in charge, for whatever reason, decided that the page didn't have a right to exist, so it was deleted, and now, redirects to a small little blurb in another article. I did a search online (outside of here) while writing this post and found the article fumbleweed posted. Not trying to force people to make a judgement one way or the other, but it seems pretty shady on the WP side of things. (talk) 02:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Biological Immortality[edit]

I have not noticed a single mention of Wallace's strongly held belief in and promotion of the concept of biological immortality, very strange since it is the whole raison d'être of his philosophy and business pursuits. Now I'm no longer a hardcore follower, fan, or even admirer, but surely this warrants inclusion, don't you agree?--Shanoman

(Samuel Erickson said "He doesn't put Biological Immortality in the letters because as we can all agree, That subject is over most peoples heads. But it really is in the letters its just in a Genetic Code. So when the letter say's that Neo-tech will bring you romantic, wealth, and health FOREVER! That phrase is Code for Biological Immortality."

(talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the problem isn't that those who know of Wallace are unaware of this. The problem is that there is little or no third party references to him and his work, so that we have little mandate to add this information to the article. Until a third-party reference to his opinions on biological immortality is made, we can't include it here. --Cast (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't need third party references for this article. Wikipedia:Verifiability says "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves..." So you can use books by Wallace, published by Wallace, in an article about Wallace to describe his views and philosophy. Dramatizer (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
You could do that, but within minutes, yes, minutes, some Asperger's riddled nitwit would spring into action and edit it out, calling it "original research." Forty-four minutes to Wapner.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Then feel free to add whatever information of the philosophy you can. For my part, I know nothing of it, and cannot. --Cast (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


So Wallace Ward is the "real" name and Frank Wallace the pen name. I get it. But the paras on the trial need to be rewritten so that one or the other is used, not both within the same sentence. I realize that this is at least in part due to the inherently collaborative nature of Wikipedia, but come on. Picture this in an article:

Twain's real point was that Huck's childhood naivete was closer to correct than the supposedly educated opinion of the day. This was because Clemens was trying to show that Huck's ignorance of the wider world's sophisticated mores was really his strength, a recurring theme in Twain's works. Clemens sought to show that ...

Once we've established that Wallace Ward = Frank Wallace, the article needs to call him one or the other throughout. (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree to some extent. But it does need to be clear at the start of the article. (talk) 02:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
On a different issue with consistency ( but different than the name issue within the article), this talk page has a tag (presumably about the overlying article page) that this page is a candidate for deletion, and the consensus was to keep it. Good choice imo. However, the page at also has a "the result was to keep" tag, and yet the page itself, according to the discussions linked there (, was apparently deleted, and now refers only to a small subsection of another article. Where is the consistency WP? (talk) 02:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

primary sources are problematic[edit]

Please find secondary reliable sources for the extensive commentary on his legal woes - else they sould be excised as not being covered by such sources. I put in "citation needed" but that is simply a warning that it needs citations for claims (I suspect the net result will be inclusion of the conviction, but without all the excess detail) Collect (talk) 13:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I tried to trim some of the detail on the criminal tax matters, and to make the article precise about what the sources actually say. As editor Collect noted, the source must actually support the claim mentioned in the article. The use of reliable primary sources (i.e., not merely transcripts of court testimony, but instead the actual texts of the court decisions in the Wallace Ward cases) in this particular situation is probably OK, and we'll see if we can find more secondary sources as well. Famspear (talk) 21:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Wait, I just noticed that the sources I added were actually removed by editor Collect earlier. I'm not sure I agree with the rationale for the removal in this particular case. If it turns out there is no secondary source that mentions the tax problems Wallace Ward had, are the tax problems even worth mentioning? For that matter, does there even need to be an article on him? Thought, anyone? Famspear (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I notice that regarding Ward's federal tax convictions, there is a citation to a secondary source -- a Los Angeles newspaper. So, on that basis, I would argue that his tax problems are worthy of mention. By extension, citation to the primary sources should be OK. Thoughts, anyone? Famspear (talk) 21:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia vastly prefers secondary reliable sources. If no one has bothered to report a fact, it is not up to us to find the primary source for the fact, and it just might not be important enough for us to present it. "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so" and " Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors" are in WP:NOR. And we do mention his tax problems without relying on the primary sources - use secondary ones, please, as that is what the policy states. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think you've just made my case for me. In this case, someone has bothered to report the fact -- a newspaper. That's a secondary source, and it's cited in the article. The use of primary sources in this situation is allowed under Wikipedia rules.
Merely reporting what the primary source says is not analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating the primary source material. Wikipedia is full of thousands of references to primary sources -- particularly in the case of legal matters (citations to actual texts of statutes, actual tests of court decisions, etc). Wikipedia allows the use of primary sources.
Further, the mere use of primary sources is not prohibited original research. There is nothing in the use of the primary sources in this particular case that involves interpretive claims, analyses or synthetic claims. We are not "interpreting" anything in the primary source. We are simply using primary source accurately - in this case, as an adjunct to a secondary source (the newspaper article).
Thoughts? Famspear (talk) 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's an excerpt from the policy:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources.

And, this:

All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

By definition, an unacceptable use of primary sources would be one that involves "interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims". But, clearly, not all uses of primary sources are prohibited.


Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate on any given occasion is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense......

(bolding added). So, I'm still not understanding exactly what you believe the violation is in this case. Famspear (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem in Wikipedia is, and always has been, the use of the phrase "no original research." As used in the Wikipedia rules, it really is a term of art. If the rule were literally taken, then there would be no Wikipedia. By definition, any use of any source, whether primary, secondary, or tertiary, to write an article, is original research -- even if we did nothing but directly quote every source.

But, that's not what we mean by "original research" when we use the phrase "no original research", in Wikipedia. Here, "no original research" (NOR) is a more narrow, specially defined concept.

NOR does not mean "we cannot summarize what a primary, secondary or tertiary source says." Summarizing what the sources say (whether primary, secondary or tertiary) is precisely what is involved in writing or editing a Wikipedia article. In some broad sense, we could say that this activity is "analyzing, synthesizing, interpreting, or evaluating" the sources. But again, Wikipedia uses those four words in much more narrow sense.

What NOR really means in Wikipedia is: Stick to what the sources really are saying. And especially, don't try to combine concept A from source A with concept B from source B to arrive at your own "Wikipedia editor's conclusion C" -- a "conclusion C" that neither source A nor source B made. THAT'S WHAT WE MEAN BY PROHIBITED ORIGINAL RESEARCH in the narrower Wikipedia sense.

Merely using a primary source -- accurately, without adding your own "spin" -- is not prohibited "OR" as that term is used in Wikipedia. Famspear (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

If absolutely no one in a secondary reliable source has seen fit to report a fact, it is against policy for us to seek out the fact. We use what the other people say - not what we carefully research. Maybe that is a bad idea, but it is the policy. Collect (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
And your point is: What? I've just explained the policy to you. You haven't explained how the material in question violates the policy. Famspear (talk) 22:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I think the hang up may be on the following points: First, a newspaper article that mentions a criminal conviction is a secondary source -- not a primary source. Second, objecting to a source (such as the actual text of a court decision) merely because the source is a primary source is not a valid objection, under the rules -- especially where, as here, the primary source is consistent with the secondary source. Third, we are indeed reporting what the other people say -- in the case of both the primary and secondary source. The sources agree. He was indeed convicted, and the conviction was overturned.
No, it is not against Wikipedia policy for us to "seek out the fact." That's precisely what writing and editing in Wikipedia involves. We seek out sources. Usually, they are secondary or tertiary sources, but under the rules we can also use primary sources. Please re-read WP:NOR. "No Original Research" does not mean "no research" in the broader sense in which I believe you take the term to mean. Rather, No Original Research in Wikipedia means that we do not use Wikipedia to come up with our own novel syntheses and conclusions. We report what the primary, secondary and tertiary sources have concluded, yes. But we do not draw our own conclusions.
I'm still waiting for you to try to point out exactly what it is in the material you deleted that constitutes my own novel conclusion -- my own original research as that term is used here in Wikipedia.
Are you denying that both the newspaper article and the court stated that Wallace Ward was convicted of the crimes in question? What exactly is it that you believe violates a Wikipedia rule? Famspear (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
I said nothing of the sort. In fact, I simply noted the need for citations meeting the Wikipedia policies governing sources and governing living persons. Find the newspaper reports. Use them. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:10, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The newspaper report is already cited in the article. Footnote 1. Famspear (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I've already explained the Wikipedia policies. You have yet to explain why you believe the material does not conform to the policy. Famspear (talk) 23:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

So to use a well known historical example that could have gone the other way, apparently if the Wright brothers told wikipedia that they flew (original source), and had all of their neighbors say the same thing, unless it happened to show up in co... oh wait, that isn't acceptable either apparently, had a newspaper print the article, then no-one would have heard about it on wikipedia, because the person or people that did the thing in question are a "novel conclusion". (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
You are indeed correct. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Collect, the issue, as I see it, is that if you look hard enough, there is always one rule or guideline or another to justify not putting something in, if a certain editor doesn't like the article or information or anything, and can sit there all day and use that to justify it, even when the other person trying to put valid information in keeps showing (according to those same rules) valid reasoning for them doing so. I have seen this happen on other wikis too, not just here. Wish I could say it was a bug in the system, but since it is people doing it, can't use that as an excuse. (talk) 02:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Obviously your analysis is incorrect or there wouldnt be over 4million pages. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Propose article split back to how it should be[edit]

Not sure how to do it, but I propose a split of the former merge of the Neo-Tech (philosphy) article back to it's own page, instead of some small little sub-section of another related page. My reasoning is this, the biggest reason this merge happened at all was because of Bi's repeated (and well documented) apparently personal attacks against a philosophy he or she vehemently disagrees with. While the article itself (before the repeated attacks by Bi (short for Biased maybe?)) would need to be cleaned up, and properly sourced including self-source, asking for deletion strictly because of some rule pulled out strictly to justify deleting, while allowing violation of that rule elsewhere on other articles because they are more "mainstream" subjects should not be allowed. While self sourcing might not strictly be in the best practices, I am 99% sure that there are many articles that do not strictly follow every single rule and guideline on this wiki that are allowed to stay. (talk) 04:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

(added note) reason 3 of deletion review should not be used of "to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);" is a cop out, plain and simple, when the argument applies equally to both (or all) pages. (talk) 04:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, since none of your reasons are supported by policy, its extremely unlikely to happen. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 06:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)