Talk:Neo-Tech (philosophy)

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

This article was listed on votes for deletion; see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Neo-Tech. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk, automation script)]] 02:13, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Well after a successful vote against deletion I think I'm almost through writing the article. I've written all approximately 1200 words of it at this point, other than one line from an anonymous user ("the dishonesty disease that creates problems where none exist"), a "minor grammar, phrasing, attribution" edit by User:Antaeus Feldspar, , the neutralization of the word "seminal" to "controversial" (Jayne's book) by another user, and a single spelling correction by User:Sam Hocevar and another by User:Rhobite. I appreciate their input. (I've also edited a few times anonymously by forgetting to log in). A few things need to be done, possibly a word about "Zon." Now I'm just waiting for all my hard work to be trashed beyond recognition. Happy New Year. RJII 22:43, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually, you've done a pretty good job so far, so I doubt there's a whole lot of "trashing beyond recognition" on the horizon. Just remember a simple rule that will probably avoid most of the trouble: phrase it so that even someone biased against Neo-Tech would agree that what you've written is true. (i.e., Neo-Tech defines mysticism as ... rather than Mysticism is...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:01, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Of course the vote for deletion was defeated....what do you expect? Neo-Tech is unstoppable.
You mean Neo-TeX.

Is "NeoTech " trademarked? How much does it cost? 67.118.117.48 22:44, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The word isn't trademarked. I just added that to the article. Thanks. RJII 22:56, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
What about "Novus-Tek", "Nova-Tech", "Nuova-Tech", and "Nouveau-Tech"? Have any of these been trademarked? Bi 17:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

pen names[edit]

What's the source for the claim that Dr. Wallace writes under "Dr. Higgs Field, John Flint, and others." (That his legal name is "Wallace Ward" is pretty well documented). ..also the source for the Eric Savage claim? (JoeMystical)

llanny here, The more and most important document that matter to me from the great Neo Tech Writers is the so beautiful straight talk that they have compose for us the people who more need it, the knowledge that they altogether provide is superior useful and it's an imcomparable style, I have been impressed by Mr, Frank Wallace and Mr. Eric Savage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LLanny (talkcontribs) 20:31, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Neo-Tech a Scam?[edit]

It seems pretty widely known that Neo-Tech (or Nouveau Tech or whatever they're calling it now) is a scam. Why is there no mention of this in the article?

That would be a separate issue. Neo-Tech is a philosophy. If anyone selling books is scamming anyone, that would be an issue concerning that particular business. Books about Neo-Tech are available from a number of retail outlets. If Neo-Tech Publishing Company, Nouveau Tech, or Amazon.com, for example, are shown to have scammed people, then it should be written in those articles (JoeMystical)
Did you get scammed? Who scammed you? (JoeMystical)
Because we're too lazy to write it up... well, maybe you aren't. :-) I'd say that both Neo-Tech the philosophy and Neo-Tech the publishing company are pretty borked, but the problem's to write it in such a way that it's factual yet NPOV. (On a side note, I think when people try to separate Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company when something bad comes up, but link the two together when something good comes up, such people obviously suck. But that's not NPOV either...) --bi

Having bought and read one large Neo-Tech book, I can't say that it's an outright scam, but I do think the "advertizing" might be a little optimistic as to the intensity and reliability of the benefits obtained by reading the material. It's a bit too "fringe" even for me, but I am quite thankful that it has turned me on to Ayn Rand, who has since become one of my very favorite fiction writers. Scam? Ehh... again, not an outright scam. It's more a question of whether or not it's legit for mail advertising to be motivational and theoretical, as opposed to solely fact-based. They do send you a product for your money and the product isn't too horribly out of line with what one might expect based on the advertising. Fulvius (talk) 09:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I've a bought a few books from Neo-Tech Publishing. I wasn't scammed. And, I don't see any way possible you could say Neo-Tech itself is a "scam" ..it's just a philosophy. And, Neo-Tech Publishing is indeed separate from Neo-Tech. Neo-Tech is just the name of the philosophy. The publisher used to be called I&O Publishing but they still entitled the philosophy "Neo-Tech." And, they're not the only publisher of Neo-Tech philosophy. (JoeMystical)
Well, since you're so intent on differentiating Neo-Tech the philosophy from Neo-Tech the company, I've turned the Neo-Tech wiki page into a disambiguation page. I suppose most people will be looking for information about the company than about the philosophy, so it doesn't make much sense to have a page about the philosophy as the main page in any case. Bi 11:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)


How is it a scam? You order a book and it comes to you. That is basic business practice. I is also not a scam that as one experiments with the various organizing techniques described in the books that ones income inreases. There are very good methods in there for increasings ones numbers, as business is a numbers oriented field.

The other thing I do not inderstand is why Jaynes book cannot be described as seminal, it seems like a minor issue, but I'm still curious. I think it's in the realm of seminal. Check out John Searle if you don't believe that. I think in some ways Searle picks up where Jaynes left off. Deacon Struchten 13:20, 24 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Deacon Struchten (talkcontribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.

Is there a secondary source which describes the book as "seminal"? Addhoc 13:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The impression I get is that John Searle is also full of bull. And the "scam or non-scam" discussion is probably best left for Talk:Integrated Management Associates, but in sum, I'll describe it as a bait and switch. Bi 15:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV[edit]

JoeMystical, I'm tired of you constantly trying to peddle your own views as objective truth, even while I'm doing my best to describe the existing views on Neo-Tech in a detached manner. Sorry, but your "Neo-Tech is objective truth, and Neo-Tech says mysticism is such and such, and Neo-Tech says that this is the ordinary definition of mysticism in epistemology, and Neo-Tech says that Neo-Tech's epistemology is the epistemology, and Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech doesn't 'see' things, and Neo-Tech says that all criticisms of Neo-Tech are based on mysticism because Neo-Tech says Neo-Tech is not mysticism, therefore Neo-Tech is objective truth" is simply not NPOV, and NPOV is how Wikipedia works.

And I've not even touched on the fact that all your statements about Neo-Tech being objective are nothing but circular logic, and I'm not writing that in the main article only out of respect of NPOV, so don't force me. Bi 06:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never said that Neo-Tech is objective truth or anything else you just stated. Look, this is how Wikipedia works. You can't just make things up in articles. They have to be sourceable. That's Wikipedia rules. If there is a criticism of Neo-Tech then you should be able to point to that criticism in a source. If not, then you're violating the Wikipedia rule against original research. Now, you claim that some critics question the definition of mysticism. Where are these critics? If the critic is just you personally, it's not relevant. (JoeMystical)
The Criticisms section gives the sources that criticize Neo-Tech. You are the one who removed the link to that section so that you can accuse others of not citing their sources. Is that honesty or what? Bi 09:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
A criticism from "Neocheater Nenslo"? You've got to be kidding. What credibility does Neocheater Nenslo have? That's just a post to a forum from an apparent nobody. That's not a proper source. Unfortunately, it's very difficult to find objections to neo-tech in published papers. But, don't resort to plucking out an email from a forum. That's not a reputable source by Wikipedia standards. (JoeMystical)
Strange that Neo-Tech is supposedly against authority, yet we have a Neo-Tech supporter who makes a great deal about citing only authoritative sources! Sorry, but I've read Wikipedia's guidelines on citing sources, and nowhere -- nowhere -- does it say that only "reputable sources" from "published papers" can be cited. All that's needed is that whatever claim that's made is verifiable. And in this case my statement was indeed verifiable: I claimed that such and such a person has said such and such a thing, and the link clearly shows that this is true. Bi 08:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Nonsense. It has to be a credible source. Citing some guy's message on a forum is definitely not encyclopedic. If you keep this up I'll take you to arbitration. This will be a close and shut case. Look at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources "Bulletin boards and Usenet, or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources. This is because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them." So, obviously "Neocheater Nenslo" is not a reliable source. We don't know who he is or what qualifications he has to comment. (JoeMystical)

It seems to me that what this article needs is a well-constructed criticism section composed by a student of more conventional academic philosophy. I'm not the biggest wiki enthusiast, and I don't know how citation operates, but it seems to me that as such material doesn't exist in the literature, it would have to be primary to wiki.

Yes, that's a problem, because "original research" is against the rules. It would have to be arguments from credible sources rehashed here. 15:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Incidentally, the rules also say that "self-published books" are unacceptable as sources. Well, I think I'm going to throw out lots of stuff that come only from Neo-Tech's self-publications. Bi 10:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
That's not the policy. Self-published things cannot be used as secondary, but only as primary sources --meaning they can only be used when you're writing about the source itself in an article about the source. To use Frank Wallace as a secondary source would be to use his self-published work as a source about something other than his philosophy in another article (unless it has been cited elsewhere by a scholarly source). That's what the policy is against. RJII 17:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
False. WP:OR says, "it is essential that any primary-source material, as well as any generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, or evaluation of information or data, has been published by a reputable third-party publication (that is, not self-published) that is available to readers either from a website (other than Wikipedia) or through a public library". And WP:V says, "For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source of information on itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by reliable, third-party published sources." (emphasis mine)
Not only is Neo-Tech material self-published, it's also extremely self-aggrandizing. Either way you look, the Neo-Tech material simply does not fit the bill, and the rules are crystal-clear on this. Bi 18:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The information being referenced is not "self-aggrandizing." It's just a desciption of the philosophy. You are completely unjustified. I'm reverting back. There is no other way to write about the material than to get the information from the material, because there are no third party published sources that discuss Neo-tech (that I know of, at aleast). You don't understand our sourcing policy. And, by the way, you cannot source "criticisms" from forum postings, web pages, etc --those are not credible sources according to policy. Keep it up and we'll have to take this to dispute resolution. RJII 02:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead, take it to dispute resolution. If you don't, I'll do it. Bi 02:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ok. RJII 02:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the funniest article i have come across for quite some time..business is the highest stage of evolution! and a big dose of bi-cameralism - how yawningly Hegelian. thanks for a good giggle!

How dare you mock the great wisdom of Neo-Tech, you irrational worm! :-) Bi 11:46, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I find it difficult to yawn and giggle at the same time. But, hey, whatever floats the boat of the anonymice is fine with me. --Christofurio 17:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Best collection of mixed metaphors I've seen in a long time. Bi 11:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh my[edit]

This reads like a tract. I've done a bit of cleanup, but it needs a hell of a lot more. - FrancisTyers · 18:42, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Phew... so it seems that the people behind the User:RJII account are now out of the way, hopefully for a long long time. Anyway, I've sourced some of the statements.
Also, I don't see why the Mysticism: Good or Evil link was retained while the spoof Pax Neo-TeX link was taken out -- since unlike Pax Neo-TeX, the Mysticism essay doesn't really tackle the main problem with Neo-Tech, which is that it's not based on any "evidence" or "proof" as it claims to be, and is just a big fat crock of bull. Besides, Pax Neo-TeX is by me. :-B Bi 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I've removed your link, see "What not to link to" number 6, "Sites with objectionable amounts of advertising." at Wikipedia:External links. - FrancisTyers · 11:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Weird... my page certainly doesn't have an "objectionable amount of advertising", unless you're referring to those ads due to the .tk redirection service. If that's the case, then how about the direct URL [1]? Only problem is that the URL isn't that permanent. Bi 11:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
How about you get some decent hosting, then we can link you ;) - FrancisTyers · 11:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
It's the redirection service, not the host. This shouldn't throw up any obnoxious ads (I think): http://fzort.org/bi/neo-tech/. Bi 11:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Shoot, add it back in. - FrancisTyers · 12:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Bi 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK... I decided to go ahead and add some information about criticisms to Neo-Tech, to bring Balance to the Force. Unfortunately, many of the (valid) criticisms tend to be either scattered across Usenet groups or mailing lists, or they're more about Neo-Tech the company rather than Neo-Tech the philosophy, so I'm not sure what's the best way to deal with those.

Especially Mike Doughney's post, which I think is right on. Then there's Jol Silversmith's allegation of paedophilia, which is somewhat flimsy, but may be good to include for completeness. Bi 08:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


Those links critical of Neo-tech should be removed. They are just stuff people posted on the net. They aren't scholarly at all. That "FAQ" is just junk. It's just something some anonymous person made up and posted on a forum. That joke site called NeoTex doesn't belong either. If you put in a criticism then it needs to be from a "credible source". JoeMystical 21:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It's OK to reference self-published and even self-aggrandizing material from Neo-Tech Publishing, but not OK to reference self-published material that's critical of Neo-Tech? I call that bull. In any case, the Wikipedia administrators don't seem to be agreeing with your interpretation of the rules. Bi 10:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, if you argue that Wallace's writings are the only source of the Neo-Tech philosophy, then I can also argue that the critical pages scattered all over the web are the only source for Neo-Tech criticisms, and in view of the NPOV policy, both kinds of sources are admissible. Bi 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there sufficient reliable sources to make an NPOV article? - FrancisTyers · 11:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

From what I see, just primary sources on both sides -- which are of course quite tricky to use. Bi 17:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
What do you mean? There couldn't be a primary source on both sides. The neotech books are primary sources. Criticisms of neotech would be secondary sources. None of the criticisms in the article are from credible sources though. They are just anonymous web junk. By the way, that was some good information you found about Zon. I don't understand your edit summary tho "the juicy bits that Neo-Tech doesn't want you to know". If they didn't want you to know that then they wouldn't have said it. Their point is that is just speculation. They are not saying Zons actually exist. If they were saying that they actually existed then of course that would make them mystics, because they would be saying something exists without evidence. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if they're secondary sources, then the recommendation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is to "cross-check", not "throw out". Clearly you're just trying to look for an excuse to stamp out all criticisms of Neo-Tech.
As for the Zons part, well, it seems they said it and then they regretted saying it. I'm certain that the part about business minds creating the universe (hey, so who's the CEO of the Universe?) was there in a previous edit, but someone zapped it and replaced it with some fluffy talk about individualism. Bi 08:40, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course the article can be NPOV. You just present the philosophy as the neotech books describe it, which means using a lot of quotes and not too much interpretation. Anything that is not quoted should be referenceable by quotes in the texts. Like if someone says, "where does it say that?" someone should be able to point to a quote in the texts. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
You may as well say that an article that looks like
Marxism is the philosophy by Marx, which says that "...insert entire propaganda essay by Marx here..."
or
Fidel Castro is the leader of Cuba who claims that "...insert propaganda piece by Castro here..."
is NPOV, which of course it is not. Also, if you copy too much, you run the risk of copyright infringement, and that's bad. In any case, if the Wikipedia rules indeed say that only material sympathetic to Neo-Tech is admissible, then I say scrap the rules. Bi 08:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Of course that would be NPOV. If you say that Castro says something, then it's NPOV. Like if Castro said capitalism is evil then it would be POV to for an article to say "capitalism is evil" but NPOV to say "Castro says capitalism is evil." JoeMystical 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Even if the entire article is nothing but "Castro says, ... Castro says, ..."? Bi 20:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I see that a lot of material has been deleted lately, apparently because of lack of references. I am going to look for references to see if any of it can be sourced. I have a few books. I found some at a bookstore not too long ago and recently bought a few from ebay. JoeMystical 04:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Are these books available from public libraries? If not, then it's a bad idea to source from them. Bi 09:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Do not delete information without asking for sources first[edit]

I'm restoring all the mass deletions that happened lately. Please do not delete information without asking for sources. If someone can't provide sources then delete but not before. Chopping the article down from this [2] to this [3] without asking for sources is ridiculous. This stuff is easily searchable in the Neo-Tech search engine. [4] So do a search on there if you think something may not be in the sources. JoeMystical 17:46, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't delete those stuff because they were unsourced. I deleted them because I don't think it's the business of an encyclopedia entry to treat people like idiots by gratuitously dumping entire sections of Neo-Tech material. I've simply summarized the material you insisted on quoting in their original extreme long-windedness -- if you don't like that, you can always take it up to arbitration. Bi 20:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Most of the stuff that was deleted was not quotes. I'm not just talking about your latest deletions but the deletions that have been made by you and one or two other people over the last few weeks. The article was turned from informative to uninformative for no apparent reason. JoeMystical 01:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
And if you still insist on doing this sort of thing, I have half a mind to dump boatloads of quotes from Pax Neo-TeX onto the page until you can't take it. There's plenty of stuff in there that stands up to cross-checking -- the "Outlaw Neo-TeX" part itself will be quite a whole lot -- and it's all CC-licensed. Bi 20:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
If you dump that nonsense in the article there will be some problems. JoeMystical 01:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're really cocky indeed -- I saw you told FrancisTyers to "explain" himself. Why should he need to explain himself to your satisfaction, when you refuse to explain yourself to my (or his) satisfaction? Especially when FrancisTyers is also a moderator?
And since you've provably tried (above) to make thinly veiled attempts to stifle all criticism of Neo-Tech on Wikipedia, I'm actually extending you a courtesy just by explaining my position.
  • First, as I told you already, it wasn't "informative", it was just a lot of fluff, and if most of the stuff "was not quotes", it just means that the no quote stuff is even fluffier than the quotes. And what's so "informative" about obscuring the fact that Neo-Tech is a Neo-Objectivist philosophy in the very first sentence? What's so "informative" about not saying that Neo-Tech differs from Objectivism in the Zon speculation?
  • Second, I don't care if you call my stuff "nonsense", because I don't answer to you.
  • Third, everybody except you agrees that the page needs a clean-up.
OK, look, I've really tried to assume good faith here, but when you act like you own Wikipedia, and go against majority decisions, and try to stifle criticism, you are clearly showing that you have no intention of acting in good faith. Bi 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
You can't put any criticism in the article that is not from a reliable published source. If you do, you are violating policy. And stop deleting information. The information you are deleting is cited and/or easily citable with a search on the Neo-Tech search engine. JoeMystical 02:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Let me tell you this: Don't try to use the word "policy" as a rhetorical device on me. Because it won't work. I know what the policy says, thank you very much, and I still stand by what I said earlier:
... if they're secondary sources, then the recommendation of Wikipedia:Reliable sources is to "cross-check", not "throw out". Clearly you're just trying to look for an excuse to stamp out all criticisms of Neo-Tech.
And stop acting like you're some authority. I don't care if you're Eric Savage or some other company's boss; down here, you're just another wiki editor. Bi 19:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
You need to read the policy. Wikipedia:Reliable sources under Bulletin boards, wikis and posts to Usenet says: "Posts to bulletin boards, Usenet, and wikis, or messages left on blogs, should not be used as primary or secondary sources. "This is in part because we have no way of knowing who has written or posted them, and in part because there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking. In addition, in the case of wikis, the content of an article could change at any moment. For exceptions, see the section on self-published sources." Under Self-published sources it says: "A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites, and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions to this may be when a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym." So there you go. None of the sources you are presenting are reliable sources. You are violating policy by repeatedly putting them there after being warned. JoeMystical 21:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
I told you already, don't "policy" this, "policy" that on me. I know what the policy says, and I can quote more policy at you than you can manage. First, here's from Wikipedia:Reliable_sources again:
Because conscious and unconscious biases are not always self-evident, you shouldn't necessarily be satisfied with a single source. Find another one and cross-check. If multiple independent sources agree and they have either no strong reason to be biased, or their biases are at cross purposes, then you may have a reliable account.
Notice it says "cross-check", not "throw out everything". Second, you clearly haven't read Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, because wikilawyering is precisely what you're doing:
Wikilawyering refers to the frowned upon practices of:
  1. Using formal legal terms inappropriately regarding Wikipedia policy.
  2. Asserting that technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express.
  3. Hiding behind misinterpretations of policy to justify inappropriate edits.
(emphasis mine)
Still want to quote any more "policy" on me? At any rate, I've sent this case to the Mediation Cabal. Bi 04:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
You should read the whole Wikipedia:Reliable_sources, because you're just picking things out of context. Cross-checking a source only applies if the source is reliable in the first place. What are you going to use to cross-check a posting on a forum? A posting on another forum? I'm sorry but those those are not reliable sources. You can't go send a message to a criticizing Neo-Tech and then come back here and cite it. And you can't go create your own web page criticizing Neo-Tech and them come back here and cite it. To cite a criticism in this article it has to be from a published source, published by someone other than the author. The only exception to allowing a self-published source is "if a well-known, professional researcher writing within his field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications, and they are writing under their own names, and not a pseudonym. JoeMystical 15:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, the typical Neo-Tech "you're just picking things out of context" excuse. It's you who are picking things out of context, JoeMystical. It's you who are wikilawyering. It's you who are arguing -- and misinterpreting -- technical fine points in the Wikipedia policies in order to subvert the original goals of these policies. And I'm not going to argue any more fine points with you, because A Wikilawyer Is What I Am Not.
And as I said, I've referred the case to the Mediation Cabal. If you don't like that, then say so now. Bi 17:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I am not a Neo-Tech'er. Second of all, please review our policy. Do not insert bad sources into the article. We would like all information to be verifiable as coming from reliable sources. Get someone to mediate if you want. I prefer it actually. This bad sourcing of forum postings and web pages of anonymous people needs to be put to a stop. JoeMystical 20:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Neo-Tech'er or not, your tactic of attacking people with "you're just picking things out of context" is no different from what Neo-Tech likes to do. Bi 04:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, after the page is unprotected, would it be ok to mark all the material that isn't supported by appropriate citations with {{Fact}}, then wait 24 hours, then move all of this material to this page, except where citations have been introduced? Addhoc 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
How about 48 hours? I've been busy lately. But, that still wouldn't solve the problem. Bi, here is deleting things with sources too. It's destructive and disruptive. If something is sourced, it should stay in the article. Besides that he's adding "criticism" sources from anonymous people on forums, Usenet, web pages, etc. They aren't reliable sources at all. WP:Reliable_sources says that kind of thing is not allowed. I don't think he realizes this is supposed to be a a real encyclopedia with verifiable information. JoeMystical 03:04, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup, 48 hours is fine. Addhoc 09:05, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
JoeMystical: WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. Anything else? Bi 10:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, but would unprotecting the page, marking any unsupported material with {{fact}} tags, then waiting 48 hours to remove, unless citations are introduced, be acceptable? Addhoc 10:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not just about lack of sources. Please read my first two paragraphs of replies in this talk page section. Bi 15:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I've read those. I'm suggesting the first step to resolving this situation would be unprotecting the page, marking any unsupported material with {{fact}} tags, then waiting 48 hours to remove, unless citations are introduced. Would this be ok? Addhoc 15:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Probably not, because a lot of other things will remain unresolved. Better to leave the page protected, cool down, and with the help of the Mediation Cabal (hopefully) properly resolve all the issues in one fell swoop, rather than unprotect the page now and fix this one little issue but fight over other issues. If you get my drift.
But if you have any other suggestions for resolving the rest of the dispute, I'd like to hear them. Bi 15:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Not at the moment. Let me know if you change your mind. Addhoc 16:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand the dispute here, the main problem is that there is practically no criticism of Neo-Tech in the article, and that as such it looks like a tract (on which I agree). I looked a little while for criticism around the web, but it seems like too minor a cult (I'm sorry, but anything that leads me to becoming -or doing whatever with, for instance- GOD is a cult to me) to get much www attention. So it's a bit hard to get something to counter it. However, if there was a small and underfurnished criticism section, I'd probably go "Hm! they've got detractors! They must be saying something!" Whereas the page as it is doesn't look serious at all, and harms its own cause. This being said, I think the key to balancing the article is to bring A LOT more non-in-world data (eg bio of founders, impact in the real world, reception, approx. number of followers/however you call them, sales in terms of books, well, FACTS), and MUCH less citations that sound like propaganda. Whoever it is, you can't make a whole article on anything with only citations from a single person (or group).--SidiLemine 17:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

If you're indicating there are too many primary and not enough secondary sources, then I agree. Addhoc 17:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Pardon my newbieness, but could you please succintly define primary and secondary sources? Are secondary sources third party? If so, we agree :-) --SidiLemine 17:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I meant in terms of Wikipedia:Reliable sources,
  • "A primary source is a document or person providing direct evidence of a certain state of affairs; in other words, a source very close to the situation you are writing about. The term most often refers to a document produced by a participant in an event or an observer of that event."
  • "A secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources. Secondary sources produced by scholars and published by scholarly presses are carefully vetted for quality control and can be considered authoritative."
  • "A tertiary source usually summarizes secondary sources. Encyclopedias, for instance, are tertiary sources."
Addhoc 17:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Now we're talking. Yes, I meant that. The only primary source on a philosophy being its author, you need secondary to balance it. And as it's a philosophy, they can only comment on the wordly aspects of the movement. --SidiLemine 18:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Which is what I've been saying. Actually it's also in WP:NPOV#Undue weight, which is not just a guideline, but actually a policy. Maybe I should start a RfC? Bi 11:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:NPOV#Undue weight says that "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source." Forum postings, blogs, and web pages made by anonymous people who are not published authors are not reliable sources. You made a silly web page named NeoTeX which makes jokes about Neo-Tech. Do you think you can cite your web page here as a reliable source? If so, then you don't have any idea of what Wikipedia is about. JoeMystical 15:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Look carefully. "Reliable sources" here refers to WP:V, not WP:RS. Bi 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Then you look carefully at WP:V: "This page is an official policy on the English Wikipedia." JoeMystical 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm not sure if someone like Carl Watner would be a primary source. He didn't come up with Neo-Tech but he talks about it. It's not critical of Neo-Tech though. But there is no necessity to have criticisms of something for an article to be NPOV. For example, there is an article on the blue jay bird but there is no criticism of the blue jay. This article is simply a description of the philosophy. It is worded NPOV too. It says things like "It is held that," "Wallace defines it as," "According to Kimura," etc. It doesn't use the sources as secondary sources but only as primary sources which is what you're supposed to do. And yes the sourcing rules are a "guideline." Guidelines are in place because they make sense. It does not make sense to include critical material critical of Neo-Tech from anonymous sources you find posted on forums and web pages. There is absolutely no reliability from those sources. If you could source like that then an editor here could simply go post a message on a forum saying "Neo-Tech is illogical" and then come back here and cite it. The guidelines are there for a reason. The user named "Bi" has also been posting from sources like that as well as deleting cited information, which doesn't make sense at all. He doesn't appear to have the same goals as the rest of us of providing an informative encyclopedia with reliable information. JoeMystical 15:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can just as easily use the same argument on you: Any bloke can just as easily set up a web site promoting this new philosophy called Neo-Wonkism, and then get a bunch of Neo-Wonkism sock puppets proponents to praise it, and then write a Wikipedia article about Neo-Wonkism. So why's this suddenly right and proper? Where do you get off claiming that Neo-Tech's material, which is just as self-published as any other web page, is suddenly a source of "reliable information"?
There's a reason why guidelines are WP:RS exist, and there's also a reason why they are guidelines, not policies. Because it may be necessary on occasion to break the guidelines -- as, when a guideline conflicts with a policy. Remember, WP:NPOV#Undue weight is a policy, and if an article is "worded NPOV" but presents only one side of an issue, it still violates WP:NPOV#Undue weight.
And if you can't stop launching personal attacks about how wilfully ignorant I am about Wikipedia policy, I'll have no choice but to have you up for violating WP:NPA. Bi 15:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's hardly a new philosophy. Wallace came up with the Neo-Tech philosophy in the late 1960's and was putting out books since then. It didn't even start on the internet, as you claim. Yes Wallace is self-published, but that doesn't mean his self-published books can't be used as a source. They means they can't be used as a secondary source. But they can be used as a primary source, meaning as a source to show what Wallace believes. Wallace published books from other authors as well that write about Neo-Tech. They can be used as well. JoeMystical 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
What kind of argument is that? Being "hardly a new philosophy" has zilch to do with whether it's informative, reliable, or has gone through fact-checking. And besides, I don't see any independent support for the claim that Neo-Tech appeared in the 1960's. So there's absolutely no basis for claiming that Neo-Tech's self-published, self-aggrandizing sources are in any way of a higher quality than any other web site out there. You're just using the Chewbacca defense, throwing up nonsensical arguments. Bi 15:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If someone writes a book, that book is a reliable source to show what the book says. Don't you get it? JoeMystical 15:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC) On your other point, I have a Neo-Tech book from 1983. How do you explain Neo-Tech originating on the internet? The web site was not put up until the late 1990's. JoeMystical 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
So that means one's perfectly justified to start a Wikipedia article titled "Pax Neo-TeX" which talks about Pax Neo-TeX, since after all the Pax Neo-TeX web site is a perfectly reliable source to show what the Pax Neo-TeX web site says? Bi 15:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No, because Pax-NeoTex is not notable. Neo-Tech is. You can try to start on article on Pax-NeoTex but I guarantee it will be deleted. JoeMystical 16:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nonsense. Bi 16:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess it's news to you, but that's the long-standing criterion for having a Wikipedia article. It has to be notable. An article on Pax-Neotex would be deleted. Try to start an article on it and see. JoeMystical 16:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, on both sides, neither threats or personnal attacks are doing much good. So far it's been about 20 posts since the last original idea. Correct me if I'm wrong: Bi (and others have tried to introduce criticism of Neo-Tech, but failed to find notorious sources (reliable is a bit tacky to me). Is that right? Now, I see no obligation for criticism if there hasn't been any (remember guys, it doesn't mean it's right, only that it's deemed unimportant by the general public). But I insist that an article based on citations from a single group of people lacks credibility.--SidiLemine 16:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Why would it lack credibility? They're not being used as sources on anything but Neo-Tech. How can you be more credible about what a book says than citing the book itself? That's all this article is. It says "they define Neo-Tech like this..." It's perfectly legitimate to use one of Ayn Rand's books as a source describing her own philsophy. Or, a book by Kant to describe his philosophy. So why wouldn't it be legitimate to cite a book by Wallace to describe Wallace's philosophy? JoeMystical 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice that the articles on Rand and Kant include criticisms thereof. Stop this nonsense. Bi 16:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Notice that any criticism is sourced from non-self-published sources. Self-published sources can only be used in articles about the authors of the sources themselves. You can't use them as a source in another article. JoeMystical 16:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
You're ignoring SidiLemine's initial point, which is that the page on Neo-Tech lacks credibility because it only presents Neo-Tech's side of the story. Get past that, then we talk. Bi 16:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It's supposed to be Neo-Tech's side of the story. That's the only side of the story that there is. If there is an article about Kantianism, then where do you look as a source to explain his philosophy? In his own books. That's exactly the side of the story that you want. You want Kant's side of the story because it's HIS philosophy. There is nothing wrong with that at all. If you think Kant is too difficult to understand and you want someone to try to simplify Kant, then you could look for secondary sources. Unfortunately, there are no secondary sources on Neo-Tech that are not published by Wallace himself. But fortunately, Neo-Tech isn't that difficult to understand. So there is no problem just citing Wallace's books or other authors who Wallace has published which describe Neo-Tech. JoeMystical 16:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Pardon me, I didn't mean that it's content is questionnable. The content, as you said, is NPOVely phrased, no doubt. I just meant that the article is a bit boring as it is. You could make it a bit more interesting to someone that likes encyclopedias by including something else than citations. Furthermore, the article doesn't say it's about books, but about a philosophy. How about different articles for the books, with lengthy citations and all the technical references, etc, including the quantities sold (that would resolve the notability problem for them), and a shorter, or at least more balanced, article on the philosophy, that would use some comparison to other thought systems (other than Rand's objecivism if possible)? Also, could you please stop using the word "nonsense" all the time, as it's loosing its capacity even as an insult? BTW, it's not HIS. It's not anyone's. Just as articles.--SidiLemine 16:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
A comparison against other philosophies will probably go against WP:OR, alas. The fact that it's NPOV-"phrased" doesn't mean it's NPOV; it's painfully obvious that the article assigns undue weight to one viewpoint, and that's Neo-Tech's viewpoint. Bi 18:10, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
It SHOULD give weight to the viewpoint of those who define the Neo-Tech philosophy, because they're the authors of the philosophy. Only they can tell you what it says. I don't know why you can't understand that. JoeMystical 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then the whole discussion on secondary sources is moot, so why were you even making such a big deal about it in the first place? Bi 19:04, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms from anonymous postings from forums and web pages (such as your NeoTex) are not legitimate secondary sources, because they're self-published (and even worse, anonymous). JoeMystical 19:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking why you even bother harping on this in the first place. By your above argument, whether there are reliable secondary sources won't even matter anyway. Bi 19:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Because you've been objecting to using Wallace and others published by Wallace as sources for this article and you have been putting non-reliable sources in this article as criticims. JoeMystical 19:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
No. What I object to is certain people continually refusing to directly address people's arguments, continually throwing out bogus rationale that aren't, continually splitting non-existent hairs, and continually citing `precedents' which aren't precedents at all. Bi 19:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is, doing delete sourced information out of this article and don't add unreliable sources from anonymous forum postings and web pages. JoeMystical 19:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
The point is that your point doesn't hold water. Bi 19:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is where the dissension is. I don't fully agree with this. part of the problem here is that it is a very new philosophy (more than objectivism, say), and not a very mainstream one at that (eg less than neo-conservatism). And most of the time, we see critic of philosophies coming from successors, generaly appretices or students of the philosophers in question. These have a right to say because they participated in the ellaboration and practice of the doctrine. This is observed with Descartes, Kant, and indeed most philosophers I know. This is what happened with objectivism. One critic I could make is that we didn't see the richest men and companies on earth advocate Neo Tech these years. Actually I never heard of it before. So it is not exremely convincing as a way to get successful. But then again, you might find I'm not reliable. --SidiLemine 19:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy[edit]

WP:RS is a guideline, not a policy. Just wanted to emphasize this point for the benefit of JoeMystical. Bi 15:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

3rd AfD[edit]

Yes, yes, I really hate to do this, but here's an AfD for this article. The 3rd AfD. Bi 16:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(removed afd tag from here)
Good luck with that. JoeMystical 17:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand... Though it lacks a great deal of criticism, the article is NPOV and informative. The subject matter may seem "silly" to some, but I'm actually very interested in this stuff - not necessarily Neo-Tech, but philosophy in general. If there is nothing harmful or inaccurate in this article, there is nothing to merit deletion. If JoeMystical and Bi would take their social awkwardness elsewhere, it would be greatly appreciated by those of us who actually have lives.  ;-)

I'm not the one trying to get it deleted. You should be thanking me for contributing to the writing of the article. The attempt to get the article deleted is all Bi's doing. JoeMystical 19:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
But see, you're still a ho, and therefore I am not on your side either. Try talking to a girl or something.  ;-)
Hmm, so why are you here on Wikipedia instead of talking to your own girl? ;-B Bi 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Because I can't get in touch with yo momma! (I'm just trying to provide comic relief, by the way. I hope you guys aren't taking this seriously.)  ;-)
Ha! Good one. But did you read any of the above? Of course they're taking it too seriously? They've got your IP, and by now one of them already Googleearthed you. DO NOT open your mail tomorrow just dont. --SidiLemine 20:00, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm being raped and murdered by the two of them as we speak. It hurts! But at least I got them to agree on something!  ;-)

Request for vague rantage[edit]

The question: what to do if there are only self-published sources on both sides of the issue (pro-Neo-Tech and anti-Neo-Tech)? Please propose a concrete course of action, instead of making motherhood statements like "read WP:V" -- we've been through those, thank you very much. Bi 03:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I thought we've been through this. If Frank Wallace published his own books about Neo-Tech then they are legitimate sources to describe what Neo-Tech is. He also published writings by others which were about Neo-Tech. Those are legitimate too. Self-published sources are permissible. They're just not permissible in other articles. For example, you couldn't use Wallace as a source on some subject other than Neo-Tech in another article. Self-published sources criticizing Neo-Tech are definitely not permissible, because they are not in their own articles but in THIS article. So, to write this article, you use books written by Wallace and others he published explaining Neo-Tech. That's what has been done. JoeMystical 03:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we've been through all your arguments. Bi 03:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
There is no other choice. There is nothing about Neo-Tech that is not published by Frank Wallace (that I've been able to find). JoeMystical 04:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We've been through that too. Bi 04:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Then what are you asking for? JoeMystical 04:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm asking for opinions from third parties. Bi 04:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We can definitely not allow someone from here to go post something on a forum or make their own anti-neo-tech web page and them come back here and cite it. Those are considered "self-published." The rule against a self-published source being in article that is not about the source itself exists for good reason. Any criticism of Neo-Tech has to be published by an independent publisher. JoeMystical 04:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
This section is an WP:RFC. It's for seeking "broader input" from third parties. Are you a third party? Please stop trying to dominate the discussion. Bi 04:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't tell me what to do. I can speak whenever I want to speak. JoeMystical 04:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

To reiterate: what to do if there are only self-published sources on both sides of the issue (pro-Neo-Tech and anti-Neo-Tech)? Please propose a concrete course of action, instead of making motherhood statements like "read WP:V" -- we've been through those, thank you very much. Bi 04:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

If there are no reliable secondary sources why should this article be any more than a stub until they become available? - FrancisTyers · 10:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm not opposed to marking it as a stub ({{philo-stub}}?), but I don't know about other people, especially JoeMystical. Bi 10:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Let's make it a stub. I hate wasting material already written, but sometimes you need to. If someone really wants more info on what's inside the books, well, there's the books. And I happen to think that most, if not all this stuff is already available online at their site (already linked: yay!). Or we could even merge it with Wallace's article (as it's HIS philosophy), as per German Wiki. That would allow us to enlarge the latter a bit, as it'is a bit small right now.--SidiLemine 11:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that there are no reliable sources. There are lots of reliable source. The books themselves. The article is fine. Making it a stub makes no sense at all because you can't stop people from adding to the article and it won't be a stub anymore. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You claim "the article is fine", so can I take this to mean that you're refusing to accept any offers of compromise other than your own? Bi 17:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Compromise what? What is the problem with the article? It's pretty well sourced, NPOV, and informative. You're not allowed to put your unreliable sources in the article so you tried to get it deleted. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Merging would be fine by me. What do other people think? If there is a general consensus to merge I'll go ahead and do it. - FrancisTyers · 12:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Good idea. Addhoc 12:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that either. In fact I proposed in the previous AfD to merge it with Neo-Objectivism, but merging with Wallace Ward is just as well. Bi 13:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I've registered my support for a merge in the current AfD. Maybe User:Addhoc and others would like to do likewise? Bi 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I oppose merging. Wallace is not the only developer of Neo-Tech. It is the result of a contributions from many writers, and still goes on after his death. Wallace just came up with the original idea. You can't get a full picture of the philosophy by only citing Wallace. The philosophy stands alone because it's a combination of ideas from different people. His son, Mark Hamilton, probably writes about half of it. JoeMystical 16:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You think it would be better in Neo-Objectivism? Thats fine too. - FrancisTyers · 17:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
As I said, I (User:Bi) have no problem with merging with Neo-Objectivism either. Bi 17:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that would probably be an original research problem. I haven't seen any sources call it neo-objectivism. That claim should probably be taken out of the article. JoeMystical 17:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Then how about merging with Objectivism? Neo-Tech does bill itself as a sort of Objectivism, after all. Bi 17:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Do honestly think this would be allowed in that article? Again, that would be original research. No reliable source says Neo-Tech is a form of Objectivism. Stop trying to get rid of the article. The article has no major problems. Just work on the article by sourcing more information and deleting the small amounts of original research, like calling it "neo-objectivism." JoeMystical 17:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
OK, since JoeMystical is opposing any and all attempts to merge the Neo-Tech article with another article, I'd just like to say that in the event of a merge, my preference is to merge it with Wallace Ward. Bi 17:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Why? There is no legitimate explanation for this. The article has no major problems, other than a few items of original research. It is pretty well sourced and written in an NPOV manner. There are PLENTY of sources available. The books themselves are the sources. There is no reason to try to delete or merge this article with something else. Again, Wallace Ward is not the only author of Neo-Tech, so it doesn't make sense to merge it. JoeMystical 17:48, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
"Neo-Tech is the Business/Application mode of objectivism" Wallace, Frank R. Liberating Objectivism: The Liberation Manifest. Is that an unreliable source? My preference finally goes to neo objectivism.--SidiLemine 17:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
You cannot use their own writings as a secondary source. They can only be used as a primary source, which means books about Neo-Tech can only be used as sources about Neo-TEch in articles about Neo-Tech. And even then, it can't be claimed that it is a form of Objectivism in the article, but only stated that they CLAIM that it is the "business/application" mode of objectivism. The books cannot be used as a source for us to claim that what they say is TRUE. They can only be used a source to show what THEY SAY or what THEY BELIEVE. This article is written pretty well. It clearly make it a point to avoid asserting that anything they say is true. This is a good article. JoeMystical 17:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Wait, JoeMystical, are you ... praising your own edits? Bi 08:04, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm praising the article as a whole. I haven't written much of this article at all. I've made a few edits in the body and just recently re-wrote a small intro because the previous one wasn't very good. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
I think I'm confused. "they're the authors of the philosophy. Only they can tell you what it says. I don't know why you can't understand that3.JoeMystical 18:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC) How is it we're now allowed to doubt what they say about their own philosophy, and deny them the right to be neo-objectivists if they feel like it?--SidiLemine 10:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
We can say: "Wallace says that Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism." But we can't say: "Neo-Tech is a form of objectivism" because their are no secondary sources saying so. Whether "they say" it's a form of objectivism is indisputable because it's right there in the books. Whether is actually IS a form of objectivism is a different issue. We can assert what Wallace and the other writers say about Neo-Tech but we can't assert that what they say about Neo-Tech is true. That would require independent sources writing about Neo-Tech. JoeMystical 02:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


RfC[edit]

Article Problems[edit]

There are some concerns that need to be ironed out in this article.

  • Reliable Publisher: From WP:V, "… that have already been published by reputable publishers." Inside the article currently are claims about use of name changes and psedonym writing. Vanity_press sources usually are unreliable.
  • Primary Sourcing: This article is suffering from complete reliance on primary sourcing. There are currently no secondary sources in the article.
  • Without a Reliable Publisher and an singular reliance on that source, this brings up WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV#Undue_weight (Is this a tiny minority view? Should we devote an article to it, and not a section in objectivism?) and many other balance and POV issues.

Possible Solutions[edit]

  • WP:V allows for dubious reliability and self published sourcing in articles about themselves. neo-tech.com seems to fit under that umbrella.
  • Secondary sources? [5] [6]. These were found by using google for neotech and rand. Other suggestions include neotech and objectivism, neotech and criticism or critic, etc.
  • Library/Academic Journal hunt. If this subject is notable, someone in some academic journal will have written something about it.

Without secondary sources, the notability of this article is in question. Further, the primary source has been questioned as unreliable, and consensus at WP:RS is that burden of proof on the editors who want to keep that source to prove why it should remain.

Find those secondary sources! Electrawn 22:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Third-party Sources[edit]

Here are some third-party sources for this article"Most of the explanations of Neo Tech and the NovaTech Society (and attacks on them) could best be described as gibberish" says the Miami Herald on August 23, 2004. "An eight-page letter from the Nuova Tech Society received by Linda Muller promises membership will allow her to command respect and admiration and make her the centre of attention. ... [Mrs Muller] is convinced it is a 'manipulative scam'" reports the August 16, 2005 Aberdeen Press and Journal. The October 9, 2005 South Bend Tribune reports that "The Noveau Tech Society solicits consumers by mail to buy books published by the Neo Tech Publishing Co., which is based in Henderson, Nev., according to the Better Business Bureau. ... There are lots and lots of letters posted on www.Scam.com and www.BadBusinessBureau.com from people who bought books and found them worthless." From the Australian Associated Press on May 3, 2005, "Queensland consumers are being warned of a 'mystical' letter scam which promises them prosperity, love, happiness and peace of mind ... She said the scammers were sending the letters under various aliases including Novatech, Nouva Tech, Novus Tek Society and Neo-Tech Las Vegas." -- Dragonfiend 06:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

Replace content with:

#redirect [[Frank R. Wallace#Neo-Tech philosophy]]
[[Category:Protected redirects]]
{{R to section}}

and consider replacing the category with {{pp-protected}} - Christian75 (talk) 11:07, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate template for a redirect is {{r protected}}, not {{pp-protected}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Done --Redrose64 (talk) 11:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)